Why Russians are fighting against Russia: ‘Putin’s ruined my country’

Working as an agent for Ukraine and attacking Russia’s railways was pretty easy, says Lazzy – a Russian fighting against his own country.

“It’s not that complicated. Anyone in Russia can freely buy gasoline – for now, while some refineries still work – and set the railway on fire,” he explains.

“Of course, you need to prepare the exit routes. To plan the operation, so to speak. You can’t just go for a walk and decide to do it. First, recon, then action. But in fact, anyone can do it.”

The saboteur burned “several” railway-switching and electrical systems in arson attacks in Russia’s Volga region.

The truth, though, is that it was dangerous and ate away at his nervous system. Which is why he walked across Russia’s border and joined Ukraine’s army to fight against Vladimir Putin.

For the last year, he has been a frontline soldier battling in the shattered rubble of what is now known as the “dead zone”, because it’s so thinly populated by soldiers from both sides, all hiding from enemy drones – with occasional sneak attacks in person.

“I think it’s easier for me here. Because in Russia, I constantly felt fear for my life,” he says. “Here in Ukraine, FSB and GRU [secret service] networks are not so strong. In Russia, it’s much more dangerous. Also, [in Russia] there are many people who support the regime. Say the wrong word and they will rat on you.”

Lazzy chose to fight Putin’s regime because of what he saw as cronyism, corruption and the destruction of democracy: “Russia must have a future.”

As he talks, his face is hidden and he’s known only by his military callsign. The Independent met him just a short drive from the front lines where he’s fighting in Ukraine’s south.

“Here, in Ukraine, I can defend myself with weapons. Yes, it’s scary on the positions. They want to kill you. But it’s clear: either you or them.”

He is part of Ukraine’s Freedom of Russia Legion, which operates under the control of Kyiv’s military intelligence services like other foreign volunteer units. The legion claims to field several hundred men. They are all Russians. In Moscow they would be executed as traitors.

In Ukraine, they have fought in Sumy province, lost heavily in the bitter battle for Bakhmut, and say they have been involved in driving back recent Russian assaults on the front line of the southern battlefields.

Ukraine has stepped up its campaign both inside occupied territory and in Russia itself. In its most spectacular strikes, Ukraine managed to disable Russian bombers in the covert Operation Spiderweb, involving multiple targets and agents on the ground.

Russian refineries and power stations are regularly attacked by Ukraine’s new long-range drones.

But the Freedom of Russia Legion has eyes on defending Ukraine locally. And then fighting in Russia to topple Putin altogether. The latter would be welcomed by Kyiv but is not a stated aim.

Ceasar, a veteran Russian fighter in Ukraine’s army, began his opposition against Putin with what he calls “terrorist attacks”. For at least the last three-and-a-half years he has been in Ukraine’s army. He is driven by religious fervour and monarchist dreams of the return of a tsar to Russia.

Originally from Sochi, he says he does not worry about killing fellow Russians.

“I do not feel bad for killing my own citizens, because they’re doing very bad things here and I saw how they killed civilians, how they raped, how they robbed and they want to destroy Ukraine. Putin has ruined not only Ukraine, he’s ruined also my country,” says Ceasar.

He is armed, like Lazzy, with a modern M16-type rifle, originally an American design. It is rapidly replacing the AK-47 in Ukraine’s armoury.

Ceasar describes the reality on the front lines of a war he has chosen to join.

“There’s not a lot of military personnel at the front like it was two or three years ago. We are all dispersed. We are now about two or three men, at most, sitting in a bunker. Because if we will put there, a dozen men, they will be killed,” he says.

“It’s very dangerous to move in and move out. It’s the most dangerous part of the operation.”

Soldiers are forced to spend weeks, sometimes months, in foxholes and bunkers, trying to survive constant artillery and drone attacks.

Referring to Lazzy, he continues: “On the last operation he was about 45 days on the position. I was about three weeks. It’s really hard.

“Every day, every time you dig in, dig in, dig in and again, dig in.”

Over the last few weeks, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky has been touring the West seeking long-range missiles and air-defence systems.

Putin has stepped up attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure, focusing on energy and transport systems ahead of the winter freeze.

Russian troops have also advanced in small bounds at huge cost east of Kharkiv, and already committed murder in Pokrovsk against local civilians left behind by Ukrainian withdrawal. But drone warfare has kept the Russians back.

Ukraine’s problem is that drones cannot fly in high winds, rain, fog or when it is snowing. Putin’s forces are likely to exploit bad winter weather and attempt to break through Ukrainian lines when drones are grounded.

That is when Lazzy and Ceasar will face their toughest test.

Tax rises could push food prices higher, supermarkets warn

Britain’s major supermarkets are pressing the chancellor to exempt them from a new business rates surtax, warning consumers will ultimately face higher prices.

A letter from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) to Rachel Reeves argues that limiting the tax burden on grocers is vital for tackling food inflation. It has been signed by UK executives and directors from Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Aldi, Asda, Iceland, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, and Waitrose.

The BRC said it is concerned that large shops could see their business rates rise if they are included in the government’s new surtax for properties with a rateable value over £500,000.

This is expected to cover discounts for smaller high-street firms, which will be subject to reduced business rates under the government’s plans.

The plans are set to be confirmed in next month’s autumn Budget and would come into effect from next April.

In the letter, the supermarket bosses say that their “ability to absorb additional costs is diminishing”.

It reads: “If the industry faces higher taxes in the coming Budget – such as being included in the new surtax on business rates – our ability to deliver value for our customers will become even more challenging and it will be households who inevitably feel the impact.

“Given the costs currently falling on the industry, including from the last Budget, high food inflation is likely to persist into 2026.

“This is not something that we would want to see prolonged by any measure in the Budget.

“Large retail premises are a tiny proportion of all stores, yet account for a third of retail’s total business rates bill, meaning another significant rise could push food inflation even higher.”

The letter concludes by asking Ms Reeves to “address retail’s disproportionate tax burden”, which it said would “send a strong signal of support for the industry and of the government’s commitment to tackling food inflation”.

Helen Dickinson, the BRC’s chief executive, said: “Supermarkets are doing everything possible to keep food prices affordable, but it’s an uphill battle, with over £7bn in additional costs in 2025 alone.

“From higher national insurance contributions to new packaging taxes, the financial strain on the industry is immense.”

The Treasury has been contacted for comment.

Charles ‘must confront Andrew face-to-face’ for him to leave lodge

As pressure for Prince Andrew to leave the Royal Lodge continues to grow, there has been a call for the King to confront his brother “face to face”.

A source who knows Charles told The Times that the monarch should tell Andrew he “must leave” his 30-bedroom mansion.

The source said: “Charles has to say to his face, ‘There’s no choice here, you must now leave Royal Lodge. Whatever the lease says. You say you always put your family and country first. Prove it. This is doing real damage to the monarchy. You’ve got to move.’ I think that would do a lot to assuage public anger.”

The King has long been said to have tried to encourage his younger brother to move out, but Andrew signed a watertight 75-year lease on the property in 2003.

He has been facing increasing calls to vacate the mansion this week amid the continuing furore over his links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and the publication of the posthumous memoirs by his sexual assault accuser Virginia Giuffre. Andrew strenuously denies all accusations.

Liverpool’s Premier League title defence already appears in tatters

Liverpool’s Premier League title defence already appears in tatters after a damaging 3-2 defeat at Brentford.

Goals from Dango Ouattara, Kevin Schade and Igor Thiago inflicted a fourth straight loss on Arne Slot’s increasingly rattled Reds.

Milos Kerkez pulled one back and Mohamed Salah ended his recent goal drought, but the champions are still in the doldrums with summer signings Florian Wirtz and Hugo Ekitike quiet on a tough night for the champions.

Liverpool are now down in sixth, behind Bournemouth, Manchester United and Sunderland among others, and could find themselves seven points adrift of leaders Arsenal by the end of the weekend.

Slot was well aware of Brentford’s threat from long throws, but Liverpool still could not handle them as they fell behind after only five minutes.

Michael Kayode’s delivery was nodded on by Kristoffer Ajer at the near post and Ouattara got ahead of Kerkez to hook the ball home.

Salah’s first chance arrived courtesy of Cody Gakpo’s through-ball, but his touch was heavy and former Reds teammate Caoimhin Kelleher was out quickly to smother the ball at his feet.

Wirtz should have scored 20 minutes in after Ekitike’s back-heel ricocheted in front of him, but the German screwed his shot wide from 12 yards.

Brentford grew more adventurous and Jordan Henderson, playing against the team he captained to the title for the first time since he left in 2023, almost doubled his current side’s lead with a 20-yard drive which flew inches wide.

Henderson’s midfield partner Mikkel Damsgaard, then went even closer with his curling effort tipped over the crossbar by Giorgi Mamardashvili.

The second goal arrived in the 45th minute, just moments after Gakpo had a pretty strong case for a penalty turned down following a challenge from Nathan Collins.

Wirtz lost the ball in midfield and Damsgaard played the perfect defence-splitting pass to Schade, who showed Ibrahima Konate a clean pair of heels before finishing past Mamardashvili.

However, Liverpool grabbed a lifeline in stoppage time when Conor Bradley’s cross was lashed home by fellow full-back Kerkez.

Brentford were unhappy that play had gone on well past the three minutes of added time shown, with boss Keith Andrews angrily kicking a water bottle onto the pitch.

But referee Simon Hooper may well have added some more time on for the interminable delays at every Brentford throw.

After the break, Virgil Van Dijk clipped Ouattara on the edge of the box and referee Tim Robinson – on as a sub for Hooper – gave a free-kick.

But a VAR check showed the contact was on the line, a penalty was awarded and Thiago did the rest.

With two minutes remaining, Salah grabbed his first goal in seven matches, a sweetly struck finish after Ajer’s hesitation allowed Dominic Szoboszlai to get in a cross.

But the equaliser would not come, and when a late Liverpool attack was cleared by a wall of red and white, it was celebrated almost like a goal by the buoyant Bees.

This is why most of us don’t know the state pension age

One in five of us know the state pension age in the UK, according to a new study. I am not one of them. Gun to my head, right now, without checking Google, I would say… 68? Maybe? Is it different for men and women, though? Who knows?

Well, one in five people, evidently. That’s according to Standard Life, which surveyed 6,000 adults and found some fairly troubling results. The 18 per cent who were aware of the actual pension age – I just checked and it’s 66, in case you’re a fellow 82 percenter – was made up of people across all age groups. As you might imagine, the further a particular cohort was from retirement, the less likely they were to know the age. Just 13 per cent of Gen Z (those aged 18-28) surveyed submitted the correct answer.

Though my initial guesstimation was wrong, there’s every chance it won’t be by the time I qualify for a state pension. The age will climb to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and is likely to creep up to 68 by the year 2046. As I’ll still have another decade to work by then, minimum, who knows what it might have landed on by the time I actually hang up that fabled “gone fishing” sign for good.

This is part of the problem when it comes to widespread ignorance around pensions: a lot of Gen Z and millennials don’t believe, deep down, that they’ll ever have the luxury of retiring. And who can blame them? We’ve already seen the state pension age increase in our lifetime. For more than half a century, it remained fixed at 60 for women and 65 for men. Then, it was gradually raised to 65 for women between 2010 and 2018. Finally, the state pension age for both men and women increased from 65 to 66 between 2018 and 2020. “By the time we get there, I’m guessing the state pension age will be 90,” quips a friend casually when I mention the thrust of this article, a sentiment that is echoed by everyone I canvass, regardless of age.

Looking at the way the country (and world) is going – we’re living longer but having fewer babies, resulting in a demographic shift that’s weighted towards an older population – I fully expect to be clocking a 9-5 or equivalent until the day I shuffle off this mortal coil. I’m not alone – the survey found that only 51 per cent of respondents thought the state pension would even exist by the time they retired.

But this cynicism could be dangerous, breeding as it does widespread ignorance and disengagement around all things pension. After all, if you don’t really believe you’ll ever be able to stop working, why bother investing more for your retirement? Why plan properly for the post-toil chapter of life? As another friend in her forties puts it, “I can’t tell you how little I think about pensions.”

In the same report, entitled Retirement Voice 2025, Standard Life found that 17 per cent of over 55s admitted they’ve never checked their pension. This was a bigger problem for women, who were three per cent less likely than male counterparts to have checked. I can relate – once again, it was only the writing of this article that prompted me to check my current workplace pension pot. And, full disclosure, I only did so because it was incredibly accessible, coincidentally managed by the same bank that I use for my credit card and mortgage.

When I first look at the number, I think it’s not too shabby at all. Combined with some other dribs and drabs from previous jobs floating somewhere in the ether – and this, too, makes my head hurt, wondering whether I need to combine them into one single pot or leave them roaming free – the total amount is just under my annual salary. But this, according to the experts, is laughable – a paltry sum that will last me so little time into my dotage that I wonder whether I should take up smoking just to intentionally shorten my lifespan.

According to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), here’s what you should be saving annually for retirement: £14,400 per year (minimum); £31,300 per year (medium); £43,100 per year (comfortable). “Minimum will cover the essentials with a few treats, moderate gives you more flexibility, where you can afford things like occasional holidays abroad, and comfortable affords more luxuries, including things like regular holidays and new cars every few years,” according to Money Plus, a company that provides professional debt advice.

The new flat-rate state pension for those who reached state pension age after April 2016 is anticipated to increase from £230.30 a week to £241.30 a week, taking it to £12,547 a year. For many, a workplace pension (where both you and your employer contribute) or personal pension (one you’ve set up yourself through a pension provider) to top up the state pension will be an important component in their retirement plan – especially given that we’re living longer.

A useful rule of thumb is, apparently, to save half of your age as a percentage of your salary (ie, a 20-year-old should be saving 10 per cent). Money Plus has outlined how much individuals should have saved in total by certain ages to ensure a “comfortable” retirement. Millennials in the 30-40 bracket like me should have, by their mid-thirties, one to two times their salary saved; those in their early forties should have three to four times their salary. Using the UK average salary of £37,500 as a benchmark, they suggest having a pension pot of £105,000-£140,000 by the age of 40. Without revealing my financial failings too explicitly for all to see on the internet, let me just say that I am very, very, very far away from this target. Like, so far that the only realistic path ahead is marrying rich, refusing a prenup, and offing my spouse when the time comes.

Am I the only one blindsided by all of this? Has everyone else been secretly squirrelling away while I’ve been singing all proverbial summer long with the other clueless grasshoppers? Again, a very non-scientific straw poll suggests not. Another common theme emerges too – that of magical thinking. “I’m relying on the fact that I’ll have become mysteriously rich by then, in some way that I can’t currently foresee but will definitely happen,” or some variation thereof, is a response I hear on repeat. It is heartbreakingly, adorably human: the same broken logic that causes people to say that the climate crisis will all work out because we’ll fix it using whizzy future tech that hasn’t been invented yet.

It is exceedingly tempting to keep one’s head buried firmly in the sand, given the swirling chaos in which we’re currently collectively residing. But, God willing, old age is coming, and singing all summer won’t stave off the bleak reality of a retirement defined by scraping by. After a lifetime of being a grasshopper, I’m considering finally stepping into my ant era.

Enriching escapes: find your perfect luxury break

Reeves under pressure to target high earners in Budget tax raid

Rachel Reeves is under pressure to break Labour’s manifesto pledge with a tax raid on the highest earners amid growing calls from within Labour to hit the wealthy.

Ministerial sources have told The Independent that changes to the top rate of income tax have been discussed within government as the chancellor looks to find ways to fill a Budget black hole estimated to be between £30bn and £40bn.

The changes would exceed the 1p increase to income tax that Ms Reeves is also understood to be considering.

One source said: “The 45p rate is definitely in play. It would be a popular move within the party.”

The 45p rate is applied at a rate of 45 per cent on income above £125,140, and is expected to be paid by more than 1.2 million people by the end of the year.

The move would break the manifesto pledge to not increase income tax, VAT or employee contributions on national insurance.

However, another source said: “Rachel is in a fix. If we are going to break this manifesto pledge but it was targeted at the highest earners, then I think that would be understandable.”

Speculation that the government is ready to drop its manifesto pledge was heightened earlier this month when the PM’s spokesperson hinted that the manifesto pledge on not raising income tax may not hold.

When asked if income tax, VAT or national insurance could rise in the Budget, the PM’s spokesperson said: “I’m not going to speculate on the Budget but as the chancellor said today, the numbers will always add up.”

However, after claims in The Guardian that the manifesto pledge could be broken generally, Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds insisted on Friday that the manifesto pledge still stands.

But according to sources, changes could involve an increase to the 45p rate, or a lowering of the threshold where it kicks in from £125,140 to around £100,000.

This would impact the so-called HENRYs – high earners but not rich yet – who are already hit by the tax and benefits system.

At £100,000 of earnings, benefits like support for child care are lost. Added to that there is a gradual reduction in the £12,570 personal allowance of income tax-free earnings from £100,000 by £1 in every £2 to £125,140, where it is lost altogether when the 45p rate kicks in.

Some reduce their earnings by putting money into pension funds to bring them under the thresholds where the tax and benefit penalties apply, but Ms Reeves is also understood to be looking at closing this loophole as well.

The Independent revealed this month that the cabinet is already split over the Budget, with disagreement over “taxes on aspiration” including VAT on private school fees and the abolition of non-dom status, with millionaires leaving the UK in record numbers.

One cabinet minister told The Independent: “We do not get enough of a say on tax. Discussion has been very limited and kept to the Treasury but there needs to be an opportunity for more input.”

It is understood that there are “serious concerns” about Ms Reeves trying to fill the budget gap with “a basket of taxes” rather than “grasping the nettle” by increasing income tax, while other ministers want to see reductions in spending, especially on welfare.

Meanwhile, pressure from the left of the party for Ms Reeves to go after the rich and big corporations has been ramped up with the election of sacked left-wing cabinet minister Lucy Powell as deputy leader by Labour members.

But experts have warned that making changes to the top rate of income tax would not raise as much as some in Labour hope.

Isaac Delestre, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said: “A 1p increase in the additional rate gets you about £200m, which is not an enormous amount.”

He also warned that the gradual reduction in the initial income tax-free personal allowance of £12,570 is already causing problems, which would be made worse.

“Reducing the threshold at which it starts to apply is a bit more problematic. Currently the tapering away of the personal allowance effectively creates a 60 per cent income tax rate for income between £100k and £125k.

“If you just reduced the additional rate threshold to, say, £110k you would end up with a 40 per cent rate up to £100k, a 60 per cent rate up to £110k, a 67.5 per cent rate up to £125k, and then a 45 per cent rate beyond that.”

Professor Stephen Millard, deputy director for macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), said: “According to the government’s calculations, a 5p rise in the 45p top rate would only raise around £1bn by 2029-30.

“Decreasing all main allowances, starting and basic rate limits by 1 per cent would raise almost £2 billion.”

Tax expert Dan Niedle was also sceptical about the impact of the move.

He said: “The 45p rate is right at the point where diminishing returns are setting in. Nobody was ever really able to determine whether the old 50p rate raised a bit of money or lost a bit of money.”

He warned that the loss of personal allowance was creating very high tax rates of more than 60 per cent when people hit certain income levels and warned that the chancellor should focus more on dealing with that problem.

“The real value would be in dealing with the anomalously high rates between £100,000 and £125,000 of 62 per cent plus,” he said.

The chancellor had to deny claims she was looking at hiking VAT during the Labour Party conference at the end of last month.

However, she is also understood to be looking at a gambling tax and changes to capital gains taxes. Labour MPs are also piling on pressure for her to look at wealth taxes on property and other assets.

The chancellor has been hit by poor growth and higher than expected inflation in the run up to the crucial Budget on 26 November.

Asked about potential changes to income tax for the highest earners, a Treasury spokesperson said: “The chancellor has been clear that at Budget she will strike the right balance between making sure that we have enough money to fund our public services, whilst also ensuring that we can bring growth and investment to businesses.”

Streeting comment leads to speculation over Starmer’s future as PM

Wes Streeting appeared to put further pressure on Keir Starmer’s leadership after Labour’s defeat in the Caerphilly by-election last Thursday.

The health secretary told the Sunday Times that the defeat in the Welsh Senedd election was the prime minister’s “Hartlepool [by-election] moment” in a significant parallel to a defeat which almost saw Sir Keir quit as Labour leader.

Although he insisted that the prime minister can bounce back, Mr Streeting’s comparison has added fire to speculation over Sir Keir’s leadership to some in the party.

With Labour now polling below 20 per cent in a number of different polls, discussions about ousting him among MPs and ministers are heating up.

It comes as Labour members elected Lucy Powell, who Sir Keir sacked just a few weeks ago as a minister, to be his deputy leader after rejecting his preferred choice, education secretary Bridget Phillipson.

Meanwhile, a Techne UK poll for The Independent revealed that voters are deserting Labour for the Greens, who under Zack Polanski have surged to 12 per cent, up three points, while Labour have dropped to 19 per cent.

Mr Streeting told The Sunday Times: “When we were in opposition, we were shocked that Hartlepool — a town that had always been loyal to Labour — rejected us at the ballot box. Keir Starmer not only took that result on the chin, he took it to heart. And he used Hartlepool and the experience of Hartlepool to drive through the change in the Labour Party necessary to make it electable and capable of winning a general election that no one thought we would win.

“I have no doubt that, having done that before, Keir can do that again. We’ve got to take the message from Caerphilly not just on the chin, we’ve got to take it to heart — and we have got to change the way our Labour government drives change and delivers in just the same way we did in opposition after Hartlepool.”

The Hartlepool by-election on 6 May 2021 came when Labour was at a low ebb and seemingly unable to to overcome Boris Johnson’s popularity before Partygate knocked the Tories off course.

It was the first time Labour had lost the seat and just weeks later they were faced with another crucial by-election in Batley and Spen on July 1 2021.

Sources have confirmed that had Batley and Spen been lost to the Tories then Sir Keir would have quitted with Mr Streeting at the time understood to be preparing a leadership bid in case that happened.

But Labour’s Kim Leadbeater, the sister of the former MP Jo Cox who had been murdered in 2016, won by 323 votes saving Sir Keir’s leadership. From there Labour eventually completed a comeback in 2024 winning the general election.

However, Mr Streeting’s comments to The Sunday Times in the wake of the Caerphilly defeat have already been seen by colleagues as an indication that Sir Keir may be running out of time.

The health secretary is one of five potential candidates to take over from within parliament with Manchester mayor Andy Burnham another possibility if he can mastermind a comeback as an MP.

One MP messaged The Independent: “Wes knows it is over.”

Caerphilly was a seat which Labour had held unbroken in Westminster and the Senedd for 107 years.

But it came a poor third with just 11 per cent of the vote behind the winners Plaid Cymru and Reform in second.