Propaganda Series 2/4: The Truth About Bucha You've Never Seen Before

Was Bucha really a Russian-induced massacre, or did the Ukrainians and the West plan a cover up? I provide an objective, unbiased evidence-backed analysis to reveal the truth.

This paper reveals the truth about Bucha, backed only by objective, logical and sensible analysis, as well as unbiased evidence.¹

I have read all the major arguments and evidence proposed surrounding Bucha – those that argue for Ukraine, and those that argue for Russia.

On the balance of probabilities, sifting through the narratives, the evidence weighs much more favourably towards the fact that Ukrainian neo-Nazis were responsible for the dead bodies in Bucha.²

That means the narrative that the large majority of the public believes, including what is proposed on Wikipedia,³ is false, and I will prove this with unbiased evidence, logic and reason.

I will first introduce the Russian argument, then the Ukrainian argument, and then my own argument that pieces the puzzle together. The article is quite long given I’ve critically assessed every major piece of information available on the Bucha crisis. If you want to get straight to the juicy part that pieces this whole puzzle together (i.e. my own objective analyses that I have yet to see anywhere else in the public), I suggest skipping straight to Part 3.

1. Russia’s Position

The official Russian position as proposed by the Kremlin is that the Bucha corpses were a staged act.

The Russians propose three general pieces of evidence as to what really happened in Bucha, all which fail on an objective analysis.

a. Footage From Ukrainian Media Of Dead Bodies Supposedly Moving

First, the Russians cite footage from the Espresso.TV Ukrainian media channel, where it was argued by the Kremlin that the dead corpses on the ground were moving. In the video below, Russia argues the corpse moves at approximately the 0:16 second mark.

Upon closer inspection of the footage, the Ukrainians are correct in that such footage of the man in front of the car, was not moving his hand and playing dead as the Russians claim. Instead, looking more closely, it does seem to be a raindrop. At the very least, thinking like a judge assessing this for a U.N. crime, it is not so evidently clear ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’⁴ that the man did in fact move.

In regards to another piece of similar footage which the Russians try to rely on, it seems to be that in the footage a body looked like it was moving through the mirror as the car drove past. The Ukrainian’s claim that “the image is distorted” and that’s why it looks like the body was moving.

https://twitter.com/SPITFIREVA/status/1510650964293869583

I leave the video here for you to decide. If we are being objective, the truth is that such evidence alone again isn’t so convincing that the corpses were staged – at least not in a court of law. The image needs to be much clearer if we are to be definitely sure the corpse was moving. The greatest evidence weighing towards the Kremlins argument that it was staged, therefore largely falls on this evidence – it isn’t good enough. On the facts that the Russians propose here, it seems that there is no grounds to prove Ukraine staged the Bucha killings.

b. Suspicion Surrounding Dates of Bucha Events

The second argument Russia relies upon to justify its claim that Ukraine staged the Bucha killings, focuses on analysing the exact dates surrounding the Bucha event.

Russia claims Ukraine announced liberation on March 30th,⁵ and notable claims of dead corpses arose afterwards around April 2^nd, only after the Azov went back into Bucha (as admitted by the New York Times).⁶

As a result, Russia argues that the Azov could have re-entered Bucha to stage the killings that were reported only days later around April 4th. What makes Russia’s argument more plausible here is the actions of the Bucha Mayor on March 30th, when he announced liberation.

Specifically, on March 30th, the Bucha Mayor announced liberation in an extremely jovial manner; his celebrations didn’t mention any dead bodies or supposed atrocities. Combined with the fact that the Azov did re-enter into Bucha April 2nd, and claims of Russian crimes announced only after the Azov re-entered, Russia on its face does seem to have a legitimate point in regards to being suspicious as to what exactly happened between March 30th and April 2 when the Azov were in town. It really doesn’t make sense why the Mayor would not have announced crimes on March 30th, but instead only after April 2 when the Azov had re-entered Bucha. In that timeframe, it’s possible that the Azov could have staged a crisis. I think anybody thinking objectively can sympathise with the Russians here and see the value in their points. Objectively speaking, people would be less suspicious had the Bucha Mayor announced the atrocities on March 30th.

With that being said, in a court of law, this argument around dates is not enough to substantially verify that the Azov staged the Bucha killings, particularly in the March 30th - April 2nd timeframe. Could it have been possible? Yes it could have been possible. Is this enough evidence however to show that the Azov definitely did something during that timeframe, and was directly linked to killing some of the dead bodies during that timeframe? No it doesn’t. It raises the possibility, but it doesn’t provide any strong link of the Azov to any killings of the dead bodies in Bucha.

However, the next piece of evidence proposed by the Russians may be evidence to show a direct link between the Azov and the killings of dead bodies.

c. A Video Allegedly Posted By Sergey Korotikh

Sergey “Botsman” Korotikh, leader of Ukraine’s territorial defence, allegedly posted himself a video clearly stating whilst roaming through the streets of Bucha “Can I shoot them if there are no blue armbands?”, to which the response is yes.⁷

The key factor to this information is whether or not there is any proof that Sergey Korotikh in fact posted this from his own telegram channel, as opposed to this video coming from a Russian source.

If the video came from a Russian source, then it is biased, and we cannot rely upon it. It’s too easy to dress Russians up as Ukrainians and vise versa; they look the same, they can speak the same language; it’s too dangerous to rely on this footage if a Russian outlet posted it.

If there is any substantial proof around that undeniably shows Sergey Korotikh posted this video from his own telegram channel, then this is unbiased evidence that can be relied upon to argue the Azov were out to kill people in Bucha. Unfortunately, I’ve tried to find the channel, and it is deleted. I’ve tried to find screenshots showing the footage coming from his channel, but I can’t find any (better if it comes from a Ukrainian outlet). I can only find footage re-posted, mostly from Russian sources. On that basis, looking at things objectively, we cannot rely upon this video for evidence as to what truly happened in Bucha. If someone does find evidence this footage came from Korotikh’s telegram channel, then my analysis would change.

On that basis, weighing the evidence objectively, I conclude that the video footage, the supposed suspicion of dates, and the video supposedly of Korotikh are not enough to show that Ukraine staged the killings and are therefore responsible for the dead bodies in Bucha. The (1) video footage does seem to look like it could have been a raindrop and mirror distortion that made the bodies seem to appear to move, (2) the suspicion around dates does not provide a direct link between Ukraine killing those dead bodies, and (3) there is no evidence I can find that the video of Korotikh definitely came from his telegram channel. Accordingly, it seems that the Russian argument largely falls when you objectively look at the evidence that they propose.

Let’s now take a look at the evidence Ukraine proposes to justify their position.

2. Ukraine’s Position

The claim made by the Ukrainians and the West is that the Russians, after leaving Bucha, left a trail of dead bodies and killings of civilians in Bucha.

The Ukrainians propose several pieces of information to support their position. We’re going to go through them one by one and see what evidence stands and what evidence doesn’t. Overall, the Ukrainian argument also falls for bias and weakness of evidence.

a. Satellite Imaging and Drone Footage of Dead Bodies (Allegedly During Russian Occupation)

The Ukrainians (and the West) first proposes Maxar Technologies satellite imaging that shows what seems to be dead bodies during the period of Russian occupation. Drone footage of dead bodies in Bucha allegedly during Russia’s occupancy in Bucha, also support the point.⁸

Source: Meduza.io, New York Times.

Firstly, as Meduza (a Ukrainian/Western biased outlet) rightly admits themselves, we can’t verify if the imaging and drone footage are true, since metadata can be tampered with. Apparently, ‘chronolocation techniques’ were conducted by Meduza in their independent verifications, and they use that to argue the validity of such images. We also need to remember that this evidence is biased, coming from the Ukrainian side, and therefore may have a hidden agenda. It may be possible that these images whilst true, were taken at a later date than the time of Russian occupation. Weighing these points objectively, I’m willing to accept that the satellite images and drone footage does verify that there were dead bodies in Bucha, but due to the source being bias and the possibility of manipulation, it’s questionable whether this definitely shows dead bodies during Russian occupation (since the dates could have been manipulated). It is up to the reader if they want to accept the images and footage as showing dead bodies during Russian occupation. I believe it could go either way.

With that being said, the implications of such images and footage is not that serious, precisely because even if we accept the satellite images and drone footage, they do not tell us exactly who killed those bodies. They merely tell us the existence of bodies in Bucha (either during Russian occupation or between March 30th and April 2nd).

Therefore, the logical, sensible, objective conclusion we can come to is that there were definitely dead bodies in Bucha (which by the way, can also be proven by direct photographs being disseminated of dead bodies), but it is questionable whether it was during or after Russian occupation. And, more importantly, even if we give Ukraine the benefit of the doubt on this one and accept that the dates are real, this evidence alone provides absolutely no insight as to which side exactly killed those people. On that basis, this fails to help Ukraine show Russia killed those dead bodies in Bucha.

b. Ukrainian Drone Footage of a Russian Tank Allegedly Killing a Person On a Bike⁹

Our analysis must begin again with the acknowledgement that this footage is biased with a possible agenda, coming out of Ukraine and supposedly verified by New York Times.

Focusing now on the video at hand, the first thing I find extremely, extremely strange in regards to this footage is that just as it gets to the good part, the most important part, the drone footage zooms up, so that the street part with the bike person suddenly disappears - right at the 2:00 mark of the video.¹⁰ Why did it do that? Why did it do that at that exact moment? That’s extremely strange, precisely because at that exact moment so many things could have happened. The person could have ran backwards to where he came from, and what Ukraine did was zoom up and come back down to replace that footage area with post-edited street footage. Objectively speaking, it is entirely possible this is what could have happened during that zoom cut, given the already biased nature of the video, given the coincidence of a zoom cut right at the very most important moment of the entire video. And on that basis, I find the footage extremely sus, precisely because the footage cut up right at the most important moment.

Looking at the footage as a whole, what I believe makes the overall most sense in terms of this footage, is that the person with the bike walked around the corner, and because the person was wearing dark clothing (what NYT claims was a blue top), and since ‘blue’ is an insignia for Ukrainian allegiance, the Russian tanks fired. It’s difficult for me to see from the video itself if the person with the bike was in fact wearing blue, but this would make the most sense as to why Russia shot.¹¹

However, even if we assume that the Russian tank really did shoot for wearing blue insignia, the more important point, is what exactly happened to the person right as the tank shot it’s first round at around 2:00 of the video? There are a few possibilities here - including the fact I previously mentioned of the person possibly running back to the way he came from (which is the most naturally instinctive thing you would do in that situation). Keeping objective, the person could have also died right there on the spot - both are equally likely to have happened. But, the fact that the footage zoomed up on purpose to not show that area right as the Russian tanks shot, right at the moment of truth (did he run back or did he stay there and die), makes things extremely sus; intuitively, something is fishy, particularly since the footage is already biased, and walking on thin ice. For the fact that this biased footage zoomed up right at the most important point, it makes me believe that it was more likely the person ran back down and the Ukrainians zoomed up and cut that footage and replaced it with a clear road (to make people believe the bike person died right there on the spot).¹² It makes no sense why that zoom happened at that exact point (and it’s not like they did it for prohibiting graphic content reasons, since the body would hypothetically be behind the fence in the footage if the person did not run).

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, objectively speaking I find this specific footage as extremely sceptical to use in supporting Ukraine’s argument that the dead bodies in Bucha were killed by Russians (even if NYT claims that there was in fact a dead person wearing blue with a bike at that spot after Russia left).¹³ Whilst the bike person could have died right there on the spot by the tank, I find it sceptical and weak evidence to support that fact, precisely because it is initially already biased evidence, and also more importantly, because right at the moment of truth, the footage zoomed up and came back down, allowing post-editing of the road to happen, allowing for the possibility of hiding the real footage of the person running back to the way he came from. The fact that it happened right at this very important moment of truth is what makes this footage extremely suspicious and therefore weak (on top of the fact that it’s already biased evidence). Accordingly, I would not accept it as evidence to prove Russia killed the bodies in Bucha. Any person looking at this evidence objectively, would agree with my sentiments. Show me the footage without a cut right at the most important moment and I will change my mind.

c. Cell Phone Footage of Russia Allegedly Killing Someone

Another piece of evidence Ukraine relies on to argue the dead bodies in Bucha were killed by Russians is footage likely recorded from a cell phone at a distance. The footage from Ukraine alleges Russian soldiers standing near a person who is kneeling, with the person eventually collapsing to the ground. It is claimed that the location in the video matches the area on Yablonska Street in Bucha where deceased civilians were discovered with bound hands.

https://twitter.com/2022Kharkiv/status/1510598364265603074

There are a few problems with this recording which make it extremely weak to support Ukraine’s argument:

1. The recording is claimed to have been filmed on March 25, during Russia’s occupation. However, there is absolutely no way to independently confirm that, and Meduza also admits the footage can’t be independently verified and the date could have been easily modified;

2. The footage is extremely, extremely, blurry. Given the blurriness, it’s extremely difficult to even tell what is going on in the footage. Unless someone can clearly show me what is going on, I think the objective bystander would agree with this statement;

3. There is no actual evidence in the footage of someone killing someone else. There is no shot of a gun, no killing action.

Based on these three points, I think the objective bystander would accept that if this is the evidence Ukraine relies on to argue Russians killed the dead bodies in Bucha, that it would be evidence that is quite weak.

d. Claims By Kateryna Ukraintseva, a Bucha City Council Deputy and Volunteer For Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces¹⁴

In her article, Kateryna claims that the Russians gave rations to Ukrainians, lured them into a basement, threw a grenade and killed them. Her claim is also relied upon by Ukraine and the West to argue Russia killed the dead bodies in Bucha.

Her exact words:

“At one point, Russian soldiers gave their dry rations to people in a basement, and then threw a grenade into the basement. That happened. I don’t have data about casualties from that story. During one of their “clean-up operations,” they were afraid to go into a dark basement in an apartment complex, so they threw a grenade in, just in case. By pure chance, nobody died.” - Kateryna Ukraintseva

Let’s break her comment down:

1. First, we don’t have information about how Kateryna exactly knows about this story. Did she see it first hand, or was she relayed this information? The problem is that if she didn’t see it first hand, then under the law we call her evidence “hearsay”. Hearsay is “information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour”, and it is inadmissible as evidence in the court of law;

2. Further comments from Kateryna’s article may support that her comments are indeed hearsay, and she didn’t see it herself. I presume this because later on in the article she says she didn’t see anyone get shot in Bucha. To be fair however, I am not sure if she said this in relation to her entire time in Bucha, or just the specific people in Yablonskaya - thus I did not consider it in my overall conclusion. However, I still leave this piece of information here for you to decide what to do with it.

“I didn’t see anybody get shot. The ones lying on Yablonskaya died as a result of random shooting”

3. Looking specifically at her statement, all she says to convince us that the Russians definitely did this was - “That happened”. She also doesn’t provide any information in regards to casualties from the supposed event. So to the objective eye, this is extremely vague and weak. No information about casualties, and the only convincing first hand evidence is her comment that “That happened”. Thus, because she hasn’t proposed any first hand evidence to substantiate her initially biased claims, we cannot take her statement as evidence for consideration (as well as for the fact it possibly may be hearsay). I largely base my rejection of her evidence on this specific point;

4. Lastly, my problem with her comments are that it doesn’t really make sense. Why give rations to people to kill them? Why not just chain them up and then move them to the basement by some force and then grenade them if you were going to kill them anyway?

Some critics argue that Russians gave rations to pacify resistors and to show on Russian news outlets that they were supporting the civilians as a mere propaganda stunt. But let’s just think that through for a second. You go through the trouble to support the Bucha people by giving them rations, and then you use that to show on Russian news the Russian soldiers helping civilians. At that point… why not just go all the way and actually really help them? Why make a massive u-turn and kill them? It makes more sense that if I’ve already helped civilians say 40% of the way by collecting them and giving them rations, then I may as well go all the way and protect them. It makes less sense to do it just for news and propaganda reasons, than to actually go all the way and just protect the civilians outright. We are going to speak more about this when I present my personal evidence and analysis.

What I think might make the most sense about this statement from Kateryna is that she knows that there is proof of Russian rations near bodies, and she needs to justify a good enough reason for why that happened that can make Russia look bad. People will see the photographs of Russian rations near the dead bodies,¹⁵ and logically presume the Russians helped feed those people, so Kateryna needs to say something that will convince people not to think of the most logical and sensible assumption in regards to the Russian rations next to the bodies. With that being said, I actually take the majority of her article as somewhat genuine. I believe that if she was truly being honest, in her eyes, she saw Russians give rations, but I am not sure if she is even 100% certain herself that the Russians threw a grenade down into the basement after luring civilians there with rations. She merely says “that happened”, yet provides no casualties, and not much else to go with. So it’s really hard to determine whether or not Kateryna really is truthful in regards to this particular comment. We need more evidence to determine the truthfulness of this claim. Did she see it first hand? Does she have evidence to substantiate her biased claims? Or was it a mere rumour from someone else?

Accordingly, it is precisely because Kateryna’s comments require more substantial evidence to be confirmed, that I have to reject her particular claim that Russians threw a grenade in a basement to kill civilians. Furthermore, Kateryna’s comment is extremely vague. She just tells us “that happened”, doesn’t know about the death counts, and leaves it at that. We don’t even know if she saw it first hand or if she heard it from someone else - which makes it hearsay and thus not admissible in a court of law. On that basis, I find that Kateryna’s claims are weak unless she can propose some first-hand evidence that overcomes her biased tendency to report in favour for Ukraine. Certainly, if this was to go to trial for a war crime, she would need to explain herself much more to make her claims substantial.

I’d also like to mention here that I actually believe her statement that she saw the Russians give rations, precisely because theres no benefit to her for admitting that information, it’s just that there is a possible agenda behind the second part of her statement that the Russians threw a grenade and killed the civilians in the basement. That is the part she needs to substantiate before we can take it into consideration.

In my personal analysis, I am going to return to this evidence once again to prove why it was more likely Russia were giving rations to keep the civilians alive. Let’s now move to the last piece of evidence Ukraine uses to support their position.

f. Eyewitness Testimonies From The City’s Residents Of Russians Killing Those Bodies

Meduza argues that “the main source of information about the events in Bucha is the eyewitness accounts from the city’s residents. Meduza spoke to several of them.”

Later on in my analysis, I will show why eyewitness evidence is not only biased, but extremely biased, and therefore must be taken with a grain of salt if it is to be used to support the position that Russia killed those dead bodies in Bucha.

In brief, what I will say here is that if I can prove with objective evidence that those dead bodies in Bucha were those who favoured Russian allegiance and killed by the Azov for being traitors, then that ultimately means that those civilians who were not killed in Bucha will likely say and do anything to have their life spared - including lie. If that’s the case, the witness testimonies are not normally biased, but extremely biased, and need to be looked at even more skeptically. In the next section, I will provide the unbiased evidence showing why those dead bodies were likely those who favoured Russian allegiance.

Overall, weighing up all the evidence, the conclusion I come to is that from photographs and satellite imaging, we can accept that there were in fact dead bodies in Bucha, at some point in time, either when the Azov returned into Bucha or sometime during Russian occupation. The satellite images and drone footage however cannot prove who exactly killed those bodies, since they’re simply just stills.

The other evidence seems skeptical and is weak at best; the drone footage of the bike person is way too suspicious because of the cut, the other footage of a supposed death of some person is way too blurry and the date can’t be verified; eyewitness testimonies are extremely biased in this case because these are basically people who are willing to lie if it means that they get to live (if I can prove the dead bodies were traitors of Ukraine/pro-Russian civilians, which I am about to do). Lastly, Kateryna is a biased source of information, and her claims about the grenade if to be taken seriously require substantial first hand evidence of such an event. Her allegations also make no sense if you think about it logically (Why help the civilians 40% of the way by feeding them rations, but then do a u-turn and kill them? Why not just help them and continue all the way?).

Let’s now move on to my smoking gun analysis, which can also help connect the dots with a lot of the other evidence proposed.

3. My Smoking Gun Analysis That Can Help Society Understand The Truth About Bucha

My smoking gun analysis relates firstly to the fact that the dead corpses in Bucha had white armbands; and the white armbands are symbolic of the Russian alliance. Ukrainian outlets actually acknowledge this fact – that there were white armbands on the civilians who died in Bucha, and that those white armbands represent those who support Russia.¹⁶ The dead bodies with white armbands are also in many of the photos reported by the West.

So therefore, we don’t actually need to question this point – the dead corpses in Bucha, had in fact white armbands. And, these white armbands are historically and generally accepted to be symbolic of Russian allegiance.

Images presented below can help us also confirm this point even further. Notice the white armbands.

Here’s now the part where Ukraine shoots themselves in the foot. What the Ukrainians then go on to say, is this:

The Azov claimed that Russian troops had residents wear white armbands “so that Ukrainian defenders confuse them with Russians”¹⁷... “thus hiding behind civilians and exposing them to additional danger,"¹⁸ .... this, the Ukrainians say, "still did not protect the civilians from the Russian invaders’ massacre".¹⁹

Let’s now use some common sense and think through the claims made by the Ukrainian side/Azov in regards to the comment above:

If it’s true, as the Azov claim, Russians were ‘hiding behind civilians’, it would actually be better for the Russians to keep the civilians alive. The civilians need to be alive, not dead, to confuse the Azov; for the Russians to hide behind such civilians. You can’t confuse the Azov that the civilians wearing white armbands were Russians, and have them dead at the same time. That doesn’t make sense - the civilians need to be alive for the confusion to work. Therefore, without them knowing, this is the Azov actually inadvertently admitting the Russians did not kill the Bucha civilians – but that more likely, they did (if inadvertently, by confusing them for Russian soldiers).

In other words, if the Russians made civilians wear white armbands to confuse the Azov (as the Azov admit themselves)... doesn’t that mean the Azov are the ones more likely to have killed the civilians in Bucha by confusing them for Russian soldiers?

That’s a hard truth to swallow for the Ukrainian side.

This is an appropriate time to now add the quite indisputable evidence that the Russians were also feeding these civilians with white armbands (see footnote for full explanation).²⁰ The act of feeding, we must remember, is an act of keeping the civilians alive. This would strengthen my argument that it’s the Russians that likely kept the civilians alive, and it was the Azov who were more likely to have killed these civilians (at the very least, as the Azov admit themselves, out of confusion). Remember, Russia needs to keep the civilians alive for confusion to work. A dead body isn’t going to confuse the Azov for an alive Russian soldier the Azov need to kill. So on that basis - was it really the Azov or the Russians who were more likely to have killed those dead bodies in Bucha with white armbands and rations near their bodies?

Could the Azov not only have killed those dead bodies in Bucha out of confusion, but also because they were traitors?

Kateryna’s article provides us with two very interesting comments from the Ukrainian side that can help us keep piecing this together in an unbiased manner:

1.”[I was told that] on a nearby bench, they were interrogating another guy. He ratted everybody out at once. He revealed where each person lived in the buildings nearby and bragged that he had served with [Igor] Girkin. You never know who your neighbors really are.”

2. “A lot of people collaborated [with the Russian army], but most people resisted. Everyone who stayed in the occupied city helped the armed forces however they could. Everyone reported everything they saw. Victories like that are impossible without the people. Everyone fights on their own front.”

Kateryna’s admission that a Ukrainian civilian (1) “ratted everybody out at once”, and that (2) “a lot of people collaborated [with the Russian army]” is unbiased evidence showing that there were in fact Ukrainian civilians that were pro-Russian.

Accordingly, if we think it through, Kateryna also provides us with more interesting information that can potentially prove in an unbiased manner why I think the Azov killed those dead bodies in Bucha over and above confusion.

If there were in fact ‘collaborators’ or ‘rats’ or betrayers to the Ukrainian allegiance as Kateryna claims, then I believe that if the Azov didn’t kill these civilians out of confusion, at the very worst, they saw those civilians as traitors to the far-right extreme Nationalist Ukrainian ideology the Azov are willing to do anything to protect. The Azov, as a result of their ideology, have much much less sympathy for traitors than the average person, and its quite possible that the Azov killed those dead bodies with white armbands for this exact reason also. The emphasis here is that this is not outside the realms of possibility precisely because there were in fact traitors and collaborators (as admitted by Kateryna), and because the Azov’s far-right extreme nationalist ideology would make them extremely despise traitors, that it would not be out of reach for the Azov to have killed them. Moreover, there were many dead bodies in Bucha with white armbands and Russian food ration packs near their bodies. Piecing all those unbiased pieces of evidence together - it’s a very likely possibility that the Azov killed certain civilians for betraying Ukrainian allegiance. I admit however that this analysis isn’t as strong as the previous admission from the Azovs themselves that they were confused by the civilians wearing white armbands for Russians, which is really an inadvertent admission that they likely killed the dead bodies in Bucha, at the very least out of confusion.

In conclusion, I have provided an extremely sound, logical, sensical analysis, focused on analysing the unbiased evidence that clearly shows it was much more likely the Azov to have killed the dead bodies in Bucha either out of confusion (as they admit) or at the worst, out of betrayal to the Ukrainian nation.

My analysis makes much more sense than what Ukrainians claim; that the Russians hid behind defenders to confuse the Azov, and then the Russians killed them after the Russians finished hiding behind them.

Let’s now directly compare the 2 different proposed perspectives of who killed the dead bodies in Bucha (Ukraine’s claim and my claim), and see which conclusion makes the most sense:

The Ukrainians claim:

1. Russians placed white armbands on the civilians (a definite fact - based on photographs and admitted by Ukrainians themselves);

2. Russians gave rations of food to civilians (a definite fact - based on photographs combined with the admission by Kateryna herself);

3. The Russians then killed the civilians (a massive u-turn on their part, alleged by Ukraine).

Before we jump into my claim, I’d like to also comment here on the poor logic written by Spravdi. Spravdi claim Russia placed white armbands on civilians to confuse/deceive the Ukrainian armed forces. Then they say “This, however, did not protect the civilians from the invaders’ massacre”.

What they have written includes a massive illogical jump to conclusions. Where’s the evidence or reasoning for your justification that the civilians were not protected “from the invaders’ massacre”? You can’t just make a massive claim like that and provide literally zero evidence or reasoning, particularly when the claim alleged by Ukraine doesn’t make sense in the context of the very prior claim by Ukraine that Russia used civilians to deceive/confuse Ukrainian defenders. If Russia used civilians to confuse the Azov, then the civilians need to be alive for confusion to work, and therefore it was the Azov more likely to have killed the dead bodies in Bucha out of confusion. And if that’s the case, that Russia had an incentive to keep the civilians alive, then Ukraine’s last comment that the civilians ‘were not protected from the invader’s massacre’ is illogical, it makes no sense, and more importantly, is without any evidence. It’s likely the Ukrainians didn’t think this through when they were trying to figure out an excuse to accuse Russia as the ones who directly killed the civilians.

Now let’s move to my claim.

My claim:

1. Russians placed white armbands on the civilians (a definite fact - based on photographs and admitted by Ukrainians themselves);

2. Russians gave rations of food to civilians (a definite fact - based on photographs and admitted by Kateryna herself);

3. The Azov killed those civilians with white armbands either mistaking them for pro-Russians (almost certain as a result of the fact admitted by the Azov themselves that they were being confused), or because the civilians were seen as traitors (as confessed by Kateryna, and made even more likely since the Azov are extreme Ukrainian nationalists that would have pure hatred in their blood for traitors).

If you read both claims, the Ukrainian argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (it just doesn’t click), and my claim, based on unbiased evidence and reasoning, makes much, much, more sense.

We must remember the smoking gun here is the fact that the Russians needed those civilians alive if they were, as the Azov admit themselves, used to confuse the Azov.²¹ And, more importantly, if the Azov were in fact being confused, as they admit themselves, then it was them that most likely killed those civilians (at the minimum out of confusion, at the worst for the civilians being traitors, as admitted by Kateryna).

I hope I've beaten the point across, because it seems to be the objective truth that makes the most logical and reasonable sense, based on the unbiased evidence available.

Ok, so the Azov were the ones who most likely killed those dead bodies in Bucha, but shouldn’t the blame for those bodies be placed on Russia?

Now, the exact reason Russians placed white armbands on Ukrainian civilians is another story too requiring analysis. It’s an important question because what Ukraine is trying to do when they say Russia placed white armbands to “deceive” Ukraine, is that they're also trying to shift the ‘moral blame’ of the deaths onto the Russians (not only accuse the Russians of directly killing the dead bodies in Bucha). They’re basically trying to say, well, even if the Azov killed those civilians out of confusion (though they don’t outwardly admit this), it was at the moral fault of Russia for placing those white armbands on those civilians in the first place. Therefore, we need to really consider whether Russia did in fact place those armbands on to “hide” and “confuse” the Azov, or was it for other more benevolent reasons?

From the eyes of the Azov, they believe it was to confuse them. From the eyes of locals, such as a woman, according to Reuters, Russian troops “required that local residents wear the armbands to identify themselves”.²² I believe the Russians would say they placed white armbands and gave food to the civilians in order to protect them (the ones that couldn't flee Bucha for whatever reason). 

So whose exactly right? Let’s try break it down.

I can see from the Azov’s view why they thought Russia placed white armbands on civilians to confuse them. The Azov’s view is definitely biased, but I can see how through their eyes, they can’t fathom seeing the Russians as anything but evil and malicious players trying to take their land for no rational reason whatsoever.²³ Thus, through the Azov’s eyes, supposedly the Russians placed white armbands on civilians and fed them, forcefully and coercively, to confuse the Azov. That makes sense, but it’s a biased point of view.

The other point of view, given the unbiased evidence before us, is somewhere in between what the Ukrainian local said to Reuters and what Russians likely claim - to identify them, or to protect them. Looking at the unbiased evidence, we know that the Russians at least wanted to keep the civilians alive, because of the white armbands and the rations, and because of the claims by Azov that the Russians used those civilians to confuse them (since Russians would need to keep the civilians alive for the confusion to work). Thus, regardless of Russia’s intentions with the civilians, at the very least we can see that it seems that the Russians did in fact have an incentive to keep the civilians alive. Whether or not the Russians kept the civilians alive to purposefully hide behind them and confuse the Ukrainians however, is questionable on several points. First, Kateryna’s article can help us here to provide some unbiased context.

To remind us, Kateryna admitted that there were Ukrainians who ‘collaborated’ and assisted the Russians in their military operation. This in itself is more unbiased evidence that the Russians wanted to keep the civilians alive, if not for some personal assistance in Russia’s military operation. We can imply sensibly that if there were civilians helping the Russians, the Russians would be incentivised to keep them alive. To further justify this point, in the context of all the evidence (i.e. civilians helping Russia), the food rations now seem to have a sensible reason for being in the picture of the Bucha crisis; it is further evidence that helps support the fact the Russians wanted to at least help the Ukrainian people in some way/keep them alive with some humanitarian aid - possibly in return for helping them with intel.

We also can’t forget that the Russians are already walking on thin ice in the public eye, invading another countries’ territory. There would be no incentive to put fire to the flame and kill civilians for no good reason whatsoever - particularly in the context of a lot of unbiased evidence that shows civilians being fed, wearing white armbands, and helping Russians; evidence that shows Russia keeping these people alive for good reason.

Overall, looking at all the unbiased evidence objectively, given the Ukrainian local saying the Russians wanted to place white armbands to “identify them”, given Kateryna’s admission that Ukrainian locals were collaborating with the Russians and betraying Ukrainians, given the food rations, the unbiased evidence shows that the Russians kept the civilians alive for more than reasons of confusing the Azov. At the very least, the Russians would have wanted to protect them and keep them alive for their assistance; at least for their intel. And at the very best, to not put fire to the flame of already walking on thin ice for invading another country’s land.

Accordingly, I do not see the Russians placing white armbands to confuse the Azov as their main or primary intention for keeping the civilians alive; as the reason for giving the civilians white armbands and giving them rations. We see this from piecing the puzzle together from the unbiased evidence of the local Ukrainian woman who said the white armbands were to identify them, from Kateryna’s comments of there being Ukrainians who collaborated with the Russian army, and from the food rations pictured in Bucha. Combine this all together and you can see the possibility the Russians wanted to keep the civilians alive, feeding them, at the very least to assist them with their military operation.

Furthermore, I cannot see with the context of this evidence, Ukraine’s claim as being legitimate; that after it was all said and done the Russians just killed those civilians after they were finished.²⁴ There is clear evidence that the Russians kept those civilians alive, fed them. Why go 40-50% of the way to helping keep the civilians alive, just to kill them afterwards? Why not go all the way and just keep protecting the Ukrainians after you’ve fed them and they’re helping you with your military operation? Therefore, Ukraine’s claim that the Russians did a massive u-turn and killed those civilians afterwards makes less sense in the context of all the unbiased evidence before us. Ukraine needs to present substantial first hand evidence to justify their much less sensical claim (as proposed by Spravdi). The likely conclusion therefore, once again, based on the unbiased evidence before us, is that the Russians fed the civilians, helping to keep them alive, because the civilians at the very least collaborated with the Russians.²⁵

With all that being said, this analysis about the true intentions of Russian soldiers is not actually so relevant to answering the key question – who killed the civilians/dead corpses in Bucha?

What can be proven as truth is that there were civilians who were wearing white armbands in Bucha (admitted by both sides, and in images), and if that’s the case, it was more likely the Azov that killed those civilians in Bucha – not the Russians. The Azov are the ones that would have more likely identified them as Russian allies, and killed them (as they admitted themselves, most likely inadvertently, as a result of confusion, and at worst, possibly to kill any traitors to the Ukrainian ideology and allegiance). The flawed admissions from the Ukrainian side, in combination with photographs of dead bodies of civilians in Bucha (with white armbands, and some with Russian ration packs near their bodies), seem to support this conclusion in an unbiased manner.

I have done enough to objectively reveal the truth around the key question everyone wants to know – who killed the dead bodies in Bucha? I have also given a good objective educational analysis of whether Russia really intended to use the civilians as meat shields or if they used them for assistance in their operations.

The fact of the matter is, based on the unbiased evidence at hand, that civilians wore white armbands, were fed by Russians, and it was the Azov more likely to kill those civilian corpses in Bucha – either from confusion (as the Azov inadvertently admit themselves) or to kill traitors.²⁶

That in itself is really the strongest evidence to show the truth about Bucha. We are using the Ukrainians own flawed admissions against them to remain objective and unbiased.

Now, I don’t want to make Russia out as saints here. I believe there were people who were also killed by the Russians, possibly mistakenly. I see from the drone footage where Russians shot at the bike person as a quite strong indicator that the Russians were shooting at people wearing blue (assuming they were people of the Ukrainian armed forces). The nature of war is that there is cross-fire and people are going to die as a result, and I believe there were civilians who died mistakenly, from both Russians and Ukrainians.

As part of Russia’s military operation, I also believe a lot of the dead bodies could be pro-Kiev militia that were disguised as civilians to attack Russia covertly. As a result of Russia having to jib and jibe through this very common military tactic executed by the Ukrainians, it’s very possible that some civilians were mistakenly caught. Whether or not they died however, and whether or not the pro-Kiev militia who disguised themselves as civilians had died, is another story. There is simply not enough proof to corroborate these allegations I make here. I merely highlight them in this specific paragraph out of pure common sense, and to paint a full picture in regards to all the dead bodies in Bucha and how they possibly died. However, that is not to take away from the main discovery from the paper; that those dead bodies on the road in Bucha, particularly the ones with white armbands and rations next to them, were killed by the Azov, either out of confusion (as they admit themselves), or on purpose for being traitors to Ukraine (given Kateryna’s admission that there were Ukrainian civilians helping the Russians, given the extreme nationalist ideology of the Azov that would despise traitors and see them as enemies to the Ukrainian mission).

Let us therefore not forget in history, by looking at the unbiased, objective facts - that it was the neo-nazi Ukrainians likely responsible for those dead pro-Russian corpses in Bucha.

And more importantly, let us now realise by the hand of God that the entire western alliance has tried to twist this objective sensical truth about Bucha. Based on the unbiased evidence I have presented here, the allegations by the west that Bucha was a war crime wholly responsible by the Russians is an absolute lie - and this narrative has been perpetrated for an entire year now. That the West, looking at the unbiased evidence before us, have manipulated millions of lives with misinformation to forward their agenda - without any remorse whatsoever. I emphasise here that the misinformation is purposeful, it is malicious, it is done with the conscious intent to deceive and twist the truth about Bucha to be solely and wholly responsible by Russia. And, we now know that simply cannot be the case when you look at the unbiased evidence and objective logic I have proposed coming out of Bucha.²⁷ I can say this with confidence, precisely because my entire objective analysis, focused solely on unbiased evidence, shows this; and I welcome anyone to question my logic as otherwise.

For God is the objective truth of reality, and it is He who will shine the wrath of Him onto any and all malicious manipulators of the Truth.

ADDITIONAL EDIT: Someone has referred to me more evidence to assess, particularly the reports coming from AP, BBC and NYT. I have written about that below. After looking at all the evidence between the three outlets, my conclusion does not change. It is even possible now to take Ivan’s story of faking his death below, in combination with the purposeful zoom cut in the drone footage with the bike person above, as evidence of Ukraine trying to maliciously and purposefully deceive the public and pinpoint deaths on Russia. I leave that up to the reader to decide.

AP Frontline News Reports, BBC News, New York Times (The West)

This section will be solely dedicated to analysing the claims from the West. We will cross-analyse the claims coming from these three major networks (AP²⁸, BBC²⁹, NYT³⁰) that reported the story in-depth. All further references will be in relation to the aforementioned three articles links just cited.

Let me first introduce some non-contentious facts reported from the West that adds more clarity and detail to the full story about Bucha. These facts I contend are not in contention, for the simple fact that these claims are unbiased, and they have no hidden agenda.

The West claim that the Russians were conducting their de-nazification by hunting “people on lists prepared by their intelligence services and went door to door to identify potential threats”… “checking people’s documents, examining their phones and interrogating them, according to interviews with local residents. In some cases, they already had the names of the people they wanted to find.”³¹

The Russians also set up an office around 144 Yablonska, and used it “for interrogations, set up a field hospital and held civilians who didn’t pose a threat in the basement”…. with the Russians letting “most of the civilians go that day, first the women, then the men.”

Again, I think anyone can agree that these facts have no real hidden agenda behind them, and I think they help us paint a more clearer picture about what’s the actions were of the Russians there. These seem to also make sense in the bigger picture of things, so on the balance of probabilities, I think we can take these facts as being true.

We can now move onto the claims that are questionable when you look at the all the evidence presented by the West. In general, these claims include that Russians are responsible for the war crimes on Yablonska St (that, as part of the denazification, Russia also illegally included ‘volunteer fighters and civilians suspected of assisting Ukrainian troops’ in their execution).³² As part of the evidence to support Russia killing ‘volunteer fighters and civilians’, is the allegation that Russia had the intention to kill Ivan Skyba (who was with the volunteer fighters), but failed. Ivan claims he faked his death and escaped.³³

Let's first investigate the allegations surrounding the death of the eight 'volunteer fighters and civilians', then investigate Ivan's claim.

1. Are these 8 really ‘volunteer fighters and civilians’, or are they neo-Nazis to be eliminated as per the special military operation? Furthermore, did these 8 ‘volunteer fighters and civilians’ really die by the hands of Russians?

Photos shared with The Times, and taken from social media, show the eight men who were executed. Top row, from left: Anatoliy Prykhidko, Andriy Matviychuk, Andriy Verbovyi and Denys Rudenko. Bottom row, from left: Andriy Dvornikov, Svyatoslav Turovskyi, Valera Kotenko and Vitaliy Karpenko.

The West claim that these 8 men, caught on CCTV video footage being taken to 144 Yablunska, were killed, with their bodies left to degrade in the dumpster yard.

https://vp.nyt.com/video/2022/05/13/100421_1_00vi-144-drone_wg_720p.mp4

There are several assumptions we need to engage with in terms of the footage that’s presented to us.

First, we need to take the word of the West that the 8 pictured men were in fact those men in the CCTV footage holding each other by the belts, being taken to 144 Yablunska. We also need to take their word that those men are also in fact the bodies lying down in the garbage yard next to 144 Yablunska.

Looking at all the evidence, I am going to take the word of the West and accept that these 8 men are in fact those men pictured in the garbage yard next to 144 Yablunska.

Why I’m willing to just accept these claims is because I investigated the facebook of the wife of Anatoliy Prykhidko, and the account checks out as leigtimate (the men also seem to be real).³⁴ NYT also claims that we should focus on the man in the light blue jumper, who was seen in the CCTV footage, who is pictured clearly next to the dumpster, and, according to NYT Ukrainian drone footage, was laying there mid-March.

Whilst it’s very possible that this could have been set up after the fact, and for the fact that the Ukrainian drone footage is quite blurry, I’m willing to give Ukraine the benefit of the doubt here and accept that these dead bodies are those 8 men reported by the West. (I want to mention here as well, that even though I’m going to admit that those 8 men were in fact the dead bodies in the yard, the evidence can be quite successfully critically analysed to reject my contention. Why isn’t the entire Ukrainian drone footage shown? To give us some context, perhaps a better view of that dumpster yard? Why were the men in the CCTV footage all wearing blue, signifying Ukrainian allegiance, with their left hand/arm behind their heads - which seems to actually have been a command by the Russians for these men to ‘protect’ themselves. Why did the Russians command these men to do that exactly?)

Now that we’ve accepted that the 8 dead men photographed were those dead bodies in the yard, we now have two important questions to ask in regards to them.

The first is whether or not these people were truly mere ‘volunteer fighters and civilians’ or if they were neo-Nazis to be exterminated by Russia’s special military operation. The second question is whether or not they did in fact die by the hands of the Russians.

On the first question, it’s hard to determine if all these men were volunteers in the truest sense of the word.

On Andriy Dvornikov, I found out from a Ukrainian website that he was in fact in the ATO Zone between 2015-16. On that basis, it’s quite possible that the Russians wanted to take him out for past conduct that Andriy was involved in. On the basis of Andriy too, given he has past Ukraine territorial defence experience, this is also unbiased evidence that pro-Kiev militia were disguised as civilians, giving us more context to the Bucha story.

We also need to question the extent one can just sign up and volunteer for the local territorial defence force. Did these men volunteer at the beginning of the invasion, or all the way back in 2014 when this entire conflict started? Just how much training and military work were they involved in? We do know that they were part of the Ukrainian local territorial defence, per the Daily Mail - we just don’t know to what extent.³⁵

Whilst AP and NYT make out that these 8 men are absolutely innocent, and were illegally killed, it seems that it’s not necessarily that simple. Questions remain as to the extent that these people were just ‘volunteers’.

If they were in fact volunteers, it’s also possible that they were killed after the fact in the event any of them were traitors, and collaborated with the Russians. We don’t have information in that regard either.

Objectively speaking, purely on the basis of the dead bodies themselves - they don’t tell us much. They merely tell us that these men, if they are in fact the bodies in the dumpster yard, had died at the hands of someone. It is a biased interpretation to believe at the outset that Russian killed them if they were indeed volunteers. We need direct evidence linking the Russians to them. Furthermore, as we saw, it may not be so true that they were mere volunteers either; Andriy Dvornikov was in the ATO zones in 2015-16, so it’s quite possible that the other 7 men are also responsible for something. We merely need more facts to determine that, which we don’t have. So therefore, I cannot make a conclusion either way.

On that basis, who is truly responsible for the death of these men (let’s assume Andriy Dvornikov was killed by the Russians for past conduct in Donbass), cannot be determined without more evidence that can directly link either side, Russia or Ukraine, to the actually killings in an unbiased manner.

However, there is one piece of strong evidence the Ukrainian and Western side relies on that may link Russia to the death of these men - Ivan Skyba. Ivan Skyba was allegedly with these men, but faked his death and escaped alive. If Ivan’s story is in fact true, then Ukraine and the West can infer that if they intended to kill Ivan, who was with the men, the Russians are likely to also have killed the other men who were with Ivan at the time. Let's take an objective and reasonable look at Ivan’s story.

2. Did the Russians intend to kill Ivan? Did Ivan truly fake his death and live to tell the tale?

Ivan Skyba makes an extremely bold claim, as reported across AP, NYT and BBC. Ivan claims that he was with the 8 men who died, but faked his death, and escaped. He was then caught again in the house he escaped to, but this time the Russians didn’t recognise him, so he was taken to the medical centre in the basement to be treated by the Russians, along with the civilians the Russians were protecting.

At 5:12 of the AP video, alleged to be Ivan.

“I felt the bullet pierce my side. I fell, not moving. Pretending to be dead. They walked around to finish off the wounded. That’s why I didn’t move, because that would mean a bullet to my head. I did not move or breathe to hide the steam coming from my mouth, so they couldn't see I was still alive'. I just froze and did not move”³⁶

Ivan waited of his moment, despite a head injury, gun shot to the ab, escaped to a nearby house, within an hour more Russian soldiers sweeping the area found Ivan. This time they believed he was an injured civilian, brought back to 144 to be given medical treatment; not tortured or killed. - AP Video

“While I was there, medics disinfected and bandaged my wound, they gave me a pill, put me in the basement, where civilians were hiding from shelling” - AP Video

BBC: Ivan Skyba's bruised face and bullet wounds on his torso.

Let’s logically and reasonably assess Ivan’s bold claims here. Ivan’s story is important, because if his story is found to be true; then it’s reasonably plausible to infer that the Russians intended to kill and did in fact kill the other men pictured.³⁷ If Ivan’s story however is skeptical, then we might argue in the alternative that the Russians did not in fact intend to kill, and therefore leaves the actual killers of the men a mystery.

The first thing we need to realise is that the story about Ivan as reported by AP versus the BBC and NYT differ in several ways.

First, the AP reports that Ivan crawled to a nearby house where Russians 'sweeped' in and found him within an hour. In the alternative, the BBC reports that Ivan actually cleaned himself up at the house, and Russians were already there.³⁸ Already here, we have an inconsistency in the story reported. Did the Russians find him an hour later, or were they already in the house - and why did these 2 major outlets report this part differently? Moreover, NYT doesn't report this part of the story at all. All they mention is that Ivan 'waited 15 minutes' and 'ran'.³⁹

Second, AP and BBC report that Ivan was eventually found, and then taken back to 144 Yablunska to be treated by Russian medics. NYT does not report this fact at all; that Ivan ever went to Russian medics. Instead, NYT report that a ‘doctor in Bucha’ treated Ivan’s injury.⁴⁰

Third, AP claim Ivan ‘managed to escape’ to a nearby house, BBC claim he ‘then crawled to a fence and dragged himself across into nearby gardens’, and NYT claim he ‘ran’ away (not to a house, just ran). Here, we also have inconsistencies reported in regards to Ivan’s story as to how exactly he got away.

Fourth, there’s an inconsistency with Ivan’s story in regards to Andriy Verbovyi. The AP and BBC effectively say that Andriy was shot, dragged outside and bled to death.⁴¹ The NYT report otherwise, that Andriy was shot instantly, and died right there inside the building.⁴²

As you can see, there are some major points that are just not adding up when comparing the reports between the major media outlets of the West in regards to Ivan’s story. This is an unobjectionable fact and anyone can look at the three articles themselves and compare as I have. On that basis, we already have initial skepticism in regards to the validity of Ivan’s story - asthe 3 major media outlets in the West aren’t even consistent on what happened with Ivan.

Let’s now critically assess Ivan’s story itself.

What Ivan is claiming is that the Russians took him and other men outside, and shot at them (‘two soldiers started shooting’ - AP, ‘opened fire’ - BBC, ‘gunshots rang out’ - NYR). Ivan then played dead so that the Russians didn’t finish him off, holding his breath so ‘steam’ could not be seen, in which he thereafter escaped. He then was found again, the Russians this time taking him back to the medical centre to be treated.

We need to critically assess several points:

The first point is in regards to the bullet wound itself - looking at his bullet wound as depicted by the BBC. We need to critically assess if there is in fact a bullet wound by looking at the BBC image, and if it is, we need to assess the damage taken in regards to a bullet that goes through the abdomen, and if Ivan could have done what he did, with the damage that he had taken. I have no expertise in this, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea for someone with expertise to assess his wound for legitimacy, the likelihood of survival, etc;

The second point to critically assess is that given the wound, why the Russians didn’t finish him off;

Several accounts show that when the Russians want to kill someone (i.e. for their special military operation), they will shoot them straight in the head. In the AP video, it was claimed that Dima had been shot in the head. AP even mentions Skyba saw the Russians shoot someone - by a shot in the head.⁴³ NYT claims that Andriy Matviychuk, 37, also in the yard, was shot in the head, according to his death certificate.⁴⁴ In the image below, the person in the bottom left can clearly be seen to be shot in the head.

With all that unbiased evidence, it is quite possible that if Russia did in fact have a kill order, that the instruction was to finish it off with a head shot - always. That, when Russia do decide to in fact kill someone, they will always finish the kill with a head shot. So why was Ivan spared? Ivan even mentions himself that if he moved, he would be shot in the head.⁴⁵ Of course, Ivan is biased with a possible agenda; I think that if Russia really intended to kill him, no matter if he was moving or not, he would have been shot in the head. We need more information to confirm this; but already objectively, we have a lot of unbiased evidence telling us that if they really did want to kill Ivan, as the West claims, he would have been shot in the head, regardless of playing dead or not.

Critics may say because he was playing dead; that he didn’t move, that's why the Russians didn't shoot him again (whether that be in the head, or anywhere else). So let’s place ourselves in the shoes of the situation and try to imagine the Russians firing rounds. The claim by Ivan and the West is that the Russian soldiers initially shot somewhat aimlessly at everyone initially.⁴⁶ Then, imagine you’re a Russian soldier, you look at Ivan’s body, you see that Ivan was only shot once in the stomach (Ivan can’t fake how many wounds he was hit with, he can only fake holding his breath and not moving). At this point, did the Russians truly believe, looking at his wounded body, that Ivan had died on a single shot to the abdomen, even if Ivan successfully laid there and didn’t move? Would a trained Russian soldier, know one shot to the abdomen was not enough to kill someone, and thus shoot again, even if the body didn’t move? Because if the average soldier does know that, a reasonable person might ague that the Russians would have shot Ivan again - even if he was playing dead. And of course, as I previously stated, even if he wasn’t moving, even if he played dead well, were the Russian soldiers instructed to finish off every body with a shot to the head for the people they did in fact intend to kill (i.e. Ivan)?

I’m also skeptical that Ivan was able to hold his breath for greater than a few minutes

The articles claim that the Russians had stayed there for a few minutes before they left.⁴⁷ NYT actually claims that the Russians remained there for 15 minutes!⁴⁸ That means Ivan had to successfully play dead, and hold his breath at the minimum, for at least a good minute or so, and at the maximum, 15 minutes. I’m presuming his eyes were not open, else the Russians would catch him blinking. This means that Ivan wouldn’t exactly know when the Russians were looking over his body to check if he was breathing or not, thereby not allowing Ivan to be able to choose when to play dead or breathe (which seems to be made out to be the case in the articles).⁴⁹ Therefore, could Ivan actually have held his breath for such an amount of time, and faked being dead, that the Russians believed he was in fact dead? On top of the previous question, even if he was able to hold his breath and fake dead, did the Russians accept that he could have been dead on one bullet shot to the abdomen? There’s no way Ivan could have faked bullet wounds. The Russians would have clearly seen that he was only shot once to the abdomen. These are trained killers, would they have known that such a shot is in general, not enough to kill someone outright clearly? And of course once again, regardless of any of these facts, did Russia have an instruction that anybody that they truly intended to kill, they must shoot them in the head?

Also, was Ivan playing dead, in the context of his surroundings, actually enough to convince the Russians he was dead?

If Ivan was in a great deal of pain from the shot, could he have faked it so well to have resisted the urge to show agony? Conversely, would the supposed Russian soldiers have actually thought that one would die ‘instantaneously’ once hit in the abdomen? Or is there a moment of agony and squirming before death/where the body doesn’t move? Did the Russians think something was off, looking at all the other bodies moving with potentially the same bullet shot, why Ivan’s body was the only one not moving? Would the Russians have believed that looking at his body, although likely taken the same damage as the other bodies, was in fact dead? These are some of the things to think about.

In conclusion, there are the some things that I’m generally sceptical about. I find it hard to believe that Ivan successfully held his breath for a good few minutes; long enough to fake out the Russians who were admittedly there for ‘minutes’, even up to 15 minutes, according to Ivan himself and NYT. I’m also skeptical that the Russians seeing only 1 wound, even if Ivan did successfully play dead, would believe that 1 wound to the abdomen was enough to ensure someone had successfully died. On a similar note, I also wondered if the Russians questioned why did the other bodies squirm on supposedly similar shots, but Ivan’s body, didn’t, with perhaps similar damage. Whilst a critic may argue that this is all skepticism, even reasonable skepticism and therefore not conclusive, what there is strong unbiased evidence for is one important point; that the Russians had an instruction to shoot those they intended to kill with a bullet in the head, regardless of moving or anything, and if that was the case, we can infer that Ivan was not in fact intended to be killed by the Russians.

Let’s now assume I’m wrong (Russians do not have an order to shoot in the head those they intend to kill), and that Ivan did in fact successfully deceive the Russians, and is now laying on the ground preparing to escape.

We are then told that Ivan successfully, bleeding, runs (AP/NYT?) or crawls (BBC) to a nearby house and successfully cleans himself up before more Russian troops find him. We are then told that somehow, someway, his identification wasn’t asked for (once again) to verify who he was when the Russians found him a second time; that he ‘persuaded’ the Russians he was the owner of the house, and was hit by shelling.⁵⁰

I find this quite skeptical given that earlier on in the AP article, they admit that Russians were "checking people’s documents, examining their phones and interrogating them, according to interviews with local residents." So why, in an extremely weird situation, did the Russians let Ivan off on these requests? That would have been the only way Ivan could have deceived the Russians at the house or back at the treatment centre. Furthermore, according to the BBC, they already had Ivan's phone, and the phone was supposedly handed around by the Russians.⁵¹ So here, once again, on the point of Ivan running into the Russians again for a second time, this time with a shot to the abdomen, something doesn't add up in this situation when you connect the dots with the other unbiased evidence around us that the Russians were asking everyone for documentation/identification, and for the fact that they already had his phone. We also can’t forget that NYT never even reported him being caught again by Russians outright.

Let’s accept one again the improbable according to the unbiased evidence before us, and assume that Ivan successfully convinced these Russians he was someone else (because for some reason the Russians didn't ask for ID from Ivan when they always have before, and for some reason the Russians didn't connect the dots between his phone that they had and Ivan standing right in front of them), and Ivan actually went back to the medical clinic to be treated by the Russians. We are now supposed to believe that whilst at the hospital, the soldiers who supposedly tried to kill him, did not recognise him again.⁵² We also need to believe that, apparently, although Ivan was treated, according to AP, Ivan told no one about his bullet wound.⁵³ Again, something here doesn't add up. BBC says 'Ivan's wounds were treated' (I assume including the bullet wound). AP seems to make the claim that Ivan cleaned himself up, and that even though he was treated again at the Russian treatment centre, apparently he hid the bullet wound in his abdomen, and therefore didn't get treated for it. Once again the story isn't reported consistently on this aspect as well. We shouldn't forget that NYT just doesn't report this story whatsoever; apparently NYT believe Ivan just ran and was treated by a Bucha doctor.

In conclusion, let us be reminded of all the extremely skeptical, illogical points that make up the thread of Ivan’s story. There are also so many very low probability moments that had to add up for Ivan’s story to be absolutely true - and many things that go against traditional Russian instructions (i.e. Head shots for those they do intend to kill, but apparently Ivan was given an exception. Bypassing Russia’s request for identification, but apparently Ivan was given an exception). Ivan also claims that he successfully played dead and held his breath for several minutes, up to 15 minutes (per NYT), when the Russians stayed there and checked the bodies. Ivan then tells us he made his way to a nearby house where he cleaned himself up, was caught again by Russians.⁵⁴ Ivan then gets us to believe that the Russian soldiers, seeing a massive head wound, and a bleeding out bullet shot to his abdomen, successfully convinced the Russians he was someone else, even though they had his phone. We then need to believe that as he was taken aback to 144 Yablunska, and being treated for his wounds, that no one questioned him, and no previous soldiers recognised him. On the balance of probabilities I am inclined to say that Ivan’s story just doesn’t add up. More importantly, if it is true that Russia intended to kill neoNazis with a shot in the back of the head, then I would say beyond a reasonable doubt that Ivan’s story is fake. This is not taking into account the already botched inconsistent reporting job between the major western media outlets - AP, BBC, and NYT, on so many points of the story.

The significance of Ivan’s story is great. Because if it can be proven that Ivan was intentionally supposed to die with those other 8 men, then we can infer that Russia most probably killed those 8 other men; that Russia was responsible for them, since Ivan was with them. I find it however hard to believe so; given how unbelievably improbable his story is when you weigh up all that had to go right for him to be alive and tell the tale (as well as it being against rationality). Therefore, given Ivan’s story is not convincing that the Russians intended to kill him, I am also making the logical implication that there is no strong evidence to show that the men who were volunteers, were killed at the hands of Russian soldiers.

We therefore now have two possible conclusions as to the dead bodies that were definitely volunteers. We can either conclude that we have no idea who killed them, given no direct evidence linking killers to the bodies (seeing Ivan’s story as unconvincing after connecting the dots). Or, we can go a step further and conclude that Ivan’s story is definitely a PsyOps campaign, that he is intentionally lying, and if that’s the case, then because he’s intentionally lying, we can presume that the Ukrainians/West are responsible for the bodies; for the fact that they are maliciously trying to hide or cover something up. We base this on the fact Ivan is intentionally lying (after unravelling the lie), precisely because the story has many inconsistencies and illogical fallacies when listening to Ivan himself and what was reported between the major media outlets in the West. And if Ivan is maliciously trying to craft a lie, why is he doing so? What are the Ukrainians trying to hide?

3. Lastly, there’s a claim that the Russians were drunk (as per the AP article and supposed phone call of a Russian soldier and mother intercepted by Ukraine).

When Russian soldiers unable to reach Kyiv faced mounting losses, they became more erratic, conducting sweeps with rising levels of sometimes drunken violence. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd, File)

On March 17 and 18, a Russian soldier named Ivan called his mother from Bucha. She’d forgotten which military unit he belonged to and he reminded her: 74268 -- the 234th Guards Airborne Assault Regiment, which is part of the 76th Guards Airborne Assault Division.

I can see what the West/Ukraine are trying to do with this claim; that the Russians engaged in drunken violence. A lot of my sensible logical presumptions can be taken away if the Russians were drunk. If the Russians were drunk, they likely wouldn’t have intuitively known that 1 abdomen shot would not have likely killed someone; they would more likely be convinced that Ivan had died. They may have also forgotten the instruction to shoot in the head for those they intend to kill, like Ivan. As a result, this would all add up to shift the weight of the evidence to make it more plausible for Ivan to have gotten away and thus for his story to be more true (not taking into account the fact he still had to convince the Russians he was someone else, even though they had his phone, and even though they ask everyone for documentation, which Ivan would have had to somehow had to bypass).

Unfortunately, the article and the phone call evidence is biased. We must realise that the phone call, supposedly of a Russian soldier telling his mum that he killed civilians drunkenly, is extremely biased evidence. 80% of Ukrainians can speak Russian; thus they almost entirely speak the same language. Physically, you can’t even tell them a part. It is also not difficult for Ukrainians to craft a phone call like this. Furthermore, I find it interesting how they have to mention what brigade the man is from in the phone call, just so you know, we know that it’s a Russian person definitely speaking. Objectively speaking, I find the phone call therefore biased evidence and thus inadmissible, and therefore the argument that Russians killed ‘drunkenly’ as without a strong enough substantial basis. More unbiased evidence is required to convince us of this.

1. I define ‘unbiased evidence’ as evidence that is:

1. indisputable (i.e. agreed upon by both Ukraine and Russia);

2. as well as flawed admissions, and

3. evidence that is without an agenda (i.e. there’s no benefit to either party for making such claims).

   For example, both Ukraine and Russia admit that there were white armbands on civilians. There were also photographs of dead bodies with white armbands. This is therefore an indisputable fact that everyone can agree with to accept in finding out the truth.

   In contrast, evidence with a possible biased agenda cannot be taken to finding the truth. If it was merely Russia that said the dead bodies wore white armbands, we cannot accept this evidence. We cannot take Russia’s word for it precisely because it’s biased, with an agenda to put the blame on Ukraine. To prove that, we have to look only at the unbiased evidence at hand - Ukraine admitting the dead bodies had white armbands, or photographs coming from unbiased sources. Only accepting unbiased evidence, and rejecting evidence that is biased or has a possible agenda, can we clearly find the objective truth about what happened in Bucha. Every sensible objective person can agree with this. And I have followed this rule for the entire paper.

2. Particularly, I am speaking about the dead bodies in Bucha associated with white armbands, or Russian food rations, and we will fully support these claims throughout the paper.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre

4. This is one of the most prominent legal thresholds applied when assessing evidence. ‘Would an objective bystander believe this evidence proves a certain claim beyond a reasonable doubt?’

5. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/04/1/7336396/

https://kyivindependent.com/uncategorized/bucha-liberated-by-ukraine-says-mayor

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3445989-bucha-liberated-from-russian-invaders-mayor.html

https://babel.ua/ru/texts/77612-the-russian-military-walks-past-the-house-and-says-peace-to-your-home-and-then-smiles-how-the-liberated-bucha-lives-now-a-report

https://bykvu.com/eng/bukvy/bucha-is-free-from-russian-invaders-city-mayor/

https://rubryka.com/en/2022/04/01/ofitsijno-buchu-zvilnyly-vid-okupantiv/

"March 31 will go down in the history of our settlement and the entire regional community as a day of liberation from Russian occupying forces by our Armed Forces of Ukraine."

"Today I claim that this day is full of joy, this is a great victory of our Armed Forces in Kyiv region. We will definitely expect and do everything to achieve a great victory all over Ukraine."

- playing to the Ukraine is winning and strong narrative

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/04/1/7336396/

6. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/02/world/ukraine-russia-war#scenes-of-desperation-and-death-as-the-russians-retreat-from-suburbs-outside-kyiv

7. https://t.me/vityzeva/53030

8. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/04/07/meduza-publishes-new-footage-evidencing-civilian-murders-in-bucha-during-russian-occupation

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/world/europe/bucha-ukraine-bodies.html

9. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/04/08/massacre-in-bucha

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/world/europe/bucha-shooting-video.html

10. The NYT video does exactly the same thing.

11. That’s if we assume the tank firing footage of shooting is in fact real, and if the tank is in fact Russian. I continue the analysis accepting that this is the case.

12. A concurrent question that would need to be asked as well is where did the Russian tank aim on the first few shots, because it’s not necessarily certain that the first shot was in fact on the area of the turn. There could have been a few shots to scare the person. We also have to remember that the smoke footage in that area came up much later in the footage, which would support the notion that the first few shots were not necessarily aimed at the corner turn where the bike person may have been. The smoke coming up much later in the footage would support the notion that the bike person actually had a chance to run back the other way where he came from - the most instinctive thing you would do in that situation.

13. A dead person there with a bike could have been planted there afterwards.

14. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/05/bucha-survivor-russian-soldiers-gave-rations-people-basement/

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/04/04/they-gave-their-rations-to-the-people-in-the-basement-then-threw-down-a-grenade

15. We talk about the rations later.

16. https://spravdi.gov.ua/en/bucha-massacre-how-russia-is-trying-to-avoid-responsibility/

17. https://war.obozrevatel.com/nadevayut-belyie-povyazki-na-mirnyih-zhitelej-azov-predupredil-o-novoj-provokatsii-okkupantov.htm

18. https://www.stopfake.org/en/fake-mass-civilian-casualties-in-kyiv-region-staged/

19. https://spravdi.gov.ua/en/bucha-massacre-how-russia-is-trying-to-avoid-responsibility/

20. https://twitter.com/escalatorover/status/1641792817185058818

https://twitter.com/SeosQuinn/status/1511058160508936193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1511058160508936193%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sott.net%2Fembed%2FUt2UE4wPNInalV0ySv6Lx0Wkkq7

https://www.alamy.com/bucha-ukraine-april-5-2022-an-empty-field-ration-package-left-behind-by-russian-invaders-lies-on-the-ground-in-liberated-bucha-kyiv-region-nor-image466732047.html?imageid=CA2CAB06-51D9-4939-B11A-2152EA78BA6E&p=1890100&pn=1&searchId=6209be3bb70832c19f4a1e04fd09673a&searchtype=0

https://www.alamy.com/bucha-ukraine-06th-apr-2022-view-of-a-russian-ration-box-in-bucha-a-town-near-kyiv-that-was-recently-liberated-from-russian-forces-russia-invaded-ukraine-on-24-february-2022-triggering-the-largest-military-attack-in-europe-since-world-war-ii-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-image466748126.html

Most importantly, we also have the unbiased admission from Kateryna that Russians gave rations to some Ukrainian civilians (to any skeptics that think those rations were eaten by Russians and just trashed on the ground). In the context of all the evidence we see as well, we prove that the Russians had an incentive to feed them and keep them alive. At the very least, if it was better for the Russians to keep the civilians alive to “confuse” the Azov, then it’s very likely the Russians needed to feed the civilians to keep them alive.

21. We have evidence to support the fact the Russians wanted to keep the civilians alive, with the photographs of rations next to dead bodies, and the admission by Kateryna herself the Russians were giving rations to civilians.

22. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-street-corpse-with-hands-bound-bullet-wound-head-2022-04-03/

https://suspilne.media/224532-a-bili-povazki-treba-se-vdagati-irpin-ta-buca-pisla-rosijskih-okupantiv-fotoreportaz/

https://spravdi.gov.ua/en/bucha-massacre-how-russia-is-trying-to-avoid-responsibility/

23. Whether or not this is in fact true requires a whole other paper, which I am going to release in the near future.

24. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Russian soldiers would obey the command to invade into a neighbouring country, only to take their civilians and hide behind them to confuse the Ukrainian armed forces, and then go further to do what the Ukrainians claim - to kill them. I just don’t see that being a command Russian soldiers are willing to obey. I can’t think of a good reason that the Kremlin could morally conjure up in order to manipulate Russian soldiers to do this willingly.

25. Based on the photographs of rations and white armbands, because of Kateryna’s admission that Russias were giving rations to Ukrainian civilians. I understand Kateryna’s full claim was that the Russians gave the rations to throw a grenade into the basement and kill them. But that full claim includes a possible hidden agenda and requires more evidence to substantiate. The claim of giving rations however, is not biased, it has no agenda; Ukraine gains no advantage from confessing this information, so we can use it in our analysis.

26. As I stated before, the eyewitness testimonies from alive Bucha civilians claiming Russia killed those dead bodies in Bucha are extremely biased, considering if they say anything that is anti-Ukrainian, they will most likely get killed. And also, it would make Kateryna’s claims that the Russians killing the civilians with a grenade after giving them food make no real sense. The Russians needed the civilians alive to at the very least ‘confuse’ the Azov (as the Azov admit themselves). And, if the Azov admit themselves white armbands were placed to ‘confuse’ them, then it was the Azov who were the most likely killers of the dead bodies in Bucha.

27. The purposeful cut on the drone footage of Russia supposedly killing the person on the bike is unbiased evidence of the malicious intent to manipulate people’s minds and prevent them from knowing the truth.

28. https://apnews.com/article/bucha-ukraine-war-cleansing-investigation-43e5a9538e9ba68a035756b05028b8b4

29. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62011689

30. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/europe/russia-bucha-ukraine-executions.html

31. AP

32. “The results of the criminal evidence we’ve gathered so far reveal that it wasn’t just isolated incidents of military personnel making a mistake but a systematic policy targeting the Ukrainian people,” Semkiv said."

33. “As part of cleansing, those who didn’t pass the test - supposedly including volunteer fighters and civilians suspected of assisting Ukrainian troops, were tortured and executed, surveillance video, audio intercepts and interviews show. —- obtained surveillance camera footage from Bucha that shows, for the first time, what a cleansing operation in Ukraine looks like. —— Taras Semkiv, Ukraine’s lead prosecutor for the 144 Yablunska street case, told the AP and “Frontline” that it’s unusual to see war crimes play out on video and that the CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts from March 4 are key elements for the prosecution.”

34. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006607567724

https://www.buchanews.com.ua/2022/09/28/novi-imena-pochesnyh-gromadyan-buchi-ta-yih-tragichni-istoriyi-foto/

35. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10709259/DAN-RIVERS-reports-harrowing-scenes-uncovered-Ukrainian-liberators-Bucha.html

36. From approximately 6:17, AP video.

37. “What should we do with them?” Skyba heard a Russian say. “Kill them,” another answered. “But take them away first so they’re not laying around here.” - AP

“The conversation was as follows: 'What shall we do with them?' The second man says, 'Finish them off, but just take them out, so that they wouldn't be lying here.'" - BBC

38. “Inside the house, Ivan treated his wound with some antiseptic liquid he found in the bathroom and changed into clothes left behind by the householder. He wrapped himself in a blanket and tried to sleep. But he was disturbed by voices. Russian voices. It turned out that several Russian soldiers were also resting in the house“

39. Mr. Skyba lay there as the soldiers fired another volley at injured men who were still moving. He waited for about 15 minutes until he could no longer hear the soldiers’ voices. Then he ran. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/europe/russia-bucha-ukraine-executions.html

40. “A doctor in Bucha who treated his injury and a medical report reviewed by The Times confirmed the injury.""

41. He was beaten again and a brick was repeatedly smashed against the bucket. At some point he heard the police tell Andriy Verbovyi that they would shoot him in the foot. There was a shot. After that he didn't hear Andriy any more.

“Then Irina had a shock. She saw that her old classmate, Andriy Verbovyi, the boy who had sat beside her from kindergarten, and all the way up through school, was lying bleeding on the ground. Only a few weeks before, they had walked home from the shopping centre together. There was a sheet thrown on the ground near him. "He was lying there, all twisted from cold. He was looking straight at me. We looked into each other's eyes," she says. Irina wanted to go and cover her old friend with the sheet, anything that might make him warmer. But she did not. "Was she too afraid?" I ask.

"It was not so much fear as despair," she replies, "and I was really confused at the time, and couldn't seem to grasp how it happened, and why my classmate was lying there on the ground." Everything was happening so fast. Besides, she had just seen that her son Slavyk was among the line of men. He had been captured separately and beaten, before being brought to join the others. Waiting in the line Slavyk saw blood on the ground nearby, and heard the Russians talking about a wounded man. This was almost certainly Andriy Verbovyi. "I heard them talk among themselves to finish him off because he wouldn't make it," recalls Slavyk. He began to fear for his own life.” - BBC

42. “Mr. Skyba and another captive, ​​Andriy Verbovyi, were then taken inside the building, he said, where they were questioned and beaten before Mr. Verbovyi was shot and killed. The soldiers took Mr. Skyba back to the parking lot, where the other checkpoint guards were still being held.”

43. “Then Skyba saw them lift up the man next to him and shoot him in the head.” - AP

44. Ukraine says that he was a civilian, but we don’t know that for a fact, since Ukraine has an agenda behind such a claim.

“That’s why I didn’t move, because that would mean a bullet to my head. “ - AP Video

45.

46. ‘Two soldiers started shooting’ - AP, ‘opened fire’ - BBC, ‘gunshots rang out’ - NYT

47. “Ivan cannot remember exactly how long the Russians stayed, but it was more like minutes than hours.“ - AP

48. “He waited for about 15 minutes until he could no longer hear the soldiers’ voices.” -NYT

49. “When he sensed they were gone he risked a glance from under his jacket.”- BBC

50. “They saw me and started asking me who I was and what I was doing there." He persuaded them that he was the owner of the house and that his family had been evacuated. His wounds, he explained, were the result of shelling. The soldiers believed his story but they told him he couldn't stay where he was.” - AP

51. “Ivan Skyba remembers beatings and shouted questions. Mobile phones and shoes were confiscated.”

“A Bucha resident found Ivan Skyba's mobile phone, left behind by the Russians as they retreated. It contained records of calls made to several numbers in Russia. The records don't link any of the callers directly to the massacre. The phone might easily have been passed around among a large group of soldiers.” - BBC

52. “But Ivan's luck held. At the base, combat medics treated his wounds. If the troops who shot him were still around, they either did not see him return, or did not recognise him.” - BBC

53. “For the next three days, Skyba huddled there, telling no one about his bullet wound.” - AP

54. With differing stories between all 3 outlets as to exactly how the Russians found him (NYT claiming that Russians never even found him in the first place).