On 28th May 2023, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, (onetime Political Editor and now host of the flagship BBC Political ‘show’ ‘Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg’) penned an article for the BBC News, entitled ‘Ukraine War: Russian Ambassador Andrei Kelin issues warning of escalation in Ukraine.‘
This article was an accompanying piece to an interview with the Russian Ambassador, broadcast on the same day.
Please read the article and watch the (cut and edited, of course) video interview. I’d rather you were able to view the original sources and form your own opinion before reading my observations, below.
In her article, Laura opens with the headline ‘Russian Ambassador Andrei Kelin issues warning of escalation in Ukraine.‘
Laura’s first sentence is “Russia has warned Western supplies of weapons to Ukraine risk escalating the war to levels not seen so far.“
There is a major difference between ‘Russia issues warning of escalation’ and ‘Russia has warned western supplies of weapons to Ukraine risk escalating…’ but perhaps that’s just me being… overly… pedantic. Inexact, for a journalist, perhaps. At least. Not a good start.
From ‘billionaire’s row’ Ambassador Kelin, we are informed, ‘… was speaking in his residence, underneath a chandelier, where the chairs are gilt and coffee served by staff with white gloves’ an encounter she described as ‘surreal’ and ‘grotesque.’
Why surreal? Why grotesque? Because of the surroundings? As surreal, perhaps, as…
A petty point, perhaps… but indicative as to the direction of Kuenssberg’s narrative, and the picture she’s keen on painting.
As we are informed by Kuenssberg, Mr Kelin ‘… tried to blame Ukraine for provoking the conflict. It’s a familiar and untrue claim that has been used by Russian leaders for more than a year to try to justify its illegal invasion of Ukraine in the first place.’
Familiar, perhaps… but untrue and illegal? Let’s unpack those last two words.
The ‘Untrue’ claim …
As to the provocation, it is an undeniable fact that NATO has been expanding towards the Russian border since the dissolution of the USSR, against the advice (over the years) of senior western politicians, analysts and experts, and promises given (by Presidents and Prime Ministers across ‘the west’).
Putin (in particular) has stated on numerous occasions that Russia considers Ukrainian membership of NATO to be a ‘red line.’ Somewhat similar to how the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba was seen by the USA back in the 60’s. A provocation. With legitimacy. A provocation that could result in a nuclear exchange, arguably. Something to be taken seriously, maybe.
Perhaps more seriously than Kuenssberg does, for example, whose eyes seem to glass over at the tedious mention of yawwwwn ‘NATO expansion.’ Unfortunately, she’s not alone in playing that particular game.
From Russia’s perspective, NATO expansion into Ukraine is (at the very least) a provocation.
And remember, it doesn’t matter one jot whether you think there’s no threat or provocation towards Moscow… what matters is how the Russians perceive it.
Following the Maidan coup in 2014, the Ukrainian government (gleefully) undertook military operations against the eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, as well as across the south-eastern ‘Donbas’ region. This was termed an ‘anti-terror operation’ by Kiev against Ukrainian citizens. Alongside the shelling and bombing of Ukrainian civilians, Kiev (gleefully) enacted a series of repressive measures ethnically-targeted at Russian-language speakers and those Ukrainians in the south-east oblasts of Russian descent. These measures included loss of state benefits (including pensions), the withdrawal of commercial and infrastructure investment, the closing of factories, schools and hospitals, and the banning of the use of the Russian language. Or using Russian variants of children’s names. Nice. Goodbye Ekaterina, who can only be known as Kateryna, not to mention poor old Elizabeta, who now must be known as Yelyzaveta.
All completely normal behaviour for a free and democratic sovereign and independent state overflowing with compassionate, tolerant, diverse, inclusive, shared European values, as I’m sure you’d agree.
Lest we forget, here’s Ukrainian President Poroshenko (gleefully) predicting life in the ‘good’ Ukraine with that in the ‘bad’ Ukraine… November 13th 2014…
The civil war in the Donbas claimed 14,000 lives over eight years. Remember that. Kiev did that. The ‘good guys’ did that.
Initially, those civilians protesting against the Kiev government’s military and repressive measures asked for autonomy from Kiev; they were not ‘separatists’ or ‘Russian federalists.’ This request was supported by Russia (who – at that time – did not see the incorporation of the Donbas into the Russian Federation as a preferable solution and continually declined subsequent requests in this regard by the civilian authorities in the Donbas).
In good faith, Russia signed the Minsk agreements alongside Ukraine, France and Germany (the latter two as guarantors). These agreements were intended to initiate and maintain a ceasefire and demilitarise the Donbas as a first step to referenda and elections with the clear and ultimate aim of retaining and respecting the territorial border of Ukraine while allowing regional autonomy and removing the repression against Ukrainian citizens.
As has been made clear by western participants (Hollande, Merkel) as well as Ukraine’s Poroshenko and Zelenskyy, the Minsk agreements were a complete sham intended to buy time for Ukraine to re-arm and retrain her military forces in order to combat Russia. Minsk therefore represented an entirely ‘bad faith’ intent on behalf of the west, not merely to ignore and maintain the suffering of Donbas Ukrainians, but also to militarily-strengthen and re-arm against Russia.
Again, from the Russian perspective, the situation in the Donbas and the western covert intentions with regards to the Minsk agreements, were both clear provocations.
The ‘Illegal’ claim …
As Putin mentioned in a speech at the commencement of the ‘Special Military Operation…’
In this regard, in accordance with Article 51 of Part 7 of the UN Charter, with the sanction of the Federation Council of Russia and in pursuance of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22 this year with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic, I decided to conduct a special military operation.
Russia cited the very same UN Charter and article as the USA did when choosing to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and with reasons that were equally as valid and legal as those previously argued by the US.
When using the ‘untrue’ and ‘illegal’ words, Kuenssberg is therefore not just factually incorrect but is acting merely as the mouthpiece of Kiev.
Kuenssberg writes ‘Like his ambassador, President Putin continues to claim a neo-Nazi regime was set up in Ukraine in 2014 and that it was even seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, which meant Russia had no choice but to invade.’
Let’s take a little time to examine Kuenssberg’s assertions regarding Kelin and Putin’s ‘false, unevidenced’ claim about neo-Nazis, and the second inference that Kelin and Putin are just talking bollocks about Ukraine’s nuclear intentions… firstly…
The Nuclear claim …
General Petro Garashchuk, former envoy to NATO, in a 2018 interview with Obozrevatel (a Ukrainian TV channel)…
“I’ll say it once more. We have the ability to develop and produce our own nuclear weapons, currently available in the world, such as the one that was built in the former USSR and which is now in independent Ukraine, located in the city of Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) that can produce these kinds of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China have produced a missile named Satan … At the same time, Ukraine does not have to worry about international sanctions when creating these nuclear weapons.”
Andriy Melnyk, Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany warned (April 2021) that Kiev may be forced to acquire nuclear weapons to safeguard Ukraine’s security if NATO does not accede to its membership demands.
In February 2022 (the very same month that Russia undertook military action), Zelenskyy spoke at the Munich Security Conference complaining that signatories of the Budapest Memorandum (signed by Ukraine – alongside Belarus and Kazakhstan – when agreeing to the re-patriation of the ex-Soviet nuclear arsenal) were in breach.
“If [consultations] do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.”
Zelenskyy argued that because Russia had allegedly breached this agreement in 2014 with the ‘invasion’ of Crimea (a so-called ‘act of aggression’ prohibited by the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum), then this would free Ukraine from it’s own memorandum and Nuclear Proliferation Treaty obligations and thus allow Kiev to… what? Dance a jig? Win Eurovision? Or look to acquire nukes?
The meaning of Zelenskyy’s words were clear to NATO, the US and UK… and… Russia.
The Neo-Nazi claim …
Kuenssberg worked for BBC Newsnight between February 2014 and July 2015. There are numerous reports from various BBC Newsnight reporters (Gabriel Gatehouse, particularly) – not to mention those from CBS, NBC, TIME and ViceNews, between 2014 and 2022 (all remarkably still available on YouTube) highlighting the existence of well-funded and supported neo-Nazi political organisations and militias within Ukraine. The involvement of neo-Nazi groups (such as National Corps, Right Sektor, C-14, Svoboda) in the Maidan coup and throughout this period is also extensively evidenced and documented.
All of these political organisations, groups and militias are still very active in Ukraine.
It is impossible for Kuenssberg to be unaware of any of this. The archives of her own employer are replete with evidence.
As to the prevalence of this ultra-nationalism (AKA Nazism) within Ukraine, this is reflected by the presence of monuments and statues (etc etc) dedicated to Stepan Bandera (and the like) throughout Ukraine, as this listing from the Jewish organisation ‘Forward’ has published…
I have mentioned the notorious Azov Regiment (currently fighting in Ukraine, having surrendered the city of Mariupol in early 2022) in previous posts…
Though an Atlantic Council article from 2020 admitted that it is ‘indisputable’ that the ideology of Azov is rooted in Nazism and that it operates as a ‘far-right’ unit, they argued that it should not be designated as a terrorist organisation because it forms ‘an integral part of official structures’ under ‘orders given by the interior ministry’ and that it would be a ‘gift to the Kremlin’ to designate Azov as a terrorist organisation.
This despite the fact that were the unit active in the UK, EU or US it most certainly would be a terrorist organisation.
Azov would be illegal in Germany (not least for its swastika fetishism and Nazi symbolism), which makes Germany’s recent shift in support of Ukraine (alongside a huge GDP increase in military spending and intention to engage the German military in world affairs) confusing and not a little concerning.
In 2019 the New York Times described Azov as ‘a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary organisation.’ However, in recent March 2022 articles they describe Azov as ‘a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard.’ Make of that what you will.
Members and past-members of Azov have served in various military and government positions; for example Azov’s deputy commander, Vadym Trojan was appointed head of Kiev Oblast (province) police. Andriy Biletsky served as the Commander of Azov prior to taking up the government office of ‘People’s Deputy of Ukraine’ (2014-2019) and is currently the leader of the National Corps.
‘The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.‘
Andriy Biletsky.
Ultra-Nationalists serve in the Ukrainian parliament and form the majority of ‘oligarchs’ in Ukraine, including Ihor Kolomoyskyi, the financial backer of Zelenskky and his ‘Servant of the People’ political party. Most oligarchs sponsor and fund neo-Nazi militias (such as Aidar, Azov, the Donbas Battalion, the Battalion OUN (named after the Bandera-era organisation that collaborated with the Nazi’s during WW2) and the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps affiliated with Right Sektor, and the General Kulchytskiy Battalion).
Ukraine is alone in Europe in allowing neo-Nazi military structures to exist within their national military.
Ultra-Nationalists serve across Ukraine, in police and emergency services, in local government (many city and oblast mayors/governors have Nazi group and political affiliations), in education, and across the commercial landscape.
Ukraine is alone in Europe in the sheer number of legal neo-Nazi political parties and cultural organisations to be found.
There are so many photographs of Nazi symbolism to be found in Ukraine that it beggars belief that Kuenssberg can dismiss it all as false and untrue, or even just the innocent dalliance of one or two miscreants creating mischief, like they do in countries alllllll over the world.
Here’s just one article (from the Jerusalem Post), replete with swastikas… in a shopping mall, for god’s sake…
Swastika’s abound in Ukraine, whether tattooed on Ukrainian servicemen or held aloft from both civilian and combat vehicles. Nazi salutes are ten-a-penny; they’re very popular at neo-Nazi summer camps for kiddies (as previously documented by the BBC). Other Nazi symbols can also be found, whether connected to past SS military regiments and ‘heroes’ from WW2 or affiliated with that other SS-obsession, Thule-cult-related arcane hammer and sun symbols.
A recent attack by Ukraine across the Russian Belgorod border threw up this inconvenient headline (from the New York Times)…
When Kelin states that ‘extreme nationalism in its ugliest form’ exists in Ukraine, Kuenssberg accuses him of ‘speaking those claims for which there is no evidence.’
It’s laughable.
Just how much more evidence does Kuenssberg expect to see before she might admit that the Russians may have a point when it comes to the prevalence of neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
In her interview – more an interrogation, to be accurate, and an edited opportunity to sell her narrative – Kuenssberg continually berates Kelin, accusing him of peddling ‘false and baseless’ untruths that are supported by ‘no concrete evidence.’
At one point, Kuenssberg inserts her pre-prepared list of ‘things to throw at the Ambassador’…
An attack on a hospital in Dnipro – our colleagues at BBC Verify… have checked… a missile has fallen onto the hospital, civilians have died… a six-year-old and three-year old have been hurt.
The UN have reported having taken ‘extensive evidence’ that Russia had committed wilful killings, rape, torture, the transfer and deportation of children… the world saw the attack on the theatre in Mariupol, the attack on the train station in Kramatorsk, the shopping mall in Kremenchuk, the maternity ward in Mariupol…
… and then has the gall to (repeatedly) ask Kelin ‘why won’t you tell the truth about the crimes that are being committed in Ukraine by your country?‘
Let’s take a closer look at her list of ‘verified evidence’…
Regarding the Dnipro Hospital …
The ‘attack’ on the Dnipro hospital is evidenced by damage most-likely caused by Ukrainian air-defence missiles, or the destroyed remnants of a Russian missile, knocked off-course.
As no-one is allowed to photograph the missile remains, we shall never know… but if it was – incontrovertibly – an intended Russian strike at that target, then we can be sure the evidence would be released asap. For clarity, it is now illegal (and punishable by a 5-18 year prison term) for any Ukrainian to photograph or make a video-recording of incoming missiles or drones, the work of air-defence, any damage caused or inflicted, or the remnants of missiles or drones, thus leaving the Ukrainian authorities in complete control of their narrative and unchallenged version of events (what might Laura call this state of affairs if it existed in Russia, I wonder).
So much for ‘BBC Verify’ who simply cannot have been able to verify anything as the Ukrainians have not and (I assume) will not release any claim-supporting evidence. BBC Verify (and Kuenssberg) are therefore merely parroting the claims of the Ukrainian Government.
I find it troubling that Kuenssberg cites ‘BBC Verify‘ at all. This new ‘unit’ of so-called ‘verification’ revolves around Marianna Spring, herself an arguable agent of propaganda and narrative during the ‘covid pandemic.’ This facet of BBC reporting is concerning. BBC Verify uses ethically-questionable tactics, such as the creation of fake-account ‘sockpuppets’ to infiltrate groups of people espousing particular views in order to ‘better understand’ the ‘conspiracy-theories’ and ‘fake-news’ that they promote. BBC Verify is operating much as Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ in ‘re-framing’ and ‘vetting’ facts to ensure they fit the supported narrative and actively discredit those that don’t. This isn’t ‘verification’ at all. It’s information control. I wonder when the press-release of an increase of choco-rations will come. Doubleplusgood.
Regarding the Kramatorsk Train Station …
In April 2022, Ukraine (and therefore the entire western mainstream media, including the BBC) claimed that the Russians sent a Tochka-U missile to the city of Kramatorsk, where it exploded at a railway station filled with evacuating civilians, killing over 50 and injuring around 100. It became clear, from an examination of the evidence, that this claim was positively untenable. Conclusively, the missiles themselves have been identified as belonging to Ukrainian (not Russian) stockpiles, thanks to the serial numbers and remnants of sequential missiles previously fired (by the Ukrainians) at Donetsk. Besides, Russia no longer uses the soviet-era Tochka-U equipped with a warhead, although they began to use a limited number of old missile housing and engines as decoys (without a warhead) in early 2023, in order to degrade Ukrainian air-defence missile stocks.
Kramatorsk is predominantly a Russia-supporting town (that took part in anti-Maidan protests that led to the deaths of many civilians at the hands of Ukrainian militias) from which many (not all) evacuees at the railway station were (or so we were told) ‘desperate to flee heavy Russian shelling across the wider Donetsk region’ by escaping towards Russian-controlled territory. Note, Russia hadn’t once shelled Kramatorsk itself.
As a swift aside, this particular narrative appeared again in September 2022 when ‘the Russians launched S300 missiles at a civilian convoy leaving Ukrainian-controlled Zaporizhzhia heading for Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia,‘ hours before Russia formally accepted that region into the Russian Federation following the results of a referendum the week before.
According to the official Ukrainian account (uncritically parroted – again – by the BBC), the civilians were attempting to ‘bring vital humanitarian aid‘ to their friends and family members in Kherson in the Russian-controlled zone… despite that their vehicles were crammed with personal belongings, children and grand-parents, and with no ‘humanitarian aid’ to be seen.
And that the Russian S300 platform is an air-defence (surface-to-air) system also utilised by Ukraine. ‘Western sources’ (of course) claim that as the Russians were ‘running out of ground-attack missiles‘ they had retrofitted their S300 missiles with a GPS system to allow a ground-attack role for their air-defence missiles… despite the documented fact that only the Ukrainians are known to have modified the S300 system in this way.
And that no evidence whatsoever has been presented by Ukraine or ‘western sources’ to base such claims on anything resembling a fact.
And that there is no indication that the Russians were (or are) running out of anything, let alone ground-attack missiles.
Regarding the deportation and rape claims …
Lyudmila Denisova, the Ukrainian Rada’s Commissioner for Human Rights, the source for the report made to the UN that Kuenssberg regards as ‘extensive evidence’ was removed from her government post over her claims detailing sexual assault allegations made against Russians (as reported by Newsweek). Ukrainian journalists themselves have denied Denisova’s claims regarding the alleged rapes and criticised her for including ‘unverified details’ with insufficient evidence. Only 230 of the 450 members of the Ukrainian Rada voted to remove her from her job… so some of them actually approved of her lies. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.
The ‘evidence’ Kuenssberg refers to comes exclusively from the Ukrainian Government (via Denisova), without any form of independent investigation by anyone, including the UN (as Kelin stated).
With specific reference to the ‘transfer and deportation of children’ (and the resultant ICC warrants), this is a complete and shameful fabrication by the Ukrainian authorities and bears absolutely no resemblance to fact.
This ‘story’ is hysterically and widely-disseminated through western media but the reality is that International Law clearly states that it is the responsibility of ‘the occupying force’ to safeguard lives and evacuate civilians from the conflict zone. Relevant laws are: Fourth Geneva Convention, and International Humanitarian Law (act of displacement)… here’s a sampling…
Evacuation of the Civilian Population:
In both international and non-international armed conflicts, State practice establishes an exception to the prohibition of displacement in cases where the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons (such as clearing a combat zone) require the evacuation for as long as the conditions warranting it exist. This exception is contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol II. The possibility of evacuation is also provided for in numerous military manuals. It is contained in the legislation of many States.
The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement prohibit the “arbitrary” displacement of persons, which is defined as including displacement in situations of armed conflict, “unless the security of civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”. The exception of “imperative military reasons” can never cover cases of removal of the civilian population in order to persecute it.
The Fourth Geneva Convention further specifies that evacuations may not involve displacement outside the bounds of the occupied territory “except where for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement”. With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II specifies that evacuations may never involve displacement outside the national territory.
Russia does this whenever it captures territory from the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including towns and cities. Civilians, including children, are evacuated from the war-zone. I’m not entirely sure what Kuenssberg would have the Russians do with regard to their responsibilities under law, leave the children in the war zone or pass them over to more ‘trustworthy’ and capable countries, such as Ukraine? Or Europe? After all Europe doesn’t have a child-trafficking problem, nowhere, nohow.
Russia is no different to other ‘civilised’ countries in that it has a number of humanitarian and governmental agencies that document and arrange such evacuations. Those unaccompanied or orphaned children – or those who have been separated from family for a variety of reasons – a ludicrous 200,000 are claimed by Ukraine to have been ‘stolen’ by Russia (!) – were (and continue to be) cared for under the responsibility of Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights. Here she is…
According to one Kremlin report…
The orphans aged between 1 and 5 years arrived from three children’s homes in the Donetsk People’s Republic. Head of the region Denis Pushilin requested their evacuation to safe areas of the country. Some of the children are ill, some need lifesaving assistance and rehabilitation. The children were taken from the Chkalovsky Military Airfield to family centres in the Moscow Region. Decisions on their subsequent family placement will be made after medical examinations.
Overall, 234 orphans have arrived in Russia from the Donbass republics during the past week. Some have already been transferred to families in several regions of the country, others were temporarily placed in institutions – these are orphans that previously stayed in temporary accommodation centres in the Rostov and Kursk regions. Seventy-six children from the Lugansk People’s Republic are getting ready to travel to their foster parents in the Volgograd, Leningrad, Novosibirsk and Tyumen regions. These are large family groups up to seven brothers and sisters, and many of them were previously separated because they were staying in different children’s institutions.
The effort to place orphans from the Donbass republics in foster families began last spring at the initiative of Maria Lvova-Belova. Overall, 350 children have already been sent to foster parents in different regions of the Russian Federation. Vladimir Putin supports this work.
Children from the Donbas (including Mariupol and other towns and cities still under Ukrainian shelling) are often placed within Russian educational establishments under schemes overseen by Maria, such as those universities and junior colleges teaching music, or ballet, or science, for a period of time. Other children are temporarily cared for in institutions around Moscow while one or both parents serve with the Donetsk or Lugansk military, and where no family member is immediately present. Other children are evacuated from the warzone for their own safety to relatives in Russia, or accompany their parents to Russia. Still others, confirmed to be orphans, are placed into foster care; some of these are adopted.
Similar schemes are organised and documented by that other ‘evil’ organisation, UNICEF…
Are we to believe – without evidence (other than mere assertions from Kiev) – that Russia, alone of all the countries taking in refugees, whether adult, child, or infant… is ‘deporting’ or ‘stealing’ them?
In my personal opinion, such a claim is xenophobic and disgusting. I am ashamed that Kuenssberg would parrot the insane propagandised allegations of Kiev on this issue.
Regarding the Mariupol Theatre …
Claimed by the Ukrainians to be a bombing attack from the air. There are no eye-witnesses that corroborate this claim; they claim the opposite, that no aircraft were above Mariupol. In fact, there are many eye-witnesses that claim (through video testimony) an explosion coming from the basement and blame members of Azov for gathering civilians at that location over a number of days with promise of an evacuation but refusing to let them leave; eye-witnesses testimony that also recalls Ukrainian soldiers stockpiling explosives in the Theatre.
Extensive examination (documented with photographs and video) of the theatre building does not indicate a bomb, missile or shell hitting the building from above but rather that an explosion occurred within the building. So far, evidence from the site marries with eye-witness testimony.
As an aside, much of the claimed ‘details’ of this attack come from the one-time Mayor of Mariupol, Vadym Boychenko (another protégé of Kolomoyskyi, remember him?), who ‘evacuated’ his city before it fell and, according to some reports, now lives in Orlando. Florida. From where he peddles his official narrative. Vadym also has some responsibility for…
Regarding the Maternity Centre in Mariupol …
This building was hit by artillery or a Grad rocket attack, or both. There is contemporary (March 9th 2022) video of Ukrainian soldiers firing (small arms and heavy machine gun, as well as hand-held rockets) from buildings that formed part of the Maternity Clinic complex. It is possible that the Russians were returning fire (and caused the damage to the clinic) but the Ukrainian claim – of a Russian bomb strike – has been vehemently denied by witnesses and casualties alike, including nursing midwives, staff and Marianna Vyshemirsky, famously pictured below.
Regarding the Kremenchuk Mall …
The video evidence clearly shows a missile hitting a neighbouring industrial facility and associated railway siding/marshalling facility and not the mall. Fire spread to the mall and engulfed the structure quickly. Most people escaped. Video and photographic evidence do not show ‘more than a thousand’ people being in the mall, as claimed by Kiev. Of the 39 people presumed dead or missing (allegedly) back in May 2022, there is no evidence that any deaths occurred in the mall itself, in fact video of the emergency services on site show shocked and injured but ambulatory victims and no indication of dead victims. Footage of the aftermath does not show evidence of a missile strike (ejected material or crater) but rather of a conflagration typical of such property fires. There were other missile attacks on factories in Kremenchuk on that day. It was not an intentional attack upon the mall.
So much for Kuenssberg’s ‘extensive evidence.’
Should you vehemently disagree with my analysis (or conclusions based on available evidence) of these specific events, you should still wish (as do I) for an entirely independent and objective investigation of each event before definitively and finally declaring any a ‘crime.’ It cannot be wise to accept wholesale the ‘information’ peddled by either side in this conflict, at the very least. Surely.
Eventually, Kuenssberg does admit (grudgingly) that ‘there is some limited evidence of crimes being committed by Ukrainian troops but there is nothing (emphasis in original) that compares to the evidence of war crimes being committed by Russia.’
This is a gobsmacking claim that is either unconscionably ignorant or wilfully false. Or both.
Even I (not a journalist with the resources of the BBC at my disposal) have seen incontrovertible evidence of Ukrainian atrocities so gruesome that they simply cannot be posted here. These include rape, torture, assassination, car-bombing, beheading, crucifixion, knee-capping and the large (video-evidenced) category of the murder of surrendered Russian prisoners of war and unarmed civilians. Then there are the wholly ‘criminal’ and thoroughly widespread instances of utilising civilian structures for military use and documented (by eye-witness) cases of the use of civilians as human shields.
Then there is the evidence that predates February 2022… leaving all of the 14,000 deaths of Ukrainian civilians in the Donbas from 2014 to 2022 firmly at the door of Kiev and no responsibility of Russia whatsoever.
In a cringe-worthy moment that Kuenssberg evidently believes to be an emotional gotcha, Laura played a video of the wife of Vladimir Kara-Murza, imprisoned by a Russian court for 25 years for treason, in which she asks the question ‘why does a government that claims to have the overwhelming support of the population need to use repression and prison terms of up to 15 years against anyone who opposes the official narrative?’
What a strange, surreal (even) question for the wife of an innocent (we presume) man to ask. It feels like a narrative-inspired question, especially given that Kuenssberg, as well as panellist Bill Browder (following on from Kelin) punt the same topic boat. Incongruous insert. But I digress.
There is no mention (by Kuenssberg) that Kara-Murza (a dual British/Russian citizen who lives in Washington, USA) was on Russia’s list of foreign agents, nor of the full charges against him; treason, spreading false information, and leading a non-grata organisation (defined as one that poses a threat to the constitutional order and security of the Russian Federation) – the ‘Free Russia Organisation (FRO).’ Kara-Murza delivered a speech to the Arizona Legislature accusing Russia of using prohibited means and methods of warfare in Ukraine (which Russia vehemently denies) and held a conference at the Sakharov Centre in Moscow in support of political prisoners, sponsored by the FRO. The material substance of the treason charges has not been disclosed and it is because of this that I (and Kuenssberg) are unable to pass a solid judgement as to that charge and therefore the appropriateness of the sentence.
No mention by Laura of the Myrotvorets ‘kill-list,’ maintained by the Kiev government (and hosted in Langley, USA) which proclaimed Darya Dugina (the wholly innocent daughter of Alexander Dugin, killed in Moscow with a car-bomb by Ukrainian agents) successfully liquidated. There are dozens of journalists listed on the Myrotvorets website, including many from western media organisations that have ‘sullied the reputation’ of Ukraine; all are in danger of ‘liquidation.’ Shades of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it would appear.
No mention by Laura of those journalists and political ‘dissidents’ jailed by the Kiev government for ‘treason, spreading false information, or ‘promoting Russian propaganda’ the latest of which is an American citizen named Gonzalo Lira (who lived in Kharkiv, before his arrest on charges of ‘suspicion of harbouring pro-Russian sentiments’ this month).
No mention by Laura that it is the UK government that keeps Julian Assange in a Belmarsh cell, perpetually awaiting extradition to the US on charges of ‘treason’ for which there is a death penalty.
Laura does manage to mention Wall Street Journal journalist Evan Gershkovich, to the ambassador. Gershkovich is charged on suspicion of espionage after being arrested at the site of a Russian Military facility in Yekaterinburg, in the Urals, allegedly collecting top-secret data on a ‘military-industrial-complex’ enterprise on behalf of the United States. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that he was ‘caught red-handed’ and that his activities in the Urals had ‘no relation to journalism.’ In other words, Gershkovich is allegedly a spy. We can only await the trial and the presentation of evidence before coming to any conclusion as to the eventual innocence or guilt of this individual.
At one point, Kuenssberg – with no irony whatsoever – states to Kelin that ‘there is no free press in Russia.’ Does she have any idea about the state of the ‘free press’ in Ukraine? At least in Russia, her comrade colleague Steve Rosenberg is allowed to roam through Russia at will, question Putin and Lavrov personally, and write appalling articles for the BBC. No ‘free press’ in Russia… my arse. On the other hand, try watching Russia Today on any channel in the UK or on YouTube from a UK IP. Go on, I dare you.
Kuenssberg also states, with disrespect, contempt, deliberate offense and no small quantity of arrogance… to the Ambassador’s face, that he is ‘happy to repeat claims that have been disproven, to deflect questions, happy to mislead our audience about the truth, maybe you’re really lying to yourself about what is really going on.’ She then counters his attempts to be diplomatic (by saying that there are two sides to every story) by stating ‘this is not about both sides of the story, this is about truth. How long before you stop denying the reality about what is going on and look for a way out so that peace can come?’
As a final example of her complete lack of objectivity, after Kelin answered with a short ironic laugh that [para] ‘even the German minister said recently that if the west stopped supplying arms the conflict would be over tomorrow’ Kuenssberg goes in for final killer stiletto stab… ‘is it funny?’ replete with a convincing grimace of disgust.
I have rarely seen such an unprofessional, biased and prejudiced piece of crap from any BBC reporter, let alone one with the ‘standing’ of Laura Kuenssberg.
But it got worse.
Moving into the panel section, Kuenssberg turned to ‘Bill Browder’ (whom she described as one of Putin’s ‘arch-critics’) for comment on her interview of Kelin by initially stating…
Some of the things Kelin was saying were surreal and grotesque but what is your take on what is really happening inside the [Russian] regime at the moment? To which Bill answered…
‘They’re failing miserably. The corruption inside Russia has hollowed out their military, their supposed strong force failed at every step. They’ve lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers. They’ve lost huge amounts of equipment. Russia is being completely decimated by Ukraine. Everything Kelin said was a lie. They’re lying to themselves, lying to the west and it’s going to be painful and difficult for them when Ukraine finally launches their counter-offensive.’
Laura then asked Bill about internal dissent and repression of criticism inside Russia. To which, Bill replied…
‘Russia used to be an authoritarian regime now it’s turned into a totalitarian regime, like North Korea. You can’t even hold up an empty sign with nothing on it on red square without being arrested and sent to jail. Kara-Murza was sentenced to 25 years for criticising Putin for human rights abuse. Putin is so afraid of his own people. Putin isn’t popular anymore. Now it’s just hardcore repression and how long will it be before people say enough is enough.’
Laura asked her final question, ‘There are suggestions that there could be a threat to Putin… is there a threat to Putin’s ability to hang on in power?’ To which Bill answered…
‘There’s always been a threat which is why he becomes more and more strident, arresting more and more people. I think he started this war as a war of distraction, not because of NATO or this nonsense that Kelin speaks of. Putin started this war because he was afraid that the Russian people were going to rise up against him.’
Curiously, Laura didn’t mention or give any details on Bill’s past. From his WikiPedia entry…
William Felix Browder, American-born British Financier and political activist, deported from Russia in 2005 and declared a threat to Russian national security. Some experts on the activities of Western “investors” in Russia in the 1990s were more sympathetic to the Russian government’s assessment [that he was a threat to Russian national security], citing Browder’s earlier settlement agreement with Avisma, which seemed to indicate a long-standing habit of siphoning off funds to offshore accounts. He also had been found guilty of evading some $40 million in taxes by using fake deductions...
… prior to which ‘Bill’ had earlier supported Russian president, Putin. Oh really?
I wonder why Kuenssberg didn’t let her viewers know any of this – somewhat relevant – background. Anyway.
Nowhere in any of Bill’s superlative claims did Kuenssberg interject. She never asked for any evidence for his unevidenced assertions. She never questioned his statements. Not once. Bill was allowed to blather on without restriction or even a raised Kuenssberg eyebrow. Unlike Ambassador Kelin.
Why? Perhaps because what Bill had to say was what Kuenssberg and the BBC wanted their audience to hear and believe. Possibly? Maybe?
Laura and Bill… clothed in the BBC narrative where there is only one good guy (Ukraine) and one bad guy (Russia).
There goes Laura… facts, evidence, objectivity, reason, rationality, and truth be damned. And…
Addendum : I was unaware of the existence of the full, unedited version of Kuenssberg’s ‘interview’ with Ambassador Kelin until after writing the above. Fortunately, the Russian Embassy in London recorded their own copy of the interview and have released it on their YouTube channel. Kudos, Russia. Shame on you, Kuenssberg and the BBC.