Warning

Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.

Sunday, August 31, 2025

Andriy Parubiy, Maidan snipers’ Mastermind?

August 31, 2025

On the occasion of his assassination in Lviv the other day, I'll re-post my article about "reformed" neo-Nazi and Ukrainian power player Andriy Parubiy, published at Oriental Review on May 29, 2014 By Adam LARSON (USA) (via Web Archive - original links may not work, expired or disallowed - see there for archived links and embedded videos missing here).

Who was Maidan snipers’ mastermind?

The probe into the Maidan “snipers problem” – by the new Ukrainian government underwritten by it – continues. On May 13, the fascinating interim findings were partly revealed, at a press conference called by parliamentary investigation head Gennady Moskal. Bullet forensics exonerated the previously blamed Berkut security force. Something in the findings also placed the unidentified shooters somewhere – unspecified – among “the ranks of the protesters.” It could even have been the EuroMaidan militants, he admitted, but MP Moskal thought infiltrators from the government’s security service SBU made more sense.

He predicted decades of debate with no resolution, and a week later he announced that a number of key documents were destroyed, complicating the search. But whatever led the investigators to this apparently dead-end admission, it seemed like a break in the script that put the snipers in areas secured by the government of then-president Viktor Yanukovych. For those following the details, the May 13 revelation seemed like a bit of realism creeping in.

But then the current Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council – Andriy Parubiy – stepped forward, hinting at a divergent probe delving further into fantasy. His investigation blames Russia and Vladimir Putin for the snipers, even though it was Parubiy – not Putin – who was supposed to secure the “EuroMaidan” where, the evidence increasingly says, the problem snipers operated.

Sniper Commandant?


While he insists he’s not a fascist, Andriy Parubiy co-founded the Nazi-inspired Social National party, now Svoboda, in the 1990s. Outwardly, he went mainstream early on, and joined Yulia Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party, running security operations on the Maidan for the 2004 “Orange Revolution.”

In 2013-14’s more violent regime-change “protests,” he was given the same responsibility. As Euromaidan Commandant and head of the Self-Defense Committee, he was in charge of security for areas where the mob’s authority had overridden the government’s.

We now know (partly from MP Moskal) that – on the pivotal day of February 20, which will remain the main focus of this report – sniper shots first hit police forces, and came from buildings Parubiy controlled. Ukraine’s previous head of the Security Service (SBU) Alexander Yakimenko said so in March, after fleeing to Russia. When the Commandant proved unable to stop the sniping, which everyone claimed to be against, Yakimenko says he offered to send in a unit to help. He only needed a guarantee his men wouldn’t be shot by Parubiy’s, but he says that was denied. From all this, the SBU chief deduced the snipers were under Parubiy’s command and protection.

In truth, this failure to stop the killing could be due to malice, or incompetence, or some mix. Whatever the case, the resulting bloodshed was all but necessary for the Kiev Cabal to finally take over. And considering his eminent competence, they made Parubiy security chief for all of Ukraine as soon as they could.

Sniper Investigator?

Reports from early March, before the Yakimenko accusations, spoke of a parliamentary investigation Parubiy himself was selected to lead. The apparent conflict of interest may, or may not, be why MP Moskal now seems to be in charge of that.

But in a May 21 interview for Euractiv, Parubiy speaks of a probe that sounds different, a probe blaming Russian Special forces – Spetsnaz – for penetrating his security cordon. Asked about the snipers, with the note “you must have first-hand information,” he sidestepped his own direct knowledge and told Euractiv:

“Now that we are conducting investigations, we have found that 18 Spetsnaz, including snipers, were in Maidan. The investigation will reveal from which points they were shooting, but I can already say that they did everything they could to spill blood and provoke civil unrest.”

“We have a working hypothesis which would be confirmed or rejected by the investigation, that in the most difficult days they shot equally – at Berkut and at the Maidan activists. Their aim was to instigate a more violent civic unrest … that Russia could warm its hands at this fire.”

“We know that Russian snipers shot at both sides.”

As Washington’s Blog noted in March, “everyone agrees that the snipers were false flag terrorists sewing chaos and confusion. … they only disagree about who the responsible party is.” This is another example, and (as we’ll see) the worst theory yet. And just look at who is trying to feed it to us.

Master Thug

From February 18-20, security forces and civilians were, as Parubiy says, killed somewhat “equally” by these snipers to create “violent civic unrest.” But there was a telling pattern to how different parts of that were timed.

First, consider how ten unarmed policemen were shot dead the night of February 18th, forcing a decision to bring in armed security forces. That allowed later killings to be realistically blamed on them, as happened. (Were these the same provocateurs present a day and a half later, or a different shift?)

By the 20th, a force was assembled on the Maidan adequate to stomp the police out by noon and shoot the Berkut out of their nearest posts by 12:45. They even blocked the train bringing in the Army support, and readied to march up to the central government’s buildings and stomp whomever they wished. This force was under Parubiy’s leadership no later than his announcement early on the 21st that “all the leaders of the hundreds are declaring their consent to coordinated action, including the hundreds of the Right Sector … We’re in control of Kiev. We have seized control of the government quarter.”

It was only at that shift in power that Parubiy “Spetsnaz snipers” unleashed their main killing spree. On video and within bare minutes, they picked off at least 30 unarmed civilians sent in behind the Hotel Ukraine, to top off “Heaven’s Hundred.” That is, this un-ambiguous, unforgivable “Yanukovych crime” was delivered as soon as the natural punishment for it had been placed.

Commandant Parubiy, who oversaw the distribution and timing of much of that violence, couldn’t deny its pattern helped them, as he said to Euractiv, “oust Yanukovich.” That prompted the question:

Q: So you recognize that you ousted Yanukovich?

A: Yes. He ran away.

Q: But he ran away because he was afraid for his life?

A: Yes of course. After so many deaths and such national tension, he understood that if he didn’t run away, the personal consequences could be very bad. 

Under this plausible threat, the president fled. An 1:36 pm announcement from the Maidan ordered members of Parliament to meet at 3:00 to vote him out for good. They were given “a guarantee that the Parliament would not be stormed during the session.” The “hundreds” just snatched that option, but promised not to use it – unless maybe they were provoked by a wrong vote. In the end most of Parliament was willing to show up on the 22nd instead, and those agreed unanimously to impeach Yanukovych – and not be stomped. After all, Parubiy’s Maidan machine still controlled Kiev.

Confirming Yakimenko’s Charges

When he spoke on May 13, investigation head Gennady Moskal did not specify any sniper perches, just implied that they were behind the lines Parubiy was in charge of. By noon on the 20th, this had expanded to include at least the Maidan at large, the Trade Unions Hall (Maidan HQ), the Conservatory, and Hotel Ukraine. The October Palace and unknown other buildings fell into his hands just after noon.

Former SBU chief Yakimenko said in March the first shots “came from the Philharmonic Hall,” probably meaning the (musical) Conservatory. After that, “many have witnessed 20 people leaving the building” with their sniper gear in bags. These “split into two groups – 10 men each.” One of these “took a position at the Ukraine hotel,” right next-door, and “the Security Service lost track” of the other sniper team.

Add 2025: One recent posting of the video with 15+ mostly-masked men in irregular military garb seen leaving Hotel Ukraine with Parubiy standing by, mainly looking the other way as seen here at right. Asked by the press what they carried, the men said musical instruments, in a joking manner. Guy in the front was not on his way to kneel somewhere (rolled mat) and play, what, a couple of clarinets maybe? Below: dated graphic I made then for alleged and observed shooting directions. For a better view, see the later and evolving work of Prof. Ivan Katchanovsky and this post for some later additions of my own. 

Parubiy must know by now where the snipers were, but he doesn’t want to tell us yet. The probe “will reveal from which points they were shooting,” he promises.

Yakimenko said “no weapons could be brought to Maidan without Parubiy’s permission. Hand guns, rifles, scopes – he had to agree to all of that.”

In one report, Parubiy gave a rough count of those armed with handguns – about 100. But he said “those people are not ours, they are unorganized,” just like the snipers. “This is kind of a problem.” This when he also said “we created a headquarters in the Maidan and we will not tolerate any action without coordinating with it.”

As mentioned above, Yakimenko says he offered to help Parubiy flush out the gunmen, but was rebuffed. If true, that suggests either a criminal denial of his incompetence, or the commandant’s active approval of the killing.

The SBU chief has a 20-man sniper team in Parubiy’s turf. The man who would know might refer to the same group when he speaks of “18 Spetsnaz, including snipers.” Maybe 20 was a visual estimate, and the “Russians” split up into groups of nine?

One might expect Parubiy to be embarrassed that his own secured buildings were so infiltrated, but he puts the villains “in Maidan.” The original claims of February had the snipers in or on government-held buildings further southeast. Why can’t he just say that now? Why openly claim such a humiliating security breach unless the alternative is even worse?

Parubiy even claims he failed to stop the snipers on the way back out. After sneaking in and unleashing this mayhem, they walked away from the Maidan undetected, and “I think they escaped from Ukraine,” he told Euractiv.

But it was reported at the time that two snipers were caught by his teams, one at least in the Hotel Ukraine. At mid-day on the 20th, an official tweet said, “members of Maidan Self-Defense captured one of the snipers. He is currently in Maidan headquarters.”  But a different “Maidan commandant” – Stepan Kubiv – said he was just there and didn’t hear any such thing.  A message of the 21st said a “sniper was caught on the 10th floor of the Hotel Ukraina … Personality to be identified,” but it never was.  A later one heard that “maydan activists caught two snipers” total, but the source said nothing about their fate or identities.

If they were caught red-handed, why doesn’t Parubiy mention these snipers now? Did they even exist, outside these vague reports? Were they real, but managed to escape? Or did Parubiy order them released? The balance of reasons suggests the killers were under his command and protection, as Yakimenko said, and as the evidence always suggested.

Clearly Commandant Parubiy, of the February “Failures,” is not the best one to be speaking about the Maidan snipers. Expect the May interview to be his last word on that bloodshed.


Postscript: “Ensuring Peace and Safety”

In more promising areas, Andriy Parubiy remains the go-to guy. As the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, he’s now tasked with the brutal and confusing “anti–terrorist” operation in eastern Ukraine, and apparently in Odessa. This he wages with a “National Guard” that grew out of his murky Maidan machine, against those Ukrainians who dare to vote against the Kiev Cabal, pushing Ukraine deeper into civil war territory with violence he always blames on “Russian terrorists.”

Helping overturn two popular votes for Yanukovych, ensuring a third overthrow will never be needed, plus his new “security” work, has earned Parubiy friends in the “Democratic” West. He spoke to Euractiv while in Brussels, he said, “to participate in a session of the Ukraine-NATO working group” regarding the Russian “hybrid war” against Ukraine. As he explained it:

“When we speak about fighting terrorists, the best way is to find their centre of coordination, of financing. In this case, this centre is one person, it is Putin. That’s why I say – we have no crisis in Slavyansk, in Donetsk, in Luhansk. We have a crisis in Putin’s head. … if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, nobody can tell where his tanks will be tomorrow. … To stop Putin is not only Ukraine’s major goal. It should be the goal of the entire civilized world.”

In Parubiy’s dangerously unhinged thinking, even the massacre at the Trade Unions building in Odessa on May 2 “was a classic provocation in which pro-Russian groups had to seize the administration buildings in the same way it happened in Donetsk and Luhansk.” But this time, the anti-Putsch activists were clearly chased in, and followed in, by an ultra-nationalist lynch mob. He also contradicts himself by claiming the building was already “a kind of headquarters for the separatists,” where “the substance that provoked the blaze” was brought in by them “a long time ago.”

That’s why, he says, “when Molotov cocktails were thrown from the fourth floor at the participants of the Ukrainian rally, the substance inflamed” and an “explosion happened.”

Of course, on-site video and photos prove this was terrorism, and it seems the mob torched the building largely to hide their brutal murder of perhaps 272 citizens. That Parubiy was there to help coordinate it, after attending a top-level April 24 meeting to plan the Odessa “counter-terrorist” operation, makes it seem like state-sponsored terrorism.  A former deputy head of the Odessa police, now fled to Donetsk, blames Parubiy for personally organizing the massacre.  He was seen there on April 29th, delivering bulletproof vests to one Mykola Volkov – a criminal deputized as a “sotnik” (the term used for commanders of “hundreds” on the Maidan). Volkov was later seen shooting a pistol at the Trade Unions building, wearing a bulletproof vest, and phoning in a false story – possibly to Parubiy himself.

With Ukrainians all united but Moscow’s agents everywhere, the “security” chief told Euractiv, they needed an “overhaul” of “the entire security and defense sector,” and maybe civil society too, including “criminal groups” and “ethnic groups.”

The NATO allies had just heard the same and understood, promising “extensive support to the Ukrainian delegation” – including this false-flagging fascist thug – considering their “crucial role in ensuring peace and safety in Europe and the world.” Further, they “expressed readiness” to help in “reform” of the Parubiy’s defense and security sectors.

Events in Odessa, Maruipol, and elsewhere might have convinced the Cabal’s double-speaking Western allies that civil society “overhauls” are best left to Parubiy and his “Ukrainian rally” types.

Sunday, August 24, 2025

Sergei Korotkikh and the Massacres at Bucha and Mariupol

File under No Nazis in Ukraine, Nazis in Russia, False-Flag

August 24, 2025

(rough, incomplete)

A Wayward Neo-Nazi Finds his Home

Sergei/Serhiy Korotkikh/Korotkykh (Сергій Коротких) aka Boatsman/Boatswain («Боцман») is a Belorussian neo-Nazi who operated in Russia, where, around 2002, as a Declassified UK investigation finds, "he founded a Russian neo-Nazi group – the National Socialist Society. It spread fear in Moscow by targeting darker-skinned guest workers from the Caucasus and central Asia. The group was banned and its members convicted of dozens of racist murders."

Continuing: "Korotkikh is alleged to have killed two migrants in 2007, beheading one of the victims – Shamil Odamanov – on camera beneath a swastika flag. He denies the allegations, which featured in the multi-award winning documentary Credit for Murder by Israeli director Vlady Antonevicz." [1] I have a screen-grab with no gore, but a swastika flag, proper Nazi-era style, stretched between two trees in the woods where they have the bound men kneeling. He can deny that was him under the mask, but he can hardly deny founding the xenophobic neo-Nazi group that took credit.

That documentary came out in 2015, but somehow, Korotkikh was never formally charged in Russia until 2021, reports Declassified UK. He had already fled or left Russia, moving to Ukraine around the time of the Maidan "revolution" in 2014, maybe understanding it was a good place for Nazis to be. As it so happens, he was warmly accepted by Ukraine's new government, granted citizenship in a public ceremony by president Poroshenko (pic), and given a position in the new Azov Battalion. [2] As explained below, he would command Azov's reconnaissance unit, operating from Mariupol, Ukraine's occupied capitol for the occupied parts of Donetsk oblast. 

Keep in mind that, as Declassified UK put it, Azov was "a neo-Nazi militia founded by Ukrainian far-right activist Andriy Biletsky to fight against pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas. Biletsky reportedly once said he wanted to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].” [3]

For a guy who supposedly never committed those murders in Russia, Korotkikh has a way of knowing all about high-profile murders now in Ukraine. In 2021 he was talking about the mysterious death of Belarusian Vitaliy Shyshov in Ukraine." [4] Already in 2019 he was saying "the Poroshenko regime is hiding details of the investigation into high-profile murders." [5] 

After the Russian invasion of 2022, Korotkikh and his specialized skills were set to work defending the fatherland. He was pictured with a large cache of weapons to on February 26 (pic). [6] He also published a video where he vowed to play football with the severed heads of "Chechen" fighters. [7] Surely just a figure of speech? On March 22 he gave an interview about the far right in Ukraine and the Donbas conflict, 2014 vs. now, complaining about "certain restrictions on the use of combat skills" compared to the old days (we'll come back to that). [8] 

Korotkikh and the Bucha Massacre

A new unit he formed - "the Boatsman boys" - would be deployed in various places, including Bucha, the site of the supposed massacre by Russian forces. Perhaps Korotkikh's most famous moment came on April 2, a few days after the Russian withdrawal, when he posted a video from his boys in Bucha that included an apparent order to execute captured men. As The Gray Zone summarized, "A clip of the reported “clean-up operation” published by Sergey Korotkikh, a notorious neo-Nazi Azov member, shows one member of his unit asking another if he can shoot “guys without blue armbands,” referring to those without the marking worn by Ukrainian military forces. The militant stridently responds, “f*** yeah!”" [9]

Only burned out Russian tanks on Vokzalnaya street are actually shown, but the discussion comes through on the commander's radio as he films them. I note that he speaks so casually he could be ignoring the question and just commenting on the two tanks left in a sort of mating position. But I don't suppose that would hold any weight in, for example, a future war crimes trial.

There were claims Korotkikh was the man filming the scene, but he clarified that his men fighting in Bucha had sent him the video [10] while he was on a mission near the Belarus border (we'll come back to near-border stuff below). Many reported that the video was deleted, but it was there on Telegram when I checked (although it doesn't come up now). The text description included (translated) "BOATSMAN BOYS work in Bucha. Actually, there is nothing to do there." There may have been suspected collaborators to execute, as the audio suggests, but if so it's lumped in with everything else and rounded down to "nothing." [11]

Vox Ukraine published a supposed debunk of running claims, pointing to some video postings with extra sounds added. In the original, it says, "there are no loud shots-like sounds at the end of the recording ... At the end of the recording, you can clearly hear “please" but further words cannot be deciphered." [12] The version I heard then didn't feature anything like gunshots, and the voices weren't clear at all. So they're probably right that some versions were faked up. But the sources I cite here mention none of these added sounds, though others apparently did. Everyone agrees there's an audible "please" in the background, with indistinct voices most likely (from context) pleading for their lives, and no one denies there is an apparent request and approval for the execution of captured, presumably civilian men, who were probably shot, even if we don't hear that. A few exaggerations do not alter these facts. And keep in mind, that's just from this one short video, aside from whatever else happened off-camera. 

The Vox Ukraine article further notes "the bodies of the dead civilians were already lying on the streets when the Ukrainian military entered the city." [13] This is true, in contrast to lazy claims that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the presumed executions, citing how these bodies were not mentioned or seen in earlier views or reports filed from totally different streets. I had a deep look into Bucha and found it a very mixed bag, with the balance of blame left mostly unclear. The evidence shows most of the bodies later seen in videos were killed by Russian forces, especially in their 2nd invasion on March 5. Most seem to have died by tank fire in murky "traffic incidents" as opposed to executions. Many other bodies were reported to contain a type of shrapnel common in Ukrainian shells, while some bodies lay next to the impacts of artillery from the Ukrainian-held southeast. Other seen cases were murkier, and perhaps hundreds of reported deaths and their circumstances are left completely unseen. 

A group of 8 men were clearly taken prisoner by Russian forces, as seen on surveillance video, and marched to the spot they would later be seen, apparently executed. These were called civilians, then admitted to be 7 illegal, ununiformed fighters with Ukraine's new "Territorial Defense Forces" (TDF) and the civilian man found sheltering them in his house. Apparently, the legality of this move is actually debatable, but I for one don't support it. Another group of executed men found in a basement at a former Russian base, including one with a white armband, may have been executed there after the "liberation" (fresh-seeming blood, debatable rigor mortis clues), or before that as alleged, with mixed clues as to their allegiance. 3 other men that appeared executed seem to be more TDF fighters killed by a Russian shell from the north long before one of the bodies was staged as if executed - clean white cloth was used to tie his hands after rolling the body from an earlier position, seemingly held during at least one heavy rain). [14] 

So it's hard to say how much of the "Bucha massacre" was committed by Korotkikh's men or other "liberators," but it seems likely at least a few suspected collaborators were executed, especially given this casually publicized ADMISSION TO SUCH ORDERS. 

Korotkikh and the Mariupol Market Massacre

I recognized the name Sergei Korotkikh, more or less, from an earlier massacre in Ukraine. His face rang the same bell, but I had the name wrong (or was it given differently?) as Korotkov. This leads into my addition to the file: he already seemed like a mega-creep likely involved in a January 24, 2015 false-flag rocket attack in Mariupol I studied in some detail at the time.[15] 

Some 30 locals were killed and 100 injured when about 100 Grad rockets pelted the Vostochniy district in the span of 30 seconds (as reported). These were generally thought to be fired by separatist forces moving in on Mariupol, presumably on accident as they aimed for a Ukrainian military checkpoint on the district's northern outskirts. Either way, the allegations seem to have stalled separatist progress until the Minsk II accords froze the conflict, ending such moves on the city until the Russians came in 2022, leading to epic destruction and mass casualties amid circumstances few understand. [16]

This "Mariupol market attack" is where I first learned reliable ballistic analysis under varying conditions, analyzing dozens of geolocated impacts and, copying some unverified dots from someone else's map, set all the red dots on the map attached below. To my credit as no propagandist, while I wanted to show how Kyiv's forces did this, I read the ballistic evidence much like the OSCE observers did - the rockets came mainly from the rebel-held east and northeast, but also from the contested SE and perhaps south, where Ukraine had just taken control. In nearly all such cases I've studied since then, the fire comes from Ukrainian areas plain as day. But this case was different. 

Out of some 100 rocket impacts ostensibly aimed at the checkpoint (see map w/notes below), none came close to hitting that target. The closest one missed by some 500m and the furthest by about 2km. To achieve this terrible effect, 3+ firing directions had to make the relevant mistakes (various combinations of overshooting and targeting far to the left) with no mistake on the perfect synchronization. This is beyond unlikely and so this was probably no accident. 

But who would have the motive to do this on purpose? Separatists would have the locals' support in this ethnic Russian district, and would have no reason to terrorize them ahead of liberation, and no reason to do so from their own areas, in their own name, in front of the whole world. Ukraine's occupying forces, headed up by the anti-Russian neo-Nazis of the Azov Battalion, on the other hand ... they might see value in basically shooting some of their hostages, to do it from the enemy's area and in their name, to frame the liberators and complicate their advance, even threatening to shoot more hostages if they dare approach Mariupol again. That may be just what happened here. 

Experts on the scene suspected as much. A Voice of America report noted "in spite of the evidence, many [locals] continue to believe that the government was responsible, though they are too afraid to say so openly." [17] They understand the motive lies with Azov so clearly that we're forced to consider if they could be to blame after all. The fire came mainly from separatist areas, yes, but to achieve that, Kyiv's forces would only require 2-3 positions snuck in along a porous border and established behind enemy lines, as stealthy as needed until the moment of attack. Then they would be exposed for 30 seconds of coordinated firing before packing up quick and running back home before they could be caught. That's not really implausible at all, and I propose that's just what happened. 

Anyone paying enough attention might suspect this was no accident, but I noticed the smug certainty of one "Serhiy Korotkov" (as I took it down), who was then "The Azov Battalion's RECONNISSANCE UNIT COMMANDER," sent into Vostochniy on January 24 to document the damage. A short edit of his video report (now private - screen grab below) has the "Boatsman" explaining: "anybody can check for oneself that this is not an accidental hit. There is no Ukrainian military here, and never have been. In this area, as graffiti on some walls shows, some fans of the Russian World live. Those who want the Russian World - see, here you got it." Earlier in the video he reported from Kievskaya street; "what's noteworthy is that over here we have "Left Sector" (opponents of Kiev-allied fascist group Right Sector). The Communiaki (derogatory term for Communists) received what they wanted." He alternates between smiling with amusement, and trying somewhat not to. His argument here is that, in "the Russian world," they like to deliberately kill their own. Anti-Russian neo-Nazis likely Korotkikh love to see the "Communiaki" die, but they don't have to fire a shot as their enemies kill themselves out of some self-destructive and perhaps subhuman instinct. Who wouldn't be happy amid carnage like that?

It might matter that his job was head of reconnaissance, the group tasked not so much with investigating attack sites in the occupied capitol city as with things like ... SNEAKING BEHIND ENEMY LINES, which is where those rockets had just come from. His certainty it was a deliberate Russian-on-Russian attack, in itself, suggests that he might have overseen this deliberate attack on Russians. Shortly after the attack, the recon chief was gloating at the attack site and, as the only relevant expert into what happened, setting the blame for us. But where was he, or where were his men, shortly before and during the attack? 

A known Neo-Nazi organizer with a past of likely murder and even beheading - a potential genocidal terrorist in the wrong circumstances - was put in charge of this aspect of running Mariupol, Ukraine's eastern capitol city of hostages; he was likely allowed to commit a false-flag massacre of ethnic Russians in order to halt the separatist advance. It would then be little surprise if his men later sent to Bucha would execute some other locals seen as supporting "the Russian world" and to then blame the same "Russian world" for their slayings. And it would be no surprise if the claims were widely accepted by a sleepwalking global public.    


P.S. 4/25 And this likely committer of false-flag artillery massacres reportedly got 5 British rocket launchers for his adventures.  Phil Miller May 17 2023 https://x.com/pmillerinfo/status/1658768315014078464

I've been looking at where British rocket launchers for Ukraine have ended up. 

Five were obtained by Sergei Korotkikh, who founded Russia's National Socialist Society and is accused of beheading a migrant - he's been fighting for Ukraine since 2014.  

Sources:

[1] https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-russian-neo-nazi-leader-obtained-uk-missiles-in-ukraine/

[2, 3] ibid.

[4] https://twitter.com/HromadskeUA/status/1430232622773547016

[5] https://x.com/informator_news/status/1108415835528445953

[6] https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1497690688363900929

[7] https://twitter.com/Viaches50993743/status/1497453248021770242

[8] https://aspi.com.ua/news/kiiv/teroborona-kieva-mae-stati-pidrozdilom-zsu-komandir-batalonu-tro-korotkikh-foto-video#gsc.tab=0

[9] https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/03/testimony-mariupol-hospital-ukrainian-deceptions-media-malpractice/

[10] https://meduza.io/amp/feature/2022/04/06/kak-ubivali-lyudey-v-buche

[11] Original posting:  Apr 2 at 13:33 = 11:33 PM in Ukraine https://t.me/botsmanua/16178

an active copy: https://x.com/antiwar_soldier/status/1511163378110287874

another: https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1510635133627514881

[12] https://voxukraine.org/en/false-video-of-serhiy-korotkykh-boatsman-proves-that-ukrainian-military-killed-civilians-in-bucha/

[13] Ibid.

[14] details mostly in various blog posts of mine under this label - sorry, got lazy here https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/search/label/Bucha%20Massacre

[15] some related links: https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1510931185337180163

https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2022/03/who-is-really-flattening-mariupol.html

https://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Mariupol_market_shelling

[16] https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2022/03/who-is-really-flattening-mariupol.html

[17] http://www.voanews.com/content/ukrainian-authorities-struggle-to-secure-a-divided-mariupol/2668416.html

Sunday, March 16, 2025

A Russian War on Ukrainian Civilians?

March 16, 2025

(rough, incomplete)

As a 2023 Human Right Watch report put it, "Russia unleashed a full-scale invasion, bringing death and suffering to millions of Ukrainian civilians" with its invasion of Ukraine the previous year. Since then, it says, "Russian forces have killed, raped, tortured, deported, or forcibly transferred civilians to Russia or Russian-occupied areas."  

In this article, we'll consider only the "killed" part, with an emphasis on civilians. I'm not as focused on injuries, important and terrible as they can be, but broadly speaking, the pattern I see (at least for civilians) is close to 2 injured for every fatality. So multiplying any deaths total by 3 should give you an idea of total casualties including wounded.

Following Russia's 2022 invasion, estimates of civilian deaths very widely between 12,600 (verified minimum from a recent OHCHR report) and, by tallying regional totals from Wikipedia, between 20,000 and 35,000, with Mariupol being the biggest variable (estimates there range from 10-20,000 in most sources, with over 25,000 killed per this list, citing other credible media reports).

Military losses, estimates, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War 

Ukrainian Forces: 60,000-120,000 killed

Russian forces: 167,000-234,700 killed. 

Peoples' Republics forces (Russian-supported separatists): 21,000-23,500

Total military deaths since 2022: 260,000-413,200

So comparing 12.6k-35k civilians to the above, we get a death ratio somewhere between 0.03 civilians for each militant (0.03:1 or 3:100) to 0.14 civilians per (0.14:1 / 14/100). As we'll see, either number is remarkably low by world standards. 

Now let's consider the war's first phase, before Russia undeniably entered the field, the 2014-2019 "Anti-Terror Operation" in the Donbas and the 2015-2021"ceasefires" period following the Mink Accords (note the years of crossover) 

Estimated total killed: 14,000-14,300 

- 6,500 fighters of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics 

- 4,400 Ukrainian fighters, 

- 3,100-3,400 civilians 

(3100-3400) civilian deaths vs. 10,900 military ones = 0.3 civilians for each militant. That's 2-10x as bad as during Russia's invasion. And as I'll explain below, that's probably >80% killed by Ukraine.

Some prior estimates of civ:mil death ratios in select conflicts, all of them outside Europe, suggests a global double-standard (citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio):

US -> Korea 3:1

US -> Vietnam 2:1

US -> Iraq: 3:1 down to 0.5:1 (counts vary widely)

US -> Afghanistan: 0.4:1 (may be higher) 

Israel -> Lebanon 1982: 4:1 or even 6:1

Gaza 2023-now: Probably at least 4:1 (counts vary widely)

Even Ukraine's brutal attacks on the Donbas (see below) yield a better rate than any of these, at 0.3 civilians for each militant, with the separatist side causing some of the deaths. Russia's invasion and Ukraine's response cuts the civilian deaths in half, to 0.14:1 or even lower.  And even of this small number, Ukraine contributes much of it - and probably most of it, directly with ongoing shelling of the Donbass, and indirectly as in occupied Mariupol. 

As I see it from middling study (on average - high in spots, low in others), there are 5 sets of circumstances allowing for some Ukrainian hand in killing civilians, even or especially where the Russians had invaded and were doing their own killing: 

1) Russian-occupied Donbass, Crimea, etc.: ethnic Russian in Russian-occupied lands killed in Ukrainian shelling, bombing & missile attacks. See below for some highlights of the first 8 months of the "Anti-Terror Operation" in 2014. This eventually mellowed, but the same kind of scale returned in 2022. 

2) Ukraine-occupied Donbass (occupied ethnic Russians, expendable in some minds = human shields, especially when the Russians are close to liberating an area) - est. 2,958 killed since 2022 in Donetsk oblast, both sides included, but excluding Mariupol and Volnovakha (Ukrainian occupied)

3) Mariupol (same as above but in a major, coastal, strategic city that served as the capitol of occupied Donetsk - Mariupol wound up flattened and massacred as a severe example - an area I studied in some detail: https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2022/03/who-is-really-flattening-mariupol.html and should revisit, considering it may account for 10,000 to 25,000 or around 50-70% of all civilian deaths. Mainly, Ukraine weaponized the city to kill Russians, firing from every building, getting them wrecked in response, with little or even negative regard to civilian harm. My research suggests the Azov Brigade, not the Russians, blew up the drama theater on March 16, killing perhaps just a few dozen people they chose not to evacuate, for their own murky reasons, rather than the 1,200 widely reported. The very high counts might include this bigger number and might thus inflate the death toll there. Monitor on Massacre Marketing: Mariupol Theater Bombing, 3/16/2022

4) Bucha circumstances / parts of Kyiv Oblast were the 2nd deadliest after Donetsk, 1,569 civilians killed - occupied by Russia but partly sympathetic - massive violence used, killing innocents with heavy shelling, with likely execution of suspected collaborators after liberation -Many posts here: https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/search/label/Bucha%20Massacre - ignore all purple-shaded maps - another important issue to revisit. It was a mixed bag, with some definite Russian crimes, like executing 7 captive TDF fighters and the man sheltering them, and other brutality, if it often seems accidental.

5 The rest that was briefly occupied by Russia but I know less about (maybe like Bucha but varied, usually less severe?)

In Kyiv, there were only some 200 deaths total, probably most of these from missiles Ukraine shot down over the city to prevent another hit to their soldiers. This isn't a major factor, and it applies on the other side as well. One of the deadliest attack on Donetsk, on March 14, 2022, saw 23 civilians killed in a single, unusual attack with a Tochka-U missile and cluster bomblets, after it was shot down by DPR forces right over downtown, complicating the blame for what happened.

More Deaths on the Russian Side

"On 17 February 2023, the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced that at least 461 children had been killed since the start of the invasion, with a further 923 wounded.[153] Most of these child victims were from the Donetsk region.[153]"

"Russia does not allow monitoring in territories it controls, where civilian deaths are thought to be highest." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

May 28, 2024: 282 children have been killed and 733 injured, just in the DPR, over the full 10 years of the conflict. It would be higher if many of children and young mothers had not been moved further back or even to Russia for their safety. (TASS)

Most civilian casualties - 85-90% - between 2014 and 2016 were from "indiscriminate shelling of residential areas," an OHCHR report found, but this is not broken down into deaths on each side.  

From 2017-2020 OSCE found 2.4 shelling casualties (injured or killed) in the PRs for every one on the other side. (657 vs.270). Just Donetsk: 513 vs. 223. Just Lugansk: 144 vs. 47. (OSCE report) From 2018-2021 A UN study found FIVE shelling casualties in the PRs for each one on the other side. (310 vs. 62). (UN report) There's an argument that the OSCE routinely undercounted attacks and casualties, especially in the PRs, to the tune of about half of them missed. (Donbass Insider) That's supported by the above (2.4 vs. 5), and the UN numbers are preferrable. This means, barring false-flags and ignoring short-shot misfires by either side, Ukrainian forces killed 5 times as many civilians as the other side did.

Amnesty International, November 6, 2014

"The large majority of the [civilian] deaths were in separatist-held territory in Donetsk, and were likely caused by Ukrainian government forces, but separatist forces appeared responsible for several deaths in Avdiivka and Debaltseve, areas under government control. The organization’s research strongly suggests that separatist forces fired from these neighbourhoods, and Ukrainian government forces fired into them. In at least one instance, government forces placed an artillery position in a residential area." 

Separatist weapon placement in residential areas was "strongly suggest[ed]" while Ukraine's was apparently proven and stated as a fact. And yet, there were few civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side, and far heavier ones on the other side. The Ukrainians kill so many civilians, it doesn't seem they even aimed for military targets to begin with. It could be all the talk of indiscriminate weapons with poor aim misses the main point that these hits were probably no accident, but rather intentional state-sponsored terrorism.

Otherwise, the record is least clear in 2014, when it was likely higher rate of deaths in the PRs than in later years, applied to a much higher death toll. Probably at least 6:1 on around 1,786 civilian deaths = at least 1,531 civilians killed by Ukraine vs. at most 255 by the Peoples' Republics, from April to December. Civilian deaths per year:

2014: 2,084 (1,786 + 298 on MH17)

2015: 955

2016: 112

2017: 117

2018-2021: 58, 27, 26, and 25, at the end mostly from unexploded ordinances. (UN report)  especially in 2021 as the ceasefires was mainly held to, as it turns out, while Ukraine prepared to violate the Minsk accords with a publicly threatened reconquest of Crimea (March, 2021) and subsequent force buildup in the Donbas and then shelling of civilian homes and infrastructure, starting in November 21 and accelerating in January and February, before Russian forces finally entered the war for real, 8 years into it. (see here)

2014 Disputed Attacks (a few examples)

So 2014 is the big question regarding civilian casualties prior to Russia's invasion. Both sides blamed each other for everything that happened, and it was a lot. I can help us get some idea which side was lying. 

June and July: Deadly Airstrikes 

For the most part, the attacks used artillery shells, rockets and missiles fired from the ground. I often call all of this "shelling," and I think that's technically correct. But at first, Ukraine was more bold and used fighter jets only they had to attack civilian targets on the ground. 


On 2 June, eight people were killed and more than 20 wounded by a series of explosions hitting the occupied RSA building in Luhansk city.[185] Separatists blamed the incident on a government airstrike, while Ukrainian officials denied this, and claimed that the explosions were caused by a stray surface-to-air missile fired by insurgents.[186] The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) published a report on the next day, stating that based on "limited observation", they believed that the explosion was caused by an airstrike, supporting separatist claims.[187]

A CNN investigation found clear evidence that the attack came from the air and the pattern of the craters suggested use of standard equipment on the Su-25, a ground-attack fighter, and the Su-27 – both combat aircraft operated by Ukraine.[185] Radio Liberty also concluded that "Despite Denials, All Evidence For Deadly Explosion Points To Kyiv".[188] CNN said that it was the first time that civilians had been killed in an attack by the Ukrainian air force during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in the Donbas.[185] The next day, Luhansk People's Republic declared a three-day mourning in the city.[189]

More here at the ACLOS wiki I helped start. Note that one of those killed, here at the government's HQ, was the LPR's Minister of Agriculture, killed along with another woman she was talking with outside the building. One of the women (I'm not sure which) was seen alive in a terrifying aftermath video, her lower body shredded, pleading for someone to help find her phone so she could call someone.

A month later: BBC July 15 "Rockets struck the town of Snizhne in Donetsk region around 07:00 (04:00 GMT), hitting a block of flats and a tax office. The rebels blamed the attack on Ukraine's air force - a claim denied by Ukrainian sources. ... Ukrainian officials said 11 people had been killed and eight injured, including a child. Earlier, they had put the toll at four while rebels spoke of around 10 civilians being killed." When Ukraine denies and downplays at the same time, it's troubling. 

The BBC report shared a video of the apartment building with entire floors in the middle reduced to rubble - rescuers dig through it by hand for survivors. Why would Kyiv do this? No one seemed to care much or for long. 

It was in this same town of Snizhne, just two days later, that separatists supposedly smuggled in a Russian BUK air defense system, as if to prevent another such attack there. By the video record, it was stationed in the fields south of town (ACLOS), from which it purportedly shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 that same afternoon, killing 298. Interpretations of this incident vary widely, and I have complex thoughts but no firm theory, and also barely followed case developments since 2014. But the basic suggestion I see as likely enough is that the separatists made a terrible mistake as they tried to defend themselves from Ukraine's denied terrorism. But it just sharpened what "terrorists" Ukraine was up against At right: President Poroshenko, July 21: the whole world is either "with the terrorists" or "with the civilized world." And does he even need to specify which is which? Just days after MH-17, no. 

July Grad Rocket Attacks in Donetsk
Just focusing on attacks with grad rockets, HRW reported 13 people, including 2 children, were killed in two attacks on July 12, and another 3 were killed in an attack on the 21st, with 2 non-fatal attacks in between. 

"Although Ukrainian government officials and the press service of the National Guard have denied using Grad rockets in Donetsk, a Human Rights Watch investigation on the ground strongly indicates that Ukrainian government forces were responsible for the attacks that occurred between July 12 and 21."
The four attacks took place close to the front line ... In all four cases, the angle and shape of the craters, and the fact that they were on the side of buildings facing the front line, strongly suggests that the rockets came from the direction of Ukrainian government forces or pro-Kiev armed groups.

The direction isn't specified, but most likely northwest. That's usually the case. Here's an apartment building with at least 2 apartments seemingly hit with 2 shells (no details past Donetsk, 2014 - from a video) - high sun suggests midday in summer, so the impacted side faces at least partly to the north. (A video compilation of building damage from 2014 shelling, on RUTUBE)
 
Starting in August, missiles fired on Donetsk in large numbers scattered cluster munitions far and wide, killing and injuring then and into the future. But we'll discuss this below with HRW analysis including further attacks in October. 

On September 5, a ceasefire was agreed. According to DPR officials, the ceasefire was violated by Ukraine many times, ten times in just one day, September 20, damaging homes and killing 4 civilians in the Peoples' Republics. (Sputnik Globe)

October 1 Rocket Attacks on School & City Bus 

On October 1, the ceasefire was broken again with 10 killed in Donetsk, 4 at school on the first day of classes. and 6 in another hit on a city bus.

France 24: "A source in Donetsk city hall told AFP that the strike happened right after the school's 70 pupils lined up for an assembly to mark the first day of class -- held nationally on September 1 but pushed back by rebel authorities because of the conflict."

"The children were taken to the basement; they are still there," the source said.

The pro-Kiev regional government of Donetsk, which is now based in the government-controlled city of Mariupol, accused pro-Russian separatists of the self-declared "Donetsk People's Republic" of shelling the school.

"The Donetsk People's Republic used rocket launchers to shoot at a school... the shell exploded five metres away from the building," the regional administration said in a statement.

Six more people died when another shell struck a public minibus in Donetsk, the regional authorities said, making Wednesday's casualty figures the highest civilian death toll in a single day since a ceasefire was struck.

As it happens, I already checked this one, a couple years go, mainly the bus but also the school impact. The pro-Kyiv crowd cited the bus attack as evidence the separatists were to blame, for this if not everything. Reason: the rocket was fired from the southwest, not the northwest as usual. "For those not from #Donetsk: the projectile on Poligraficheskaya, which killed 8 people, came from the side of the city, not the airport (see diagram)." At least 2 others did their own analysis to similar effect - origin to the southwest. Tacit acknowledgement: other attacks HAVE come from the airport direction (NW).

I checked and the readings are correct enough, for the bus and the school. The bus rocket tube points SW, which most read as the direction. It might be, but these can bend on the final stop, just after the detonation, as this one might have. The splash pattern of fragmentation marks on the pavement is the best indicator. It's not totally visible, but the shape to me suggests an origin closer to due south. My red line below runs due south, which may be too literal. It could be a bit either way, more likely SW, or anywhere in the range marked by white lines. Lower right shows the approximate front line at the time. 

The school damage wasn't as clear or easy to read, but especially so close to the damaged south facade, that shell to seemingly came from the south in almost the same way, but with less indication of SW, more likely due south (see post for details).

Smerch rockets used - If that means BM-30 (Wikipedia), it can fire different rockets with different ranges up to 100 and even 200km, and other models with shorter ranges, so it's hard for me to say. The front line is less than 20km to the SW, down to a Ukrainian-held are to the due south about 35-40km out and spanning to 60 km. 20-40km is needed, depending. so that could be a long-range, pretty normal or maybe even short-range use, depending on the exact rocket used. 

"DPR deputy leader Andrei Purgin told Russian TV that Ukrainian rocket launchers had targeted residential areas from as far as 40km (25 miles) away." (BBC) It could be from the edge of that area about 40km due south. It could also be a closer attack from a more SW direction, or any distance after sneaking east behind enemy lines is entirely possible. And the DPR doing it is entirely possible. So this case is inconclusive, and it's the top example to suggest DPR/Russian false-flag terrorism in the first year (I found 3 people on Twitter pushing this one, no one pushing any others, at least in English). 

But as I showed, a south or southwest angle is also not nearly as conclusive as these people made it seem. In fact, the next day, Human Rights Watch would use the same basic angle to prove it was Ukraine shelling Donetsk, now with cluster munitions.

August-October Cluster Munitions on Donetsk
August to October: cluster munitions fired on Donetsk and other towns, both before and after the September ceasefire. Human Rights Watch, October 20, 2014:

"Ukrainian government forces used cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city in early October 2014, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of cluster munitions in populated areas violates the laws of war due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon and may amount to war crimes."

In the 12 incidents documented by Human Rights Watch, cluster munitions killed at least 6 people and injured dozens." There were others they didn't investigate. Their analysis found "the cluster munitions came from the direction of government-controlled areas southwest of Donetsk." 

"The government of Ukraine has neither confirmed nor denied using cluster munitions in eastern Ukraine. It has not responded to a letter sent by the Cluster Munition Coalition in July or a letter sent by Human Rights Watch on October 13."

On October 2, 3 rockets were used on areas southwest of Universitetskaya street in central Donetsk, each one scattering submunitions over a wide area. One of the rockets hit at a supermarket that had a Red Cross center attached. "Thirty-eight-year-old Laurent DuPasquier, a Swiss employee with the International Committee of the Red Cross ... was killed during the attack in which cluster munition rockets were used." "Also on October 2, submunitions from another Uragan cluster munition rocket struck the building of the Mountain Rescue Service, at 157 Artem street in Donetsk." Red Cross and rescue people were targeted. 

"Submunition impact craters close to buildings in the three sites make it unlikely that the cluster munition came from the west, north, or east. The large crater in the second location indicated that the rocket had come from the southwest. This is the only direction consistent with all the impact craters, and therefore points to use by Ukrainian forces."

Then on October 5, "at least two Uragan cluster munition rockets struck the fifth subdistrict of the Kyivskyi district in central Donetsk.  ... A video of a rocket remnant lodged in the ground near 22 Kosiora street indicates that the cluster munitions were fired from the southwest. Supporting this finding, a local resident in Novomykhailivka, southwest of Donetsk, told a New York Times journalist that he had seen rockets launched from a position south of village in the morning of October 5."

In Makiivka, just east of Donetsk, HRW heard that "cluster munitions had killed two people on August 19 and 20 near a train station" while "a second cluster munition attack took place near a rebel checkpoint northeast of the town, suggesting a government attack." There was a third attack as well, but no directions are given for any of them. 

Starobesheve, southeast of Donetsk, was contested on August 24, with separatists in control of some areas and soon the whole town, when cluster munitions struck near the local administration building, killing 3 civilians and injuring 17. 

"The rocket tail section stuck in the ground in front of the local administration building shows that the rocket came from the southeast. With a maximum range of 70 kilometers and the Ukraine-Russia border 30 kilometers away, the cluster munitions could have been fired from Ukrainian territory southeast of Starobesheve, which was controlled by Ukrainian government forces at the time, or from Russian territory. The press center for the Ukrainian authorities’ counterterrorist operation claimed at the time that the cluster munitions had been fired from Russian territory. Human Rights Watch was not able to conclusively attribute responsibility for this attack."

Well, what does the reader think? 

November 5 Attack on Kids Playing Football

BBC November 5 "Two teenagers died and four were wounded when an artillery shell hit a school playing field as they played football in eastern Ukraine." A report of the OSCE special monitoring mission (SMM) heard  It was at 3:30 pm that 2 artillery shells impacted at School No. 63 on Stepanenko Street in Donetsk, with one hitting the football field.  A witness heard eight explosions. "According to him the first two occurred in quick succession. The other six occurred within five minutes of the first." "2 shells hit where children were playing at School No. 63 on Stepanenko Street, Donetsk," probably the first 2 quick hits. "The SMM saw human remains scattered around the pitch, including bone fragments, blood and internal organs. Blood-stained clothing was also visible, which appeared to have been torn by shrapnel."

Amnesty International declared: “Today’s shocking attack in Donetsk must by fully investigated. If it is found to constitute a war crime, those responsible must be brought to justice.”

Pro-Kyiv UNIAN would argue "Shell that hit school in Donetsk ‘fired from militant-controlled Makiivka’" Someone named Perebyinis (app. Yevhen Perebyinis, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine) is cited saying "The shell that hit the school and killed [those] children in Donetsk was fired from territory controlled by the terrorists. We have photo evidence of it," he tweeted. "Perebyinis posted photos that he said proved that the militants were to blame for shelling the school. According to these photos, the shelling was carried out by insurgents from the occupied town of Makiivka, which is located to the east of Donetsk." 

No photos are shown, just a satellite view with a red line pointing almost due east, and a wider map showing a range of possible directions from the east. "The red line on the Google map shown above indicates the shell trajectory, as calculated by analysts at the ukraine@war blog." (site apparently defunct now) A video explaining the point was attached, but is no longer present. 

Update: found the tweet and linked page "Rocket that hit School No63 did not come from Peski." He doesn't seem to know what he's doing. "It is clear that the shell bent the fence and not the explosion, because the right part of the fence is not bent at all where the explosion hit." No, that's because this is the back direction where the force is directed down into the ground rather than up into the fence. (see below) 

I found some photos of the field impact and tried my own best reading: impact near NW corner, right at the north fence, blasting a narrow, deep crater there, tearing the fence up to the east (and up = forward), with curling inward = force from the west, near parallel with fence but a bit from the outside (north) - scorching from the ignition fireball spreads east (= forward on trajectory) - low frag marks appear a ways back, stop on a line running SW, and behind that the turf peels back with even lower force (and low = back). All this says arrival from northwest, not the east. I use the orange arc differently here, to include the low marks on the side and scorching ahead, as the splash pattern behind seems interrupted by the concrete and fence pole, winds up peeling turf instead. It is a bit hard to read, perhaps giving Perebyinis some excuse to read it almost backwards. 

(photos: https://tass.com/russia/758729 - https://ria.ru/20141106/1031957968.html - Google image search

Ukraine@War reading, upper left - my reading right - both mapped - I don't know the range, or length of the white line, just the direction. It could be from Pisky, further out, or closer in, but very little space for any DPR false-flag, and nothing but the flawed east origin was ever said to suggest that. Pisky or Peski is exactly where Perebyinis said the shell did NOT come from, so I suppose that's just where it came from, roughly.


The observers of the supposedly neutral but seemingly Ukraine-biased OSCE had to contradict Kyiv here, probably due to the evidence rather than any pro-Russian bias. Report

"The SMM also noted a crater in the playground, near the eastern wall" besides "three craters near a damaged apartment building," and "three other craters on nearby Myrhorodska Street. The SMM observed damage to a number of houses near these craters."

"All craters seen by the SMM were about one metre in diameter and the depths varied. The SMM’s analysis indicates that at least four of the craters were caused by 120mm mortar shells and two others were the result of 122mm artillery rounds." Probably the 2 bigger shells were used to kill the kids playing soccer. 

"In the SMM’s assessment, all of these were fired from a location north-west of the football pitch and were the result of high-angle fire." High angle, I think, means relatively short range. That would make for an extra vertical impact, which I think fits the damage. 

"At 09:25, the shelling obliged the SMM to leave the area. The SMM heard loud explosions about two kilometres away to the south-west."

Conclusion

A November 14 speech by President Poroshenko might have referred to these repeated school attacks when he assured people in Odessa they took the right path in rejecting the "terrorism." because "Our children will go to kindergartens and schools, theirs will be sitting in cellars. [bomb shelters] Because they can't do anything! That’s how we are going to win this war." When their whole lives are disrupted Ukraine wins. Suffering is the goal? Or is it when the "terrorists" finally die or flee to Russia, leaving the land to Ukraine? It also helps to win that they don't have to take credit for imposing this life on their enemies; according to the post-2014 weapon-state of Ukraine, the kids in Donbas were hiding exclusively from Russian or separatist fire, as a civilized state like Ukrainian would never do such a thing as target innocent civilians, even if they were "Russian terrorists." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUp-sh1oaOU

Friday, March 14, 2025

Who Should be Held Accountable for the Donetsk Market Shelling of 1/21/24?

I heard about this attack when it happened over a year ago, on January 21, 2024, but I never looked into it until now, when it caught my attention again. 27 civilians were killed and 25 injured, according to local authorities. Luckily no children died, but 2 teenage boys were among the wounded. 

UPI report

"Russia's foreign ministry blamed Ukraine for "the terrorist act," stating in a Telegram statement Monday that Kyiv forces "deliberately targeted" the market with six artillery rounds."

"Meanwhile, Kyiv has denied responsibility, with its Joint Press Center of the Ukrainian Defense Forces fighting on the southern front stating it wasn't involved in combat operations there." 

"Donetsk is Ukraine!" it said in a statement Sunday night. "Russia will have to take responsibility for the lives of Ukrainians that have been taken."

This IMPLIES - but doesn't specify - that Russia actually fired those shells, killing its own citizens. (They allege this every time such an event occurs.) President Zelensky was more explicit when he ...

"...also blamed Russia for the attack in his nightly address on Sunday, but without mentioning the market by name. "On this day alone, Russian savages shelled more than a hundred cities, towns and our Ukrainian villages in nine regions: from Chernihiv and Sumy to Mykolaiv and Kirovohrad. The most brutal Russian attacks were in Donetsk region. Unfortunately, there are wounded and dead," he said. "Russia will be held accountable for all this terror -- it must be."

Once again, both sides blamed each other for this most brutal of the day's several shelling attacks. Those killed were among those who voted to leave Ukraine and become Russians, are considered that by themselves and Russia, and Russia stands accused of killing them, presumably to make Ukraine look bad. It could work since Ukraine does have potential motive to punish and terrorize the locals. 

Once again if very belatedly, I'll have to check the evidence I can actually make sense of, to see who was lying here. The quickest way - and it's still allowed for now - was to check some Telegram channels I follow for videos and photos. Most of the links I checked:

https://t.me/Elena_Evdokimova_Digest/31064

https://t.me/Elena_Evdokimova_Digest/31065

https://t.me/RTandSputnikNews/23260

https://t.me/Slavyangrad/86003

https://t.me/Elena_Evdokimova_Digest/31105

https://t.me/nm_dnr/11631

https://t.me/chp_donetska/80615

https://t.me/zvezdanews/137105

https://t.me/readovkanews/72775

https://t.me/chp_donetska/80502

https://t.me/zvezdanews/137107

https://t.me/chp_donetska/80547

https://t.me/chp_donetska/80581

https://t.me/chp_donetska/80491

https://t.me/DNR_SCKK/18376

I didn't bother citing the few images and details used here, but they're somewhere on that list.

Location: NOT where I thought in central Donetsk where so many deadly market attacks have occurred, but in one of the other such spots, in the Tekstilshchik micro-district, on the western outskirts. Аптека pharmacy on Google Maps is the building seen in videos with some 10 bodies around it, laying mostly face-down, pouring blood into the snow, with some crashed cars people likely died in, and broken shop windows others may have been killed behind. That was the main carnage, but at least one more shell, probably 2 or more, hit the market area to the NW (blue roofs), killing at least 4 or 5 seen in videos. Exact location & impact details unclear there. 

I was able to make sense of the main scene and, even without a clear fragmentation pattern or splash pattern on the pavement, I found a few clues that jointly suggest an arrival from the northwest. Windows are out on northwest and west sides. At least one shell hit here at the base of a tree at the NW corner, shredding its lower trunk upon an impacted mainly from the west, killing people in the marked zone only a bit to the east and mostly to the south. (I was briefly confused about which tree, circling 2, then Xing one out) I noticed a scorched spot on a wall with a clear edge, past which the tree blocked the detonation wave as it rolled forward on velocity (bottom right). I drew an approximate angle from that blast shadow back to the tree's far side, and then eyeballed that onto the satellite view, for the orange line there. It's probably not exact, but well fit to test.

DPR investigators don't show site images this time, maybe because too many were spots were too gory to show. They'll often show some key details with rulers, black-and-white poles and paper arrows showing the implied impact angle you can often see and confirm. But they presumably did their analysis here, and mapped the result as usual, in a Telegram post: 24.8km WNW around Oleksandropil' (Ukrainian occupied), using 152mm and 155mm shells. Here's their map with my reading copied on to compare. They're just a few degrees different. I'm sure their reading is better, but for the doubters, there's the visual evidence indicating the same - Ukraine launched a terror attack on innocent civilians and blatantly denied it. This is proven to be the case in virtually all of dozens, maybe over 100 cases I've checked out over the years. (see posts tagged Donetsk)


Zelenskyy says the Russians shelled their own here. Does he have information about their sneaking behind Ukrainian lines to do it? Some 75% of Donetsk shelling (est.) comes from this NW sector, and I don't think I've heard of one case where Ukrainian forces captured, documented, or even reported any such infiltrators. Obviously, this is because they don't exist. Ukraine does these terror attacks because their patrons have allow and tacitly encourage it, and keep on arming the terrorists ... so far anyway. It seems up in the air now, but from 2014 to recently their activities were fully supported with hardly any question or limits ever imposed, as their contra-factual claims were almost uniformly accepted.

Statement by Russian Ministery of Foreign Affairs https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1926834/

The neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, supported by the United States and its satellites, has committed yet another brutal terrorist act against the civilian population of Russia.

On the morning of January 21, armed units of Bandera’s followers deliberately targeted a market and shops in Tekstilshchik, a neighbourhood in the Kirovsky District of Donetsk, with multiple launch rocket systems. A total of six artillery rounds were fired at the busiest areas in town causing a large number of casualties. According to reports, at least 25 people were killed and 20 were injured.

This is an early statement, only having 25 deaths confirmed, and citing a wrong attack origin: "It was established that the shelling was coming from Avdeyevka" to the north. But what was established is what I show and confirm above, from Oleksandropil to the west-northwest. The statement also says:

"...the types of weapons supplied by the West were used. This is further confirmation of the Western countries’ direct involvement in the conflict, implicating them in the criminal acts committed by the Zelensky regime. This regime has once again demonstrated its inhuman nature and hatred for innocent people they are calling “species.” The leaders in Kiev are prepared to kill them mercilessly."

"Russia strongly condemns this treacherous attack on civilians. The West’s unrestrained desire to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia using their Ukrainian puppets to do the fighting, thoughtlessly supporting them without any limits, is pushing the Kiev regime to increasingly reckless steps, including terrorist attacks, massive violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes. Russia calls on all responsible governments and relevant international agencies to strongly condemn this brutal act of terrorism. Their silence would mean tacit approval of the murder of civilians and encourage Ukrainian neo-Nazis to commit even more terrible atrocities."

"The terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime clearly demonstrate that it has no political will for peace and the settlement of the conflict by diplomatic means."

"The need for achieving all the goals and objectives of Russia’s special military operation is obvious. No threats to security or acts of terrorism must be coming from the territory of Ukraine."

Now there's some heavy-handed propaganda. But keep in mind that propaganda can include as much truth as works for your case. And whatever you call them, the ballistic evidence says forces of the post-2014 US-proxy weapon-state of Ukrainian committed this crime against the Russian people trying to live on land that can only be "Ukraine." Meanwhile, hero of the world Zelenskyy, the only one standing up now to both Putin and Trump, and who just might be the second coming of Christ, once again said "Russia will be held accountable for all this terror" his own forces have been sowing for years. "It must be." Crowds roar in approval as they watch the terror and Russia's tab grow and grow. 

Sunday, December 29, 2024

Douma Witness: "Tawfiq Diab"

 ...along with some others, and calls for a "fresh investigation"

December 29, 2024

last edits January 6, 2025


Doxxing "Mr. Diab"

Reports from "Free" Syria have been heralding a new alleged witness to and survivor of the Douma alleged chlorine attack of April 7, 2018. "Tawfiq Diab" claims that he lost a wife and 4 children in the attack. Most people including myself had never heard of him, but now, safe to say, he's the main witness everyone has to talk to, seeming to appear in reports more than all other alleged survivors combined. I found eight 13 appearances:

Perhaps most widely-seen is a BBC News report from December 11 - "'I want justice': Victims of Syria chemical attacks speak freely for first time" by Yogita Limaye, which gives the name "Tawfiq Diam" and the photo at right.

The Guardian, Bethan McKernan, December 14, gives "Tawfiq Diab, 79" - with video report

Arabic-language video interview for Asharq News, December 15: auto-translate gives "Toufiq Diab"

NPR audio interview with Leila Fadel, posted December 17 (transcript), gives "Toufic Diab (ph)" All cited quotes are (Through interpreter).

Al-Jazeera 1 Dec. 18 gives "Tawfiq Diam, 45"

Later, Al-Jazeera 2 Dec. 28 gives "Tawfiq Ali Diab." A middle name sneaks in?

Also Arabic-language videos I didn't take anything from yet: 12/16 New Arab - Al-Jazeera 12/17 (is that 3 Al-Jazeera appearances?)

Add 1/2: TRT word Dec. 31 "Tawfiq Ali Diab is the only one left of his family"

Islamchannel video with subtitles (similar to or same as some others)

Anadolu Agency 12/26 gives "Abu Ali" with enough details to match the guy, but with some different details

Caolan Robertson and Audrey McAlpine video report, Jan. 5 gives "Tawfiq"

I had a look and his account(s) include inconsistencies, both internal (between reports) and external (with the other evidence, including with other dubious claims). Al Jazeera 2: "Tawfiq still struggles to cope with the memories of that day." 

Two ages are given - 45 and 79 - and neither seems correct. He appears to be somewhere between these, maybe around 60. (note soon after: he might be saying he's 45, having been BORN in '79. That adds up and seems possible. A very gray 45) 

Diam is not a personal or family name I recall seeing anywhere, so I assume it's Diab, but strange that it came through as Diam twice (BBC, Al Jazeera 1). But even Diab does not appear as a family name for any publicly named Douma victims. The names he gives for his four killed children all appear, more-or-less, but with the last name Bakriyeh (see list below). 11 of 35 identified victims have this very rare name and others (wives, in-laws) are also related. As I noted here and also here, the family could be prisoners taken and killed by Jaish al-Islam over their relation to a rival military commander, Mohammed Diab Bakriyeh, founder of Douma Martyrs' Brigade. 

So that should be his family name, just not given here, perhaps for a good reason. But it was revealed by Michael Weiss on X:  "One victim mentioned in this BBC report on Assad’s Douma chemical attack is Tawfiq Ali Diab Bakriyeh..." This fits with the name issue noted above, and was published before "Mr. Diab" came out with another part of this name: Ali. This name suggests he may be a nephew of the commander, perhaps the son of an older brother named Ali Diab Bakriyeh. The girls previously noted as likely relating, from the middle name Diab, are Tawfiq's alleged daughters.

Weiss continued: Mr. Bakriyeh is "...a man Russia Today and its conspiracist allies in academia and the blogosphere were looking to dox, making him susceptible to regime retribution." This takes some space to consider here. He cites and links to a 2021 article he co-authored at the US-backed propaganda outfit "Newlines" gloating over how a sleazy "sting" by regime change activists snared an anti-war academic apparently trying to work with some kind of Russian agent. Someone at the CIJA ("Commission for International Justice and Accountability" - charged with fraud in the course of their fraudulent work) managed to catch Paul McKeigue, a colleague at the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, trying to get "Ivan" (the CIJA account) to dox and expose the witness - at least as Weiss et al. characterize it. 

This is not a story I ever learned of past published articles and Paul's public statement, after which he dropped out communication with me and, as far as I know, everyone in our network. He admits some fault for falling into a trap and accidentally doxxing some his own contacts to an enemy attacker. He doesn't think his making contact with a Russian agent would be wrong (and I can only be sure that it's a wrong look), and he doesn't seem to mention the alleged spying in discussion. 

As the Newlines article explained the story:

Stephen Mangan, a reporter for Ruptly, a Russian state media organ, shared with McKeigue personal details about Syrian eyewitnesses who attested, contra the Working Group’s conspiracy theory, that a chemical attack did indeed take place in the city of Douma in April 2018. Despite Mangan’s fulsome cooperation in providing McKeigue with what would otherwise be privileged aspects of a field reporter’s findings, McKeigue was so suspicious of the countervailing evidence that he instructed “Ivan” to spy on Mangan, too.

Stephen Mangan was the Senior Verification Editor at the RT-linked Ruptly. The doxxing of the witness was apparently by Mangan, with those leaked details. It's not clear if Paul or Piers had asked for this, or if they ever had anyone "spy" on or expose him further, but I suspect this allegation was totally invented by the CIJA camp in order to smear their opponents. 

Weiss shared a later e-mail from Paul to "Ivan" - presumably provided to Newlines by CIJA - relating Mangan's report on the witness. He and Piers "are skeptical of this," he wrote, asking "how could such a witness have been overlooked by all the journalists who have previously investigated this incident, yet Mangan's stringers met him by chance in the street?" The verification chief seemed to believe the witness' story, having "verified" it however, so "either he is very gullible or he is not what he appears to be," Paul surmised. "We suspect that Mangan is up to something. ... Our suspicion is that this is some kind of "provocation" (to use the Russian term) in which Mangan will announce that his investigation has found evidence confirming that there was a chemical attack in Douma, that Ruptly has suppressed the story and he has resigned from Ruptly to tell the world." He cites Liz Wahl and Sarah Firth as doing just this in 2014, and notes "our contacts at Sputnik tell us that they also have been targeted by infiltrators." 

I can see why Paul might be skeptical of the witness and perhaps the journalist. He was deep into understanding the managed massacre of captives that probably did occur, and here's another local talking about this physically impossible "attack." And here is a Russian media figure seeming to use that account to argue back against and lead Western academics - who were miles ahead of him regarding evidence and verification - to accept the opposition narrative. That seems pretty strange to me as well. 

I did a quick search. Ruptly's "Verification Unit" dates back to at least 2019. Mangan was "of Ruptly" if not heading that in a 2020 podcast discussing Deepfakes and Manipulated Media. He was investigating in Douma and contacted Piers Robinson, reportedly, in December, 2020. In February, 2021 there was a webinar on "fact-checking excellence" with VU chief Mangan and Ruptly head of news Laura Lucchini (on LinkedIn). There was this episode soon after in March, and then nothing later that I've found. And it seems this Ruptly report never came out. Was it suppressed? I didn't see anything about a resignation to confirm Paul's suspicion, but this continues to feel a bit strange.

At any rate, this is the witness referred to, speaking with Mangan in 2019, and ending up at the center of that episode. As far as I can tell, Mangan was the only one doxxing the witness then, and Weiss is the only one publicly doxxing the man's (supposed) full name now. Of course, everyone can "speak freely" now that the regime is gone, aside from perhaps sleeper cells or the like, and Al Qeada v2.0 is running the place, so presumably it's much safer now. Maybe Weiss can finally publish the e-mail(s) he had to keep secret for containing personal details like that. 

Forced to lie for years?

Tawfiq told Yogita Limaye for the BBC report "If I'd spoken out before, Bashar al-Assad's forces would have cut off my tongue. They would have slit my throat." Both of those, at least! Possible exaggeration aside, "We were not allowed to talk about it," he says. 

There's no mention there of the coerced lies he would mention a week later to NPR's Leila Fadel; they did want him talking about it, he now says. "Syrian intelligence forced [Tawfiq] to say that it was terrorists and gunmen who killed his family. I don't know where people got the story of a chemical attack, he would say. It's made up. ...  If he didn't confirm the state's lies, he would be taken, maybe worse, he says. Syrian state TV and Russian state TV came to interview him, and he'd repeat his rehearsed story." "They even showed me pictures of my children in the attack and asked if they were mine. And I would say, no, it's fake."  He says "officers" were present "telling us that you can't say anything." Else.

Al Jazeera 1: “They told us that they didn’t use chemical weapons, but it was the terrorists and armed groups who did,” Diam recalled, with resentment. The Guardian: “After I was awake I started asking questions but police came and told me ‘don’t ask about them’,” he said, referring to his killed family. “I was arrested and spent a week at the police station. They told me ‘we will cut off your tongue’ if you speak." Wrongly.

Anadolu: "Abu Ali said the regime forced him to deny the use of chemical weapons, making him claim in Russian and Syrian media that his family had died in bombings."

Robertson/McAlpine: he was visited by the Russian media, major generals of the SAA, and "local doctors" who were "always telling me what to say: that my kids just died "during the war" not by a chemical attack. ... I am supposed to say that the smell was from dust and the odors of war remnants and artillery shells."

So he says he was forced to say that there was no attack, that there was an attack but by the terrorists, and that the terrorists killed his family, but not in that attack. He says they even made him specify that some Douma attack victims - his actual children - were not his children (did somebody say they were?). He says he repeated these lies more than once, but I haven't seen or heard of any such footage or reports ever being published. 

In an Arabic-language video interview for Asharq News, December 15, he says for "all these years" "I haven't been able to say a word." At least, none that was true.

NPR: FADEL: It must have been hard to not be able to say - to have to lie for all that time.

FADEL: "Yes," he says. 

By this, you would never see Tawfiq claiming those gassed kids as his own, or claiming they died in any chemical attack that either didn't happen or was done by the terrorists. He knew the stakes. He "buried that dangerous memory," as NPR's Fadel put it.

Nonetheless, Tawfiq has spoken at least once to Ruptly, as discussed above, in perhaps the same single interview he mentioned to Al Jazeera: "Diam added that regime officials brought along a journalist from a Russian network who requested an interview about the chemical weapons attack. He said he told the journalist and security officers what they wanted to hear under duress." 

What "lies," if any, did he tell in this interview? If it's the Ruptly one, it sounds like he told much the same story he now does, but that's not entirely clear. He probably was not explicit on the manner of attack or government blame, or else this would probably be mentioned by Weiss, if not in Paul's e-mail to "Ivan." To the extent he did hold back, that could be genuine fear or a performance of fear. But as Paul said "this witness has identified his family among the victims" of the attack, something Tawfiq now says he was forbidden to do. 

If this is the same interview mentioned above, he claims this was all said under duress by the government, forcing him to say some of the things they had also threatened to kill him or cut out his tongue for saying. Yet it seems he never was killed or de-tongued for speaking up, leaving him free to now claim that he would have been harmed if he ever spoke the truth, and that's why he had "to lie for all that time." But the very fact this guy was supposedly targeted - over suspicions upon hearing his story - is a reminder that he has, in fact, spoken up with about the same, dubious story he tells today. This raises doubts about his credibility and thus about all his different stories.  

Family / name / list issues 

(Optional section - in short, the names he gives or similar appear on lists of the dead, but half the time it's just similar. This could reflect bad research or memory on the witness' part or sloppy list-making by others - unclear)
 
No children with the family name Diab appear in published victim lists, but the 4 names Tawfiq give seem to match up - with some variable issues - with 4 entries sharing the family name Bakriyeh (listed below). As mentioned above, his full name is supposedly Tawfiq Ali Diab Bakriyeh, and he just left half of that off in these interviews. for whatever reason. Further, a man named Tawfiq should have kids with that as their patronym (middle name). According to some lists, just one of the claimed 4 does (Mohammed Tawfiq Bakriyeh), but according to other lists none do. The 2 girls tend to have Diab as their middle name - as if their father was Diab, not Tawfiq. A possible namesake son Ali (named after his grandfather) is usually given no middle name, From the list I made at the time based on the Douma-based VDC:

Mohammad Tawfeq Bakriyeh - Adult - Male [sic]

Jouri Diab Bakriyeh - Child - Female

Qamar Diab Bakriyeh - Adult - Female [sic]

Ali Bakriyeh - Adult - Male [sic] (Douma victim analysis masterlist)

Here's another where Ali also has no middle name, the girls also have Diab, and Mohammed again has Tawfik: SNHR "The Unprecedented”.pdf. I also saw a list where all 4 have Diab as a middle name, and some lists don't give any of them middle names. Ages: BBC heard they were aged between 8 and 12. NPR heard the youngest, Jouri, was in the first grade.

It's not clear how accurate any of these lists really is, but this variation could indicate a story problem. It could be Tawfiq - or a perhaps a real but deceased Tawfiq currently being portrayed by an actor - is the father of Mohamed only, or of none of them. 

NPR's Fadel was shown "Pictures of his Hali (ph = Ali), Hamar (ph = Qamar), Muhammed (ph) and Judy (ph = Joury) as babies, as toddlers, as little kids. In one, Muhammed is smiling with a fake mustache on just like his dad's. In another, his kids pose just outside the building where they were eventually killed." After Assad's fall, Tawfiq says "I put their pictures up" on Facebook, "and I wrote the martyrs of the chemical attack" now that he can speak freely. I didn't yet find this Facebook posting or try to match these to any seen victims.

A week earlier, but perhaps after that Facebook posting of "pictures" he only had one picture of the kids: BBC 12/11: "Not a day goes by when I don't think of my children," Tawfiq says pulling out the only photo he has of them, his eyes welling up with tears." It's the 4 kids outside a building. A week later, he had a bunch of photos, maybe with others helping after they saw the news story. That could be. Or maybe this was just the one he had on his phone at the time.

AJ2 says "his five children died," followed by "Tawfiq still struggles to cope with the memories" and his repeated showing of just 4 kids in photos. Had he forgotten one? Perhaps the youngest one, who was still a baby? Could be just a translation issue. Will see if that can be sorted out.

The Guardian report at least mentions the name of "his wife, Hanan." No Hanan is listed among the dead anywhere I've seen, but there's a Hanadi Bakriyeh - Adult - Female. Noting later: he says Hanadi in the video. The text report just got it wrong, among several other things. For his wife to have the same name as him would be unusual for Muslims. Was that already her name, were they Christians, or what? Perhaps the listing just got it wrong.

Fadel's report for NPR also mentioned 3 brothers: The subject Toufic/Tawfiq and "Rifat" (phonetic) - who both lived in this building with their wives and kids - and Mej (ph = Majd?), who lived nearby and rushed over to help. Mej "tried to shake their other brother awake. Rifat's (ph) bare skin would peel away at his touch. By day's end, Rifat and his whole family were dead..." There is no "Rifat" listed on any victim list, The closest is probably Rateb Bakriyeh, with at least one apparent child, Muhammad Rateb Bakriyeh. Maybe the list got it wrong, or the reporter, or the alleged survivor Tawfiq.

Add 1/1/25: I forgot to watch the Guardian video or follow up on the brother's family. Tawfiq says his brother Rateb Bakriyeh (not Rifat) and his brother's wife Insaf (listed: Insaf al-Hallaq) died, along with their 5 children (Haytham, Mohammad, Hadeel, Rahaf, and baby Jouri - all listed). NPR heard Jouri was just 40 days old. These 7 plus his own wife and 4 kids = all 11 named Bakriyeh plus one wife named Hallaq = 12 Bakriyeh deaths. He claims to be the sole survivor of this possibly targeted family, speaking for all the rest, and swearing they were sitting at home until Assad dropped gas on them.  

He shows a photo labeled Haitham (هيثم) with that nephew, seemingly aged around 15, holding baby Joury in a dark, sparse room somewhere, with a weak or sad smile. Both may be wearing exactly the clothes they would die in - a possible sign of captivity. Victim B2 as I dubbed him has a consistent age and face, and wears the same style JAKMAN shirt and perhaps the same trousers. But all the victim's clothing and perhaps hair seem lighter brown hair than in the image, where it all seems black. These could show the same boy and outfit, if the phone image is color-shifted and over-contrasted, and/or if this is from bleaching, which seems at least partly to be the case. Baby Joury is probably infant I2 (noting all white jumper and apparent hood, both of which I1 lacks). 

Rahaf was already identified somewhere as G8, pink striped sweater (visible here on the left). I cannot yet match the other 2 or any of Tawfiq's children.

Add 1/6: One source I saw (?) said Tawfiq had re-married with new children, and he's seen in a highly-decorated home with 3 children in some videos, all aged about 6 and under. But this point remains unclear. To the Guardian he says "I was able to continue with my life with the rest of the people who are here," failing to mention marrying any of them. The NPR report (no visual) says "Toufic is in his brother Mej's (ph) home just above the family tire shop" as he spoke. 

Revising the burial spot? 

This new central witness seemingly revised, in-between interviews, his story on his family's burial spot. The BBC report from December 11 includes this:
"Khalid and Tawfiq took us to a mound by the side of a road, a short drive away. They believe this is where the regime took their family's bodies and buried them in a mass grave. Looking down on the ground, amid gravel, mud and stones, pieces of bones are visible, although it's not possible to tell if they are human remains." 
The spot is shown in a photo with Tawfiq and another alleged survivor, Khaled Nusseir, at a barren lot next to some kind of park, captioned "the victims could have been buried in a mass grave." Tawfiq says he knew this spot where his family was likely buried and looked towards it tearfully at times, but he never visited it until now because the regime "would have executed me." The report notes "Tawfiq wants the graves to be dug up, so he can give his family a dignified funeral."

This spot was previously reported as the opposition's secret burial site (Kobs geolocation - f/c). Mr. Nusseir himself said it was near the zoo, and the government soon reported a terrorist mass grave was discovered just south of Jalaa park, next to the Douma zoo. Large-scale digging was done just south of there around March, 2018. Then the opposition SNHR mapped this spot as where the regime dug up the bodies - all back in 2018 (me on X). 


Michael Kobs on X questions this site's relevance, noting little change between satellite views, and that's worth considering. But I wonder how different it would look after bodies were added and then removed again, I still see a likely body-moving truck added to the site, maybe ready to remove any more bodies they found, and I remain impressed with how sources on both sides pointed to this spot with strange digging. Why dig in advance, back in March? The government offensive was well along by then and Jaish al-Islam's grip on Douma seemed doomed. They expected deaths, maybe of some hostages they didn't want to release, and this spot was likely prepared for that purpose.

Either way, most sources in and outside Douma have agreed for years this is where the bodies were until the government took them away. Yet in December 2024, Tawfiq and maybe Khaled still think - or pretend to think - the bodies are still buried here. "Tawfiq wants the graves to be dug up." But just a week after tearfully highlighting this spot, it seems he changed his mind and said the government took the bodies away, and now he doesn't know where they went. "FADEL: He doesn't even know where his family's buried. He says the bodies were taken by the regime." In fact, by the 14th, the Guardian (video) report heard "to this day, he is still not even sure where their bodies were taken by regime forces."

"Taken by the regime" can be read as from the attack site, whereas everybody knows it was the White Helmets who took the bodies away on April 8, well before Syrian forces controlled the area. And many people including me have known for years where they were reportedly buried and later exhumed. But more logically, he refers to the same removal from that mass grave everyone else already knew about; he finally got on board with what everybody else has been saying for years. 

But why the delay? Did he just learn about the body removal in between interviews, or what? Maybe he didn't get out much. But was Khaled Nusseir, who joined them on this trip, also just out of the loop all these years? Some kind of error by the reporter also seems possible, but it seems like a hard error to make. This looks like a serious discrepancy, but one so big it barely makes sense and fairly well begs another answer. 

Add 1/6: As Caolan Robertson and Audrey McAlpine wrapped up their interview, Tawfiq wanted to show them something remote. He drives there on a motorcycle as they follow in the hazy dusk. At the site the narrator says "this is known as slaughter street, the site of the mass graves where his family are buried" (present tense). A promo post with the photo at right said "He is pointing at the grave where they were buried, in secret, by the regime." He's pointing down into the trench where it doesn't seem that any digging occurred (but did it? this trench was formed at the same time of burial - between March 26 and April 13). The video report has Tawfiq saying "After the regime entered Douma, they dug up the bodies and took them to an abandoned building and burned them with diesel. I wish I was with my family. I wish I wasn't alive." It's not clear how he learned these details and no more, and it's unclear if he says they were re-buried here afterwards "in secret" or if, as said elsewhere, he has no idea where they were taken.

Other Issues

5 or "5 or 6" men survived? 
In 2018, as I noted, alleged survivor Khaled Nusseir said exactly five people from his basement survived. Diab is one we never clearly heard from, and he's more fuzzy on the number: "Just five or six men in this compound survived," he says in the BBC report, presumably including himself now. "Even I almost died. I was in hospital for 10 days," he also said. Maybe no one noticed him surviving, being taken to a hospital, recovering 10 days later and then, as he says, staying a week at the police station. I don't suppose that's the explanation, but his story seems to leave room for it. 

Attack details / Inside-outside issues 

Tawfiq is clear in reporting an aerial and thus government chemical attack as others do: "The chemical barrel came from up there, and it left a hole. The chemicals leaked into the building." (NPR) Guardian video: they were home at 7:05 pm when the attack happened. (Add 1/2: In this video, he says "I smelled the smell. It was 7:03.") This is some 1/2 hour before the accepted attack. Maybe it was just a last noted time before the attack?   

NPR: "That night, Toufic says, he heard booms. He and his family rushed to the basement for shelter, like they always did when strikes and fighting between the regime and rebels intensified, thinking it would be safer. But once they noticed the strong smell of chlorine and disinfectant, they tried to get outside." Note they knew to go up and/or to fresher air once the heavier-than-air gas sank into the basement. Everybody in Douma reportedly knew this, and it's just why people braved the gas to go back inside and sometimes even up to the 2nd floor.

BBC: "Tawfiq said his family was just outside his ground floor home when the bombs hit. "I heard an explosion and people shouted on the streets 'chemicals, chemicals'. I came running out. There was a foul smell." So just he was hiding in the basement while the rest were gathered outside for some reason? Note: there wouldn't be an "explosion," just a heavy thud followed by a minutes-long gas release.   

To Al-Jazeera 2, he says there was a "powerful explosion" when the cylinder hit, and then he heard neighbors out in the street shouting "chemical!" "I rushed out, saw yellow smoke in the air (gesturing a rising, expanding plume of the heavier-than-air gas rising from something, as it also sank into the house). Then, maybe since he saw it rising, "I immediately took my family to the basement," contrary to common sense, widely known protocol, and his other accounts. Same report: "Tawfiq still struggles to cope with the memories of that day." 

Islamchannel; "my children died on the stairs. Some people died outside at the basement's door.
they thought that I had died." He also says people call him Abu Ali (next entry). 

Anadolu: "Abu Ali, a resident who lost his wife and four children in the 2018 attack" and they're named "Omer, 12; Ali, 11; Muhammed, 10; and Cudi, 8." To Anadolu, he said "the family had been sheltering in a basement but “I had stepped out to get food for my family. As I returned, I saw people dying at the shelter's entrance. Then I lost consciousness.”

So it's quite unclear in what order and why he and the others went to and escaped the basement, or if he was even there, but after this... BBC: "I saw yellow foam coming out of people's mouths. My children were not able to breathe, they were choking. I saw people lying in the street," he says. Guardian video: "I crawled here." NPR: "FADEL: So he just pointed to the road right in front of the building, and he said, all - I laid here. All of the bodies were right here and in the entryway of this building." 

They were out in the street, foaming and passing out on the street, he too passes out and lays there, all out there and also just inside - mostly inside, actually, and a bit up on the 2nd floor, but either way ... not carried all that far from the truck, as I see it, before they abandoned the operation with one body still on the stretcher. But he uses different words to over-explain this scene.

No water to wash with?
"Diab" told NPR "Right before [the attack], an explosive barrel was dropped in this neighborhood, so the - all the water tanks were broken, so we couldn't even wash with water." Islamchannel: "some went into the open apartments to wash but there was no water." He claimed to rush outside first thing before passing out there. When did he ever try a sink or see anyone else trying? 

Other reports are explicit on the victims successfully washing their faces and hair at every available sink, faucet, or basin on the ground floor and second floor, and doing nothing else before they keeled over and died (apparently, people in Free Syria think washing your skin with water helps your lungs stop melting, and I guess that's why they say regime cut off the water). Their deaths or immobilization seemed so sudden to the OPCW that the victims weren't even covering their faces yet - the first thing most would do in less than a second - or turning to escape the gas ("The victims do not appear to have been in the midst of attempting self-extrication or respiratory protection when they collapsed, indicating a very rapid or instant onset."). But they did allegedly manage to wash their faces and hair before they fell. Hm...

Images from 2-3 hours after the "attack" show many victims with faces recently washed, hair still wet, with damp rags nearby. It seems they were washed by someone - with ample water - less than an hour before, or well after the victims had died, perhaps trying to wash the soot off of some or to scrub off the worsening yellow-brown stains. (see the mysterious washing of faces and hair and below). It's possible someone brought in water to do this, for whatever reasons, but the stories of people washing at the sinks and Tawfiq's story of no water cannot both be true (and I don't think either is). 

Yellow foam 
"...I saw yellow foam coming out of people's mouths. My children were not able to breathe, they were choking. I saw people lying in the street," he says. Asharq news auto-translate renders yellow foam as "butter," something I've seen happen before. This sounds like something that appears instantly on exposure when real-world pulmonary edema usually takes hours to form, and probably no less than 30 minutes. Also this foam is unusually yellow, later shifting to brown. See next entry.  

Skin issues
NPR: "Rifat's (ph) bare skin would peel away at his touch." This is a strange thing to say. Neither chlorine nor sarin nor whatever was actually used usually causes skin to peel away, and I don't think I've seen that on any bodies, nor do I have an offhand guess what he might be talking about. 

Side-note: The Guardian's report also heard from Abdulhadi Sariel, 64, from across the street, with a weird description of the dead: “No one in that basement came out alive. Their bodies turned to black, their clothes went green and were burnt, they crumbled and stuck to their bodies. The clothes looked like wood,” he said. nothing like what we actually see, and I don't even have a guess what he's referring to.

The victims do have unusual skin issues attesting to a horrible death: irritation and often a worsening yellow-then-brown discoloration on the upper face, which I've never seen before and seems like a special clue to how they died. Their edema foam is also unusually yellow, then brown later on. (see Douma's mask of death part 1) Why that effect in the mucous and in the skin effect there? Why are their eyes universally free of redness that chlorine exposure usually causes? (Tawfiq says in this video "my eyes turned red" though he wouldn't see his own eyes, no one else had the slightest redness. Robertson/McAlpine: "I was in intensive care. They put on oxygen mask and my eye was [swollen] and my [cheek] also they were red like this." ) 

And why does the skin effect have exclusions around their eyes in the shape of swimming goggles? I propose an answer here; they didn't die from sarin or chlorine exposure but from something - perhaps as simple as diesel exhaust - that produces nitric acid on contact with water. Unlike chlorine's hydrochloric acid, nitric acid is known to cause yellow-then-brown discoloration in skin and other body proteins (like in mucous). 

Like chlorine, this gas/smoke was probably not paralytic, so someone hanging around long enough to breath a fatal amount could mean they were trapped or tied down. In fact, my best explanation for all signs is that the victims were bound upside-down at the time of exposure, and bizarrely fitted with swimming goggles (or similar), as the pattern of skin effect suggests. Even not going that far, some top toxicologists, consulted and then ignored by the OPCW investigation, agreed a simple irritant would not very well explain victims dropping in place, even in piles, when there was an available exit so close by.  They almost have to have been trapped or bound for some time, and there is no room for this other death at all in Tawfiq's story of an attack on his home, or in the many similar stories lodged by others. And a story with no room for the relevant facts is not a trustworthy story.

A sarin myth supporter 
The original explanation for so many dropping dead from a simple irritant was that sarin was also used. This never made much sense, and of course no sarin traces were found, so we've been left with this mystery. But Tawfiq helps revive the original explanation.

BBC: "There was a foul smell. ..." A "foul" and also "strange" smell - a bit like rotting flesh but not quite like anything they've ever smelled - is exactly how people most often describe the highly impure sarin used in Syria. Chlorine has a distinct "clean" smell most people recognize - "bleach and disinfectants" - and that few would describe as "foul." I don't suspect he actually smelled the nerve agent, but it's interesting that he uses this word, as if he knows a few things about the stuff. Does he want us to believe he smelled sarin? 

The sarin claims Tawfiq perpetuates - perhaps unwittingly - also came with reports of over 100 dead. It's unclear how he would know the full death toll or where all these other people died, but "Tawfiq says there were more than 100 dead."  It's a belief shared with sheikhs Abu Omar Burkush & Abu Azzoun, highly sectarian Sunni activists allied with Jaish al-Islam. Both men were insiders for this and the 2013 Ghouta chemical massacre of, I suspect, captives in some sort of gas chambers. They would say in 2019 that exactly 187 were killed, seen by them and counted down in "the bunkers," whereas neither man is seen in any video from the supposed crime scene. They also mentioned secondary contamination chlorine doesn't cause, suggesting sarin was used after all. 

Add 1/2: TRT also spoke with Basel Oyoun who said "we buried 130 people" killed in this attack, and the narrator was left saying: "what compound was used is still not clear." 

Imprisonment? A Militant? 

Anadolu: "He also said he was imprisoned for 18 months in various detention centers, adding that he was tortured for six years by a regime-affiliated officer who sought to suppress the truth about the chemical attack." The 6-year torture should be mostly in-home, after release.

Add 1/6: Robertson/McAlpine: "I was held and brutally tortured in many interrogation branches. In Harasta prison the 10th wing I was held for 8 months, getting tortured. The prison warden told me if you ever spoke about it, the next time you'll be sent to Sednaya."

NPR cited a "family tire shop," Islamchannel called him "a car mechanic," he has deeply dirty hands at all times, and is repeatedly seen with or riding a motorcycle. It could be he is a motorcycle mechanic, and previously worked for Jaish al-Islam, and maybe general agent or part-time fighter, perhaps involved in the chemical massacre, and arrested on those grounds? As noted, the victims may have died from prolonged exposure to diesel exhaust (probably the most common source for the nitric acid that seemingly killed them). Could a mechanic like him help rig this up? He also says their bodies were burned later, with diesel fuel. Why does the mechanic know that?

He sounds like a serious supporter of the new government, anyway: Guardian: "we waited for God's justice and God bestowed mercy on us and the liberation army and their leader Ahmed al-Sharaa may Allah support him" Robertson/McAlpine: "May the God take revenge from Iran and Russia. Those were helping the regime, killing our children and our families."

Tawfiq in summary, some others, calls for investigation
Summarizing the accounts of Tawfiq Ali Diab Bakriyeh: he claims that he was forbidden to speak of the chemical attack or how it killed his children, and forced to tell contrary stories. But this clashes with his prior telling, to a rather strange Ruptly reporter, how his wife and children were killed in the chemical attack. The details remain unclear, and he likely did avoid explicit blame - either in fear or in a performance of fear. But this raises questions about his reliability. 

The slow-revealing of his name and giving two incorrect ages are both unusual. The names of his claimed children, wife, and brother are given differently than previously listed, but it's not clear what this means. He seems to revise his family's burial spot, in between interviews, from current to former, as if just learning the bodies were reportedly exhumed and moved, as even I knew 6 years ago. 

There's a strange variance in attack details, with "powerful explosion" sounds that shouldn't happen, a sinking gas they smelled vs. a rising gas he saw, and whether they left or entered the basement upon learning it was a chemical attack. Like many others, he reports sudden foam and unconsciousness chlorine does not cause in reality. He claims there was no water when he probably wouldn't know and there apparently was, and everyone else says there was. Finally, two points of possible adherence to the original sarin claims ("foul smell," over 100 killed) raise the possibility that he's promoting that  narrative previously maintained by Islamist insiders. 

I wouldn't say this is the shadiest witness I've seen, but it's also not a great record. Based on these qualifications as a supposedly genuine survivor, NPR's Fadel saw fit to pass on Tawfiq's deep desire for a new investigation, apparently to improve on the OPCW's existing probes by blaming Assad even more clearly. "We want an investigation," Tawfiq said. "We want them to come and investigate. We want the rights of our children, our rights as well." To him, this means "Everybody who was involved [should] get prosecuted."

The BBC report crowed how witnesses can "speak freely for the first time" now that the Assad regime is gone; under the new, Al-Qaeda-spawned government, political pressure on witnesses and terroristic threats can be totally ruled out. This story featured three witnesses including Tawfiq, all seemingly locals who just happened by. Tawfiq was not speaking for the first time and, as far as I can tell, had already told much the same story back in 2021. 

Another was a well-known alleged witness from 2018:  Khalid Nusseir (here Naseer)  "Khalid Naseer says his baby daughter Nour, his two-year-old son Omar, and his pregnant wife Fatima were also killed in the 2018 chlorine attack." (error note: earlier he said 2 daughters died, Nour and Qamar, not a son and a daughter. Qamar can sound like Omar, and might be presumed a "son".) Previously, Khaled said he said he smelled a strange gas, but drank some water and all was fine, failing to mention anyone dying, yet still pointedly disagreeing with a crowd of other witnesses that there was not even a strange gas. He also said in a different setting that his wife, 9-months pregnant, and his two infant girls all died in the attack, which he blamed on the just-defeated Jaish al-Islam. Amid a string of accusations against them and the White Helmets, Khaled speculated that the cylinder didn't seem dropped from the sky but set there by hand and opened. (others said much the same, but this doesn't match the evidence of manual placement of the cylinder AND the bodies).  (see "the witnesses who don't blame Assad"). He says he found his 2 girls in the basement 10+ hours after he passed out at a clinic, then carried them to the hospital, while 2 girls in a photo match - for almost the exact clothing - with 2 girls removed early (but from the first floor, not the basement - see here). I don't think any of his story is true, but he seems to have accurate inside information about body removal, and he was the first to say the bodies were buried near the zoo.

Now that he can "speak freely," this highly unreliable alleged witness blames the just-defeated side again. But this time, we can definitely trust him? He says "The whole world knows Bashar al-Assad is an oppressor and a liar, and that he killed his own people" and "We want fresh investigations into the attack" because "He says the testimony given by many to the OPCW fact-finding mission in 2019 was not reliable." 

"Abdul Rahman Hijazi, one of the eyewitnesses who testified before the mission," also happened by and spoke to BBC, saying "he was forced to give the regime's version of events." ... "They told me to say that people were killed because of dust inhalation not chemicals." He claims he was threatened with death to do this, but then he and his family "were shunned by the community for years after he gave the testimony. He found it tough to get a job. ... Now he also wants a fresh investigation." So Hijazi previously denied an attack, perhaps just due to the political situation and threats that came with it, but in the new situation under Salafist rule, with its own crimes to conceal and myths to perpetuate, seeking community acceptance and improved job prospects, we're to assume his word can finally be trusted as free from coercion or influence. 

Some had reported smelling no gas where they were, or speculating that people had died from smoke and dust. Several claim they were compelled to say this, and it seems entirely possible, if stupid. But a government-enforced denial of an attack doesn't prove there was an attack - they could just see it as suppressing misinformation and they could be right. These accounts were never as relevant as some think, and were pretty well overruled by the investigators with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as they pointed to government guilt for the attack. 

Most of the news reports I've cited unquestioningly point to the reports of the OPCW, ignoring revelations that key findings, notably in the areas of ballistics and toxicology, were censored and altered to achieve the ridiculous final product. NPR: "Assad's government denied ever using chemical weapons. And its ally Russia said the Douma attack was "staged"." The OPCW's own engineering sub-team also concluded the gas cylinder impacts were probably staged manually ("there is a high probability that both cylinders were placed ... manually rather than dropped from an aircraft.") This is what Khaled said, and anyone can see this for themselves in the available images. But this was "corrected" in the end, overruled and replaced, and now this obvious fact is presented as nothing but Russian disinformation. 

The same kind of distorted product has followed prior alleged CW attacks in Syria, in my assessment, elevating, diminishing, or ignoring evidence seemingly based on whatever helps to blame the targeted government. But never before Douma were there whistleblowers and leaks to show us there was more real science involved, perhaps in all these cases, but it was being suppressed. Is this why someone decided Douma in particular needs a new probe? Is there some stupid way to re-investigate everything now to blame Assad even more clearly, and pretend even harder that the science agrees with the implausible, contradictory and propagandistic accounts of alleged survivors, militant occupiers and their allied "civil defense"? How are all these chance-encounter witnesses getting this same memo and calling for a "fresh investigation"?   

We do indeed need a new investigation, for this and other alleged chemical attacks, that can truly follow the science instead of the regime-change agendas of certain state sponsors. According to the last best word of that science, a genuine crime against Humanity transpired in Douma on April 7, 2018; the mass murder of perhaps 187 kidnapped civilians, using toxic chemicals under circumstances a great many labor to obscure. 

But the investigation these guys want would, I fear, even better absolve the true criminals. It would "verify" again that Assad's chlorine barrel bombs punched through or not-quite-through 2 roofs, one of them bouncing onto a bed and the other spraying explosive fragments before stopping outside the hole it made, and this time with zero dissent. It would find that all the unexplained signs and symptoms are due to sarin mixed with the chlorine after all; the prior science to the contrary just needs re-written. It would accept new samples loaded with fresh sarin and assume most traces at the time were vanished from the whole environment by Syria and/or Russia. And such a probe would also seek to raise the death toll, I predict, to 187 or probably even higher, based on verbal claims and maybe shocking new "discoveries."

This probe would hold officials of the old regime fully to account for what they were found to have done, maybe along with all the Alawites, and would advocate punishments for Russia, or Iran or whatever other enemies they want to implicate. But it would never pursue punishment at all for Assad's grave violations of the laws of physics. In fact, these offenses seem to be encouraged and necessary for the regime-change machine.  

The only parts that would need done differently: there can be no contradictory ("unreliable") witnesses who might be coached (by the wrong side). There can be no honest engineering study or toxicology assessment to erase and replace halfway through the process; vague approvals of the told stories will be sought the first time around. Finally, this time they need to completely stop any whistleblowers from revealing the true process. The OPCW will need less ethical employees and/or tighter controls. 

Or maybe this is how the OPCW's demise begins. Considered untrustworthy due to allowing leaks in the past, the organization will be deemed unfit to handle the urgent re-investigation of Douma. Perhaps a new body will be floated to handle that and other such things in the future, and these alleged witnesses were sent out to set the stage for this.