Society
Declan Hayes
July 29, 2023
© Photo: Social media

Why can Khan argue with a straight and pompous face, that those children should not have been evacuated from this modern-day Stalingrad?

❗️Join us on Telegram Twitter , and VK .

This article examines the war crimes’ charges the International Criminal Court has levelled against two Russian citizens, Russian President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, nick-named Mother Russia because of her child protection advocacy.

The levelling of such charges presumes there are charges to answer, that those so charged are horrible people of the calibre of an Eichmann or a Mengele and are definitionally more guilty and much more evil than others, in particular than those who level their j’accuse charges against them. This article decidedly rejects those presumptions as well as those who make them and concludes with some more helpful suggestions than those mooted by NATO’s paid apologists at the Hague

Khan’s Case

The statement by Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants against President Vladimir Putin and Ms Maria Lvova-Belova may be read in its entirety at this link. Khan’s office states “there are reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, contrary to article 8(2)(a)(vii) and article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute”.

Specific incidents “include the deportation of at least hundreds of children taken from orphanages and children’s care homes” and that many of those children were granted Russian citizenship so that they might more easily be adopted by families within the Russian Federation”.

Khan’s office alleges that these acts, amongst others, demonstrate an intention to, in essence, permanently deport and kidnap these “Ukrainian children [who] were protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Khan’s office “also underlined in our application that most acts in this pattern of deportations were carried out in the context of the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014”.

As part of Khan’s work, he “visited one of the care homes from which children were allegedly taken, close to the current frontlines of the conflict. The accounts of those who had cared for these children, and their fears as to what had become of them, underlined the urgent need for action”.

Khan finishes by reminding us that he “stated when in Bucha last May, Ukraine is a crime scene that encompasses a complex and broad range of alleged international crimes. We will not hesitate to submit further applications for warrants of arrest when the evidence requires us to do so”.

Criminal Responsibility For Unlawful Deportations

Khan’s claims that these “deportations” were unlawful according to the a la carte rules of MI6 agent Zelensky’s rump Reich, as well as international norms do not hold water. The children were evacuated, not deported. This is not a play on words, but a matter of fact.

Here is an account by American mercenary Justin Bans, who fought with Zelensky’s notorious Azov Nazi Battalion and who found their allegiance to Herr Hitler a huge giggle and a source of much good-humoured merry making.

Here is the surrender of hundreds of Azov Nazis at the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol. Here is a further report on Mariupol which cites MI6 agent Zelensky saying the city must be evacuated and which claims the city was left in ruins and that “tens of thousands of people were killed.” Here, from the other side, is an interview with Zulu, a Chechen fighter, who previously served with a SWAT team in Grozny and who claimed Mariupol was hell on earth with fighting occurring, much like in Stalingrad’s infamous Tractor Factory, from floor to floor and room to room.

Why can Khan argue with a straight and pompous face, that those children should not have been evacuated from this modern-day Stalingrad? Should they have been allowed stay in Mariupol and perhaps clear mines with their bare hands as, according to this Israeli account, the Danes made teenage German children do after Germany’s 1945 surrender?

Perhaps the Russians should have just cut these children loose like the Poles did with 12 year old Nazi boy hero Alfred Czech the youngest of the Iron Cross recipients Hitler doled out a few days before he blew his brains out and who was later shot in the lung, captured and made walk hundreds of miles home from Prague to his now widowed mother in what remained of the family farm in Silesia?

Although Khan’s office drew attention to “the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014”, his faulty analysis seems to be more in line with the Chinese Mukden Incident or the Gleiwitz Incident when the war-mongering Poles attacked the peace-loving, tree-hugging Nazis and kicked off the Second World War. Because he seems, in true British fashion, to have determined to have no idea of the atrocities Zelensky’s Nazis perpetrated on the “Muscovites” from 2104 onwards he is, like his child-molesting brother before him, not fit for purpose.

Models Of Pristine Perfection in The Ukrainian Crime Scene

Khan is not impartial in this matter. Former British Parliamentarian Imran Ahmad Khan, Karim’s brother, got jail time for his role in the sexual exploitation of tens of thousands of English children by their fellow South Asians in the north of England. Not only that but Britain has been a direct participant in some of the most egregious crimes of this Ukrainian war. Although Nordstream and the Kerch bridge spring immediately to mind, there are very many more, the worst of which is serial philanderer Boris Johnson scuttling the April 2022 peace talks.

Add to that that the only ones who ever find themselves in the dock at the Hague are Serbs and Africans and we can begin to get the measure of this plum-mouth for hire.

As regards Bucha, which seems to be a compulsory stop-over for anyone and everyone visiting Zelensky with a brown envelope or a bag of coke, all agree that war crimes were committed there. The difference arises in that one group believes that Zelensky’s Nazis are capable of and motivated to commit war crimes because that is their long-established modus operandi, and the other group, which include the Khans and all NATO’s satrapies believe that Ukrainian Nazis, like Syria’s ISIS killers before them, are more pristine than the Virgin Mary.

When Mother Russia Met Putin

This Gotcha Newsweek article quotes Maria Lvova-Belova, Mother Russia, as the wags call her, saying that when she first encountered the children at the heart of this dispute, “they spoke negatively about [Putin], said all sorts of nasty things, sang the anthem of Ukraine, ‘Glory to Ukraine’ and all that, before seeing the light and falling in love with Russia”.

Iron Cross winner Alfred Czech puts that one to bed for he too was raised on a gruel of songs of hatred, which ruined not only his life but that of his family. Not only were those “patriotic” Ukrainian children weaned on diets of undistilled hatred but the Western media repeatedly admitted that fact until they got orders to the contrary.

This invidious Latvian piece sets out to demonise Mother Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova, Masha as the children call her. It begins by citing Yale University (argumentum ab auctorite) and tells us that Belova is proud of her role in this entire affair. We then hear of an October 27 2021 video call between Mother Russia and Putin, her co-accused, where Putin makes perfunctory inquiries about her family and professional activities and then essentially gives her the green light to get on with this big and unenviable job that seems to suit her skill set.

As Putin has a very weighty in-tray, he obviously has to delegate work like this, whilst attending to many other matters of state. Nevertheless, when they again spoke on March 9, 2022, a fortnight after Russia’s military intervention, Lvova-Belova informed him that she had set out to “evacuate” Ukrainian children, to “save them from shelling” and “give them a future” in Russia. Lvova-Belova alleges that Putin “has underscored that every displaced child should have an opportunity to find a family.”

Although Khan and NATO’s other agents might argue that that implicates both Putin and Lvova-Belova, she argues that “We’re definitely not working to take children from their parents and give them to Russian families.”

Although the article, with its Third Reich references, hints that Lvova-Belova is some sort of a well-meaning Eva Braun air head, my conclusion is that Lvova-Belova, Putin and many other Russians found themselves lumbered with thousands of children who, like Alfred Czech before them, had been marinated in Nazi bile for years on end and they tried, however imperfectly, to redress that brainwashing. This same phenomenon would be familiar to anyone who has come across children anywhere in care. It is, at the best of times, almost impossible to redress the damage already done and Putin, with so many other things on his plate, has tried, through the remarkable Lvova-Belova, to put some bits of these shattered children’s lives to rights.

Mother Russia’s Orthodox Church, to which Lvova-Belova is firmly attached and embedded, was more than happy to play its part, along with its various networks and well-meaning rougher diamonds. As Stalin had enlisted the same Church to face the same enemies in what all Soviets then called the Great Patriotic War, this confluence should not surprise us.

And nor should the machinations of NATO and their various mouthpieces to attack that Church and all other elements of Russian civil society because, to conquer Russia and feed off its carcass, those are necessary if not quite sufficient NATO targets.

Pity the Children: Good Cop

This soft sell article was published in The Conversation, which expects its contributors to have a PhD research degree. It was written by freelance journalist Natalie Sauer, who “holds a languages degree from Cambridge University and speaks Spanish, German and a smattering of Russian”.

Though Natalie begins by telling us that “Russia – controversially – now holds the council presidency” Natalie omits to tell us that controversy is simply the usual NATO suspects gassing off. Oh well, never mind. With the principle that the Russians are controversial having been established, the article then reminds us that the extremist British regime, with its own unenviable record of child abuse, “blocked a planned UN webcast to discuss the deportation issue… because of Lvova-Belova’s involvement” in it. Mother Russia, you see, is not quite kosher as she is not an Azov apologist.

Having established that the British and not Mother Russia have the high moral ground, the article meanders through the various international attempts over the last century to establish in law the rights of children and their parents. No mention of the Bengal Famine, the saturation bombing of Serbia and Libya, the gang rapes in northern England or MI6’s child trafficking into the ISIS Caliphate but never mind as “occupying powers [Russia in other words] are prohibited from deporting protected persons, including children, from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power (or to any other country)” and “occupying powers [Russia in other words] must also facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parents, and they must not change children’s personal status. Essentially, they must not fracture the relationship between children and their families.”

After citing the1948 Genocide Convention and “Russia’s actions in light of legal obligatons under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention”, Natalie informs us that “the principle is clear: impunity for crimes [real or imagined] committed against children [by Russia] in times of war is not an option.”

Pity the Children: Good Example

Although my earlier articles have given countless examples of Albion’s rank hypocrisy in this issue, check out the BBC’s fake tears for Yemen’s children. Whatever happened there?

Oh, never mind. Go read obsessive Russophobe Natalia Antonova gas on about the prostitutes of Kiev and how, somehow that is all Putin’s fault. Better still, read Jessica Henn gassing on here that “in the case of Ukraine, interviews conducted by the OHCHR, indicate that sexual violence has been used in relation to the conflict in Crimea”, even though no violence was used or alleged to have been used in the case of Crimea.

Even better still, go watch this Guardian video on Westwards inter-generational child sex trafficking from the south east of Romania and figure out which is the saddest and most poignant moment in that trail of tears. For me, it is at 8:48 where a little girl with a velvety voice and an angelic face and heavenly eyes to match tells us she would love “to work in an aeroplane and go to university” but, as sure as there are folk like the Khans in England and in the Hague, we all know where her trail of tears will end.

Go look at Romania and even Ukraine and weep that they have too many people like the Khans and, thanks to them, too few people like Mother Russia and her heroic helpers.

Pity the Children: Bad Cop

If Natalie Sauer deserves to be gently rebuked, Allison Quinn, who writes in MI6’s Kyiv (sic) Post deserves a metaphorical kick up the transom. Here she is in the sewer that is the Daily Beast using her lower form schoolgirl English to try to bring Mother Russia down to size.

Moving up a form or two but still staying in the same under-performing high school we get Natalia Antelava bemoaning in the MI6 funde anti-disinformation (ha ha) Codastory site that VICE’s interview with Mother Russia was much too lenient and should have followed more the bad cop routine than the good one. Although Antelava is obviously perturbed that Zelensky’s Fourth Reich is collapsing around her ears, her most reasonable points are the unreasonable ones that the Russian armed forces should have allowed humanitarian corridors into the Nazis holed up in Mariupol and that Russia’s internal security services take a dim view of MI6 and the Force Reaction Unit running terrorist death squads inside Russia. Antelava, it seems, is one of those loudmouths who would not know the difference between an Armalite and a Featherlite.

The Case Against Mother Russia: A Conclusion

NATO’s false, self-serving claims are part of a NATO pattern I have already addressed at least three times in July alone and which Stephen Karganovic, amongst others, has also repeatedly addressed. It is the same false pattern NATO has displayed against the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Serbia and a host of other countries. It is as much a weapon in NATO’s armoury as is their use of cluster bombs, Agent Orange or Force Research Unit death squads. It is, in essence, a tactic to bombard the target, Mother Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova in this case and through her all of Russian civil society and to somehow blame them for the rise of the Azov Nazi cult and all of its awful consequences in Ukraine.

There is but one way out of this morass. It is for the Armed Forces of Russia to continue on the mission they have been set and for other, peace-loving countries, China being the most obvious one, to step into the breach and try to resolve or at least mitigate the immense human damage of this totally avoidable war. Transporting those children from Russia to Poland via Beijing or sailing them from Crimea to Romania on the ships of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Navy at the appropriate time is not the hardest logistical problem there is.

A much harder one is to get the NATO states to act humanely and stop financing Nazi militias, Nazi propaganda and Nazi kangaroo courts. The only way that will end is for those Russians with different skill sets than Maria Lvova-Belova to make it end by force of arms and for others like Foreign Minister Lavrov, backed by the Armed Forces of Russia and allied countries, to ensure that NATO’s war-mongering hypocrisy against Mother Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya and all good people like Maria Lvova-Belova and all good institutions like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church end now and forever.

NATO’s War Crimes Charges Against Mother Russia

Why can Khan argue with a straight and pompous face, that those children should not have been evacuated from this modern-day Stalingrad?

❗️Join us on Telegram Twitter , and VK .

This article examines the war crimes’ charges the International Criminal Court has levelled against two Russian citizens, Russian President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, nick-named Mother Russia because of her child protection advocacy.

The levelling of such charges presumes there are charges to answer, that those so charged are horrible people of the calibre of an Eichmann or a Mengele and are definitionally more guilty and much more evil than others, in particular than those who level their j’accuse charges against them. This article decidedly rejects those presumptions as well as those who make them and concludes with some more helpful suggestions than those mooted by NATO’s paid apologists at the Hague

Khan’s Case

The statement by Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants against President Vladimir Putin and Ms Maria Lvova-Belova may be read in its entirety at this link. Khan’s office states “there are reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, contrary to article 8(2)(a)(vii) and article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute”.

Specific incidents “include the deportation of at least hundreds of children taken from orphanages and children’s care homes” and that many of those children were granted Russian citizenship so that they might more easily be adopted by families within the Russian Federation”.

Khan’s office alleges that these acts, amongst others, demonstrate an intention to, in essence, permanently deport and kidnap these “Ukrainian children [who] were protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Khan’s office “also underlined in our application that most acts in this pattern of deportations were carried out in the context of the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014”.

As part of Khan’s work, he “visited one of the care homes from which children were allegedly taken, close to the current frontlines of the conflict. The accounts of those who had cared for these children, and their fears as to what had become of them, underlined the urgent need for action”.

Khan finishes by reminding us that he “stated when in Bucha last May, Ukraine is a crime scene that encompasses a complex and broad range of alleged international crimes. We will not hesitate to submit further applications for warrants of arrest when the evidence requires us to do so”.

Criminal Responsibility For Unlawful Deportations

Khan’s claims that these “deportations” were unlawful according to the a la carte rules of MI6 agent Zelensky’s rump Reich, as well as international norms do not hold water. The children were evacuated, not deported. This is not a play on words, but a matter of fact.

Here is an account by American mercenary Justin Bans, who fought with Zelensky’s notorious Azov Nazi Battalion and who found their allegiance to Herr Hitler a huge giggle and a source of much good-humoured merry making.

Here is the surrender of hundreds of Azov Nazis at the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol. Here is a further report on Mariupol which cites MI6 agent Zelensky saying the city must be evacuated and which claims the city was left in ruins and that “tens of thousands of people were killed.” Here, from the other side, is an interview with Zulu, a Chechen fighter, who previously served with a SWAT team in Grozny and who claimed Mariupol was hell on earth with fighting occurring, much like in Stalingrad’s infamous Tractor Factory, from floor to floor and room to room.

Why can Khan argue with a straight and pompous face, that those children should not have been evacuated from this modern-day Stalingrad? Should they have been allowed stay in Mariupol and perhaps clear mines with their bare hands as, according to this Israeli account, the Danes made teenage German children do after Germany’s 1945 surrender?

Perhaps the Russians should have just cut these children loose like the Poles did with 12 year old Nazi boy hero Alfred Czech the youngest of the Iron Cross recipients Hitler doled out a few days before he blew his brains out and who was later shot in the lung, captured and made walk hundreds of miles home from Prague to his now widowed mother in what remained of the family farm in Silesia?

Although Khan’s office drew attention to “the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014”, his faulty analysis seems to be more in line with the Chinese Mukden Incident or the Gleiwitz Incident when the war-mongering Poles attacked the peace-loving, tree-hugging Nazis and kicked off the Second World War. Because he seems, in true British fashion, to have determined to have no idea of the atrocities Zelensky’s Nazis perpetrated on the “Muscovites” from 2104 onwards he is, like his child-molesting brother before him, not fit for purpose.

Models Of Pristine Perfection in The Ukrainian Crime Scene

Khan is not impartial in this matter. Former British Parliamentarian Imran Ahmad Khan, Karim’s brother, got jail time for his role in the sexual exploitation of tens of thousands of English children by their fellow South Asians in the north of England. Not only that but Britain has been a direct participant in some of the most egregious crimes of this Ukrainian war. Although Nordstream and the Kerch bridge spring immediately to mind, there are very many more, the worst of which is serial philanderer Boris Johnson scuttling the April 2022 peace talks.

Add to that that the only ones who ever find themselves in the dock at the Hague are Serbs and Africans and we can begin to get the measure of this plum-mouth for hire.

As regards Bucha, which seems to be a compulsory stop-over for anyone and everyone visiting Zelensky with a brown envelope or a bag of coke, all agree that war crimes were committed there. The difference arises in that one group believes that Zelensky’s Nazis are capable of and motivated to commit war crimes because that is their long-established modus operandi, and the other group, which include the Khans and all NATO’s satrapies believe that Ukrainian Nazis, like Syria’s ISIS killers before them, are more pristine than the Virgin Mary.

When Mother Russia Met Putin

This Gotcha Newsweek article quotes Maria Lvova-Belova, Mother Russia, as the wags call her, saying that when she first encountered the children at the heart of this dispute, “they spoke negatively about [Putin], said all sorts of nasty things, sang the anthem of Ukraine, ‘Glory to Ukraine’ and all that, before seeing the light and falling in love with Russia”.

Iron Cross winner Alfred Czech puts that one to bed for he too was raised on a gruel of songs of hatred, which ruined not only his life but that of his family. Not only were those “patriotic” Ukrainian children weaned on diets of undistilled hatred but the Western media repeatedly admitted that fact until they got orders to the contrary.

This invidious Latvian piece sets out to demonise Mother Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova, Masha as the children call her. It begins by citing Yale University (argumentum ab auctorite) and tells us that Belova is proud of her role in this entire affair. We then hear of an October 27 2021 video call between Mother Russia and Putin, her co-accused, where Putin makes perfunctory inquiries about her family and professional activities and then essentially gives her the green light to get on with this big and unenviable job that seems to suit her skill set.

As Putin has a very weighty in-tray, he obviously has to delegate work like this, whilst attending to many other matters of state. Nevertheless, when they again spoke on March 9, 2022, a fortnight after Russia’s military intervention, Lvova-Belova informed him that she had set out to “evacuate” Ukrainian children, to “save them from shelling” and “give them a future” in Russia. Lvova-Belova alleges that Putin “has underscored that every displaced child should have an opportunity to find a family.”

Although Khan and NATO’s other agents might argue that that implicates both Putin and Lvova-Belova, she argues that “We’re definitely not working to take children from their parents and give them to Russian families.”

Although the article, with its Third Reich references, hints that Lvova-Belova is some sort of a well-meaning Eva Braun air head, my conclusion is that Lvova-Belova, Putin and many other Russians found themselves lumbered with thousands of children who, like Alfred Czech before them, had been marinated in Nazi bile for years on end and they tried, however imperfectly, to redress that brainwashing. This same phenomenon would be familiar to anyone who has come across children anywhere in care. It is, at the best of times, almost impossible to redress the damage already done and Putin, with so many other things on his plate, has tried, through the remarkable Lvova-Belova, to put some bits of these shattered children’s lives to rights.

Mother Russia’s Orthodox Church, to which Lvova-Belova is firmly attached and embedded, was more than happy to play its part, along with its various networks and well-meaning rougher diamonds. As Stalin had enlisted the same Church to face the same enemies in what all Soviets then called the Great Patriotic War, this confluence should not surprise us.

And nor should the machinations of NATO and their various mouthpieces to attack that Church and all other elements of Russian civil society because, to conquer Russia and feed off its carcass, those are necessary if not quite sufficient NATO targets.

Pity the Children: Good Cop

This soft sell article was published in The Conversation, which expects its contributors to have a PhD research degree. It was written by freelance journalist Natalie Sauer, who “holds a languages degree from Cambridge University and speaks Spanish, German and a smattering of Russian”.

Though Natalie begins by telling us that “Russia – controversially – now holds the council presidency” Natalie omits to tell us that controversy is simply the usual NATO suspects gassing off. Oh well, never mind. With the principle that the Russians are controversial having been established, the article then reminds us that the extremist British regime, with its own unenviable record of child abuse, “blocked a planned UN webcast to discuss the deportation issue… because of Lvova-Belova’s involvement” in it. Mother Russia, you see, is not quite kosher as she is not an Azov apologist.

Having established that the British and not Mother Russia have the high moral ground, the article meanders through the various international attempts over the last century to establish in law the rights of children and their parents. No mention of the Bengal Famine, the saturation bombing of Serbia and Libya, the gang rapes in northern England or MI6’s child trafficking into the ISIS Caliphate but never mind as “occupying powers [Russia in other words] are prohibited from deporting protected persons, including children, from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power (or to any other country)” and “occupying powers [Russia in other words] must also facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parents, and they must not change children’s personal status. Essentially, they must not fracture the relationship between children and their families.”

After citing the1948 Genocide Convention and “Russia’s actions in light of legal obligatons under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention”, Natalie informs us that “the principle is clear: impunity for crimes [real or imagined] committed against children [by Russia] in times of war is not an option.”

Pity the Children: Good Example

Although my earlier articles have given countless examples of Albion’s rank hypocrisy in this issue, check out the BBC’s fake tears for Yemen’s children. Whatever happened there?

Oh, never mind. Go read obsessive Russophobe Natalia Antonova gas on about the prostitutes of Kiev and how, somehow that is all Putin’s fault. Better still, read Jessica Henn gassing on here that “in the case of Ukraine, interviews conducted by the OHCHR, indicate that sexual violence has been used in relation to the conflict in Crimea”, even though no violence was used or alleged to have been used in the case of Crimea.

Even better still, go watch this Guardian video on Westwards inter-generational child sex trafficking from the south east of Romania and figure out which is the saddest and most poignant moment in that trail of tears. For me, it is at 8:48 where a little girl with a velvety voice and an angelic face and heavenly eyes to match tells us she would love “to work in an aeroplane and go to university” but, as sure as there are folk like the Khans in England and in the Hague, we all know where her trail of tears will end.

Go look at Romania and even Ukraine and weep that they have too many people like the Khans and, thanks to them, too few people like Mother Russia and her heroic helpers.

Pity the Children: Bad Cop

If Natalie Sauer deserves to be gently rebuked, Allison Quinn, who writes in MI6’s Kyiv (sic) Post deserves a metaphorical kick up the transom. Here she is in the sewer that is the Daily Beast using her lower form schoolgirl English to try to bring Mother Russia down to size.

Moving up a form or two but still staying in the same under-performing high school we get Natalia Antelava bemoaning in the MI6 funde anti-disinformation (ha ha) Codastory site that VICE’s interview with Mother Russia was much too lenient and should have followed more the bad cop routine than the good one. Although Antelava is obviously perturbed that Zelensky’s Fourth Reich is collapsing around her ears, her most reasonable points are the unreasonable ones that the Russian armed forces should have allowed humanitarian corridors into the Nazis holed up in Mariupol and that Russia’s internal security services take a dim view of MI6 and the Force Reaction Unit running terrorist death squads inside Russia. Antelava, it seems, is one of those loudmouths who would not know the difference between an Armalite and a Featherlite.

The Case Against Mother Russia: A Conclusion

NATO’s false, self-serving claims are part of a NATO pattern I have already addressed at least three times in July alone and which Stephen Karganovic, amongst others, has also repeatedly addressed. It is the same false pattern NATO has displayed against the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Serbia and a host of other countries. It is as much a weapon in NATO’s armoury as is their use of cluster bombs, Agent Orange or Force Research Unit death squads. It is, in essence, a tactic to bombard the target, Mother Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova in this case and through her all of Russian civil society and to somehow blame them for the rise of the Azov Nazi cult and all of its awful consequences in Ukraine.

There is but one way out of this morass. It is for the Armed Forces of Russia to continue on the mission they have been set and for other, peace-loving countries, China being the most obvious one, to step into the breach and try to resolve or at least mitigate the immense human damage of this totally avoidable war. Transporting those children from Russia to Poland via Beijing or sailing them from Crimea to Romania on the ships of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Navy at the appropriate time is not the hardest logistical problem there is.

A much harder one is to get the NATO states to act humanely and stop financing Nazi militias, Nazi propaganda and Nazi kangaroo courts. The only way that will end is for those Russians with different skill sets than Maria Lvova-Belova to make it end by force of arms and for others like Foreign Minister Lavrov, backed by the Armed Forces of Russia and allied countries, to ensure that NATO’s war-mongering hypocrisy against Mother Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya and all good people like Maria Lvova-Belova and all good institutions like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church end now and forever.

Why can Khan argue with a straight and pompous face, that those children should not have been evacuated from this modern-day Stalingrad?

❗️Join us on Telegram Twitter , and VK .

This article examines the war crimes’ charges the International Criminal Court has levelled against two Russian citizens, Russian President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, nick-named Mother Russia because of her child protection advocacy.

The levelling of such charges presumes there are charges to answer, that those so charged are horrible people of the calibre of an Eichmann or a Mengele and are definitionally more guilty and much more evil than others, in particular than those who level their j’accuse charges against them. This article decidedly rejects those presumptions as well as those who make them and concludes with some more helpful suggestions than those mooted by NATO’s paid apologists at the Hague

Khan’s Case

The statement by Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants against President Vladimir Putin and Ms Maria Lvova-Belova may be read in its entirety at this link. Khan’s office states “there are reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, contrary to article 8(2)(a)(vii) and article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute”.

Specific incidents “include the deportation of at least hundreds of children taken from orphanages and children’s care homes” and that many of those children were granted Russian citizenship so that they might more easily be adopted by families within the Russian Federation”.

Khan’s office alleges that these acts, amongst others, demonstrate an intention to, in essence, permanently deport and kidnap these “Ukrainian children [who] were protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Khan’s office “also underlined in our application that most acts in this pattern of deportations were carried out in the context of the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014”.

As part of Khan’s work, he “visited one of the care homes from which children were allegedly taken, close to the current frontlines of the conflict. The accounts of those who had cared for these children, and their fears as to what had become of them, underlined the urgent need for action”.

Khan finishes by reminding us that he “stated when in Bucha last May, Ukraine is a crime scene that encompasses a complex and broad range of alleged international crimes. We will not hesitate to submit further applications for warrants of arrest when the evidence requires us to do so”.

Criminal Responsibility For Unlawful Deportations

Khan’s claims that these “deportations” were unlawful according to the a la carte rules of MI6 agent Zelensky’s rump Reich, as well as international norms do not hold water. The children were evacuated, not deported. This is not a play on words, but a matter of fact.

Here is an account by American mercenary Justin Bans, who fought with Zelensky’s notorious Azov Nazi Battalion and who found their allegiance to Herr Hitler a huge giggle and a source of much good-humoured merry making.

Here is the surrender of hundreds of Azov Nazis at the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol. Here is a further report on Mariupol which cites MI6 agent Zelensky saying the city must be evacuated and which claims the city was left in ruins and that “tens of thousands of people were killed.” Here, from the other side, is an interview with Zulu, a Chechen fighter, who previously served with a SWAT team in Grozny and who claimed Mariupol was hell on earth with fighting occurring, much like in Stalingrad’s infamous Tractor Factory, from floor to floor and room to room.

Why can Khan argue with a straight and pompous face, that those children should not have been evacuated from this modern-day Stalingrad? Should they have been allowed stay in Mariupol and perhaps clear mines with their bare hands as, according to this Israeli account, the Danes made teenage German children do after Germany’s 1945 surrender?

Perhaps the Russians should have just cut these children loose like the Poles did with 12 year old Nazi boy hero Alfred Czech the youngest of the Iron Cross recipients Hitler doled out a few days before he blew his brains out and who was later shot in the lung, captured and made walk hundreds of miles home from Prague to his now widowed mother in what remained of the family farm in Silesia?

Although Khan’s office drew attention to “the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014”, his faulty analysis seems to be more in line with the Chinese Mukden Incident or the Gleiwitz Incident when the war-mongering Poles attacked the peace-loving, tree-hugging Nazis and kicked off the Second World War. Because he seems, in true British fashion, to have determined to have no idea of the atrocities Zelensky’s Nazis perpetrated on the “Muscovites” from 2104 onwards he is, like his child-molesting brother before him, not fit for purpose.

Models Of Pristine Perfection in The Ukrainian Crime Scene

Khan is not impartial in this matter. Former British Parliamentarian Imran Ahmad Khan, Karim’s brother, got jail time for his role in the sexual exploitation of tens of thousands of English children by their fellow South Asians in the north of England. Not only that but Britain has been a direct participant in some of the most egregious crimes of this Ukrainian war. Although Nordstream and the Kerch bridge spring immediately to mind, there are very many more, the worst of which is serial philanderer Boris Johnson scuttling the April 2022 peace talks.

Add to that that the only ones who ever find themselves in the dock at the Hague are Serbs and Africans and we can begin to get the measure of this plum-mouth for hire.

As regards Bucha, which seems to be a compulsory stop-over for anyone and everyone visiting Zelensky with a brown envelope or a bag of coke, all agree that war crimes were committed there. The difference arises in that one group believes that Zelensky’s Nazis are capable of and motivated to commit war crimes because that is their long-established modus operandi, and the other group, which include the Khans and all NATO’s satrapies believe that Ukrainian Nazis, like Syria’s ISIS killers before them, are more pristine than the Virgin Mary.

When Mother Russia Met Putin

This Gotcha Newsweek article quotes Maria Lvova-Belova, Mother Russia, as the wags call her, saying that when she first encountered the children at the heart of this dispute, “they spoke negatively about [Putin], said all sorts of nasty things, sang the anthem of Ukraine, ‘Glory to Ukraine’ and all that, before seeing the light and falling in love with Russia”.

Iron Cross winner Alfred Czech puts that one to bed for he too was raised on a gruel of songs of hatred, which ruined not only his life but that of his family. Not only were those “patriotic” Ukrainian children weaned on diets of undistilled hatred but the Western media repeatedly admitted that fact until they got orders to the contrary.

This invidious Latvian piece sets out to demonise Mother Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova, Masha as the children call her. It begins by citing Yale University (argumentum ab auctorite) and tells us that Belova is proud of her role in this entire affair. We then hear of an October 27 2021 video call between Mother Russia and Putin, her co-accused, where Putin makes perfunctory inquiries about her family and professional activities and then essentially gives her the green light to get on with this big and unenviable job that seems to suit her skill set.

As Putin has a very weighty in-tray, he obviously has to delegate work like this, whilst attending to many other matters of state. Nevertheless, when they again spoke on March 9, 2022, a fortnight after Russia’s military intervention, Lvova-Belova informed him that she had set out to “evacuate” Ukrainian children, to “save them from shelling” and “give them a future” in Russia. Lvova-Belova alleges that Putin “has underscored that every displaced child should have an opportunity to find a family.”

Although Khan and NATO’s other agents might argue that that implicates both Putin and Lvova-Belova, she argues that “We’re definitely not working to take children from their parents and give them to Russian families.”

Although the article, with its Third Reich references, hints that Lvova-Belova is some sort of a well-meaning Eva Braun air head, my conclusion is that Lvova-Belova, Putin and many other Russians found themselves lumbered with thousands of children who, like Alfred Czech before them, had been marinated in Nazi bile for years on end and they tried, however imperfectly, to redress that brainwashing. This same phenomenon would be familiar to anyone who has come across children anywhere in care. It is, at the best of times, almost impossible to redress the damage already done and Putin, with so many other things on his plate, has tried, through the remarkable Lvova-Belova, to put some bits of these shattered children’s lives to rights.

Mother Russia’s Orthodox Church, to which Lvova-Belova is firmly attached and embedded, was more than happy to play its part, along with its various networks and well-meaning rougher diamonds. As Stalin had enlisted the same Church to face the same enemies in what all Soviets then called the Great Patriotic War, this confluence should not surprise us.

And nor should the machinations of NATO and their various mouthpieces to attack that Church and all other elements of Russian civil society because, to conquer Russia and feed off its carcass, those are necessary if not quite sufficient NATO targets.

Pity the Children: Good Cop

This soft sell article was published in The Conversation, which expects its contributors to have a PhD research degree. It was written by freelance journalist Natalie Sauer, who “holds a languages degree from Cambridge University and speaks Spanish, German and a smattering of Russian”.

Though Natalie begins by telling us that “Russia – controversially – now holds the council presidency” Natalie omits to tell us that controversy is simply the usual NATO suspects gassing off. Oh well, never mind. With the principle that the Russians are controversial having been established, the article then reminds us that the extremist British regime, with its own unenviable record of child abuse, “blocked a planned UN webcast to discuss the deportation issue… because of Lvova-Belova’s involvement” in it. Mother Russia, you see, is not quite kosher as she is not an Azov apologist.

Having established that the British and not Mother Russia have the high moral ground, the article meanders through the various international attempts over the last century to establish in law the rights of children and their parents. No mention of the Bengal Famine, the saturation bombing of Serbia and Libya, the gang rapes in northern England or MI6’s child trafficking into the ISIS Caliphate but never mind as “occupying powers [Russia in other words] are prohibited from deporting protected persons, including children, from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power (or to any other country)” and “occupying powers [Russia in other words] must also facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parents, and they must not change children’s personal status. Essentially, they must not fracture the relationship between children and their families.”

After citing the1948 Genocide Convention and “Russia’s actions in light of legal obligatons under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention”, Natalie informs us that “the principle is clear: impunity for crimes [real or imagined] committed against children [by Russia] in times of war is not an option.”

Pity the Children: Good Example

Although my earlier articles have given countless examples of Albion’s rank hypocrisy in this issue, check out the BBC’s fake tears for Yemen’s children. Whatever happened there?

Oh, never mind. Go read obsessive Russophobe Natalia Antonova gas on about the prostitutes of Kiev and how, somehow that is all Putin’s fault. Better still, read Jessica Henn gassing on here that “in the case of Ukraine, interviews conducted by the OHCHR, indicate that sexual violence has been used in relation to the conflict in Crimea”, even though no violence was used or alleged to have been used in the case of Crimea.

Even better still, go watch this Guardian video on Westwards inter-generational child sex trafficking from the south east of Romania and figure out which is the saddest and most poignant moment in that trail of tears. For me, it is at 8:48 where a little girl with a velvety voice and an angelic face and heavenly eyes to match tells us she would love “to work in an aeroplane and go to university” but, as sure as there are folk like the Khans in England and in the Hague, we all know where her trail of tears will end.

Go look at Romania and even Ukraine and weep that they have too many people like the Khans and, thanks to them, too few people like Mother Russia and her heroic helpers.

Pity the Children: Bad Cop

If Natalie Sauer deserves to be gently rebuked, Allison Quinn, who writes in MI6’s Kyiv (sic) Post deserves a metaphorical kick up the transom. Here she is in the sewer that is the Daily Beast using her lower form schoolgirl English to try to bring Mother Russia down to size.

Moving up a form or two but still staying in the same under-performing high school we get Natalia Antelava bemoaning in the MI6 funde anti-disinformation (ha ha) Codastory site that VICE’s interview with Mother Russia was much too lenient and should have followed more the bad cop routine than the good one. Although Antelava is obviously perturbed that Zelensky’s Fourth Reich is collapsing around her ears, her most reasonable points are the unreasonable ones that the Russian armed forces should have allowed humanitarian corridors into the Nazis holed up in Mariupol and that Russia’s internal security services take a dim view of MI6 and the Force Reaction Unit running terrorist death squads inside Russia. Antelava, it seems, is one of those loudmouths who would not know the difference between an Armalite and a Featherlite.

The Case Against Mother Russia: A Conclusion

NATO’s false, self-serving claims are part of a NATO pattern I have already addressed at least three times in July alone and which Stephen Karganovic, amongst others, has also repeatedly addressed. It is the same false pattern NATO has displayed against the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Serbia and a host of other countries. It is as much a weapon in NATO’s armoury as is their use of cluster bombs, Agent Orange or Force Research Unit death squads. It is, in essence, a tactic to bombard the target, Mother Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova in this case and through her all of Russian civil society and to somehow blame them for the rise of the Azov Nazi cult and all of its awful consequences in Ukraine.

There is but one way out of this morass. It is for the Armed Forces of Russia to continue on the mission they have been set and for other, peace-loving countries, China being the most obvious one, to step into the breach and try to resolve or at least mitigate the immense human damage of this totally avoidable war. Transporting those children from Russia to Poland via Beijing or sailing them from Crimea to Romania on the ships of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Navy at the appropriate time is not the hardest logistical problem there is.

A much harder one is to get the NATO states to act humanely and stop financing Nazi militias, Nazi propaganda and Nazi kangaroo courts. The only way that will end is for those Russians with different skill sets than Maria Lvova-Belova to make it end by force of arms and for others like Foreign Minister Lavrov, backed by the Armed Forces of Russia and allied countries, to ensure that NATO’s war-mongering hypocrisy against Mother Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya and all good people like Maria Lvova-Belova and all good institutions like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church end now and forever.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

See also

February 19, 2024
February 18, 2024

See also

February 19, 2024
February 18, 2024
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.