Islamic State (IS)-affiliated inmates took prison employees and other inmates hostage at a penal colony in Surovikino, Volgograd Oblast, Russia, on August 23. Four inmates took eight employees and four other inmates of the IK-19 prison hostage.[22] The hostage-takers displayed an ISIS flag during the attack.[23] The attackers stated that they were taking revenge “for their Muslim brothers” whom Russian authorities detained in connection with the March 2024 terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall.[24] The attackers inflicted stab wounds upon four of the employees, three of whom died, and four other hostages were hospitalized, one of whom later died.[25] Rosgvardia snipers reportedly killed the four hostage-takers.[26] Two of the attackers were citizens of Uzbekistan and two were from Tajikistan.[27] Three of the attackers were imprisoned for drug trafficking and one was convicted for beating a man to death during a fight. Russian sources claimed that one of the attackers wore a suicide vest but disagreed on what happened, with some sources claiming that the vest malfunctioned and others claiming that Russian forces killed the attacker before he could activate the vest.[28] Russian opposition outlet Vazhnye Istorii stated that locals in the Kalmykia Republic and Volgograd and Rostov oblasts reported problems accessing Telegram, WhatsApp, and Viber shortly after the start of the attack and that Russian authorities likely blocked the messenger platforms.[29] Russian President Vladimir Putin convened a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council on August 23 during the hostage situation and heard reports from Minister of Internal Affairs Vladimir Kolokoltsev, Federal Security Service Head Alexander Bortnikov, and Rosgvardia Head Viktor Zolotov.[30] Mufti of the Volgograd Oblast Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims Bat Kifah stated that Russian authorities should not negotiate with the hostage-takers, but kill them and should punish those who allowed the “negligence” in penal colonies.[31] Acting Chairperson of the Russian Spiritual Directorate of Muslims Mufti Damir Mukhetdinov stated that the organization disagreed with the attackers’ actions and that the hostage-takers may have been inspired from abroad in order to discredit Russia's strengthening relations with Muslim states.[32]
Russian milbloggers reacted to the hostage crisis with criticisms of the Russian prison system and migration policy. Russian milbloggers claimed that the IK-19 prison is known for bribes, with some of the prison employees reportedly selling knives to inmates.[33] Russian sources complained that prisoners are becoming radicalized within Russian penal colonies and claimed that this problem has increased since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the mobilization of prisoners to fight in Ukraine, and alleged increased flows of previously convicted Central Asian migrants to Russia.[34] Russian milbloggers called for the Russian government to take action to resolve these issues, including by reforming Russia's prison system.[35] The Volgograd Oblast Prosecutor's Office stated that it organized inspections of the IK-19 prison to ensure its compliance with its personnel's safety, taking measures to prevent inmates from using prohibited items, and other laws and regulations.[36] Six reportedly IS-affiliated inmates at a pretrial detention center in Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Oblast similarly took two employees of the pretrial detention center hostage in June 2024, evoking similar criticisms from Russian milbloggers about Russian authorities’ failure to crack down on extremist groups and maintain security in penal colonies.[37] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin has attempted to posture that it has been cracking down against domestic extremism since the Crocus City Hall attack, but the prison hostage crises undermine this Kremlin effort.[38]
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed India's support for peace in Ukraine on the basis of India's participation in Ukraine's July 2024 peace summit and signed several bilateral cooperation agreements during a visit to Ukraine. Modi arrived in Kyiv on August 23 following his visit to Poland on August 21, marking the first time an Indian prime minister has visited Ukraine since the establishment of bilateral relations in 1992.[39] Modi and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a joint statement emphasizing their commitment to ensuring a “just and lasting peace in Ukraine” based on principles of international law such as “respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of states.”[40] This statement contrasts with Modi’s previous and more general calls for peace and diplomacy during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in July 2024.[41] The Ukrainian side emphasized that the Joint Communique on the Foundation of Peace established at the June 2024 peace summit can serve as a guiding framework for setting the terms of a peace deal, although India has not signed the document despite its participation in June 2024.[42] Modi and Zelensky also signed four bilateral cooperation agreements in agriculture, economics, development, and culture.[43] Modi and Zelensky agreed to strengthen bilateral defense cooperation, particularly in manufacturing, and to hold a second Joint Ukrainian-Indian Working Group meeting on military-technical cooperation in the near future.[44] Modi’s visit to Ukraine marks a significant political inflection in India's foreign policy towards Ukraine and may indicate an Indian effort to take a stronger pro-Ukraine position than New Delhi has before, despite India's historical close and longstanding relationship with Moscow.
more reports and maps https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-23-2024
Terrorists of the banned ISIS planned to “shed blood” in three cities of Russia
According to sources in the FSB, the radicals who staged a riot in IK-19 in the Volgograd region planned terrorist attacks in three cities - Volgograd (as we have long warned), Rostov-on-Don and Belgorod. “As we found out, everything necessary was prepared for them. In Volgograd, two accomplices of the terrorists were detained, weapons and explosives were found. Also found were propaganda materials calling to “shed the blood of enemies”, detailed plans of the places where they were going to carry out terrorist attacks were discovered. In two other cities, a search is underway for accomplices of the terrorists,” said one of our interlocutors.
According to him, the criminals wanted to pay special attention to Belgorod - “to take advantage of the difficult situation in the city and the region.” It was also established that at least two radicals eliminated in the colony planned to become suicide bombers and blow themselves up in crowded places. The sources assured that all necessary measures to prevent terrorist attacks are being taken. We hope that these measures will be sufficient.
The redeployment of Russian air assets from Russian air bases in range of ATACMS does not remove the utility of using ATACMS against other Russian military targets, however. ISW assesses that there are at least 250 military and paramilitary objects in Russia within range of ATACMS missiles that the United States has provided Ukraine. The United States currently prohibits Ukrainian forces from using ATACMS missiles to strike military targets in Russia, however, and only allows strikes using US-provided HIMARS equipped with GMLRS — at maximum permitting Ukraine to strike only 20 out of the 250 objects it could strike with ATACMS. Only 17 of these 250 objects are airfields, and it is unlikely that the Russian military has redeployed assets away from all the other 233 objects to the same degree as it has reportedly done with aviation assets.
US officials’ comments centered on Russia's redeployment of air assets have so far largely ignored the majority of targets in range of ATACMS that Ukrainian forces could strike if US prohibitions were lifted. Many of the 233 military and paramilitary objects in range of ATACMS are large military bases, communications stations, logistics centers, repair facilities, fuel depots, ammunition warehouses, and permanent headquarters that would be extremely difficult or impossible to quickly redeploy assets from or rapidly harden. ISW has not collected open-source evidence of redeployments of military assets from the majority of Russia's rear areas. The mass redeployment of assets away from such facilities would present significant challenges to Russian logistics throughout the theater, and open sources and US officials have not indicated that Russian forces have engaged in such logistical upheavals. Such disruptions to Russian logistics throughout the deep rear would have also constrained ongoing Russian offensive operations throughout the frontline, and ISW has not observed evidence of such widespread logistical constraints. The 233 Russian military and paramilitary objects within ranges of ATACMS missiles that are not airfields support Russian command and control (C2), intelligence, reconnaissance, logistical, and repair support for Russian forces fighting in Ukraine and in Kursk Oblast, and the assessment that there is no utility in granting Ukraine the ability to use ATACMS in Russia on the basis of limited redeployments of air assets from some airfields ignores these facilities. Any assessment that argues that there is no point in allowing Ukraine to strike targets in Russia on the exclusive basis of air asset redeployments is incomplete without also accounting for the hundreds of other facilities supporting Russia's war against Ukraine and would thus be incorrect.
ISW presents satellite imagery of some of these facilities below to illustrate the intrinsic difficulty in either adequately protecting or redeploying assets away from such facilities at scale.
pictures etc see https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-24-2024