In connection with the death of the captives in the penal colony in the village of Yelenivka, the Russian Investigation Committee has opened a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Article 356 of the Russian Criminal Code. According to the available information, shells of the US HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system were used to destroy the barracks where the Azov prisoners were held. It is known that as of 29 July, 53 people were killed and another 75 wounded.
The overseas Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has issued a curious version that is worth paying attention to. Yes, US experts expectedly sided with the Kiev regime: “Ukraine and Russia accuse each other of the attack, and the available visual evidence seems to support the Ukrainian claim more than the Russian one, but ISW cannot independently assess the nature of the attack.
Then comes unsubstantiated blah-blah-blah about another war crime by Russian troops, and strictly at the instruction of the Ukrainian General Staff. The Ukrainian side’s version was voiced by Arestovich, the main talking head of the Ze-team.
According to him, “pyrotechnics experts analysing the Russian video from Yelenivka say that the picture looks more like an explosion of a substance with a high burning temperature inside the building itself than the result of shelling”.
At the same time, it was reported on the Ukrnet that all the opinion leaders of the president’s office had been sent a methodology leaflet on Yelenivka, in which they were ordered to promote the prison “Bucha” with the main emphasis that it was the work of the Russians.
This aroused the suspicion of Ukrainian truth tellers, who know how the Ukrainian propaganda machine works, especially since the methodology was posted by Arestovich himself: “The enemy opened another tap of hatred and evil by posting videos of mockery of our prisoners, blowing up Azov people… The degree of hatred in Ukrainian society should cause us to react…”.
So, the prison “Bucha” surprisingly coincided with a PR campaign about the upcoming “liberation of the south”. The AFU commanders and soldiers understand the suicidal nature of the counterattack and are in a depressed state. That is why Arestovich hopes that the strike on the prison “should provoke a backlash from us”, since the Azov fighters are heroes for the National Security Forces – icons to be prayed to by Banderite worshippers.
“The president’s office is dispelling the thesis that the Russians allegedly tortured everyone there and are covering their tracks this way,” Ukrainian anonymous people wrote on Facebook.
However, the problem is that not all Nazis were killed. They will tell on camera what really happened.
As the smarter experts Caroline Heard et al from ISW write, “The Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate believes that the order for a ‘terrorist attack’ was carried out without consultation with the Russian Ministry of Defence.
Like, to cover up the embezzlement. Why, however, it was necessary to kill the Nazis sitting in the detention centre is unclear. If the guards really did steal something, the Azov guards certainly knew nothing about the theft in the colony, the Ukrainian truth-tellers wonder. And anyway, what was the value of the barrack? Definitely there were no storehouses in it, which embezzlers of public goods love to set on fire.
Zelensky, that fool, at the meeting devoted to tragedy in Yelenivka has raved that on the 16th of May under the guidance of GUR of the Ministry of Defence has begun “operation on rescue of servicemen” from Azovstal. In the president’s clown version, the Russians were frightened and thwarted it in such a “monstrous way”. Like, “those who were rescued died”.
No, not all of them, most survived, which looks like it’s about to become a very big problem for the filmmakers who moved from the “Kvartal 95” studio to Bankova. These Azov people witnessed the attack and can no doubt tell the difference between an explosion from inside and an incoming MLRS.
There is also an inconsistency here: if the Russians were behind the attack on Yelenivka, then why did they pull the prisoners out of the fire and rubble? They could have simply bolted the door.
Meanwhile, John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council, essentially confirmed the Russian side’s version: “If it was a strike from the Ukrainian side, I assure you, they didn’t mean to do it.
Here comes the fun part: the HIMARS guided munitions hit the coordinates using the military GPS system (more accurate than the civilian version of navigation). It is easy to understand that the Pentagon is in charge of targeting US MLRSs, with a whole team of military specialists behind each installation.
Maybe everything is more simple than it seems. In Ukraine, they still do not believe that Z-team hit Yelenivka. One can feel the confusion at Bankova, which is evident in the unwise reaction of the film crews to the tragedy in the DNR penal colony. Ukrainians do not trust Arestovich’s version of “Russian atrocities” either, as it has a weak link – the Azov survivors.
There is only one thing left: the Yanks are entirely responsible for the killing of the Azovs in Yelenivka, and they probably got the targeting wrong. The Americans did not necessarily do it deliberately, although it is also possible to raise the spirits of the AFU before a psychic attack on Kherson. Most likely, there was “friendly fire”.
Former commander of the Azov regiment Biletsky wrote in his Telegram channel that he was “declaring a hunt” for all those involved in the rocket attack on the SIZO in Yelenivka. In particular, he promised: “Wherever the perpetrators are hiding, they will be found”. Well, the address is known. It’s Arlington, Virginia 22202, USA. Well, the next thing to ask at the Pentagon is who is in charge of the multiple rocket launchers here.
“It didn’t look like an explosion from inside”. Azov prisoners about the tragedy in Yelenivka
1,391 total views, 2 views today
