On September 13 2023, the Kyiv Independent published a video titled BULLET HOLES - An investigation into Russia’s systemic killings of Ukrainian children, made by Ukrainian investigative journalist Danylo Mokryk. Bullet Holes is part of the Kyiv Independent’s War Crimes series, all of which focus on alleged war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine.

Bullet Holes tells the story of three children killed in the first two months of the Russian SMO. Mokryk also wrote an article summarising the documentary, published on Yahoo News, and there is a version of the video in Ukrainian. The video presents a lot of video testimony from friends and relatives of the children, some of whom held them in their arms as they died, and it is heartbreaking. Unfortunately, the video does what these kinds of documentaries so often do, which is to use fancy graphics and voiceover from the presenter to tell a story that may not be what the interviewees were saying.

I say they may not have been telling the same story as Mokryk tells us they are, because without seeing all of the footage of these interviews, it’s impossible to know what they were saying. Mokryk uses the tried and tested technique of talking about Russian troops in his voiceovers, and then inserting clips of interviewees talking about ‘him’ or ‘them’ doing something atrocious. If the interviewees were talking about Russian troops then there would be no reason not to include them saying it, yet at no point do they actually do that.

Instead, the filmmakers use harrowing personal stories to tug at the heartstrings and make you feel guilty for questioning the stories of the bereaved and traumatised friends and families, as Mokryk presents them. Almost the first 8 minutes of the video are devoted to showing us how normal these kids were, because they loved dancing, going to see their grandparents, playing video games, making TikTok videos and the like. The message is clear: these could easily be your children.

The video switches frequently between the three stories to make it very hard to follow exactly what happened to whom, and to make it even more confusing two of the stories take place in districts called Havrylivka, one in the Kiev region and one in the Kherson region. There is also an interview with Oleksandra Matviichuk in which she talks about how evil Russia is, cut up and used to pad between the stories, as well as some alleged intercepted phone conversations (released by the SBU) of Russian soldiers talking candidly about how they were killing civilians, which we are expected to take entirely at face value.

This discombobulation might give the impression to a casual and uncritical viewer, that these stories of Russian barbarism that we’ve heard so much about are so common as to become interchangeable, but for the names and faces. I’m going to look more closely at those names and faces, and compare what Mokryk says happened with what his interviewees actually say.

• Mykhailo Ustianivsky, 15 years old

• Vlad Mahdyk, 12 years old

• Katia Vinarska, 10 years old

• Summary

Mykhailo Ustianivsky, 15 years old

Died 15th April 2022 (according to Mokryk) in Havrylivka, Kherson region.

Mykhailo's grandfather says something about ‘that guy’, but his clip is immediately cut off and interrupted with Mykhailo's grandmother saying that Mykhailo was killed for 2 kilos of flour. Neither of them mention the Russian soldiers who were distributing aid, or why they would kill Mykhailo for the aid they were distributing.

Mykhailo’s friend Anatolii says that he and Mykhailo agreed by phone to go and get humanitarian aid together from the village council (28:16). Then Mokryk tells us that he and his team went to Havrylivka to look for witnesses of what happened next, and they found a man called Mykola Rizak, who says ‘it’ happened in front of him.

Mykola tells us he saw the boys walking with plastic bags to get humanitarian aid. Suddenly a Ural armoured vehicle drove past, and the boys ran away in fear, through an abandoned building’s backyard. Then Mokryk gives us this summary:

Mykola says that ‘they’ surrounded the area where the boys were and started shooting. He says that there were a hundred of ‘them’ and that ‘they’ were basically hunting the boys (29:44).

Anatolii describes seeing Mykhailo fall down after being shot, thinking at first that he was pretending to have been shot (29:58). We do not hear Anatolii say who shot at them, or why. Then Mokryk summarises again:

Mykola tells us that ‘their father’ (Mykhailo and Anatolii were not brothers), while in the armoured vehicle, told the soldiers that if they had done something wrong then they could punish them, but he wanted to know where his son was. He says that the soldier replied that he should sit still, or else he would be shot in the head too (30:53). Mykola does not say on which side the soldiers were fighting.

It should be noted that Mykola never mentions the boys by name. He could very well be talking about two completely different boys, at a different time. That area around Kherson was controlled by Russia in April 2022, but returned to Ukrainian control in September 2022.

Now Mokryk tells us that the Russian troops came up with various versions of events to cover up the murder of Mykhailo (31:08). Mokryk tells us that the troops first told their leader Suren (the commander of the Russian troops in this area, according to Mokryk) that they had found a Ukrainian guard post in the village, although there was none. Mykola appears to corroborate this (31:26), mentioning ‘that Suren guy’, but at no point does he say they were Russian.

Later, according to Mokryk, the Russians came up with the story that the boys had been filming military equipment on their phones (32:08). Mokryk tells us that Mykhailo’s friend Anatolii flatly denies this, and that Mykhailo’s grandfather (also Mykhailo) says that no such videos were found on his phone. Mykhailo Sr appears to corroborate this (32:26), but still does not mention Russians.

In one of the documentary’s silly ‘dramatised investigation’ montages (32:56), Mokryk tells us that the name - ‘Suren’ - of the unit commander responsible for Mykhailo’s death is known. “This will prove to be extremely important”, he assures us.

At 48:42 Mokryk tells us that "Law enforcement agencies cannot even exhume the boy's body. The Russian army continues to regularly shell the village where he is buried". Then he cuts to Anastasiia Veselovska, spokesperson for the Kherson regional prosecutor’s office, saying “This makes it difficult for law enforcement agencies to gain access to this place, to carry out the necessary investigative actions, including an exhumation, in order to establish what caused the child’s death”. Mokryk implies that by ‘this’ she means the shelling, but we didn’t actually hear her say so in the clip. Havrylivka is on the west (i.e. the 'right') bank of the Dnieper, north-east of Kherson, and it’s true that there has been reported shelling of the town.

Next Mokryk returns to ‘Suren’, the alleged commander of the Russian troops. At 49:22 Mokryk tells us that “We had a clue. We knew the name of the so-called occupation commander to whom Mykhailo’s murderer’s unit was subordinated: Suren. It was he, who the boy’s grandparents hold responsible for the murder.” Now he cuts to the grandparents saying:

The grandparents never mention Suren by name, or say who ‘they’ were. It is assumed that, since Russia were in control of the area in April 2022, ‘they’ would be Russian troops. I would note that, since Mokryk has told us that Mykhailo’s grave is unreachable due to shelling, we haven’t seen footage of his grave, as we do with the other two children. Therefore we only have Mokryk’s word for the date when Mykhailo died - neither his friend Anatolii, his grandparents or Mykola mention any dates. Searching for Mykhailo Ustianivsky on the internet only yields links back to this video.

At 50:22, Mykola tells us that Suren was the only name by which they knew the commander who was in charge of the region. Mokryk asks Mykola if he thinks Suren was the commander’s name or call sign, to which he replies “Probably the call sign, I don’t know” but a woman off-screen says “That was probably his name…”.

Mokryk then says that:

Baturyn tells us (51:20) about how cruel Suren Mkrtchyan was, including his penchant for rape. Mokryk tells us that “this characterisation of commander Suren fully corresponds to what Mykhailo Ustianivsky’s grandparents told us about him”, and cuts to a clip of them talking about how ‘he’ raped a schoolgirl in Oleksandrivka (52:00) - again, not referring to anyone by name.

Then Mokryk says that Baturyn “learned from the locals that Suren was responsible for the territory of two occupied communities in the Kherson region. His headquarters was in the village of Mylove.” Mylove is close to Havrylivka, but neither Mokryk or Baturyn explicitly says that this Suren was in charge of Havrylivka. Apparently Baturyn identified Mkrtchyan through open sources, and there are some images of a Russian commander handing out awards, who we are told is Suren. According to Baturyn, Suren Mkrtchyan was eventually arrested for sexual assault.

So to recap, we have a mention of the name Suren from Mykola, who may or may not have been talking about Mykhailo. Mokryk is then assuming that this must be the same Suren that Baturyn apparently identified as being based in Mylove, and that he was in command of Havrylivka at the time of Mykhailo’s murder (although this is not made explicit). The second assumption might be reasonable if Baturyn is to be believed, but The Reckoning Project, to which Baturyn is a contributor, counts among its partners USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundations, which immediately calls into question their, and his, reliability.

Based on this flimsy evidence, Mokryk confidently states that Suren is “among those responsible for the murders of hundreds of children in Ukraine - murders that are still happening”. Presumably he means that simply being a Russian commander makes him responsible. At 55:32, Mokryk tells us that it is too painful for Mykhailo’s parents to speak with journalists - this may be completely true, but it might also be true that they just didn’t want to speak to him.

Vlad Mahdyk, 12 years old

Died March 9th 2022, Havrylivka, Kiev region.

This was when the family decided to get away from the front line.

The family drove home, not realising until they were back that Vlad was dead (20:55). Vlad’s mother Olia then set out with Ania to Bucha hospital (22:11), but they were stopped by Chechen soldiers, who filmed them, and instead of letting them go to Bucha, took them to their camp where Ania received medical treatment.

They were filming them for the Kadyrov 95 promo/propaganda Telegram channel. When Mokryk asks Olia why she thinks the soldiers were filming them, she says sarcastically:

Mokyrk tells us that the day after, Kadyrov posted the video of Ania being helped, along with a message that ‘the nationalists’ had been responsible for her injury. Mokyrk insists that the message cannot be true, since the area was under Russian control. He cuts to footage of Ania saying that “There couldn’t possibly be any Ukrainians in the occupied territories who could do this to us. And of course, it was their people who did it”.

At this point, Mokryk has told us that soldiers from the Russian column they encountered pursued them, and shot their vehicle after they had turned around. It’s perhaps worth noting that in the picture illustrating Ania and Vlad in the back of the car (20:12), they are sitting next to each other, so a single bullet coming from behind could not have hit both of them, but the photograph at 35:35 shows their van, with a bullet hole in the back.

There is a confusing and contextless clip of Vlad’s mother Olia saying who she thinks shot the children:

Next follow clips from an interview with prosecutor Dmytro Zhytnyk (36:10), in which he says it is difficult to reconstruct the events that took place because Vlad’s family are the only witnesses to the event, and without other witnesses it is not possible to know “What car, which uniform those Russian soldiers wore”.

Mokryk tells us that there were no CCTV cameras on nearby houses that could have captured the shooting, and Zhytnyk says that all the road traffic cameras were off at the time (37:14). Mokryk says that “there is a high probability that the Russian military unit that fired on the Mahydyks’ car was only passing through the village” (37:29).

Mokryk and Zhytnyk assume that Vlad was shot by Russians, but they both give reasons why it is not possible from the available evidence to say exactly by whom, precluding any further investigation.

Katia Vinarska, 10 years old

Died 25th February 2022, Novyi Burluk, Kharkiv region.

Katia had gone with her grandfather Mykola to pick up her grandmother from the shop where she worked (24:29).

Katia was hit by a bullet. It is implied, but not stated outright, that the car was shot at from the Russian armoured vehicles.

So a Russian military medic from the armoured vehicles who, it was implied, had just shot at them, then gave her medical attention. Why? And why didn’t the Russians shoot at them again as they drove away?

Katia was killed outright by the second bullet. When Mokryk says that “they fired on the car”, the animation shows a soldier with a Z on his arm firing, and bullet holes appearing on the front of the Kivshars’ car, implying that it was Russian soldiers who fired on the car. But the text is ambiguous: ‘they’ could equally have been whoever attacked the Russian troops. Neither Maria nor Mykola Kivshar say who they think shot at them, but later on (42:33) they say that they think it was a sniper.

At 38:02 there is an interminable sequence in which Mokryk and his researcher go to Novyi Berluk to ask locals if they remember the unit that was there, which none of them can. They say that a man was also killed the day after Katia, while filming a looted store. There is a clip at 38:41 that might be the video he was recording, but it’s not clear, and it doesn’t prove anything.

Mokryk tells us that “only the mayor was able to recall that a Russian military badge was found in the local house of culture” (39:20). They go to the mayor’s office and the researcher shows her some images of military badges (but we don’t see them or know if they’re Russian) and asks her if she knows what happened to it, which she doesn’t. She suggests they speak to the head of the house of culture - AKA ‘the club’ - which they do (39:54).

The director of the club, Liudmyla, tells the researcher that “they left this place on the evening of February 26”, and that it was a mess when ‘they’ left. Mokryk tells us that Liudmyla confirmed that a Russian badge was found in the club (40:30), but we only hear her saying that “I don’t know who took it”; we never hear her mention a badge. There are shots of the club in a very messy state - the “condition that the Russian army left it” according to Mokryk - with vodka bottles lying around, and at 40:55 some Russian military ration packets are visible, which is as close to finding proof as the intrepid documentarians get. There is a big hole in the club’s roof as if something fell through it (41:17), which is not explained.

They find the car in which Katia and her grandparents were allegedly shot, take photos of the bullet holes in it, and ask a weapons expert for his opinion (43:10). The expert says what he thinks the calibre of the weapons used might have been (45:57), and extrapolates from that which Russian guns they could have been. This doesn’t prove anything, but Mokryk goes on to confidently state that “the holes in the car from the second shooting were caused by Russian bullets. It was Russian bullets that killed Katarina Vinarska.” After this there is a really stupid montage of Mokryk pacing around a whiteboard with photos on it, pretending to think about clues.

Then they have a very short interview with a Kharkiv prosecutor with a triangular fringe who appears to be wearing her dad’s jacket (46:55). She gives a boilerplate answer, that they are seeking to establish which Russian troops were where, and when.

Summary

In two of the three stories either the children who died, or their family members, received medical attention from soldiers on the Russian side. Mokryk never explains why the Russians would fire on them, and then treat their injuries. In none of the stories do the families say that they know who shot their children, but Vlad's mother and sister, and Katia's father, all appear to believe that it was Russians.

It's important to remember that people in Ukraine are subject to even more strictly controlled media (including social media) than those of us in the rest of the West are. Being subscribed to some of the Telegram channels to which I am subscribed - the ones sharing anything critical of Ukraine - could be enough to get you arrested in Ukraine. Maybe these people really do believe that the Russians shot their children on purpose, maybe they prefer to believe that than to entertain the possibility that their own side did it, or maybe they don't want to risk going on record saying that they suspect Ukrainian nationalist units of being responsible. Maybe some of them did say this, and Mokryk didn't use the footage - there's no way of knowing.

A common response I've encountered when I tell people about the things that the Ukrainian side is accused (with compelling evidence) of doing, is that I can't know that such things don't exist for the other side too. It's true that I can't know that - because it's impossible to prove a negative - but when even the most pro-Ukraine media present stories with such weak and circumstantial evidence to back up their claims, one has to wonder why this is the best they can find. If there were as many stories of Russian soldiers doing these things as they say there are, they would no doubt be able to find video testimony of it that would stand up on its own, without needing to be edited so heavily. There are many videos of people’s testimony supporting the Russian narrative, that Ukrainian nationalists are attacking civilians and blaming Russia.

Finally, it goes without saying that Mokryk didn’t ask the Russian military - who were in control in the regions where the children were killed - for their version of events. The most we hear is from Vlad’s mother Olia, who says that the Chechens told her that it was ‘the Nazis’ (i.e. Ukrainian nationalists) who had shot at them, which she dismisses. As is the case in all Ukrainian and Western mainstream media, the Russians’ guilt is assumed, and nothing they can say or show will ever prove their innocence. So why bother asking?

How independent is the Kyiv Independent?

The Kyiv Independent doesn’t say on its website who funds it, in fact it gives the impression that it is funded by its members, and via Patreon and GoFundMe. The text under the Youtube video says that “The Kyiv Independent is almost entirely funded by our readers”. On their Membership page, under the heading ‘Why the Kyiv Independent’, there is the subheading Independent, with the following text beneath:

However, tucked away at the bottom of their homepage there is also the logo of OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project). While it’s not clear what the relationship between the two organisations is, the OCCRP is funded by all the usual suspects: USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Foundations and even the US Department of State.

Republished from The Reluctant Dissident.