The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
The Bucha Massacre in Ukraine and the Search for Truth
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The images—the videos—are horrifying and not for the squeamish. There splashed across the TV screens by NBC, Fox News, and the totality of American media are what is called “definite proof” of Russian war crimes, perhaps even “genocide.” We are told retreating Russian army troops brutally executed civilians, many with their hands tied behind their backs, as their units departed the Kievan suburb of Bucha.

That is the unquestioned assumption which we are asked to believe. And the entirety of our establishment media, without exception, posits this “massacre” as fact and the work of those depraved Russians, under orders from that evil Vladimir Putin, holed up in the dark recesses of the Kremlin. No doubts, no questions are permitted, and certainly no dissent from this now-standard story line, lest the questioner be immediately labeled a “Putin stooge” or “engaging in treason.” Rather, journalists across the board, from MSNBC to NBC to Fox, to online scribblers for The Washington Post and The New York Times now outdo each other in speculating what mechanisms are (or will be) in place to eventually try Putin for his manifest criminality (perhaps in the Hague by the International Criminal Tribunal, like what happened to former president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, in 2002?). The unanimity of America’s political class, Republicans often outdoing Democrats in their unbridled rage, demands stepped-up action, more billions for sophisticated weapons systems (which are no longer “defensive”), maybe a “no-fly zone” or even troops on the ground, in other words World War III. And the Biden White House has joined the chorus in suggesting that “there must be some accounting for war crimes,” if a bit less frenzied.

Yet, there are voices, not many but some of which are substantial, that raise troubling questions about the most recent “war crimes” narrative, whether at Bucha or even more recently, the train station at Kramatorsk.

First, there is former Ambassador Jack Matlock, America’s last representative in the old Soviet Union before it collapsed in 1991, for the administrations of Reagan and George H. W. Bush. A longtime career diplomat and expert on Russian history and politics, in an interview on CNN (which appears to have been subsequently scrubbed) Matlock cautioned viewers: “Firstly, we don’t know exactly what really happened in Bucha, and secondly, there is no evidence that Moscow is to blame.”

The Russian government (via spokesman Dmitri Peskov), Foreign Minister (Sergei Lavrov), and the Ministry of Defense have all strongly denied the accusation and requested an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council and a full forensic investigation by a neutral party.

As investigative journalist, Ian Davis, reported in OffGuardian (April 7, 2022):

“…further investigation is certainly necessary. This appeared to be the position of the Russian government who, having strenuously denied the Bucha allegations, requested an emergency session of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to discuss the matter. For some reason, the UK government blocked Russia’s request.

“Initially it appeared that the US-led NATO alliance were less eager to discuss the evidence. However, acting as the president nation of the Security Council, the UK’s UN ambassador, Barbara Woodward, then announced that the UK would convene a session to discuss Bucha on the 5th.

“Prior to examining any of the evidence, and relying solely upon videos provided by the Ukrainians, Woodward [then] stated that the footage was evidence of war-crimes. This had in no way been established. No one knew what they were evidence of. Woodward clearly implicated Russia and predetermined the outcome of the discussions, so there wasn’t really any point in holding them.”

As Davis adds: “There is no doubt that they [the Russians] have killed many Ukrainian citizens [many of whom were armed]. However…unless Russian commanders lost control of their troops in Bucha, the indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed civilians, following an agreed withdrawal and their identification as non-combatants, makes no sense either from a military or propaganda perspective. It serves only to undermine the peace negotiations…prolonging the conflict is in the US-led NATO alliance’s interests, not Russia’s.”

That is the same question I have. If you are commanding Russian forces—if you are sitting in the Kremlin—and surely understand the immense value of international opinion and the very real history of Ukrainian disinformation (as in the case of the Mariupol Maternity Hospital bombing) and the use by the Western media of what is essentially propaganda, why would you commit such an atrocity in full and plain view, with bodies of men strewn almost symmetrically down a main street in the town [cf. the aerial photo at the beginning of this essay]?

It makes no sense. Even in the massacre in the Katyn Forest (1940), the Soviets buried the evidence of the NKVD murder of some 22,000 Polish officers and national elite. The discovery of the shallow mass graves by invading Germans in 1941 was essentially hushed up—“canceled” news, if you will—by the Americans and British, despite attempts by a few intrepid researchers. Indeed, it was only after the fall of Soviet Communism that the truth was completely unearthed for all to see. Ironically, it was President Vladimir Putin who finally and fully corrected the historical record:

“On 4 February 2010, the [then] Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, invited his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk, to attend a Katyn memorial service in April. The visit took place on 7 April 2010, when Tusk and Putin together commemorated the 70th anniversary of the massacre. Before the visit, the 2007 film Katyń was shown on Russian state television for the first time. The Moscow Times commented that the film’s premiere in Russia was likely a result of Putin’s intervention.”

There are far too many questions surrounding Bucha and what happened there for a quick, summary judgment as to guilt. That should govern our “chattering class” and our politicians, but it doesn’t. Yes, the images are horrifying, but all the information—the videos, the pictures—we see on our television sets and read about in our establishment press is uniformly, if not hysterically, from one viewpoint.

One of the best-informed commentaries on Bucha and what happened there (and likely will happen again) is by noted former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, who served as a former UN arms inspector for implementing the INF Treaty, and also on General Norman Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War.

I pass it on here:

The truth about Bucha is out there, but perhaps too inconvenient to be discovered

Scott Ritter Mon, 04 Apr 2022

“In war, truth is the first casualty.” This quote has been attributed to Aeschylus, a 6th BCE Greek tragedian noted for his “copious use of imagery, mythic allusion, grand language, wordplay and riddles.” It is only fitting, therefore, that the man who first gave word to the concept of modern-day war-time propaganda would see his quote come to life in the present-day Ukraine. The Kiev government and their Western information warfare advisers may have coopted all of Aeschylus’ playwright devices to craft a modern-day tragedy in the Ukrainian town of Bucha that exemplifies the notion of the lie as not just a byproduct, but also a weapon of war.

The main source of the Bucha tragedy reports is a videotape, taken by the Ukrainian National Police, of one of their convoys driving through a street in the town. A dozen or so corpses litter the roadway, many of them appearing to have been bound. This video has gone viral, producing a pandemic of anguish and anger that has swept over much of the world, capturing the attention of heads of state and the head of the Catholic Church alike, resulting in a tidal wave of condemnation and outrage directed at Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. The cause-and-effect relationship between the video and the global backlash is clear – the former could not exist without the latter.

One of the first lessons of objectivity is to slow things down to make sure that fact is not obscured by emotion. The Bucha videotape is disturbing. The video has been released in its present form, it appears, with the express intent of producing a visceral “shock and awe” moment for the viewer. If this was indeed the case, then those who released it – the Ukrainian National Police – have succeeded beyond their wildest imagination. Or that of their advisors, as the case may be.

The linkage between the dead and the Russian military was established immediately, without any fact-based data to back it up, and subsequently echoed in all forms of media – mainstream and social alike. Anyone who dared question the established “Russia did it” narrative was shouted down and belittled as a “Russian shill,” or worse.

That these conclusions are the byproduct of mass hysteria is beside the point – why seek to be objective when the narrative fits every stereotype that had been carefully assembled beforehand by the same people parroting the Bucha story today. Social “preconditioning” of an audience unused to critical thinking is an essential step in getting this audience to accept at face value anything that is put before it, regardless of how egregiously the facts of the story strain credulity. And let’s be clear – the Ukrainian narrative of the events in Bucha seems to stretch credibility.

The chronology of the narrative produces the first red flag that the story being peddled by Ukraine, and echoed in the West, is not what it seems. It is established fact that Russian troops evacuated Bucha on March 30. Ukrainian National Police began entering Bucha on March 31, and that same day the mayor of Bucha announced that the town was fully under the control of Ukrainian officials. At no time was there any suggestion by the mayor or any other Ukrainian official of mass killings undertaken by Russia. The videotape in question was released by Ukrainian authorities on April 2; it is not certain if the video had been taken earlier, or on that day. What is certain is that the images shown in the video differed sharply from the narrative initially portrayed by the mayor.

For its part, Russia has vehemently denied the allegations, and has requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss what the Russian Foreign Ministry has called the “criminal provocations by Ukrainian soldiers and radicals” in Bucha. The presidency of the Security Council is held by Great Britain, and the British mission to the UN has denied the Russian request, stating that a discussion on Ukraine currently scheduled for Tuesday, April 4 would serve as a forum for any discussion about Bucha.

One would think that the Security Council, which has shown a readiness in the past to meet on short notice to discuss the events coming out of Ukraine, would seek to accommodate Russia’s request on a matter of such importance. The goal of the British, however, does not appear to be the rapid search for truth and justice, but rather to buy time to allow the political fallout from the alleged massacre in Bucha to develop further.

One example of this tactic manifesting itself is the reaction of US President Joe Biden. “You saw what happened in Bucha,” he explained in comments to reporters, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is a war criminal.” Biden took advantage of the Bucha crisis to advocate for the delivery of more weaponry to Ukraine. “We have to continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons they need to continue the fight,” he said. “And we have to gather all the detail so this can be an actual – have a war crimes trial.”

All this from the president of a country which has refused to recognise the International Criminal Court. For reasons which should be obvious to anyone willing to apply some critical thought.

Fortunately for President Biden and the Ukrainian government, the British chief prosecutor of the court, Karim Khan, announced in early March 2022 that he had launched an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine. Given the high profile of the Bucha allegations, one would imagine that Khan has dispatched a forensics team to take control of the crime scene and oversee autopsies on the victims to establish the time of death, mechanism of death, and whether the victims had died where they were allegedly found, or if their bodies had been moved there from another location.

Khan would also be empowered to conduct interviews with the Ukrainian National Police, who have a history of close relations with members of the Ukrainian far right, including the infamous Azov Battalion. Of particular interest would be any investigation into orders given to the police regarding the treatment of those Ukrainian civilians deemed to have collaborated with the Russian military during its occupation of Bucha.

The results of such an investigation would more than likely conflict with the narrative being pursued by the Ukrainian government and echoed in the West by compliant media outlets and politicians alike. This is the prime reason why Khan is not currently on the ground in Bucha. One can assume that if and when Khan is eventually given access to evidence about the Bucha killings, it will have been manipulated by the Ukrainian National Police to such an extent that disproving the allegations will be virtually impossible.

The truth about what happened in Bucha is out there, waiting to be discovered. Unfortunately, that truth appears to be inconvenient for those in a position to pursue it aggressively through a forensics-based, on-site investigation. If it so happens that it eventually emerges that the Ukrainian National Police murdered Ukrainian civilians for the crime of allegedly collaborating with the Russians during their brief occupation of Bucha, and the forces of international law are brought to bear against the true perpetrators of that crime, any true pursuit of justice would have to include both the US and UK governments as witting co-conspirators in any crime charged.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.

(Republished from My Corner by permission of author or representative)
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tonight two Ukrainian Tochka-U ballistic missiles hit the central train station in Kramatorsk. A lot of people were killed. The Ukrainians are blaming the Russians, although the Russians don’t use and don’t have these missiles.

    A graphic footage of the hit from inside of the station.

    Seeing that the Russian side has no means to refute their allegations, Ukrainians will continue to use this tactics. More and more often such incidents are going to be happening, and blamed on the Russians.

    Putin, a sophisticated strategist, started a war being unprepared and in spite of the technical advantage that he has, he can indeed lose it. This confirmed genius is a complete idiot.

    Someone has to smoke him, before it’s too late.

    • Replies: @JR Foley
  2. Notsofast says:

    they didn’t even bother to take the white armbands off of their victims. i’m still trying to figure out if this is ukranazi stupidity or a way to bait anyone with some detailed knowledge into speaking out, so that they can be attacked and shouted down by the angry hordes of imbeciles, drunk on mockingbird media kool-aid. at this point i’m thinking the latter.

    i’ve heard that russia may start their own war crime tribunals as early as june, let’s hope that it includes evidence of the biden crime family’s connection to the ukrainian bioweapons labs.

  3. Cookie says:

    Who knows what happened?

    Unfortunately innocent people get caught…and contrary to propaganda the quality of soldiers in any army varies greatly. I suggest a lot of the poorer Russian units were surrounding Kiev.

    The main game has always been the battle for the costal towns and cities. That is where the best units are.

    Russia is finding out how to fight a significant war again, you cannot pass the physical and mental requirements from one generation to another, you have to go through it first hand.

    One thing that had bamboozled me is why the Russians did not destroy the rail system to West Ukraine on day one?

    Rail has always been the main way of moving troops and equipment, I suggest the war would be as good as over now if Russia had cut all supply chains during the first weeks.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  4. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Russia asked for a UN investigation and NATO member blocked it. That pretty much tells you everything. What went on there is known and is included in the article. The Ukrainian armed groups went around murdering those they perceived as wishy-washy or looking to bail out, just as in the last days of the Reich people were still being hanged or shot for desertion or promoting defeatism. The fact that a significant number of Russian officers have been killed shows that they’re up front and so have control of their troops, not hanging around far away.
    It’s been said that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. That’s true. But it’s not necessary. All that’s needed is to fool most of the people all of the time. The hate-crazed bamboozled mob will push things along and turn on dissenters as traitors and such.

    • Agree: JR Foley
  5. After this second round atrocity propaganda this week with the rail station or whatever, I am convinced that they are in the staging area for the USA and Europe actively declaring war (and effectively World War 3).

    I can’t speak on all the other big questions that goes with that; like whether soft comfortable white countries would reinstate army drafts or what would become of the economy.

    But they do want a hot war. That’s indisputable.

    In both World Wars, the elite snookered the USA in with the same shameless cover stories, by the way. The Zimmerman Telegram still gets top spot as the most stupid. They sure were dead serious about keeping them damn mexicans from invading the homeland, weren’t they?

  6. @Cookie

    Why don’t they do it now? Why, STILL, is the Worst sending weapons into Ukraine via railways, long railway lines SO easily smashed ANYWHERE along the way?

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  7. Notsofast says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    you’ll notice that they are sending mostly old soviet equipment from former east block nato countries. they want russia to blow it up and waste their arsenal doing it. this saves on the disposal of the old weapons and ordinance and they can sell them all new american weapons systems. this is a premeditated part of the neocon battle plan and their only hope of winning the larger economic war. when all you make is weapons all you have to sell is war.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  8. JR Foley says:
    @Here Be Dragon

    How about Amtrak Joe –in diapers ?

  9. All this from the president of a country which has refused to recognise the International Criminal Court. For reasons which should be obvious to anyone willing to apply some critical thought.

    Yes, America is not an ICC member, but neither are any of the big boys, or any state with any respect for its national sovereignty. This includes Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Phillipines, Belarus, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia etc

    Fortunately for President Biden and the Ukrainian government, the British chief prosecutor of the court, Karim Khan, announced in early March 2022 that he had launched an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine.

    As both parties are non-members, this ICC operative has no authority in the matter whatsoever. Even if one party was a member, he would have no standing, as under International Law both parties would have to agree.

    The ICC is essentially an EU front organisation. If Khan decides to produce a report, it will be dismissed by the Russians and others as propaganda – which, of course, it would be. Hopefully, this will result in more members leaving, particularly in Asia. ( I find it difficult to understand what benefit Mongolia, Tajikstan and Cambodia, for example, get from such an organisation. Certainly not more EU aid.)

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Boyd D. Cathey Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2