Меню
Social networks
Sections
Aug. 14, 2025, 2:53 p.m.
Occupants in Crimea spread Russian propaganda through children's camp
Цей матеріал також доступний українською163
Former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev at Artek, 2015. PHOTO: wikimedia
In the temporarily occupied Crimea, Russians are using the Artek children's camp to spread propaganda.
This was reported by the Center for Countering Disinformation.
An event was held in the camp with the participation of children from 67 countries, mainly from the Global South, friendly to Russia. It is noted that under the leadership of senior officials from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the children signed an appeal to the UN. The declaration called for "an end to armed conflicts" and "recognition of shared responsibility for the future of the planet." This action was held in the style of Soviet propaganda. As a reminder, the camp has recently been sanctioned by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine as a propaganda ideological center.
Russian propaganda is actively using children from the occupied Crimea to justify its war against Ukraine and promote its aggressive imperial ideology. These manipulations are aimed not only at the domestic audience, but also at the international community. Children are involved from an early age in military-patriotic movements, such as the Yunarmiya, and are taught special "war lessons." The Russian authorities seek not only to force children to obey, but also to change their minds, making them voluntarily want to serve in the Russian army and share imperial views.
In Bakhchisarai, the occupation court extended the arrest of the defendants in the Crimean Muslim case. Abdulmezhit Seytumerov, Ametkhan Umerov, Eldar Yakubov, Seydamet Mustafayev, Remzi Nimetullayev and Ruslan Asanov will remain in jail until November 23, 2025. The defense, referring to the lawyer Emil Kurbedinov, argues that the prosecutor's request for the extension of the arrest did not contain sufficient justification. According to the lawyer, the prosecution did not provide evidence that would justify the extension of detention, and did not explain why softer preventive measures, such as house arrest, could not be applied.
