Mariupol Theater Bombing: Molfar "Destroys" Russian "Propaganda Bloc" in Edinburgh

March 28, 2022

Note: A previous overview post on the theater bombing to leave as-is, updates and changes will be reflected in new posts like this (rough, to refine maybe).  

edits 3/29

A new attack piece in the Times addresses yet again the urgent problem of academics in the Uniuted Kingdom raising questions - a frequent theme at the Times and elsewhere. Again they apply some pressure that might have another dissenter - Tim Hayward, professor of environmental political theory at the University of Edinburgh - sacked or shut up somehow. 

This latest published article by paid, mainstream "journalists" was based on a March 19 tweet (deleted? screen grab by self-appointed Witchfinder General Chris D. York) wherein Hayward shamelessly shared a March 18 article from Max Blumenthal at the Gray Zone about the Mariupol Theater bombing on the 16th. That article was described as being (or at least containing) "the propaganda of the Russian government," which the non-sacked professor was now spreading. That was again news. Very bad news. 

For this important attack on a professor - over a tweet - about someone else's article - the Times  commissioned a Ukrainian open-source investigation group called Molfar, who claim to be "the next frontier of intelligence." They partner financially with the US and Ukrainian government, as Bumenthal notes. Surely they could cut through state-backed propaganda efforts and show these alleged "questions" to be some kind of unacceptable Russian lies.

Molfar published a "step-by-step" explanation that proves handy in tracking down their missteps. In fact, I didn't see any other kind of steps. https://teletype.in/@molfar/DkDhLfvbeVt

Molfar specialists have conducted an operational investigation for one of the world's most important resources – Thetimes.co.uk, digital version of the newspaper The Times. We tell step by step how everything happened and what results were achieved. Another step-by-step case with the result in the form of a destroyed propaganda bloc of Russia and one accused of propaganda...

Really, they crafted a crude straw effigy to burn in another witch hunt. They conflate claims from Russian media and officials, with reports from locals in Eastern Ukraine, and from other parties, along with Blumenthal's own thoughts, and take it all, sloppily, as "a propaganda bloc of Russia." Some "lies" were supposedly found, "destroying" that bloc as they say. But anything REAL they might have done was not included in this explanation. 

First, Some Valid Issues 

Blumenthal's piece was a welcome addition that elevated some very interesting questions. But on my one quick read (so far), it seemed far from perfect. For example "all civilians appear to have escaped with their lives" - that was both alleged/implied and also quite disputed, so it really appeared unclear.  The article might stretch and force some other points too, whereas the evidence is actually more mixed - this and the backlash inspires me to really try and just ask questions and let the answers emerge when they do. But then Molfar kept annoying me...

Witness issues in particular need more careful attention. Accounts passed on by Russian and separatist media and thence the Gray Zone, etc. have the Azov Battalion in charge of the shelter as a base, and "holding" 1,000 people there and rigging bomb in the roof to detonate on them, but in the end perhaps everyone left, or some 300 remained ... mostly text accounts, largely second-hand - compelling, but unclear - one worth knowing, translation perhaps needed: Irina (one posting on Twitter)   

Those who have spoken to western media don't mention any of that militant activity, or fears of an on-site bomb, and describe an open shelter were people were free to come and go, mainly deciding to go based on Russian bombs falling too close. So far it seems the latter are greater in number, with more specific accounts, largely with names and faces attached - one account from an editor in Kyiv sounds kind of ... edited to Kiev's tune, but otherwise they sound legitimate.  (note 3/29: what must be that editor's youngest daughter, the bubbly Maria from Mariupol adds little credibility, IMO) 

In the past, I have had to consider whole sets of witnesses lodging two conflicting stories (or two+ classes of internally conflicting stories) where one set at least had to be lying - it does happen. But it's always worth trying to correlate all versions with a middle reality people saw differently, and that seems broadly possible here. It also seems likely enough that one set of witness accounts or witness-based claims is largely based on lies, maybe assisted by confusion. I hope to make more time to hear from people who were there, or claim to have been there - primary source evidence, alleged and real, not just 2nd hand claims and guesses possibly colored by ideology. 

Until I have done that, no further word, and my main point would be it's not really clear what to make of the witness record. Likewise the physical evidence is not conclusive, that I can see. So as I see it, whoever is asking a question wins on principle over someone claiming a sure fact. Blumenthal asked "Was bombing of Mariupol theater staged by Ukrainian Azov extremists to trigger NATO intervention?" He did suggest the answer was quite likely yes, but still it's a question. Professor Hayward shared the link to a piece and asked: “What do we know of the reality?” If there was one exact best question to raise, that might be it. Emphasis mine

In contrast: "Molfar experts are always eager to help find out the truth, and will provide an indisputable amount of evidence against Russian ideologues," and they'll do that without becoming ideological themselves, because they were ideological and nothing but, before they even set out. They had to scoff at Hayward's misread "pathetic question: "What do we know about reality?"" (not THE reality of THE event, but about anything at all). Answering the misread question, they pontificate with misplaced hostility: 

"And we know the following about reality: if you lie, you will be found, your guilt will be proved, you will be deprived of status and regalia, you may even be accused of criminal involvement. In general, with the support of Russian propaganda, the whole civilized world will turn away from you."

Now how does a whole team of supposedly investigative-minded people come across sounding this unhinged?

Seven Big "Lies"

Molfar thinks they found so many lies here they had to narrow it down to seven biggest ones to explain in detail. To some extent, these are points I found slightly weak, so I'll include my own notes. "Exposed lies" include what they would call:

* three fallacies filed under "Arguments of Max Blumenthal and the Russian media: «The fighters of the Azov Battalion themselves blew up the building, where their headquarters was located»" 

* three examples of misusing the claims and experiences of locals to support those lies, and finally 

* an appeal to lack of visual evidence 

That might sound good, but check this out. 

Lie #1: Azov Battalion base: "based on a video uploaded March 11, the theater at that time really did shelter civilian residents of Mariupol" 

And therefore ... it could not be a military position as alleged? They don't clarify the significance. The theater was allegedly a base for firing positions in certain areas, upper floor probably, that also sheltered people in other areas, including the basement. That's HOW Azov was allegedly able to wire bomb over the heads of hundreds of people in a shelter. Blumenthal didn't deny people were sheltering in this likely militant base, he just questioned the number of them, and he did so citing that same video: "Only a small group of civilians could be seen in the video, however." That suggestion MIGHT be misleading, but I don't see any lie here, and no new reason to doubt the serious and compelling allegation Molfar seeks to bury. 

Lie #2:On-site bomb: Russian media also claimed that Azov Battalion fighters planted explosives on and under the roof" but team Molfar somehow knows booby-trapped buildings are always seen "collapsing from below, “sitting down” and “folding down” and, furthermore, the whole building would be destroyed, whereas "in the photo of the drama theater, only part of the building was destroyed, which is typical for a shell hit from the air." 

This sounds like gibberish to me. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me if an air bomb can do this, then a stationary one of the same power could do just as well. 

We have a blast seemingly centered in the raised "attic" area, where the Azov bomb was described as being (roughly as shown here). We still have Russia denying an airstrike, and no one alleging it has produced a radar track or any kind of evidence to counter it. Molfar offers this nonsense forensic opinion and nothing else, then proceeds to consider a Russian bomb as a known fact. That really feels like an ideological choice. 

Lie #3:shifting stories from "the Russian side" - whole text for this one: 

Information about the plans to blow up the building was allegedly reported to the Russian side by a fugitive fighter of the Azov battalion, including the number of civilians in the theater building. However, after the announcement that the bomb shelter had withstood the explosion, the Russian side suddenly announced that the Azov militants had allowed civilians to leave the building before the explosion of the Drama Theater and they were able to evacuate. These inconsistencies cast doubt on the veracity of the information about the fugitive fighter and the reliability of his words as a whole.

They have their sources muddled, I think, but I'm a bit unclear myself. It seemed like "local sources" compiled by DPR/LPR "News Aggregator" are credited for the main, detailed prediction of March 12, with a bomb rigged in the building. Other re-located locals (at least two of them) reported first that Azov allowed everyone to go (see here), and then another said that not quite everyone went, some 300 were left behind (see here). An Azov defector was separately reported to have leaked information on the theater situation, details unspecified. Screen grab of what I've heard included right here. 

Hardly anyone noticed those reports, but Molfar is aware of the "alleged" Azov defector and keen on discrediting this obscure man. I'm more compelled by his allegations now, and come to think of it...

It is POSSIBLE this defector is the original "local sources" and that might explain why some sources knew of a rigged bomb and most others didn't; he had insider knowledge they lacked. And consider if so, he defected by March 12, when that prediction went out. Molfar seems to assume that. That prediction might cause a plan change, with Azov letting people go, but his story was already lodged; it wouldn't suddenly become inconsistent - he just didn't have a crystal ball to predict that change back on the 12th. Molfar only trusts witnesses who have crystal balls and the correct political views. 

Then, after pretending accounts attributed to locals were just "suddenly announced" by "the Russian side," Molfar turns to "the words of civilians in the published material" as cited by Blumenthal to support that "Russian propaganda bloc." 

Lie 4: A witness claiming Azov Battalion blew up the theater was found to have pro-Russian views. They looked it up on VK, and she or someone looking a lot like her held pro-Russian views.  

That's all they needed to say on this 1/7 of their biggest lies. Her account could all be true, but her views disqualify it from consideration. As it happens, her account seemed a little vague and mostly second-hand to me, but still of some potential value. 

Lie 5: "The article's author, Max Blumenthal, also cites a March 11 video shot in the theater as evidence of local residents being used for “Azov” fighters’ needs. However, the video itself was filmed and provided by Azov fighters ..." 

Above, his ignoring the civilians proven by this video was one of the big lies they focused on. Here, his citing the same video of civilians is another big lie. Azov provided the video of civilians, so people were sheltered there AND Azov had access. But FWIW, that doesn't prove anything. 

Lie #6: a cited video with no words was posted by a Serbian person with bad politics, and that was the posting Blumenthal cited, if maybe not the original source. 

As far as Molfar could find, the video showed the relevant criminality it was "purported" to show - Azov Battalion trapping citizens in the city, attacking those who tried to flee. Other evidence Molfar didn't touch also supports this view. Yet they focused on this video and mainly on the political views of someone who posted it. 

I did see somebody claiming that violent footage from a highway checkpoint was from Mariupol in 2014. While I couldn't find an example to prove that, it seemed possible, so I didn't cite that video. Now I see the Molfar crew presumably investigated the open sources better than I did or could have (?), maybe sparked by the same unexplained comment. And it seems they could only raise vague doubts in the end, as they fell back on more ideological screening. Seeing that, it seems more likely that video is relevant. Still, it's not clear, and ideally it shouldn't take space from anything that is clear. 

Lie #7: "And the final argument is that there is no video of the attack on the theater!" Molfar acknowledged the relative lack of visual evidence, but offered this clear and complete answer:

The lack of photo and video materials is explained by a simple fact: a full-scale war is going on in Ukraine, and the city of Mariupol itself, where the attack on the Drama Theater took place, has been surrounded by Russian troops since the beginning of March. Local residents are practically cut off from communications, electricity, and regular food and water supplies. Even humanitarian convoys with the necessary products cannot enter the city through the checkpoints of the Russian military. In such isolation, people simply do not have the technical ability to share enough information, photos and videos from the scene.

Of course there was the war, spotty communications, limited electricity, dangerous conditions - all could explain some lack and some delay in reports and images. But even considering that, the visual record and news updates were extremely vague and infrequent and tended to show a totally vacant scene over and over (albeit not that many times over). 

This allowed for certain conclusions like no rescue effort, and maybe no one trapped, like it was all a "hoax." But as it played out, these views were challenged by the next reports and images to surface. That too could be a natural effect of a war-staggered flow of information. Moflar decided this is the sole reason we don't see much of the main events, and a natural let-up in these limitations must explain how we suddenly saw a lot more of it after a 9 day wait, on the 25th. But they did not and cannot prove this is all natural, and their very denials might even underline the importance of standing questions about all that. Either way, the flow of images and reports seemed interesting enough to address in a separate post (forthcoming).