Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Those old enough to remember when President Clinton's penis was a big news item will also remember the "Peace Dividend," that the world was going to be able to cash now that that nasty cold war was over. But guess what? Those spies didn't want to come in from the Cold, so while the planet is heating up, the political environment is dropping to sub-zero temperatures. It's deja vu all over again.

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Sun Sep 01, 2024 3:27 am

Are Western Spooks Backing a New 'Ukrainian White Helmets? Al Mayadeen investigates
by Samir Mustafa
Source: Al Mayadeen
4 May 2022 23:56
https://english.almayadeen.net/articles ... helmets-al

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


A new attempt is made by Western mercenaries to fuel the fight in Ukraine further under the guise of "humanitarian assistance," former Western soldiers and mercenaries are at the forefront of such operations.

Image
A British mercenary with alleged ties to the US intelligence services is working to establish a version of the pseudo-humanitarian White Helmets in Ukraine.

Macer Gifford, who has previously fought with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syriac Military Council is crowdfunding for supplies which he says are bound for the frontline.

“On the 27th of February, President Zelensky formally called for International Volunteers from around the world to assist his country. The people of Ukraine need our support and they need it NOW!,” his appeal page declares.

Gifford aims to raise at least £15,000 that he says will enable him “to create a fast response medical team, staffed by international volunteers, that will deploy to the frontline within the next month.”

He plans to emulate his experiences in northern Syria where as well as fighting ISIS, he established a medical team and provided training to mercenary forces and locals there. But he is clear that this will not merely be a humanitarian mission.

“The terrain, the particular needs of the Ukrainian military, and the enemy that we'll be fighting mean that we'll have to bring the very best equipment with us,” he writes, indicating that he is recruiting people to take part in combat against Russia.

His own Twitter page appears to support this, sharing posts on how to sign-up for the Ukrainian armed forces following Zelensky’s plea for international support. He made similar appeals during a BBC radio debate with one of the leaders of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition John Rees who described the call for volunteers to fight as “ludicrous” and dangerous.

Gifford’s organization aims to join the fight against Russia under the guise of humanitarian intervention, a model that has been used before.“I want to be absolutely clear here, the ambition is to create a Ukrainian version of the White Helmets,” Gifford states, a reference to the notorious group operating in Syria.

Also known as the Syrian Civil Defence force, the White Helmets poses as a humanitarian organization, however, is linked to both jihadist groups and western military and intelligence services. Set up by former British Army officer James Le Mesurier it has received millions in funding from the US, British, and other western governments, acting as a front for regime change operations.

Predictably, criticism of the White Helmets is dismissed as propaganda and smears led by the Syrian and Russian governments. But the White Helmets operate in jihadist-held areas and have its buildings situated next to the Islamists headquarters in many Syrian cities.

The group has been involved in a series of controversies and some of its members have been shown to be supporters of Al Qaeda and other Salafist organizations. It has been accused of staging chemical attacks, most notably in Douma, to pave the way for western military intervention in Syria.

Fears that a White Helmets-style operation could be deployed in Ukraine for similar purposes have long been praised by critics. Gifford - whose real name is Harry - hails from a wealthy part of rural Cambridgeshire. Prior to his military adventurism, he served as a Tory councilor and city currency trader.

He has openly boasted of meetings with the US and British intelligence services and has briefed government officials on the situation in Syria, pleading for increased military support. Using his connections he tried to drum up support for the YPG and attended meetings with financiers in Switzerland, the FBI in New York, and inside the British parliament.

“I’ve been to the Carlton Club [a private Conservative club in central London], you would not believe, so many times,” he said.

“But it’s important to get the message across. It’s so intensely frustrating to be out there, to be on the frontline and see the success and then see politics hold back people’s hand,” he told The Guardian newspaper in a 2016 interview.

Gifford now openly encourages British military volunteers to follow him and join “the defense of Ukraine.”

His Twitter feed sees him glorify what he describes as “a British sniper” posing with a weapon and fatigues bearing the logo of what appears to be the ultranationalist Right Sector.

Photographs appear to show members of his organization delivering training to Ukrainian soldiers in an unknown location. In video footage, he claims that he and his partner are off to train the Ukrainian police force.

His operation works under the name Nightingale Squadron, its flashy logo emblazoned on the side of an expensive Landrover Freelander vehicle seen loaded with aid packages.

While to westerners the name may seem innocent enough, it has chilling connotations for those in Lviv, evoking the name of the unit that collaborated with the Nazis, sending tens of thousands of Jews to their deaths during the Holocaust.

The Nachtigall Battalion/Nightingale Battalion was founded in 1941 and came under the control of Stepan Bandera’s Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists.

Most of its members formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, while 14 of them joined the SS Galicia Division in 1943.

The Simon Wiesensthal Centre says the Nightingale Battalion was in Lviv and collaborated with the Nazis between June 30 and July 3 of 1941 when 4,000 Jews were massacred. Its descendants can be found in the far-right forces now operating in Ukraine that have been involved in the massacre of Russian speakers and pogroms against Jews.

Gifford shot to prominence in Britain having served in northern Syria in the fight against ISIS.

A notorious self-publicist who seeks to further his career in politics, Gifford published an “Andy McNab-style” book, Fighting Evil in 2019 describing his experiences in the region.

His treatment is a stark contrast to the working-class volunteers, many of whom served alongside him in Raqqa and other key battles on the frontline.

The large majority have faced arrest, surveillance, and the threat of prison on their return to Britain while Gifford has escaped similar scrutiny.

By contrast, Gifford roams freely between parliament, TV studios, and radio stations that fall over themselves to amplify his voice.

Many of his YPG peers have privately voiced suspicions that Gifford is a state agent.

He certainly fits the mould and has the contacts. Politically right-wing with conservative values, he can be relied on to trash the antiwar movement and opponents of the Tory government along with the political establishment.

And there are obvious similarities between Gifford and the man he seeks to emulate, White Helmets founder Le Mesurier who died in suspicious circumstances in Istanbul in 2019.

In many ways, he is the perfect candidate to establish a “Ukrainian White Helmets” which those on the ground have long-suspected of being an international operation.

Other former YPG fighters are also getting in on the act. Gifford’s comrade in arms, former British paratrooper and veteran of the Afghanistan war Daniel Burke, has set up a similar operation which he announced last week.

He has established what he described as an NGO named “Dark Angels of Ukraine,” although the background to this is unclear.

Burke, who was discharged from the army for fighting, said he had set up the NGO “because other NGOs or international military units tend to go to war against each other to show who is best.”

Dark Angels of Ukraine exists to provide humanitarian relief and training to the military and is already known to be operating inside Ukraine. The activities of the unit, which appears to be made up of military veterans include “moving logistical requirements such as food, water, and medicine to refugee centers and military units.” Their vehicle rescued a couple stranded somewhere in Ukraine and enabled them to return to France.

“It was on this trip that we had christened our truck the "Dark Angel" since our backgrounds as veterans lends our expertise to the Territorial Defence Forces,” the fundraising page says.

The group is there to “protect the freedoms that we all hold so dearly from our homelands here in Ukraine,” it declares.

Burke is in many ways the opposite of Gifford.

A trained soldier he was motivated to join the fight against ISIS in Syria after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing in which 22 people died following an attack on an Ariana Grande concert.

During his time in Syria, Burke photographed and retrieved documents and hard drives that he passed onto the British counter-terror experts, and maps, which he handed to US special forces.

This led to accusations by the YPG that he was a British spy and he was interrogated for days before he eventually convinced them otherwise.

Unlike Gifford, Burke came to the attention of security services, spending eight months in prison after he was charged with terror offenses, although his case was later dropped.

According to social media networks, many former YPG volunteers have joined the ranks of the international mercenary fighters in Ukraine.

It is not clear exactly how many have traveled to the country, however, Nottinghamshire care worker Aiden Aslin - also known as Cossack Gundi - surrendered to Russian forces in Mariupol last month.

He insists that he is not a foreign mercenary and, like fellow Brit Shaun Pinner, was a member of the regular Ukrainian armed forces having signed up in 2018.

Russia claims that thousands of foreign mercenaries have entered Ukraine and accuses NATO and the west of shipping weapons and equipment via civilian rail and transport networks.

As the war drags on, the profits of the arms companies continue to rise and western efforts to weaken Russia continue while peace looks to be further away than ever.

"It is quite conceivable for a Ukrainian White Helmets to play the same role as its Syrian counterparts; a major anti-Russian propaganda offensive, staged events, and the triggering of incidents to pave the way for NATO intervention."

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:27 am

Theodor Oberländer
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/1/24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Oberl%C3%A4nder

Theodor Oberländer
Image
Oberländer in 1952
Federal Minister for Displaced Persons, Refugees and Victims of War
In office: 1953–1960
Preceded by: Hans Lukaschek
Succeeded by: Hans-Joachim von Merkatz
Member of the Bundestag
In office: 1953 – 1961; 1963 – 1965
Member of the Landtag
In office: 1950–1953
Personal details
Born: 5 January 1905, Meiningen, Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen, German Empire
Died: 19 April 1998 (aged 93), Bonn, Germany
Nationality: German
Political party: National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP);Free Democratic Party (FDP); All-German Bloc/League of Expellees and Deprived of Rights (GB/BHE); Christian Democratic Union (CDU)

Theodor Oberländer (1 May 1905 – 4 May 1998) was an Ostforschung scientist and German Nazi official and politician, who after the Second World War served as Federal Minister for Displaced Persons, Refugees and Victims of War in West Germany from 1953 to 1960, and as a Member of the Bundestag from 1953 to 1961 and from 1963 to 1965.[1]

Oberländer earned a doctorate in agriculture in 1929 and a second doctorate in economics in 1930. He spent time in the Soviet Union during the 1920s and early 1930s, including as an employee of DRUSAG (Deutsch-Russische Saatbau AG [de]), [2] a German company involved in developing Soviet agriculture in cooperation with the Soviet government. Subsequently, he became active in Ostforschung, area studies of the Soviet Union, the Baltic states, Poland and other countries of Eastern and Central Europe, advocating elimination of Jews and subjugation of Polish people in Poland, which he characterised in his writings as having "eight million inhabitants too many". In 1933, he became Director of the Institute for East German Economy in Königsberg, and in 1938 he became Professor of Agriculture at the University of Greifswald. He served as a lieutenant in the German military intelligence service (the Abwehr) in the Soviet Union during the Second World War and was promoted to captain of the reserve before his discharge in 1943; in the same year he became Director of the Institute for Economic Sciences. From 1944 he was affiliated with the staff of Andrey Vlasov's collaborationist Russian Liberation Army. He became a member of the Nazi Party in 1933. However, from 1937 until the end of Nazi rule, he was under surveillance by the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), as he was suspected of disloyalty to the Nazi cause.[3] In 1940, he endorsed ethnic cleansing of Poland. He later became the leader of the mixed German and Caucasian Bergmann Battalion (established in October 1941), which was active in anti-partisan warfare. Both groups[which?] were later accused of participation in war crimes.

After the war, the Americans held Oberländer as a POW. He worked with the American-sponsored Gehlen intelligence organisation (c. 1946 to 1948) as an expert on Eastern Europe.[4][5] He entered politics for the liberal Free Democratic Party from 1948. In 1950, he was a co-founder of the All-German Bloc/League of Expellees and Deprived of Rights and served as its chairman from 1954 to 1955. He served as a member of the Parliament of Bavaria from 1950 to 1953 and as Secretary of State for Refugee Affairs in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior from 1951 to 1953. He then served as Federal Minister for Displaced Persons, Refugees and Victims of War in the Second and Third Cabinets of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer from 1953 to 1960, and as a Member of the Bundestag from 1953 to 1961 and from 1963 to 1965, during which time he represented Hildesheim from 1957 to 1961. In 1956, Oberländer became a member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Oberländer was one of the most staunch anti-communists in the German government. He received the Grand Cross of Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Bavarian Order of Merit and the Legion of Honour.

Background and early career

Oberländer was born in 1905 in Meiningen, Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen, part of the German Empire, to a Protestant family; his father Oskar Oberländer was a civil servant and director of the insurance agency in Thüringen.[6]

After the First World War, Oberländer was a member of the Gilde Greif (Greif Guild), a student association that emerged from the youth movement. As part of a military exercise in Forstenried, he, aged 18 and other members of the guild took part in Adolf Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, Bavaria, on the 9th of november 1923, during the Weimar Republic era, according to their own admission, “rather by chance”. As a result of this he was imprisoned for four days.

Oberländer then became a member of the right-wing extremist paramilitary association Bund Oberland (Oberland League) and the fiercely antisemitic Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund (The German Folkish Defense and Defiance Federation), before finally adhering to the NSDAP in 1933 (where he swiftly climbed the rangs, up to the position of Gau Department Leader, becoming one of the functionaries of the nazi provincial leadership).

From 1923 to 1927, he studied agricultural science at LMU, the University of Hamburg and the University of Berlin, and earned a master's degree in this field in 1927. In 1928, he spent half a year in the Soviet Union as an employee of DRUSAG, which was involved in developing Soviet agriculture in cooperation with the Soviet government.[7] In 1929, he earned a doctorate in agriculture at the University of Berlin with a dissertation titled Die landwirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Landes Litauen ("The agricultural base of the country of Lithuania"). In 1930, he earned a doctorate in economics at the University of Königsberg with the dissertation Die Landflucht in Deutschland und ihre Bekämpfung durch agrarpolitische Maßnahmen ("The rural exodus in Germany and its prevention by agricultural policy measures"). From 1930 to 1931, he spent nearly two years in the Soviet Union, China, Canada and the United States, where he worked for the Ford Motor Company. In 1931, Oberländer became an assistant professor at the Institute for East German Economy in Königsberg, and in 1933 he became Director of the institute. From 1934, he was also Associate Professor of Agriculture at the Technical College of Danzig. He became Associate Professor at the University of Königsberg in 1937. In 1938, he became Professor of Agriculture at the University of Greifswald.[6]

Oberländer wrote several books about the need for German intervention in the agricultural systems of the Soviet Union and Poland, which he considered "un-economic".

During the Nazi regime

Oberländer became a member of the NSDAP in 1933, a member of the SA and leader of an NSDAP district.[8] On 4 August 1935, he became an assistant to Gauleiter Erich Koch, under whose authority he started to gather information about non-German minorities in East Prussia. A significant role in this process was played by the "Bund Deutscher Osten" (BDO – "League for a German East"), which advocated radical Germanization of the eastern provinces and the elimination of the Polish language in Masuria. The language's traditional usage in the Protestant churches of the Masurians was outlawed in November 1939, with the Lutheran Prussian Church leadership acquiescing in December.

In March 1935, he attended a meeting of professors, scholars and NSDAP training specialists dedicated to the study of the "East" where he focused his essays on what he described as "border struggle" with Poland.[9] The meeting was divided into two groups:”base" and "front".[9] The "base" included 58 professors, lecturers and research assistants, the "front" was made up of political functionaries, seven training specialists of the NSDAP, the Hitler Youth, three heads of Reichsarbeitsdiensts, two teachers and two civil servants.[9] It was Oberländer who introduced the 72 participants on the first day and set for them the task to study the "border struggle" against Poland.[9] Attacking Poland, he advocated fighting the Polish minority in Nazi Germany and demanded that social relationships between Germans and Polish immigrants be prohibited.[9] Oberländer implied that Poland was not capable of sociopolitical and agrarian reforms due to the fact that it was not a "racially homogenous" nation state.[9] He dismissed the population of Polish cities as "transplanted rubes".[9] Sharing Hitler's views, Oberländer believed that the treaties regarding the East, like the German–Polish declaration of non-aggression, were only conditional, and that Ostforschung studies should go on as usual "so that after ten years we have everything ready that we could need in any given circumstances".[10] Continuing his studies on the rural population of Poland he noted in his works that "Poland has eight million inhabitants too many".[10] Reflecting on the temporary lack of possibility of open war in the East, Oberländer wrote the following: "The struggle for ethnicity is nothing other than the continuation of war by other means under the cover of peace. Not a fight with gas, grenades, and machine-guns, but a fight about homes, farms, schools and the souls of children, a struggle whose end, unlike in war, is not foreseeable as long as the insane principle of the nationalism of the state dominates the Eastern region, a struggle which goes on with one aim:extermination!"[10] Other features of Oberländer's thoughts concentrated on depicting Jews as carriers of communism, and the benefits of peasant antisemitism to German goals in Central and Eastern Europe.[10] His preparatory work in the BDO involved monitoring over 1,200,000 Poles living in Germany, with a card-name index of untrustworthy Poles and Germans living in the borderlands, and proposals to Germanise Polish place, street, and family names.[10]

In the middle of 1937, Oberländer formulated a "divide and conquer" strategy for Poland.[9] Within Poland, ethnic groups were to be directed into fighting with each other in order to prepare the ground for German rule.[9] The Poles were to be steered away from opposing Germans and guided into confrontation with Russians and Jews.[9] Oberländer additionally called for elimination of "assimilated Jewry" which in his view carried "communist ideas".[9] Polish peasants were to be "taught" that they benefit from German "law".[9] In order to win over Poles to the side of German hegemony in Europe, Oberländer proposed that they share in the theft of Jewish property.[9] Around 3.5 million Polish Jews and 1.5 million people who were considered "assimilated Jews" were to be deprived of all of their rights.[9] He is considered by some historians to be among the academics who laid the intellectual foundation for the Final Solution.[11]

By 1937, Oberländer, however, started to lose influence in the Nazi Party as his views on the treatment of the Polish population (but not the Jewish question) were losing out to more hardline positions[9] and his personal conflict with Erich Koch.[12] As a result, he had lost his position in East Prussia and within the BDO by 1938.[9] He was essentially fired by the University of Königsberg, after the Nazi government had attacked the "political nature" of his work. He was instead appointed Professor of Agriculture at the University of Greifswald, and was ordered to refrain from involving himself in Ostforschung.[13] From 1937 until the end of Nazi rule he was under surveillance by the Sicherheitsdienst, as he was henceforth suspected of being disloyal to the Nazi cause.[3] From 1 April 1938, he worked as Professor of History at University of Greifswald.[10]

In 1939, Oberländer moved to work in Abwehrstelle Breslau; one of the main centers of sabotage and diversion organised by the Nazis that conducted operations against Poland. At the same time, his work concerned issues connected to Ukraine and the Sudetes region and he had contacts with Osteuropa Institut located in Breslau (Wrocław).[14]

World War II

In 1940, Oberländer endorsed the ethnic cleansing of the Polish population[15] and, in 1941, wrote in the German magazine Deutsche Monatshefte: "We have the best soldier in the world who re-conquered German soil in the East. There is no bigger responsibility than educating this colonist to be the best on earth and to secure the living space for all time to come" Oberländer's words echoed the views of Heinrich Himmler, who envisioned settling former soldiers, armed with weapons and ploughs in the East, not just pure peasants.[16] During 1940 he moved to the University of Prague, after which he became active in Ukraine, where he was used by Nazi Germany's military as an expert on "ethnic psychology".[10] Biographer Philipp-Christian Wachs describes Oberländer as a "German nationalist and anti-communist, but not a national socialist racial fanatic"; according to Wachs Oberländer was a pragmatist who wanted to secure the cooperation with Poles and Ukrainians, among others, in order to achieve German political dominance and defeat the Soviet Union.[17]

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Oberländer became an advising officer of the Nachtigall Battalion (a Ukrainian battalion of Wehrmacht) in occupied Lwów. The participation of the Battalion in The Lwów Civilian Massacre of 1941 has since been subject to controversy, and Oberländer himself was accused after the war of participating in the events.

In January 1942, he sent a report on the situation in the Ukraine in which he wrote that success lay in "winning over the masses and pitilessly exterminating partisans as deleterious to the people".[10]
He later became the leader of the mixed German and Caucasian Sonderverband Bergmann, which was active in anti-partisan warfare. Both army groups were later claimed to have participated in war crimes. Oberländer's involvement in the Eastern front would lead to the Oberländer case at the end of the 1950s.[8] In 1943, he was dismissed from the Wehrmacht due to political conflict with his superiors and returned to Prague. In 1944, he joined the staff of Andrey Vlasov's Russian Liberation Army.[8] He was a participant to crimes in the Vercors (France), in Chapelle en Vercors and Saint Nazaire en Royans. (5 bis).[18] He was taken prisoner of war by the United States Army in 1945.

Cold War

After the war, Oberländer worked for American intelligence as an expert on Eastern Europe until 1949.[4] In his denazification hearing, he was deemed to be an opponent of Nazism and categorized as "entlastet" (acquitted).[4] After the war, Oberländer claimed that he had criticised Nazi policies and personally only wanted German hegemony over Slavic peoples in which they would have "some respect" and were "treated reasonably humanely".[8]

Oberländer again became active in German politics, first in the liberal Free Democratic Party, then in the Bloc of Refugees and Expellees (GB/BHE)(despite the fact that he himself was not expelled), where he would become a prominent figure alongside another ex-Nazi Waldemar Kraft who had previously been interned for two years for his wartime activities in occupied Poland[19] The BHE itself was connected in various ways to the Nazis, as it openly tried to win over former NSDAP members angry at denazification, calling their crimes to be only "uncritical belief in Germany's future".[19] The party classified those Nazis on a par with war-damaged as fellow victims.[19] The fact that it selected as its leaders two ex-Nazis, who had taken part in the expulsion of non-Germans and expropriation of their property severely undermined German complaints about their situation.[20] Oberländer joined the Adenauer government of West Germany in 1953 as Minister for Refugees and Expellees.[11] His appointment prompted negative press coverage and made details of his Nazi past known.[11] However, despite the fact that he nominated several former Nazis as co-workers, the criticism soon died down.[11] Adenauer in particular was keen on getting the BHE on board, as, with its support, he controlled a two-thirds majority in parliament.[11] Adenauer knew very well that Oberländer was a former National Socialist and admitted he has a "very brown past"[8]

In 1956, when Oberländer tried to visit his former Nazi co-workers, who were still serving time in Landsberg prison, the foreign minister of Germany vetoed the trip, fearing international consequences, nevertheless, despite hindrances, Oberländer still tried to support far right groups.[21] Oberländer left the GB/BHE for the centrist Christian Democratic Union in 1956 when it broke with Adenauer. Adenauer himself continued to support him, as a matter of principle.[11] In the fall of 1959, the Eastern Bloc unleashed a coordinated campaign against the presence of Nazis in the West German government, which included Oberländer. He was accused of participating in the Lvov Massacre.[11] Previously, he had been able to remain active in politics despite the accusations, but the situation this time became more unfavourable, and some of his fellow CDU colleagues pushed for him to resign for the good of the government and country.[11] While many in West Germany did not believe the accusations of war crimes, it was clear that Oberländer had been an enthusiastic Nazi;[11] due to the fact that the West German community had reinvented its image as a community of innocent bystanders during the Second World War, Oberländer's past was considered a liability.[11]

Image
KGB document from the campaign against Oberländer and Ukrainian Nachtigall (1959).[22]

In 1960, Oberländer was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment by an East German court, for his alleged involvement in the Lviv massacre in 1941. In January 1960, during discussions with 3,000 students of University of Cologne, Adenauer was faced with protests against the continued presence of Oberländer in the German government.[8] In response, Adenauer stated that Oberländer was a Nazi but "never did anything dishonourable".[8] Despite Adenauer's protection, Oberländer became a heavy burden on the German government in May 1960[8] and finally was forced to resign from the government, but not because of his past but due to the fact that he politically represented no value that was worth the trouble.[11]

Oberländer nevertheless continued efforts to influence the German public, and in 1962 published an article in Der Stahlhelm, an organ of the former Frontsoldaten.[10] In it, he repeated claims about a "revolutionary war" in which he accused the "dictatorship in the East" of conducting an offensive revolution against the West, in which there was "no beginning", and no movement of troops, but which was led by "infiltration and publicism" as well as "espionage".[10] He denounced any possibility of "coexistence" between East and West and blamed such ideas on a "rootless intelligentsia";[10] Oberländer wrote "to appease the enemy" was "to further world revolution".[10] Historian Michael Burleigh notes that the idea that the "unfree" perhaps didn't wanted to be "liberated" by the likes of Oberländer and his "Bund der Frontsoldaten" (who passed that way twenty years ago)-did not occur to him.[10] In 1986, Oberländer received the Bavarian Order of Merit from the state of Bavaria. The GDR conviction of Oberländer was declared null and void by the Berlin Kammergericht in 1993.[23] At the end of his life, Oberländer became involved in anti-immigration politics.

A preliminary inquiry into Oberländer's role in connection with the unlawful killing of a civilian in Kislovodsk in 1942 during his Bergmann leadership was opened by a district attorney in Cologne in 1996.[24] The allegations involved an interrogation of a female Soviet teacher; it was alleged that she was whipped and, after refusing to talk about suspected partisan activity, shot in the breast by Oberländer, and then left to die. Oberländer called those allegations "old Soviet lies".[25] The inquiry was closed in 1998 due to lack of evidence.[26]

Theodor Oberländer died in Bonn in 1998. He is the father of Professor Erwin Oberländer, a noted expert on Eastern European history, and the grandfather of Christian Oberländer, Professor of Japanese Studies.[citation needed]

Honours

• Grand Cross with Star and Sash of Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (1955)[6]
• Bavarian Order of Merit (1972)[6]
• Commander of the Legion of Honour[6]

Publications

• Die agrarische Überbevölkerung Polens, Berlin 1935.
• Die agrarische Überbevölkerung Ostmitteleuropas, in: Aubin, Hermann u. a. (Hrsg.): Deutsche Ostforschung. Ergebnisse und Aufgaben seit dem ersten Weltkrieg, Bd. 2 (Deutschland und der Osten. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte ihrer Beziehungen, Bd. 21), Leipzig 1943, S. 416 – 427.
• Der Osten und die deutsche Wehrmacht: sechs Denkschriften aus den Jahren 1941–43 gegen die NS-Kolonialthese. Hrsg. von der Zeitgeschichtlichen Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt. Asendorf, Mut-Verlag. 144 S. In: Zeitgeschichtliche Bibliothek; Bd. 2. ISBN 3-89182-026-7
• Bayern und sein Flüchtlingsproblem, München 1953. – Die Überwindung der deutschen Not, Darmstadt 1954.
• Das Weltflüchtlingsproblem: Ein Vortrag gehalten vor dem Rhein-Ruhr-Club am 8. Mai 1959. Sonderausg. des Arbeits- u. Sozialministers des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Verleger, Bonn: Bundesministerium f. Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge u. Kriegsgeschädigte. 1959.

References

1. Victor Silling: Die Hintergründe des Falles Oberländer. Grenzland Verlag 1960, p. 60–61.
2. Heeke, Matthias (2003). Reisen zu den Sowjets: der ausländische Tourismus in Russland 1921-1941; mit einem bio-bibliographischen Anhang zu 96 deutschen Reiseautoren. Band 11 von Arbeiten zur Geschichte Osteuropas (in German). Münster: LIT Verlag. p. 246. ISBN 9783825856922. Retrieved 24 November 2022. [...] die Deutsch-russische Saatgut AG - kurz Drusag.
3. Victor Silling: Die Hintergründe des Falles Oberländer. Grenzland Verlag 1960, p. 60–61.
4. Klaus von Wiegrefe: "Der seltsame Professor." Der Spiegel 27/2000, 3 July 2000, pp. 62–66.
5. Wolf, Thomas (4 October 2018). Die Entstehung des BND: Aufbau, Finanzierung, Kontrolle. Volume 9 of Veröffentlichungen der Unabhängigen Historikerkommission zur Erforschung der Geschichte des Bundesnachrichtendienstes 1945-1968 (in German). Berlin: Christoph Links Verlag. ISBN 9783962890223. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
6. Biographisches Handbuch der Mitglieder des Deutschen Bundestages 1949–2002, Vol. 1, p. 556, K.G. Saur, 2002
7. "Oberländer – Baustein oder Dynamit." Der Spiegel 17/1954, 21 April 1954
8. "Konrad Adenauer: A German Politician and Statesman in a Period of War, Revolution and Reconstruction : The Statesman : 1952–1967", Hans Peter-Schwarz pages 91, 432, Berghahn Books 1997
9. German scholars and ethnic cleansing 1919–1945" Ingo Haar, Michael Fahlbusch Berghahn Books 2006 page 10, 12
10. "Germany turns eastwards: a study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich", Michael Burleigh Cambridge University Press, 1988, pages 76 ,144–146, 222, 317–318
11. "In pursuit of German memory: history, television, and politics after Auschwitz", Wulf Kansteiner Ohio University Press; 2006 page 222-224
12. "Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933–1945"Valdis O. Lumens page 63
13. Werner Zschintzsch: "Betrifft: Verwendung des Prof.Dr. Oberländer, zuletzt in Königsberg", letter of 22 December 1937
14. "Przeglad Zachodni", volume 16 Instytut Zachodni 1960 page 115
15. "Working Paper 38/1997". gplanost.x-berg.de.
16. ”SCHWERTE MUSS DER PFLUG FOLGEN: Űber-peasants and National Socialists Settlements in the Occupied Eastern Territories during World War Two”Simone C. De Santiago Ramos, M.S. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of Master of Arts University of Texas page 68
17. Philipp-Christian Wachs: Der Fall Oberländer (1905–1998). Ein Lehrstück deutscher Geschichte. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2000, ISBN 3-593-36445-X.
18. "MÉMORIAL DE SAINT-NAZAIRE-EN-ROYANS". museedelaresistanceenligne.org (in French).
19. "Shouldering the Burdens of Defeat: West Germany and the Reconstruction of Social Justice" Michael L. Hughes, The University of North Carolina Press 1999
20. ”A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II" Gerhard L. Weinberg Cambridge University Press 1995 page 792
21. "Legacies of Dachau: the uses and abuses of a concentration camp 1933–2001"„ Harold Marcuse Cambridge University Press 2001 page 118
22. "С целью компрометации Оберлендера и украинских националистов, собранные УКГБ материалы широко использовались в местной и центральной прессе, кинохронике,а также на пресс-конференции в Москве. Кроме этого, были выявлены и соответственно подготовлены свидетели, выступавшие по данному делу на пресс-конференции в Москве и на суде в Берлине.С учетом достигнутых положительных результатов в проведении специальных мероприятий по Оберлендеру, прошу Вас наградитъ нагрудным знаком «Почетный сотрудник Госбезопасности». Объявить благодарность и наградить ценным подарком.". (ГДА СБУ фонд 1, опис 4 за 1964 рік, порядковий номер 3, том 5, аркуш 195 Розсекречено: 24/376 від 5 February 2008 р. – original sygnature of document). Another: "Из Москвы тов. Щербак №33988 от 13 ноября 1958 года вх.№15107 копией во Львов сообщил, что установленных очевидцев злодеяний батальона «Нахтигаль» следует подготовить для допроса работниками прокуратуры, о чем будут даны указания прокуратурой СССР. При подготовке к допросам свидетелей следует использовать опубликованные в прессе статьи о преступлениях «Нахтигаля». Работу по установлению других очевидцев злодеяний, их документации и добыче дополнительных материалов продолжить.""Довідка: КГБ про підготовку свідків проти "Нахтігалю" на базі відповідних публікацій в пресі". Archived from the original on 13 May 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2011.. ГДА СБУ фонд 1, опис 4 за 1964 рік, порядковий номер 3, том 5, аркуш 86 Розсекречено: 24/376 від 5 February 2008 р. – original sygnature of document.
23. Philipp-Christian Wachs: Die Inszenierung eines Schauprozesses – das Verfahren gegen Theodor Oberländer vor dem Obersten Gericht der DDR, Schriftenreihe des Berliner Landesbeauftragten für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen DDR, Vol. 14, p. 13, Berlin 2001.
24. Der Spiegel 18 / 1996 Kriegsverbrehen. Die Mühlen mahlen langsam
25. "Die Mühlen mahlen langsam". Der Spiegel. 28 April 1996 – via http://www.spiegel.de.
26. Philipp-Christian Wachs: Der Fall Oberländer (1905–1998). Ein Lehrstück deutscher Geschichte (p. 480). Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2000, ISBN 3-593-36445-X.

Sources

• Article about the events in Lviv/Lemberg Archived 12 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine (in German)
• Fate of the Jews in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Oberländer's involvement (in German)
• "Grenzlandpolitik" und Ostforschung an der Peripherie des Reiches. Das ostpreussische Masuren 1919–1945 by Andreas Kossert [de] (in German)

External links

• Media related to Theodor Oberländer at Wikimedia Commons
• Theodor Oberländer in the German National Library catalogue (in German)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:55 am

Mikola Lebed
Excerpt from "U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis, by Richard Breitman, Norman J.W. Goda, Timothy Naftali and Robert Wolfe"
2005

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Lebed after his arrest for his role in the murder of Bronisław Pieracki (June 24, 1934)


Mikola Lebed

Mikola Lebed is one of the better-known cases of a former collaborator living in the United States. Newly released FBI records, together with Lebed's CIC file, CIA Name File, and INS dossier, make it possible to reveal his history with greater detail. [115] Before and during World War II, Lebed was a leading member of the younger, more radical wing of the Ukrainian Nationalist Organization (OUN) under Stephan Bandera (OUN-B) and its military/terrorist arm, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Based in Galicia, a region of Ukraine that was located in Poland from 1919 to 1939, the OUN had long called for an independent greater Ukraine. OUN counted among its enemies those that had denied Ukrainian independence (Poles, Soviets) and those in the Ukraine who had failed to assimilate (Jews). [116] During the Polish government's repression of the OUN in Galicia, Lebed helped plan the assassination of Polish Interior Minister Bronislaw Pieracki in Warsaw. In 1936 he was jailed by the Polish government for his role. Following the German attack on Poland in September 1939, he escaped from a column of prisoners.

In its work to destabilize the Polish state, the OUN's ties with Germany extended back to 1921. These ties intensified under the Nazi regime as war with Poland drew near. [117] Galicia was allotted to the Soviets under the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, and the Germans welcomed anti-Polish Ukrainian activists into the German-occupied General Government. In 1940 and 1941, in preparation for what would become the eastern campaign, the Germans began to recruit Ukrainians, particularly from Bandera's wing, as saboteurs, interpreters, and police, and trained them at a camp at Zakopane near Cracow. In the spring of 1941, the Wehrmacht also developed two Ukrainian battalions with the approval of the Banderists, one code named "Nightingale" (Nachtigall) and the other code named "Roland."

Germans and Ukrainian units reached Lvov four days after the eastern campaign began, and on June 30, 1941, OUN-B officials proclaimed an independent Ukrainian state under a government of OUN-B members who hoped the Germans would accept the fait accompli. But though the Germans hoped to use the Ukrainians against the Poles, Soviets, and Ukrainian Jews, they had no intention of allowing even a semi-independent Ukraine. The Germans arrested Bandera and other OUN-B leaders and moved them to Sachsenhausen. [118] On July 16, the Germans absorbed Galicia into the General Government.

When the Germans arrested the OUN-B leadership, Lebed slipped through the German police net and became the de facto leader of the OUN-B. In October 1941, the German Security Police issued a wanted poster with Lebed's photograph. The following year he would form the underground terror wing, the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army), which would initially fight German imperialism in the Ukraine but which also settled scores with rival Ukrainian leaders, Poles, Communists, and Jews. [119] Indeed, the Banderists sent a manifesto to the Gestapo in Lvov that Hitler had deceived them but which also proclaimed, "Long Live greater independent Ukraine without Jews, Poles and Germans: Poles behind the San [River], Germans to Berlin, Jews to the gallows." [120] There are numerous survivor testimonies concerning the Banderist murder of Jews who had escaped to the forests in Galicia in 1941 and 1942. [121]

From the fall of 1941, German police officials in the western Ukraine had nagging problems with Banderist sabotage and anti-German Ukrainian nationalist propaganda issued by the OUN-B.
Certain German police reports even mention Banderist aid to Jews in the form of false papers, most likely for Jewish doctors or skilled workers who could help the movement. [122] Only in 1943 -- the year in which German police units carried out a major campaign against the UPA -- did OUN-B leaflets suggest that for the moment participation in anti-Jewish actions would make the OUN-B "a blind tool in foreign hands." [123] In the long run, the OUN-B's chief enemies remained the Soviets, who were more likely to regain control of Galicia with the German retreat from the Ukraine in 1943 and 1944. Red Army POWs told their German captors in 1944 that the UPA, led by Lebed and made up of "fanatic" Banderists, was a "terror" for Red Army units in the Ukraine to the point where the Soviets viewed them as German agents. A war of extreme atrocities thus raged between the Red Army and the UPA, with former Ukrainian Nazi collaborators backing the UPA but eventually suffering Red Army counter-insurgency methods. With the advance of the Red Army, Jews serving the UPA were murdered either by the UPA or by the Germans, and by September 1944 German Army officers in northern Ukraine told their superiors in Foreign Armies East that the UPA was a "natural ally of Germany" and "a valuable aid for the German High Command." [124] Himmler himself authorized intensified contacts with the UPA. [125] Though UPA propaganda emphasized that organization's independence from the Germans, the UPA also ordered some young Ukrainians to volunteer for the Ukrainian SS Division "Galicia," and the rest to fight by guerrilla methods. [126] Lebed still hoped for recognition from the Germans. In July 1944 he helped form the Supreme Ukrainian Liberation Council (UHVR), which would claim to represent the Ukrainian nation while soon serving as a theoretical government-in-exile. The leadership positions in the UHVR tended to be held by OUN-B members, since more moderate Ukrainian nationalists had drifted away earlier in the year. [127]

With the war lost, Lebed adopted a strategy similar to that of General Reinhard Gehlen -- he contacted the Allies after escaping to Rome in 1945 with a trove of names and contacts of anti-Soviets located in the western Ukraine and in displaced persons camps in Germany. The contacts theoretically made him very useful in the postwar intelligence world, and CIC took the bait. Though CIC noted in July 1947 one witness's claim that "[Lebed] is a well known sadist and collaborator of the Germans," it used him in 1947 and 1948 because he could provide complete information on Ukrainian groups within the U.S. zone of Germany, information on Soviet activity within the U.S. zone, and information on Ukrainian and Soviet activities outside of occupied Germany. [128]

In late 1947, the danger arose that the Soviets, who had recently ordered Lebed's arrest, would kidnap him from Rome, especially should U.S. occupation forces withdraw from Italy. "Should such an eventuality arise," said the American authorities, "the interest of the U.S. would suffer an indirect damage in as much as [Lebed] is in possession of vital information regarding the Ukrainian resistance activities ... in the Ukraine." [129] In addition, Lebed's safety would reassure Father Ivan Hrynioch (Hirnyj), a wartime collaborator of Lebed who was now the chief of the UHVR Political Section and a provider of counterintelligence to American authorities. Hrynioch requested Lebed's movement to safety. [130] The CIC therefore smuggled Lebed and his family from Rome to Munich in December 1947.


By late 1947, Lebed had thoroughly sanitized his prewar and wartime activities for American consumption. In his own rendition, he had been a victim of the Poles, the Soviets, and the Germans -- he would carry the Gestapo "wanted" poster for the rest of his life to prove his anti-Nazi credentials. [131] Though he admitted to U.S. authorities his involvement in the 1934 Pieracki assassination, he blamed Pieracki. Lebed characterized his participation in the proclamation of the Ukrainian State in Lvov in June 1941 as having taken "part in the Ukrainian independence demonstration." After the June 1941 house arrest of OUN-B leaders, Lebed said, he began to organize resistance against the Germans while becoming the "spiritual father" of the UPA. For this, he said, the Gestapo and NKVD both placed a price on his head, and the Gestapo took his family to Buchenwald and Auschwitz in an attempt to force him to surface. In 1947, he was the official Foreign Minister of the UHVR, and he presented his manufactured credentials via mail to Secretary of State George C. Marshall and British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. He also published a 126-page booklet on the UPA, which chronicled the heroic struggle of Ukrainians against both Nazis and Bolsheviks, while calling for an independent, greater Ukraine that would represent the human ideals of free speech and free faith. The UPA, according to the booklet, never collaborated with the Nazis, nor is there mention of the slaughter of Galician Jews or Poles in the book. [132] The CIC considered the booklet to be the "complete background on the subject." [133] The CIC overlooked the fact that under its own watch an OUN Congress held in September 1947 had split, thanks to Lebed's own criticism of the creeping democratization of the OUN. [134] This was also overlooked by the CIA, which began using Lebed extensively in 1948. [135]

Despite living under an assumed name (Roman Turan) in Munich, Lebed was still in danger of being found by his Stalinist enemies. He hoped to immigrate to the United States, but, unlike most Nazi collaborators, he became familiar enough with U.S. immigration law to be "loath to perjure himself and face deportation after ... passing false [information]." [136] He managed anyway. In June 1949, after Assistant CIA Director W. G. Wyman notified the INS of the fact that Lebed "has been rendering valuable assistance to this Agency in Europe," the CIA smuggled him into the United States with his wife and daughter under the legal cover of the Displaced Persons Act. [137]


After his arrival, Lebed reverted to his real name and began speaking to immigrant groups in New York, which triggered Justice Department interest in him. The INS began investigating Lebed the same month he arrived in the United States. It reported to Washington in March 1950 that numerous Ukrainian informants had spoken of Lebed's involvement in the Pieracki assassination and of his role as "one of the most important Bandera terrorists." During the war, these informants said, the Banderists were trained and armed by the Gestapo and responsible for "wholesale murders of Ukrainians, Poles and Jewish [sic] ... In all these actions, Lebed was one of the most important leaders." [138] At some point during the investigation, the INS learned of the CIA's interest in Lebed, and in 1951 top INS officials apprised the CIA of its findings along with the comment that Lebed would likely be subject to deportation. The CIA countered on October 3, 1951, that all of the charges were false and that the Gestapo "wanted" poster of Lebed proved that he "fought with equal zeal against the Nazis and Bolsheviks." Lebed's deportation, added the CIA, would damage national security. [139]

INS officials were willing to suspend the investigation but they remained uncomfortable. In the first place, they noted that the CIA note of October 3 "does not ... dispose of the allegations." Additionally the INS worried that "this is the sort of case that can be exploited by commentators of the [Walter] Winchell variety," especially since Ukrainians that knew Lebed could contact the press on their own. "We will [then] be in no position," said W W Wiggins, the Chief of the INS Investigative Section, "to explain our failure to investigate." [140] INS officials asked the CIA to notify them when their need for Lebed's services would end so that the INS could "pursue our investigative responsibilities." [141] The CIA sidestepped the question. Instead, the Agency pressed the INS in February 1952 to grant Lebed reentry papers so that he could leave and reenter the United States at will. [142]

This was too much for Argyle Mackey, the Commissioner of the INS. He contacted Attorney General J. Howard McGrath to ask for guidance. "We have always cooperated whole-heartedly with the Central Intelligence Agency within the permissible limits of the law," Mackey said, "and have in this case suspended further investigation of what appears to be a clear-cut deportation case." But should Lebed leave the country and apply once again for readmission, said Mackey, "I do not see how we can give the requested assurance." Mackey gave the same reply to the Director of the CIA, Walter Bedell Smith. A reentry permit for Lebed, he said, brought "no guarantee of readmissability," since for non-U.S. citizens each re-entry was legally a new entry under which the subject had to be investigated. In other words, if Lebed left the country on CIA business, he would likely not get back in. [143]


Mackey's comments are notable in light of the notion that the INS was careless in allowing war criminals into the United States, and his warning that Lebed might not get back into the country showed there were limits beyond which the INS could not comfortably go. His statement that the INS had "always cooperated with the CIA" suggests, moreover, that there might have been similar cases.

Regardless, the CIA would not be denied Lebed's services. In a decisive letter to Mackey of May 5, 1952, Allen Dulles, then Assistant Director of the CIA, said that Lebed was the "authorized Foreign Minister of the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (UHVR), an underground organization within the USSR," and his contacts as such "have been of inestimable value to this Agency and its operations." Dulles added:

In connection with future Agency operations of the first importance, it is urgently necessary that subject be able to travel in Western Europe. Before [he] undertakes such travel, however, this Agency must ... assure his reentry into the United States without investigation or incident which would attract undue attention to his activities.


Dulles claimed that Lebed's 1936 trial in Poland could be discounted because it "was largely influenced by political factors and this Agency has no reason to disbelieve subject's denial of complicity in this assassination." This statement contradicted all information on Lebed, who had not denied his role in the killing. [144] Dulles also wanted Lebed's legal status changed to that of "permanent resident," under Section 8 of the CIA Act of 1949, since his continued availability, as Dulles said, was "essential to the furtherance of the national intelligence mission and is in the interest of national security." Thus Lebed would be able to come and go from the United States as he pleased. Dulles also wanted Lebed's application for permanent residence status backdated to October 1949, when Lebed had first entered the United States. Since Section 8 of the Act provided legal cover for permanent residence without regard to existing immigration laws, the INS had no choice but to comply even though, as Wiggins later said, Lebed's "deportability would be established" if the INS should investigate further. [145] They never did -- Lebed became a naturalized U.S. citizen in March 1957.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Sun Sep 01, 2024 9:45 pm

Ukraine During World War II: History and its Aftermath
edited by Yury Boshyk with the assistance of Roman Waschuk and Andriy Wynnyckyj: A Symposium
Copyright © 1986 Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Canadian

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.




He said that there was only one good, namely, knowledge; and only one evil, namely, ignorance. -- Diogenes


CONTENTS -- Ukraine During World War II: History and its Aftermath, edited by Yury Boshyk with the assistance of Roman Waschuk and Andriy Wynnyckyj: A Symposium

• Preface xi
• Acknowledgements xv
• Contributors xvii
• List of Photographs xix
• Part I: Ukraine during World War II
• Introduction to Part I 3
• 1: Occupation
• The Soviet Occupation of Western Ukraine, 1939-41: An Overview
• Orest Subtelny 5
• Soviet Ukraine under Nazi Occupation, 1941-4
• Bohdan Krawchenko 15
• Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Soviet and Nazi Occupations
• Taras Hunczak 39
• 2: Collaboration and Resistance
• Ukrainians in World War II Military Formations: An Overview
• Peter J. Potichnyj 61
• Galician Ukrainians in German Military Formations and in the German Administration
• Myroslav Yurkevich 67
• Soviet Military Collaborators during World War II
• Mark R. Elliott 89
• Part II: History and Its Aftermath: Investigating War Criminals in Canada and the United States
• Introduction to Part II: Bringing Nazi War Criminals in Canada to Justice
• David Matas 113
• Alleged War Criminals, the Canadian Media, and the Ukrainian Community
• Roman Serbyn 121
• Co-operation between the U. S. Office of Special Investigations and the Soviet Secret Police
• S. Paul Zumbakis 131
• Nazi War Criminals: The Role of Soviet Disinformation
• Roman Kupchinsky 137
• Ukrainian Americans and the Search for War Criminals
• Myron Kuropas 145
• Discussion 153
• Part III: Documents, 1929-66
• Resolutions of the First Congress of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,
• 28 January - 2 February 1929 165
• The Ten Commandments of the Ukrainian Nationalist (Decalogue), June 1929
• Einsatzkommando Order against the Bandera Movement, 25 November 1941 175
• Letter from Alfred Rosenberg to General Keitel on Nazi Treatment of Soviet Prisoners of War,
• 28 February 1942 176
• Memorandum from Alfred Rosenberg to Adolf Hitler on Nazi Policy toward Ukrainians, 16 March 1942 178
• Erich Koch on the Economic Exploitation of Ukraine, 26-8 August 1942 180
• Memorandum from Erich Koch to Alfred Rosenberg on Harsh Measures Adopted in Ukraine by the German Administration, 16 March 1943 181
• Appeal to Ukrainian Citizens and Youth by the Ukrainian Central Committee President on the Formation of the Galician Division, 6 May 1943 183
• Programmatic and Political Resolutions of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists' Third Congress, 21-5 August 1943 186
• What Is the Ukrainian Insurgent Army Fighting For? August 1943 192
• Platform of the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, 11-15 July 1944 196
• Declaration on the Formation of the Ukrainian National Committee and the Ukrainian National Army, March 1945 200
• U.S. Army Guidelines on the Repatriation of Soviet Citizens, 4 January 1946 202
• U.S. Army Procedures for the Forcible Repatriation of Soviet Nationals, 22 January 1946 206
• Why the Displaced Persons Refuse To Go Home, May 1946 209
• Report on the Screening of Ukrainian Displaced Persons, 22 August 1946 223
• The Condition of Displaced Persons, September 1946 225
• Report on the Screening of the First Ukrainian Division, 21 February 1947 233
• British Foreign Office Assessment of the First Ukrainian Division, 5 September 1950 241
• Address by Ivan Dziuba at Babyn Iar, 29 September 1966
• Appendix A Chronology of Major Events, 1914-45 249
• Appendix B The Canadian Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals: Terms of Reference 261
• Abbreviations and Glossary 263
• Sources and Bibliography 267
• Index 287
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:34 pm

Meet the Head of Biden’s New “Disinformation Governing Board”. Nina Jankowicz is a veteran information warrior. But her “experience” working with StopFake should have set off alarm bells.
by Lev Golinkin
The Nation
May 12, 2022
https://www.thenation.com/article/polit ... ing-board/



Image
Official portrait of Nina Jankowicz as executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board.
(UHS)


Late last month, the Joe Biden administration publicly confirmed that a “Disinformation Governing Board” working group had been created within the Department of Homeland Security. The news prompted a flood of concern about the impact of such an Orwellian organ on America.

But there’s no need to engage in hypotheticals to understand the dangers. One has to only consider the past of Nina Jankowicz, the head of the new disinformation board.

Jankowicz’s experience as a disinformation warrior includes her work with StopFake, a US government-funded “anti-disinformation” organization founded in March 2014 and lauded as a model of how to combat Kremlin lies. Four years later, StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes.

Today, StopFake is an official Facebook fact-checking partner, which gives it the power to censor news, while Jankowicz is America’s disinformation czar.

If the Biden administration is serious about combating threats such as white supremacy, perhaps it should first reflect on the old Roman question: Who will guard the guardians?

StopFake was founded right after Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising ousted the country’s president and swept a new, US-backed government into power. Formed by professors and students from the Kyiv Mohyla Journalism School, StopFake presented itself as a plucky, grassroots group wielding hard facts and semi-permanent smirks as it shredded Russian propaganda. It gained notoriety by producing slick videos hosted by dynamic disinformation warriors debunking the Moscow lies of the day.

Western reporters—and checkbooks—were paying attention. Shortly after its creation, StopFake began receiving funding from Western governments, including the National Endowment for Democracy—an organization mainly funded by the US Congress—and the British embassy in Ukraine. It was also supported by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. (StopFake has run numerous episodes that cover Soros but fail to disclose this potential conflict of interest—a violation of basic tenets of journalism.)

Among StopFake’s hosts was Jankowicz, a graduate of Bryn Mawr and the Georgetown School of Foreign Service who was already part of the burgeoning disinformation warrior industry while in Ukraine as a Fulbright Clinton Public Policy Fellow. On January 29, 2017, she hosted StopFake Episode 117, whose lead story dealt with a perennial obsession of Russian propaganda: Ukraine’s volunteer battalions.

These are the dozens of paramilitaries formed in 2014 to fight against Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas region. From the beginning, Moscow focused on the violent and far-right nature of many of these units.

At the time of Jankowicz’s piece, the Russian press was bristling at Kyiv’s creating a new holiday to honor military volunteers—Moscow commentators depicted this as a celebration of far-right butchers. Jankowicz offered an emphatically different take.

“Volunteer battalions organized throughout the country and they supported weak Ukrainian armed forces and prevented further Russian separatist encroachment. Today the volunteer battalions are part of the official Ukrainian armed forces, overseen by the Defense and Interior Ministries,” she said in her StopFake debunking segment.

“The volunteer movement in Ukraine extends far beyond military service. Volunteer groups are active in supporting Ukraine’s military with food, clothing, medicine, and post-battle rehabilitation, as well as working actively with the nearly two million internal refugees displaced by the war in Ukraine,” she added.

While Janowicz extolled the battalions, an on-screen graphic displayed patches of four paramilitaries: Aidar, Dnipro-1, Donbas, and Azov. All four have a documented record of war crimes, while Azov is an outright neo-Nazi group.

On September 10, 2014, three years before Jankowicz’s warm portrayal of volunteer battalions, Newsweek ran an article titled “Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing ‘ISIS-style’ War Crimes.” The story, which covered a report by Amnesty International, featured Aidar, one of the battalions lauded in Jankowicz’s segment. According to Amnesty, Aidar fighters amassed a record of “widespread abuses,” ranging from kidnapping and torture to “possible executions.”

Three months later, Amnesty issued an urgent report about Aidar and Dnipro-1—another paramilitary featured in Jankowicz’s segment—blocking food from eastern Ukrainian towns and villages. “Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is a war crime,” Amnesty stated.

(Of course, almost every war crime charged against one side in this conflict has also been charged against the other; Russia has reportedly recently been blocking food in its siege of Mariupol.)

The Donbas Battalion—the third paramilitary in Jankowicz’s segment—is another unit notorious for torture, as documented by the UN, among others. The fourth group, Azov, not only has its own history of war crimes, but is avowedly neo-Nazi; indeed, the Azov patch shown in Jankowicz’s video has a stylized Wolfsangel (the “N” with the sword)—a popular white supremacist rune used by groups like Aryan Nations.

Azov—which is now a premier hub of transnational white supremacy—has been extensively covered by Western media outlets, including by me in The Nation. Its nature was well known by the time of Jankowicz’s 2017 StopFake video. (In a 2020 book, Jankowicz briefly acknowledged Azov is a “far-right group,” but immediately pivoted to portraying them as victims of a Russian hoax.)

During Jankowicz’s tenure with StopFake (her last known episode aired May 21, 2017), the disinformation site continued being touted as a pioneer in combating Russian propaganda. In March 2017, a fawning Politico story heralded StopFake as the “grand wizards” of the anti-fake news ecosystem. It was an ironically prophetic description, given that Jankowicz’s misleading “nothing to see here” report about the battalions turned out to be a mere fraction of what StopFake has done for Ukraine’s far right.

By 2018, StopFake started defending C14, a neo-Nazi gang that conducted horrific pogroms of Ukraine’s Roma. After media outlet Hromadske described C14 as neo-Nazi, one of StopFake’s founders tweeted “for Hromadske, C14 is ‘neo-Nazi,’ in reality one of them—Oleksandr Voitko—is a war veteran and before going to the war—alum and faculty at @MohylaJSchool, journalist at Foreign news desk at Channel 5. Now also active participant of war veterans grass-root organization,” as if the fact that the gang has a veteran somehow precludes it from being neo-Nazi.

In 2020, StopFake defended C14 in a press release. The same year, news broke that C14 was aiding Kyiv police in enforcing Covid quarantine measures; StopFake labeled this fake news, denying C14 is far-right, describing it as a “community organization” instead, and citing C14’s own denial of carrying out anti-Roma pogroms as “evidence” of its innocence.

In reality, C14’s ties to Ukrainian authorities have been verified by Radio Free Europe (US government–run media), among others. By now, even the US State Department classifies C14 as a “nationalist hate group.”

StopFake has also continued defending the Azov Battalion. Last month, StopFake tweeted that the unit—which was formed out of a neo-Nazi gang, uses two neo-Nazi symbols on its insignia, and has been documented as neo-Nazi by numerous Western outlets—“doesn’t profess #Nazi views as official ideology,” labeling stories about Azov and neo-Nazism as fake news.

This is particularly disturbing because in February, Facebook reversed its ban on praising Azov. Facebook had previously banned the Azov battalion’s account as well as posts celebrating the neo-Nazi organization. The reversal is stunning, given the platform’s professed commitment to combating far-right extremism.

It’s unclear whether StopFake played a role in Facebook’s decision to lift its Azov ban, but considering StopFake is Facebook’s official fact-checking partner, it’s hard to believe the group’s track record of whitewashing Azov wasn’t a factor.

The “grand wizards” of battling fake news have even dabbled with Holocaust distortion, downplaying WWII-era paramilitaries who slaughtered Jews as mere “historic figures” and Ukrainian nationalist leaders, while attacking members of the US Congress who had denounced Ukraine’s glorification of Nazi collaborators.

Astonishingly, when Jankowicz herself was quoted in a July 2020 New York Times story about StopFake’s going off the rails, the article failed to disclose the fact that the disinformation expert being quoted used to work with the group.

Painting neo-Nazi paramilitaries with an extensive record of war crimes as patriots helping refugees, all while working with a “disinformation” group that turned out to run interference for violent neo-Nazi formations—that’s the experience Biden’s new disinformation czar brings to the table.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:36 pm

Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes
by Damien Sharkov
Newsweek
Published Sep 10, 2014 at 12:36 PM EDT
Updated Feb 28, 2016 at 11:15 AM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/evidence-war-c ... ows-269604

Image
Ukrainian servicemen from the "Azov" battalion detain men at a site of battle with pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Ukrainian port city of Mariupol June 13, 2014. Osman Karimov/Pool/Reuters

Groups of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists are committing war crimes in the rebel-held territories of Eastern Ukraine, according to a report from Amnesty International, as evidence emerged in local media of the volunteer militias beheading their victims.

Armed volunteers who refer to themselves as the Aidar battalion "have been involved in widespread abuses, including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, and possible executions", Amnesty said.

The organisation has also published a report detailing similar alleged atrocities committed by pro-Russian militants, highlighting the brutality of the conflict which has claimed over 3,000 lives.

Amnesty's statement came before images of what appeared to be the severed heads of two civilians' started circulating on social media today, identified by Russian news channel NTV as the heads of rebel hostages.

Shortly after, Kiev-based news network Pravilnoe TV reported that it had spoken with one of the mothers of the victims who confirmed her son was a rebel, captured during fighting in Donetsk.

She said she had received her son's head in a wooden box in the post, blaming nationalist volunteers for her son's death. Newsweek has not been able to verify the report independently.

There are over 30 pro-nationalist, volunteer battalions similar to Aidar, such as Ukraina, DND Metinvest and Kiev 1, all funded by private investors.

The Aidar battalion is publicly backed by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who also allegedly funds the Azov, Donbas, Dnepr 1, Dnepr 2 volunteer battalions, operating under orders from Kiev. Last spring Kolomoyskyi offered a bounty of $10,000 of his own money for each captured Russian "saboteur".

A warrant for Kolomoyskyi's arrest was issued in Russia in July for "organising the killing of civilians," through his sponsorship of volunteer militants.

"According to the government these volunteers always operate under an overall command and control of one of their regular forces," Denis Krivosheev of Amnesty International told Newsweek.

Amnesty's report, however, indicates Kiev's loose regulation on volunteer groups and its "members... act with virtually no oversight or control".

Amnesty has asked for Kiev to clarify the legal status and affiliation of its volunteer battalions and fully integrate them into "clear chains of command", making all of its servicemen aware of international law and implementing "effective investigations" into abuses of human rights.

Meanwhile Norwegian channel TV2 presented footage yesterday of the Azov battalion flying flags with the symbols of Ukraine's neo-Nazi party - Patriot of Ukraine.

This is the first instance of government-backed volunteers displaying far-right tendencies. However, numerous powerful paramilitary groups are reportedly involved in the Ukrainian conflict such as Patriot of Ukraine, Right Sector and White Hammer.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced today that the majority of Russian troops had left the country, raising hopes of peace negotiations between Kiev and pro-Russian separatists.

Correction: This article originally mistakenly stated Ihor Kolomoyskyi offered a bounty for each killed 'saboteur', when it was in fact for each captured 'saboteur'. This has been corrected and Newsweek apologises for the error.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:40 pm

Eastern Ukraine: Humanitarian disaster looms as food aid blocked. Pro-Kyiv volunteer battalions are increasingly blocking humanitarian aid into eastern Ukraine in a move which will exacerbate a pending humanitarian crisis in the run up to Christmas and New Year, said Amnesty International.
by Amnesty International
December 24, 2014
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... d-blocked/

“As winter sets in, the already desperate situation in eastern Ukraine is being made even worse by the volunteer battalions preventing food aid and medicine from reaching those in need. It is no secret that the region is facing a humanitarian disaster with many already at risk of starvation,” said Denis Krivosheev, acting Director of Europe and Central Asia for Amnesty International.

“These battalions often act like renegade gangs and urgently need to be brought under control. Denying food to people caught up in a conflict is against international law and the perpetrators must be held to account.”

Amnesty International has received information that the pro-Kyiv battalions, which include Dnipro-1 and Aidar, have blocked aid entering territories controlled by the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR and LNR).

The Dnipro-1 volunteer battalion, along with members of Donbass battalion and Pravyi Sector militia, are reported to have blocked 11 roads leading into the DNR-controlled territory. They have refused to allow most aid convoys through, because they believe food and clothing are ending up in the wrong hands and may be sold instead of being given as humanitarian aid. They also insist on the release of prisoners held by the separatist forces as a condition for granting access to the humanitarian aid to the east.

At least four convoys sent by the humanitarian foundation of Rinat Akhmetov, one of Ukraine’s richest men, were blocked on the roads leading to the separatist-controlled territory by the Dnipro-1 battalion last week.

After stopping one of the convoys Vladimir Manko, deputy commander of the Dnipro-1 battalion, told the Ukrainian media:

“We don’t have any control on the other side. It turns out that we’re at war with them and we’re spilling our blood, but in the same time we’re feeding them.”

Over half of the population in these areas are now entirely dependent on food aid as wages, pensions and social benefits are not being paid regularly as a result of the conflict that began in May. The decision of the Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv to essentially cut off the region from the Ukrainian financial system in November is also contributing to the hardship of the local population.

An aid worker from the Luhansk Region has informed Amnesty International that Aidar battalion is also stopping and searching cars that travel from Starobil’sk to Luhansk and vice versa. Members of the battalion, which was previously implicated in arbitrary detention and torture, are reportedly stopping food and medicines getting through to the region.

The aid worker recalled a particular case when medicines for four elderly people in Krasnodon, who are suffering from heart and blood pressure conditions, were snatched from a bus at a checkpoint.

“Checking the content of humanitarian convoys crossing frontline is one thing. Preventing it is another. Attempting to create unbearable conditions of life is a whole new ballgame. Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is a war crime,” said Denis Krivosheev.

The population of the region has suffered from six months of fighting between Kyiv-controlled and pro-Russian separatist forces. More than 4,700 people have died and thousands more live in fear of being caught in the crossfire or being entirely cut off from vital food and medical supplies.

Amnesty International reiterates its call for the Ukrainian authorities to reign in the volunteer battalions and to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who desperately need it.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:59 pm

The StopFake Supervisory Board Position About the Escalating Information Attacks Directed Against the Project Team
by StopFake.org
2020-07-08, 12:49
https://www.stopfake.org/en/the-stopfak ... ject-team/

The StopFake Supervisory Board Position About the Escalating Information Attacks Directed Against the Project Team

We are convinced that brutal, untrue articles that discredit the activities of the organization, as well as personal threats received by editors and employees are directly related to the fact-checking work of StopFake. A recent publication by journalists of the online publication “Zaborona” showed that defending the truth, StopFake journalists are facing powerful information threats. The accusations published in this article are untrue and cause moral and reputational damage to the organization.

We have conducted an internal investigation and here is our analysis of the situation.

StopFake blocked the article “Zaborona” – not true

The reason for the whole publication in “Zaborona” last week was allegedly blocking of an article published by “Zaborona” on Facebook by StopFake fact-checkers. This is stated by the authors in the first paragraph of the text.

In reality StopFake has never blocked any “Zaborona” material on Facebook. Because StopFake was never authorized to block or delete any Facebook user posts or profiles. StopFake team members have repeatedly talked about in their interviews with various Ukrainian publications. Exploring the topic of StopFake’s collaboration with Facebook, the author could not help but know this.

As part of the partnership with Facebook, fact-checkers can only mark posts that contain inaccurate information, and to include an explanatory article (debunking) justifying why that information is inaccurate. The marked post has a blurred gray background, which sends social network users a warning that the post may contain inaccurate information. Also, the author of the post has the possibility to contact StopFake to correct inaccurate data, and in this case the marking is removed. During 3 months of cooperation with the Facebook system, where potentially untrue posts are selected by an algorithm, the fact-checkers never came across any posts of “Zaborona” or personal posts of any of the representatives of this project.

Commentators’ suggestions that StopFake fact-checkers can label posts as fake based on personal preferences are unfounded, as each material marked as false has a refutation link that can be verified by all Facebook readers. This process is completely transparent.

Therefore, the title of the material “Zaborona” is openly untrue. In addition, StopFake has a special correction policy and this gives a direct opportunity to anyone who has doubts about the labeling of their own content to contact them for feedback.

But also there are other reasons why “Zaborona” material does not meet the standards of journalism and investigative journalism. It contains a lot of manipulative, unsubstantiated and subjective slanderous allegations and that look like black PR.

The thesis about StopFake taking political sides is untrue

The examples given in “Zaborona” itself contradicts their own statement. Since its creation, the objective of StopFake was to identify Russian propaganda (disinformation) fakes. The team was never financially supported by the government of Ukraine or any political forces.

In the context of ongoing Russia’s war against Ukraine, before the election of Volodymyr Zelensky as President of Ukraine, special attention of Russian propaganda was focused on then President Petro Poroshenko. They actively formed and promoted certain narratives and images, which, apparently, StopFake team has repeatedly analyzed in their publications and debunked, because they were related to the broader context of Ukrainian politics. Now this emphasis has shifted to incumbent President Volodymyr Zelensky, so our team continues to monitor these narratives regardless of the political situation in the country – and to debunk fakes about Zelensky.

Examples of such rebuttals are: https://www.stopfake.org/en/fake-presid ... n-ukraine/, https://www.stopfake.org/en/economic-de ... on-russian -media-on-ukraine-s-land-reform /.

A significant part of the StopFake team are well-known researchers and consultants in the field of communications. Therefore, StopFake actively cooperates with the current government, in particular the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports of Ukraine, including a team of experts that participated in the process of developing and discussing of the “On Disinformation” draft law (2019). StopFake also signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine to counter misinformation.

Paradoxically, in the text of the “Zaborona” itself there is a refutation of their assertion of StopFake’s political bias when the authors write about StopFake’s cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine within the “Study and Distinguish” program of the Council for International Research and Exchanges (IREX) with the support of the British and US Embassies.

Involvement in neo-Nazism is not true

The only journalistic source to confirm the information in the article “Zaborona” is US journalist Christopher Miller. The authors did not ask any Ukrainian media organization about their views on StopFake’s activities and did not provide any other evidences and points of view. Unfortunately, the only source they have chosen is difficult to call objective.

Journalist Christjpher Miller has repeatedly demonstrated a subjective and hostile attitude towards StopFake, disseminating emotional and unconfirmed information about the project and team members.

Constructive and sound criticism can be treated with respect until it threatens the organization’s reputation and the positive morale of its employees. The article “Zaborona” produced actually looks more like an example of “black PR” (a textbook example of slander) aimed at undermining the reputation of StopFake and its leadership. Unfortunately “Zaborona” presents its point of view based only on quoting Christopher Miller, who initiated a public discussion of this issue and has a subjective, biased attitude towards StopFake.

His attitude has been regularly seen on Twitter for many years in the form of a personal vendetta of this journalist, who obviously does not like StopFake’s consistent position on the protection of Ukraine’s information security. Miller also consistently criticized the socio-political processes that took place in Ukraine – the wider introduction of Ukrainian language, the defense of Ukrainian history and culture, and the process of decommunization. That is, Miller himself, covering the news from Ukraine, consistently did what he accuses StopFake of – politicizing the news. Representatives of the StopFake project have repeatedly complained about Miller’s position and his interference in StopFake editorial work to the RFE/RL management, for whom he wrote materials working in Ukraine.

However, quoting Miller as the only journalist in this article, “Zaborona” cites a set of unfounded claims that are intended to cast a shadow over StopFake’s journalistic standards and personally against Yevhen Fedchenko as editor-in-chief.

For example, Chris Miller claims that Yevhen Fedchenko allegedly “opposes journalists and freedom of speech.” But this is not true, because Yevhen Fedchenko is a leading Ukrainian journalist with more than 20 years of experience in this field.

Yevhen Fedchenko’s main position, which he consistently defended, was not to perceive journalists from Russian propaganda media as representatives of the profession and he consistently fought against all sorts of misinformation. This position has received support in the professional circle of media professionals.

We are convinced that Yevhen Fedchenko’s contribution to the development of freedom of speech and journalistic education is truly invaluable. Yevhen has been teaching at the School of Journalism since 2002, and has been its director since 2006, and its alums work in all the leading media in Ukraine. Including in “Zaborona”.

“Zaborona” uses allegations about Yevhen Fedchenko that have been taken out of context. For example, the mentioned article gives the reader the impression that “Yevhen Fedchenko allegedly supported some far-right people publicly.” As proof, they cite the following: “For example, in 2018, he (Yevhen Fedchenko) criticized the post of Hromadske TV about the detention of Brazilian militant Rafael Lusvarga by representatives of the C14 organization.”

In fact, in his post on Twitter Fedchenko stated the real facts: Olexandr Voitko (whom the authors call a neo-Nazi) was indeed a student at the School of Journalism (there is a documented proof for that), then Oleksandr became a lecturer (it’s also documented fact), and then Olexandr was one of the first to volunteer for the Russian-Ukrainian war and eventually received the status of a war veteran (he has a document about that as well). This is official, open information. But it was on the basis of this post that a conclusion was made about Yevhen Fedchenko’s alleged sympathy for the far-right.

As for the status of the C14 organization, which Hromadske and later Mr. Miller call “neo-Nazis”, there is a decision of the Ukrainian court – three instances, which came to the opposite conclusion :

http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/83537340 ? fbclid = IwAR1pjFdh3phCPkAReGB8cxvLntWsFe4DJR6ZIRMaxUWJS9tufToS385HSa8

http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/8568 ... Z_2lxz9pyA

There is also a decision of the Commercial Court of Cassation, Case # 910/10429/18, decision of 21.01.2020

“Zaborona” also refutes itself, noting that in August 2019 the court upheld the lawsuit of right-wing radicals.

We believe that such a reaction is a response to public criticism of Hromadske TV. Such aggressive unprofessional steps by “Zaborona” journalists are a direct attack on freedom of speech. It will be usuful to take into consideration that Yevhen Fedchenko was a member of the Hromadske TV Supervisory Board, whose authority was to analyze and evaluate the work of this organization – and critisise it if nesesary.

StopFake member Marko Suprun’s allegations of links to neo-nazis are also not true. The authors of the “Zaborona” article employ the fallacy of guilt by association. Such serious allegations are made mostly on the basis of photographs in which Marko Suprun is next to people whom the author of the article considers radicals. Most of these photos have previously been published on pro-Russian websites or by bloggers.

Marko Suprun has also been photographed with members of Ukraine’s LGBT community, various art communities, film communities, several politicians from different parliamentary factions and ambassadors. He has also been photographed along side Rabbi Yakov Bleich, but this does not make him a member of his synagogue.

Marko Suprun is the host of the English-language TV show StopFake, known for his volunteer work and a public figure. He was a co-producer of the feature film “Nashi Kotyky/Leathal Kittens” a war comedy set in 2014 on the frontlines about Ukraine’s volunteer battalions defending Ukraine from Russian invasion. Suprun gives many lectures and presentations to various audiences, takes photos with participants of such events. Indeed, the producers of the film hosted a pre-premiere showing for veterans of Ukraine’s combined armed forces and several hundred veterans attended and several photographs were taken. But to claim that taking a picture with someone, you become like-minded or allies, is outright manipulation and slander. Most importantly, the authors of the article do not cite any quotations or actions that would indicate Marko Suprun harbours any “Nazi views.”

We emphasize that contrary to the assumptions of the “Zaborona”, Marko Suprun is not involved in the joint fact-checking project StopFake has with Facebook. Marko hosts a weekly English-language digest, edited by another well-respected journalist, Irena Chalupa. Previously this show was hosted by other well-known journalists and public figures including from, US Peace Corps volunteers, American businessmen and researchers living in Kyiv. The English language digests were broadcast on the Ukrainian state broadcasting platform and Hromadske TV.

Unfortunately, the article from the “Zaborona” is not an isolated case. It is a continuation of a course of action that includes harassment and intimidation from pro-Russian media directed against the StopFake team, which is by extension imposed on the audience in order to discredit the project. Publications with identical content have been repeatedly published in Russian and pro-Russian propaganda outlets like RT, Strana.ua where false information about StopFake fact-checkers, funding sources, etc was disseminated.

In the last few months, such discrediting materials have been regularly published by the Russian propaganda publications Ukraina.ru., Tsargrad, Red Spring, Rubaltic.ru and others. In particular, the reason for the information attack was the news that StopFake became a partner in Facebook’s Third-party Fact-checking program.

Here are just a few examples of such material that aims to discredit StopFake:

Image

Image

Image

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rubalt ... t/%3famp=Y

https://ukraina.ru/exclusive/20200518/1027725144.html

https://tsargrad.tv/articles/ataka-na-c ... ake_264196

https://ukranews.com/news/712616-zaboro ... onatsistov

http://ukrrudprom.com/digest/Facebook_i ... yut_k.html

https://rossaprimavera.ru/news/40cc624e

Every day, the StopFake team receives in its mail box various insults and baseless accusations. For example, in connection with the verification of materials related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the project editors repeatedly received phone calls with physical threats over blocked materials. It is worth mentioning the case of the author, who claimed on Facebook that he invented drugs to help fight COVID-19 (they were drugs for animals https://www.stopfake.org/ru/fejk-lekars ... to-vetoks- 1000 /) and he called StopFake team members with threats of physical violence for their fact-checking. Despite such conditions, the StopFake team continues to do its job.

StopFake is a leader in fact-checking work not only in Ukraine. Their work has been repeatedly noted by journalistic and governmental organizations around the world. In six years of work, the project has been covered by more than 500 world media, including the New York Times, CNN, Politico, Washington Post and others.

In 2014, StopFake received the The Bobs award from Deutsche Welle as the best project in the Russian language. In 2016, StopFake was included in the list of New Europe 100 (organizations and individuals that are changing Central and Eastern Europe), compiled by Res Publica, Google, Visegrad Fund and the Financial Times.

In 2017, the StopFake project received the prestigious Democracy Award from the National Democratic Institute (NDI) as an organization that is a leader in the global fight against propaganda and misinformation. And now the team itself is facing powerful information attacks that pose irreparable reputational harm.

The Supervisory Board of StopFake highly values the cooperation between StopFake and Facebook and is ready to defend the honor and safety of employees of the organization in various ways. Therefore, we ask Facebook to jointly develop strategies for the protection of their partner organizations. After all, in the conditions of an information war, fact-checking organizations that defend the truth and oppose anti-democratic phenomena in the information space, are subject to being exposed to similar situations.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:09 pm

Volunteer Ukrainian unit includes Nazis
by Oren Dorell
USA TODAY
Published 3:00 p.m. ET March 10, 2015. Updated 3:32 p.m. ET March 10, 2015
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... /24664937/

Image
Members of the Azov Brigade train in Kulykivske, Ukraine, on March 7. Brendan Hoffman for USA Today

MARIUPOL, Ukraine — A volunteer brigade with self-proclaimed Nazis fighting alongside government troops against Russian-backed separatists is proving to be a mixed blessing to its cause.

Though the 900-member Azov Brigade adds needed manpower to repulse the rebels, members who say they are Nazis are sparking controversy, and complaints of abuses against civilians have turned some residents against them.

A drill sergeant who would identify himself only as Alex wore a patch depicting Thor's Hammer, an ancient Norse symbol appropriated by neo-Nazis, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

In an interview with USA TODAY, he admitted he is a Nazi and said with a laugh that no more than half his comrades are fellow Nazis. He said he supports strong leadership for Ukraine, like Germany during World War II, but opposes the Nazis' genocide against Jews. Minorities should be tolerated as long as they are peaceful and don't demand special privileges, he said, and the property of wealthy oligarchs should be taken away and nationalized.

He vowed that when the war ends, his comrades will march on the capital, Kiev, to oust a government they consider corrupt.

Image
Alex, a drill sergeant with the Azov Brigade, supervises weapons training. Brendan Hoffman for USA Today

Russian media exploit such statements to describe the brigade in this port city in eastern Ukraine as a bunch of thugs who menace the population yet are embraced by Ukraine's national government.

Andriy Diachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Brigade, said only 10% to 20% of the group's members are Nazis. "I know Alex is a Nazi, but it's his personal ideology. It has nothing to do with the official ideology of the Azov," Diachenko said. "He's a good drill sergeant and a good instructor for tactics and weapons skills."

The brigade's deputy commander, Oleg Odnorozhenko, complained that Alex does not speak for the group. "If he has his own sympathies, it's his own matter," Odnorozhenko said in a former high school serving as a base. "But he has no right to make statements in a way they can be construed as the position of the regiment. He will be dealt with severely for his lack of discipline."

Col. Oleksiy Nozdrachov, a member of the Ukrainian Armed Services' General Staff in Kiev, defended the brigade's members as patriots. "They are volunteers who decided to sacrifice their lives to the country," Nozdrachov said. "They are tough and fierce in battle who stand and fight and won't give up soil."

He conceded that abuses by the brigade could hurt the nationalist cause among residents. "If any cases of misbehavior by Azov Brigade are brought by the local population, it will be investigated," he said.

Image
The Azov Brigade trains March 7 in Kulykivske. Brendan Hoffman for USA Today

In one case of alleged abuse, shop owner Svetlana Gudina, 51, said Azov troops detained her two sons, ages 28 and 32, and seized their cars, cash, flash drives and documents while searching for separatists last September. The men were released, and she managed to recover the cars and money, but the experience destroyed her trust in Ukrainian authorities.

"If they have come to defend us, let them defend," Gudina said. "But when they come to molest and humiliate civilians, it's wrong."

Spokesman Diachenko said he was unfamiliar with the incident, but "such episodes happen because this is war."

Nozdrachov offered to send an investigator to look into Gudina's claims, an offer she accepted.

Similar incidents have been attributed to armed units on both sides of the war. A report March 5 by the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights described "credible allegations of arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearances, committed mostly by the armed groups but in some instances also by the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies."

Image
Members of the Azov Brigade participate in weapons training at one of the group's training grounds. Brendan Hoffman for USA Today

The brigade's recruits, ranging from teens to middle-aged men, come from the separatist-held eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, the central city of Kirovograd and the former Soviet republic of Belarus. Several said they want to protect their homeland and Europe from the ambitions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom they blame for the war.

Deputy commander Odnorozhenko said the brigade preaches Ukrainian patriotism and independence, strong leadership and accountability. "Ideas like going to Kiev to change the government in an illegal way should be nipped in the bud," he said.

Alex Borisov, 44, a trainer for Ukraine's military, said he spent two weeks teaching shooting and tactics to a group of brigade members who speak mostly Russian.

"I didn't see any fascists or anti-Semites," Borisov said. "And I tell you this as a Jewish guy."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Nazi Terrorists in Ukraine

Postby admin » Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:43 pm

Part 1 of 2

“You Don’t Exist”. Arbitrary Detentions, Enforced Disappearances, and Torture in Eastern Ukraine
by Human Rights Watch
July 21, 2016
https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/07/21/y ... re-eastern

Image
© 2016 Human Rights Watch cover illustration with two men tied up

Summary

In April 2015, Vadim, 39, was traveling on a shuttle bus home to Donetsk, the capital of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic in eastern Ukraine. He had boarded in Slovyansk, which is under Ukrainian government control. At a checkpoint manned by Ukrainian forces, a gunman ordered him off the bus. Armed men in camouflaged uniforms without insignia tied Vadim’s hands behind his back, pulled a bag over his head, pushed him to his knees, calling him a “separatist thug,” and questioned him about his connections in Slovyansk. Then, they threw him into the back seat of a car and drove off to a base full of armed people, where he was kept in unacknowledged detention for three days, interrogated, and tortured. Then, his captors transferred him to another unlawful detention facility, apparently maintained by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) personnel. Vadim spent another six weeks there inunacknowledgeddetentionwithout any contact with the outside world. During his time in captivity, Vadim’s interrogators tortured him with electric shocks, burned him with cigarettes, and beat him, demanding that he confess to working for Russia-backed separatists. Finally, they released him. Vadim returned to Donetsk and was immediately detained by local de facto authorities, who suspected him of having been recruited by the SBU during his time in captivity. He spent over two months in incommunicado detention in an unofficial prison in central Donetsk where his captors, again, beat and ill-treated him.

Both the Ukrainian government authorities and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine have held civilians in prolonged, arbitrary detention, without any contact with the outside world, including with their lawyers or families. In some cases, the detentions constituted enforced disappearances, meaning that the authorities in question refused to acknowledge the detention of the person or refused to provide any information on their whereabouts or fate. Most of those detained suffered torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Several were denied needed medical attention for the injuries they sustained in detention.

In cases documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the Ukrainian authorities and pro-Kyiv paramilitary groups detained civilians suspected of involvement with or supporting Russia-backed separatists, while the separatist forces have detained civilians suspected of supporting or spying for the Ukrainian government. Vadim’s case stands out because, of all the people we interviewed, he was the only one who was held in secret detention and tortured first by one side, then the other.

Image
Map of Ukraine

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch investigated in detail nine cases of arbitrary, prolonged detention of civilians by the Ukrainian authorities in informal detention sites and nine cases of arbitrary, prolonged detention of civilians by Russia-backed separatists. This report details cases that took place mostly in 2015 and the first half of 2016.

Persons held by the warring sides in eastern Ukraine are protected under international human rights and international humanitarian law, which unequivocally ban arbitrary detention, torture, and other ill-treatment. International standards provide that allegations of torture and other ill-treatment be investigated, and that, when the evidence warrants it, the perpetrators be prosecuted. Detainees must be provided with adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

In almost all of the eighteen cases investigated, release of the civilian detainees was at some point discussed by the relevant side in the context of prisoner exchanges. In nine out of the eighteen cases, they were in fact exchanged. This gives rise to serious concerns that both sides may be detaining civilians in order to have “currency” for potential exchange of prisoners.

It is difficult to estimate the total number of civilians who have been the victims of the kinds of abuses documented in this report. However, the Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2016 published in June 2016 by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) stated that “arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment remain deeply entrenched practices” in the region, suggesting that these problems are more widespread than the limited number of cases investigated by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Violations by the Ukrainian authorities

In most of the nine cases Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch investigated, pro-government forces, including members of so-called volunteer battalions, initially detained the individuals and then handed them over to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), who eventually moved them into the regular criminal justice system. Some were later exchanged for persons held by separatists and others released without trial.

In three cases detailed in this report the SBU allegedly continued the enforced disappearances, keeping the individuals in unacknowledged detention for periods ranging from six weeks to 15 months. One individual was exchanged, the other two simply released without trial. With regard to two of the individuals, there is no record whatsoever of their detention.

The June 2016 UN report noted that the cases of incommunicado detention and torture brought to their attention in late 2015 and early 2016 “mostly implicate SBU” and specifically mentioned the SBU compound in Kharkiv as an alleged place of unofficial detention.

Based on the research findings detailed in this report, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch believe unlawful, unacknowledged detentions have taken place in SBU premises in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Izyum, and Mariupol. We received compelling testimony from a range of sources, including recently released detainees, that as of June 2016 as many as 16 people remain in secret detention at the SBU premises in Kharkiv. Ukrainian authorities have denied operating any other detention facilities than their only official temporary detention center in Kyiv and denied having any information regarding the alleged abuses by SBU documented in this report.

Most interviewees told Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch they were tortured before their transfer to SBU’s facilities. Several also alleged that after being transferred to SBU premises they were, variously, beaten, subjected to electric shocks, and threatened with rape, execution, and retaliation against family members, in order to induce them to confess to involvement with separatism-related criminal activities or to provide information.

Abuses by Russia-backed separatists

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented nine cases in which Russia-backed separatists detained civilians incommunicado for weeks or months without charge, including as recently as early 2016, and, in most cases, subjected them to ill-treatment. Two of the individuals remain in custody as of this writing, their respective “trials” pending.

In the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR), local security services operate with no checks and balances, detain individuals arbitrarily and hold them in their own detention facilities. Four of the individuals whose cases Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented were at some point transferred to remand prisons, where two of them were allowed access to a lawyer, but overall the vacuum of the rule of law in separatist-controlled areas deprives individuals held in custody of their rights and leaves them without recourse to any effective remedies.

Lack of access for independent monitors

In May 2016, a delegation from the UN Subcommittee for Prevention of Torture cut short a visit to Ukraine because they were unable to access some of the detention sites, under both SBU and separatist control, they wanted to visit. Speaking of the SBU sites, the delegation chief, Malcolm Evans, stressed that the team was prevented from visiting "some places where we have heard numerous and serious allegations that people have been detained and where torture or ill-treatment may have occurred."

Separatist authorities have not responded to numerous requests by OHCHR for access to places of detention, and representatives of other international organizations that have expertise on rights protection in places of detention told Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that they do not have access to places of detention in separatist-held areas. The Council of Europe High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, also noted in his report of a visit in March 2016 that relevant interlocutors in Donetsk told him that the “‘local legislation’ does not at present allow for this kind of supervision of the places of detention.”

Key recommendations

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch call on the Ukrainian government and the de facto authorities in self-proclaimed DNR and LNR to immediately put an end to enforced disappearances and arbitrary and incommunicado detentions, and to launch zero-tolerance policies with regard to the torture and ill-treatment of detainees. All parties to the conflict must ensure that all the forces under their control are aware of the consequences of abusing detainees under international law, and that allegations of torture and ill-treatment in detention are thoroughly investigated and those responsible are held to account.

Methodology

This report is based on the findings of joint research by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which included a one-week joint mission to separatist-controlled areas of Donetsk region in May 2016, two missions to government-controlled areas of Donetsk region in February and March 2016, as well as extensive desk research and interviews conducted in person in Kyiv or by phone and Skype.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch conducted a total of 40 interviews with victims of abuses, their family members, witnesses of abuses, victims’ lawyers, representatives of international organizations working in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian government officials, representatives of the DNR, representatives of unofficial and official groups that are engaged in the negotiation of prisoner exchanges, and other sources.

All the interviews with victims were conducted after their release. Four of them asked Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch not to publish details of their cases for fear of reprisals but allowed use of the information they provided for background purposes and analysis. Our researchers spoke to all interviewees separately and in private in either Russian or Ukrainian. Wherever possible, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also gathered medical records, legal documents, and photographs from alleged torture victims and family members of the individuals still in custody. Each interviewee was made aware of the purpose of the interview and agreed to speak on a voluntary basis. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not provide interviewees any financial incentives to speak with us. Most interviewees chose to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals against themselves or members of their families or due to privacy concerns.

This report focuses exclusively on abuses against civilians. It does not include cases of arbitrary detention that concluded prior to spring 2015 (both organizations have extensively reported on arbitrary detention and torture in the region in 2014 and early 2015).[1]

During the joint research mission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch met with the chief of staff for the Ombudsperson of the DNR.[2] The organizations’ delegates also sought to meet with the de facto Prosecutor’s Office but were denied a meeting.

On June 3, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the head of the SBU summarizing some of our research findings, inquiring about SBU allegedly running unofficial prisons on its premises, and asking specific questions in connection with some of the documented cases. The SBU’s written reply, dated June 17, 2016, is cited in this report.[3]

I. Background: The Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine

The 2014 “EuroMaydan” protests led to the February 21, 2014 ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Following Yanukovych’s ouster, Russian forces seized and eventually occupied Crimea. Around the same time, violence sporadically broke out in several cities and towns in eastern Ukraine between crowds of people supporting the protests in Kyiv and those opposed to it.

By mid-March, armed anti-government militia, initially calling themselves “self-defense units,” seized and occupied administrative buildings in several cities and towns in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Their demands ranged from regional autonomy within a federated Ukraine, to full independence, to joining Russia.

In April 2014, separatist forces announced the establishment of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DNR) and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LNR) and established control, to various degrees, in and around several other cities, towns, and villages in the two regions.

In mid-April 2014, the Ukrainian State Security Service and Interior Ministry began counter-insurgency operations, which the government called an “anti-terrorist operation.” On May 11, anti-Kyiv groups proclaimed victory in the “referenda” they organized on the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.[4] On May 16, Ukraine’s First Deputy Prosecutor General Mykola Homosha announced that the “two self-proclaimed republics, the so-called Dоnetsk’s and Luhansk’s [people’s republics] are two terrorist organizations” under Ukrainian law.[5]

From the very beginning of the armed clashes, the Russian government made clear its political support for the separatists and clearly exercised influence over them. As hostilities continued into August, compelling evidence, including reports and satellite images from NATO and the capture of Russian soldiers within Ukraine, emerged that pointed to Russian forces’ direct involvement in military operations. Conflict between Russian and Ukrainian forces is an international armed conflict governed by the relevant rules of international humanitarian law.[6]

In February 2015, the internationally brokered Minsk II accords established a ceasefire, which significantly reduced hostilities, but frequent skirmishes along the frontline and exchanges of artillery fire have continued.

The conflict led to the complete collapse of law and order in the areas controlled by Russia-backed separatists. Separatist forces attacked, beat, and threatened anyone whom they suspected of supporting the Ukrainian government, including journalists, local officials, and political and religious activists, and carried out several summary executions.[7] They also subjected detainees to forced labor and kidnapped civilians for ransom, using them as hostages.[8]

Members of Ukrainian forces and paramilitaries also subjected detainees to torture and other ill-treatment and used detained civilians as pawns for prisoner exchanges between the warring sides.[9] Credible allegations emerged of torture and other egregious abuses by Ukraine’s so-called volunteer battalions Aidar[10] and Azov.[11] By spring 2015, most volunteer battalions had been formally integrated into the official chains of command in the Ministry of Defense or the National Guard of Ukraine. However, Right Sector, a prominent far-right movement, as well as some other groups have retained their paramilitary structures. Their members operate in close cooperation with the official Ukrainian forces on or near the frontline, but remain outside any official chain of command or accountability.[12]

Between April 2014 and May 2016, mortar, rocket, and artillery attacks killed over 9,000 people—including civilians, Ukrainian government forces, and anti-government forces—in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and injured over 21,000.[13] Both separatist and government forces violated the laws of war by carrying out indiscriminate attacks in civilian-populated areas and placing civilian life at risk by not taking feasible precautionary measures when deploying artillery and other weaponry in or near civilian areas.[14]

In November 2014, the government of Ukraine withdrew social services support, including budgets for schools, hospitals, pensions, and social security, in separatist-controlled areas. Between July and December 2015, de facto authorities who exercised effective control over parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions denied authorization to most humanitarian agencies and human rights groups and expelled leading humanitarian groups from DNR and LNR.[15]

Prisoner Exchanges

Prisoner exchanges are an important context for some of the abuses described in this report. One-off, unilateral releases and exchanges began early on in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The warring parties agreed to exchange “all for all” as part of the February 2015 Minsk II accords.[16] However, there was never any clarity as to the true numbers and the identity of all those in the custody of either side. The warring parties’ figures and lists were at odds with each other. The undertaking to exchange “all for all” did not resolve this, although sporadic exchanges of smaller groups of prisoners continued. Each side continued to see it as an advantage to have more prisoners to “trade” with the other. Although Minsk II implied exchange primarily of combatants, in reality the process was extended to civilians, typically those alleged by their captors to be complicit in spying or similar activities on behalf of the other side. This has led to systematic abuse.

In several reports, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission for Ukraine (HRMMU) noted the persistent connection between arbitrary detention of civilians and prisoner exchanges. In February 2015, for example, it noted that “arbitrary detention of civilians regrettably remains a feature of the hostilities, including for the purpose of prisoner exchanges.”[17] Under international law the detention of civilians for the purpose of exchanges constitutes arbitrary detention but also hostage-taking, which is also clearly prohibited under international law.

Ukrainian law enforcement agencies have said their side was releasing “fighters suspected of terrorism or related crimes.”[18] In legal terms such “exchanges” constituted a problem. Effectively, there was no legal basis for exiting criminal suspects from official remand before the criminal proceedings against them were completed. It appears that this issue lies at the heart of some of the abuses described below, and is likely to be the reason some individuals have been held in unofficial, unacknowledged detention by the SBU: they could be exchanged without creating a paper trail and without having to resolve the arising legal complications.

II. Legal Framework

International Legal Standards


International humanitarian treaty law, as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law, governs hostilities between the armed separatist groups and Ukrainian armed forces, as well as between Russian armed forces and Ukrainian forces. While there are differences in the sources and sometimes scope of the laws of war that apply to a non-international armed conflict and an international one, international humanitarian law is designed mainly to protect civilians and other non-combatants from the hazards of all forms of armed conflict, and applicable customary international humanitarian law reflects the large convergence of the two bodies of law that has taken place.

The conflict between the separatists—a non-state armed force—and Ukrainian forces is primarily a non-international armed conflict, which falls within the remit of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol II relating to non-international armed conflicts, to which Ukraine is also a party. Protocol II provides further guidance on the fundamental guarantees for individuals during non-international conflicts to what is provided for in Common Article 3.[19]

Persons held by any party in connection with the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine are protected under international human rights and international humanitarian law. In both of these bodies of law, the ban on torture and other ill-treatment is one of the most fundamental prohibitions. Both Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol II require that anyone in the custody of a party to the conflict be protected against “violence to life of persons,” in particular murder, mutilation, and torture.[20] The provisions also bar “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[21] and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[22] specifically bar torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[23]

Torture is also a war crime under international humanitarian law in all conflicts.[24] Both international human rights law and international humanitarian law require that cases of torture and other ill-treatment be investigated, and that, when the evidence warrants it, the perpetrators be prosecuted. Detainees must be provided with adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

International humanitarian law acknowledges that during times of armed conflict there may be security grounds for temporary detention of civilians, but arbitrary detention is always prohibited, and parties to an armed conflict are required to ensure a legal basis and framework as well as basic safeguards for the detention of civilians. Grounds for detention must be legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Under customary international humanitarian law, detaining parties must adhere to certain procedures; for example, they are obligated to bring a person arrested on a criminal charge promptly before a judicial authority, and to allow the person to challenge the lawfulness of the detention.[25] Under human rights law, which applies even during armed conflict, persons in the custody of the state are entitled to judicial review of the legality of their detention.[26]

Enforced disappearances are serious crimes under international law and are prohibited at all times under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The prohibition also entails a duty to investigate cases of alleged enforced disappearance and prosecute those responsible.[27]An enforced disappearance occurs when someone is deprived of their liberty by agents of the state or persons acting with the state’s authorization, support or acquiescence, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, placing that person outside the protection of the law.[28] Ukraine became a party to the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances on August 14, 2015. The Convention codifies the prohibition on enforced disappearances and, among other things, sets out the obligations of states to prevent, investigate, and prosecute all cases of enforced disappearances.

The ECHR and the ICCPR allow state parties to derogate from certain articles—in other words, to limit certain rights during emergency situations, including an armed conflict. In May 2015, Ukraine derogated from a number of articles in both conventions, including, as relevant to this report, articles relating to the right to liberty and security and fair trial in relation to terrorism suspects.[29] But the treaties also require any restrictions to be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland issued a statement that the derogation “does not mean that Ukraine is no longer bound by the European Convention on Human Rights” and that the European Court of Human Rights will assess in each case whether the derogation is justified.”[30]

Ukrainian law

Ukrainian law categorically prohibits torture.[31]

According to the Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code, the authorities can detain a suspect for up to 72 hours without official charges, after which a court has to approve detention in a pre-trial detention facility with an official warrant or release the suspect. Detainees have the right to be informed of the allegations or charges against them and to challenge their arrest in court. However, following the conflict in eastern Ukraine, on August 12, 2014, parliament introduced special amendments into Ukraine’s law “on combatting terrorism” extending the period for which suspects accused of terrorism can be detained without charge to 30 days. The decision to detain a person beyond 72 hours lies with law enforcement, and a copy of the “preventative detention warrant,"endorsed by a prosecutor, is sent to a judge with a request to hold a custody hearing, which can take place at any time up to 30 days.[32]This was the subject of the above-mentioned derogations from the ECHR and ICCPR.[33] The potential for a person to be detained for up to 30 days before they are brought before a judge violates the ECHR.While the European Court of Human Rights has yet to rule on this provision, it has held that detention without being brought before a judge for 14 days, even with a derogation, violates the convention.The Court, acknowledging there was a legitimate state of emergency and derogation, held “it cannot accept that it is necessary to hold a suspect for fourteen days without judicial intervention.” It noted that the period was exceptionally long, and leaves detainees vulnerable to arbitrary detention and torture.[34]

Pre-trial detention is allowed only in pre-trial detention centers belonging to the State Penitentiary Service and disciplinary cells of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In “certain cases,” the law permits short-term detention of suspects “in temporary detention facilities for the purpose of conducting investigative activities.[35] According to article 38 of the Ukrainian Criminal Procedures Code, bodies with investigative authority in Ukraine are the National Police (part of the Ministry of Interior system), the SBU, the Tax Police (part of the State Fiscal Service), and the State Investigation Bureau.[36] In reality, only the Ministry of Interior and the SBU operate temporary detention facilities. They are governed according to internal orders and guidelines.

Ukraine’s SBU stated in a letter to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that it has only one such facility, located in Kyiv.[37] According to the SBU’s Internal Guidelines on Temporary Detention Facilities, the maximum period of detention in this facility should not exceed 10 days.[38] Ukrainian law allows SBU officials to bring in people for questioning, but a questioning session can last no longer than eight hours per day and no investigative activities, including questioning, can be carried out from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.[39]

Pre-trial detention in other remand facilities cannot exceed six months for minor crimes and up to 12 months for serious crimes, among them those that are terrorism-related.[40]

III. Enforced Disappearances, Arbitrary Detentions, and Torture by Members of the Ukrainian Authorities and Paramilitaries

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch investigated nine cases in which members of the Ukrainian authorities and paramilitaries held civilians in prolonged, secret captivity. Three of these—the most recent and egregious—are detailed below. Details of two others are withheld at the request of the victims, who fear retaliation. The remaining four are not detailed here as they pertain to arbitrary detentions that concluded prior to spring 2015.[41]

In most of the nine cases, pro-government forces, including members of so-called volunteer battalions, detained the individuals and handed them over to the SBU, which eventually moved them into the regular criminal justice system; some were later exchanged for persons held by separatists and others were released without trial.

In the three cases summarized in detail below, the SBU went on to hold these individuals from between six weeks and 15 months, without allowing them to see a lawyer or have any contact with the outside world. All of the individuals were suspected of involvement in pro-separatist activities.

The captivity involved periods during which they were forcibly disappeared or subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention. Most interviewees said they were tortured before their transfer to SBU’s facilities. Several also alleged that after being transferred to SBU premises they were beaten, subjected to electric shocks, and threatened with rape, execution, and retaliation against family members.

Most of the captives held by the Ukrainian authorities were eventually brought before a judge and moved into the regular criminal justice system.[42] However, they did not stand trial but were at some point released as part of prisoner exchanges between the warring sides. In these cases a judge released them on their own recognizance and an undertaking not to leave their place of permanent residence, pending the investigation. This arrangement enabled the authorities to remove them from state custody for the purpose of exchange; however, the individuals would face arrest upon return to government-controlled territory.

Those interviewed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have described the SBU buildings in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Izyum, and Mariupol where they were held in terms that indicate these were places of unlawful, unacknowledged detention. There are well-founded concerns that some persons continue to be victims of enforced disappearances and are being detained at the Kharkiv SBU compound. Two of those who were held for months at the Kharkiv SBU separately made lists of 16 other individuals (15 males and one female) who were still held there at the time of their release earlier this year. Researchers interviewed the two former detainees, Kostyantyn Beskorovaynyi and Artem (real name withheld), separately, and their stories are detailed below.[43] They separately shared their lists with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The names on the two lists of 16 people are identical.

Beskorovaynyi and Artem also provided some basic details regarding the circumstances of detention for the individuals on their lists. Another individual, who was held in the same facility at the same time as Beskorovaynyi and Artem, but who asked for his case not to be included in this report, provided the same list of inmates to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and shared additional details regarding the circumstances of detention for the individuals on the list.[44] The UN report On the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine 15 February to 16 May 2016 described a similar situation based on the research findings by members of OHCHR, stating that “as of March 2016, OHCHR was aware of the names of 15 men and one woman disappeared in Kharkiv SBU.”[45]

In early June 2016, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch sent a letter of inquiry to the SBU with regard to allegations of the enforced disappearances of individuals, in particular by members of the SBU on SBU premises in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Izyum, and Mariupol. The letter included specific questions on the cases of Beskorovaynyi and Artem documented in this section of the report. In their official response, dated June 17, 2016, SBU authorities denied operating any detention facilities with the exception of the temporary detention center in Kyiv (in respect of which no allegations of unacknowledged detention have come to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch’s attention). They also stated that the SBU had never detained or investigated Beskorovaynyi and had no information about his case. The response did not address the discrepancy between the initial public acknowledgement by an SBU spokesperson of the arrest of a man whose details uniquely match Beskorovaynyi’s and the subsequent denial. As regards Artem, the response states that he has been under investigation by the SBU and was on remand between February 7 and March 12, 2015, and released thereafter.[46]

A delegation from the UN Subcommittee for Prevention of Torture, which began an official visit in Ukraine in May 2016, cut the visit short because the authorities failed to grant them access to some of the detention sites they wanted to visit. This is only the second time since it began its work in 2007 that the Subcommittee has chosen to cut short a country visit. The delegation chief, Malcolm Evans, stated that the team was prevented from visiting "some places where we have heard numerous and serious allegations that people have been detained and where torture or ill-treatment may have occurred."[47]

In response to the Subcommittee announcement, the head of the SBU, VasylyiHrytsak, told the press on May 26: "We are not holding any people in our territorial divisions....I'm convinced we have not violated anything."[48] The subcommittee has not disclosed the locations of the alleged places of detention to which it was denied access, but as the most recent OHCHR’s report specifically mentions Kharkiv SBU as an alleged place of unofficial detention,[49] this facility may have been on the Subcommittee’s list of sites to visit. [50]

The cases detailed below illustrate the unlawful practice of prolonged incommunicado detentions in unofficial prisons on the premises of SBU facilities.

Kostyantyn Beskorovaynyi (locations of detention: Kramatorsk, Izyum, Kharkiv)

Kostyantyn Beskorovaynyi, 59 at time of writing, was an active member of the Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) and an elected member of the local council in his hometown of Kostyantynivka, where he also worked as a dentist. Kostyantynivka had been under separatist control for several weeks in 2014 until it was retaken by the Ukrainian forces in July 2014.

Beskorovaynyi was the victim of an enforced disappearance, spending 15 months in unacknowledged and unlawful SBU detention in Kramatorsk, Izyum, and Kharkiv, most of it in the Kharkiv SBU building.[51]

Abduction and transfer to Kramatorsk SBU compound

According to Beskorovaynyi, at about 4 p.m. on November 27, 2014, masked men broke into his apartment, violently seized him, and searched his home with no warrant, claiming they had evidence that he planned to poison the local water supply:

Five or six masked men, one of them armed with an AK-47 automatic rifle, broke my door with a sledgehammer and threw me to the ground. They didn’t introduce themselves but accused me of being a terrorist and a separatist. One of them held me down with his foot and occasionally kicked me in the ribcage while the others searched my apartment….[52]


The search completed, they forced Beskorovaynyi into a van with no license plates and tinted windows. Inside, they handcuffed Beskorovaynyi and pulled a bag over his head. After a relatively short drive, they led Beskorovaynyi into a basement. There, his captors gave him a phone and forced him to call his wife and read a prepared statement stating that he had been detained for “speaking at a rally” and for “further clarifications.” In the evening, Beskorovaynyi was subjected to his first interrogation:

A group of four or five masked men questioned me. They were all aged 30-35, based on their voices, and all had local accents, except one. They told me that I was being charged with aiding a terrorist organisation but did not present any documents. Then, one of them punched me in the face and threatened to send “bearded fellows from Right Sector” to my wife and daughter … They struck me with something heavy, and threatened to rape and shoot me if I didn’t confess.[53]


Beskorovaynyi became so ill during the interrogation that his captors took him to a cell where two medical workers gave him an injection, which helped stabilize his condition. Then, he said, he was ready to confess to anything. His interrogators dictated a confession to him that he had allegedly planned to poison the local water supply and that he consented to work as an SBU informer. They then made him read it aloud on camera.

The next day, he overheard his wife talking with a guard outside, asking if he was there and begging to pass him some food and clothes. The guard claimed that Beskorovaynyi was “not there.” Later his relatives told him, and confirmed to our researchers, that the facility was in fact the SBU building in Kramatorsk, some 35 kilometers from Kostyantynivka.[54]

Transfer to Izyum and Kharkiv

Several days later on December 3, several armed men in masks drove Beskorovaynyi to a different building, where he spent the night in the basement. The next morning, armed personnel again put him in a vehicle that already held two other detainees, and put a bag over his head.[55] As they drove away, Beskorovaynyi managed to make out a sign for the Izyum bus station, leading him to believe he had spent the night at the Izyum SBU building.

After what seemed like a couple of hours, the vehicle stopped in a city. The guards took Beskorovaynyi and the two other captives into a building and to a cell where he learned from one of the inmates that he was in the Kharkiv SBU building. The inmate told Beskorovaynyi he recognized the building because he had done an internship in it.

Almost 15 months in Kharkiv SBU

Beskorovaynyi was held in Kkarkiv for nearly 15 months. Until his release in February 2016, the SBU held Beskorovaynyi on the second floor of the facility, moving him to a different cell five times. The total number of inmates in the facility ranged from around 70 when he first arrived to 17, including himself, at the time of his release.[56] Inmates were held in eight cells, the first four of which held up to around 15 detainees, while the other four were used for smaller groups of up to three people.[57] Between December 2014 and May 2015 Beskorovaynyi never left his cell for fresh air or exercise. From May 2015 onwards guards began to allow inmates a brief a walk in a small fenced yard twice a month.

Because the facility is small, inmates from different cells had ample opportunity to get to know one another, including during walks and doing kitchen duty. Beskorovaynyi and Artem met while detained in the SBU premises in Kharkiv.[58]

When Beskorovaynyi arrived at the facility, it was full. The inmates had to cook meals for around 70 people. The guards would grumble that they were paying for prisoners’ food “out of their own pockets.” The guards frequently told Beskorovaynyi and other inmates that “you don’t exist” and “we don’t even have a budget for you.”[59]

At least twice during his 15 months in custody—in February and October 2015—unidentified SBU officials said he would be exchanged soon, though this never happened.

In the first half of February 2015, the guards rounded up all the inmates, told them to gather their belongings and put the bags over their heads. Then the guards led them several floors upstairs and told them to keep quiet. When they returned to their cells several hours later, the detainees found that their cells had been cleaned and appeared uninhabited. Beskorovaynyi maintains that he overheard the guards talking about representatives of an international organization having visited the facility on that day.[60]

Release

Several days before his release in February 2016, Beskorovaynyi was instructed by a short, bespectacled investigator who introduced himself as Andrei to remain discreet about his time at the SBU:

‘Andrei’ told me that I had to tell everyone that I had left Kostyantynivka and gone into hiding for 15 months for personal reasons. He threatened to come for me and my family, even to send the Right Sector to get us in case I talk about what really happened.[61]


On February 24, 2016, Andrei told Beskorovaynyi that, although prisoner exchanges had stopped, the authorities were ready to let him go on the condition that he repeated his “confession” on camera. Beskorovaynyi did as he was told. He was again warned not to talk about his captivity. The following day he was given 200 UAH (just over US$7) for transport, driven to a bus station in Kharkiv, and made to buy a ticket home.[62]

Official denial of Kostyantyn Beskorovaynyi’s detention

During Beskorovaynyi’s detention, his family members repeatedly approached various Ukrainian authorities for information about his fate and whereabouts. They were consistently told that the authorities were not holding Kostyantyn Beskorovaynyi, although on at least one instance the SBU indirectly acknowledged his detention. The denial of Beskorovaynyi’s detention, and the repeated refusal to provide information on his whereabouts and fate, renders his arbitrary detention an enforced disappearance.

On December 19, 2014, Markiyan Lubkivskiy, the then-SBU spokesperson, said at a press briefing that counter-intelligence services and the SBU had detained an “insane Communist council member” from Kostyantynivka who had planned “terrorist attacks.”[63] There is little doubt Lubkivskiy was referring to Beskorovaynyi even though he did not name him; according to the records of Kostyantynivka town council, which were examined as part of this research, he was the only male Communist Party member on the town council at that time.

Nonetheless, the authorities officially denied to Beskorovaynyi’s family on repeated occasions that they were holding him. On the day of Beskorovaynyi’s detention, his wife filed a complaint with the local police authorities about his abduction by a group of unknown men. She also filed inquiries with several other government agencies. The reply she received from the SBU in Kharkiv, dated December 28, 2015, stated that in 2014-2015 Beskorovaynyi was not in official custody, nor under any investigation, nor a suspect in any criminal case.[64]

In June 2016 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch received similar information in reply to their joint letter of inquiry, which stated that, as of June 17, 2016, the central SBU directorate had no information about Beskorovaynyi’s detention or any criminal allegations against him.[65]

Two criminal investigations were opened following Beskorovaynyi’s wife’s complaints: one into illegal deprivation of liberty and the other into abuse of official authority by law enforcement agencies. On April 13, 2016, the prosecutor's office in Kostyantynivkainformed Beskorovaynyi’s wife that the two investigations had been merged into one and transferred to the Military Prosecutor's Office for the Donetsk region.[66] She is not aware of any subsequent progress in the case.

Beskorovaynyi received several warnings to keep silent about his ordeal. On March 4, two men who introduced themselves as investigators from the local police precinct visited him at home. They insisted on questioning him and taking photos. He let them photograph him and said he would come to the police station the next day to provide an official statement. On March 5, at the police precinct, he told his full story to three law enforcement officials. They warned him that trying to sue the Ukrainian authorities could get him in trouble and tried to convince him to sign and backdate to the first day of his detention a letter of resignation from his job at the local hospital. Beskorovaynyi refused to sign it and believes that the officials wanted the ongoing investigations closed and planned to use the letter as evidence that he went missing of his own free will.[67]

At time of writing, Beskorovaynyi is trying to get reinstated in his job and to have his allegations officially investigated.

Artem (real name withheld; locations of detention: Mariupol, Kharkiv)

Artem, a pro-separatist activist in Mariupol, was forcibly disappeared while walking along a street by masked armed men on January 28, 2015. Artem spent the next 11 days detained in a basement, where he says he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment. He was then handed over to the SBU. At this point, his detention was formally recognized and he was officially charged with aiding a terrorist organization.[68] After 31 days in pre-trial detention, a judge ordered his release from custody under his own recognizance. Notably, the request to release him came from the SBU. However, instead of releasing him, SBU officials transferred Artem to the Kharkiv SBU compound, where he was held incommunicado for another 11 months before being exchanged as part of a “prisoner swap” in February 2016.[69]

Detention and torture

Artem said his captors stopped him on 50-richnaya Oktyabrya street in Mariupol, pulled a plastic bag over his head, threw him into the back of a car, and brought him to the basement of a building. Months later, when Artem described this building to fellow detainees in Kharkiv, some of them said they had also been held and tortured there and identified it as the sports school near Soyuz cinema, which was used as a base by the volunteer battalion Azov.

According to Artem, his captors handcuffed him for long periods of time to a metal rod hanging from the ceiling in the basement and hit him repeatedly on his head and stomach, demanding that he tell them “everything.” The beating sessions continued for two days with short intervals in between. Artem’s torturers also instructed the guards to keep him from sleeping at night.

Artem provided a detailed description of some of the worst moments of his ordeal:

On the third day … they brought two stripped electric wires and ran electricity on my stomach. I was convulsing so heavily that they had to chain me to a wooden ladder, but it broke from my convulsions. Then they turned me over and applied the wires to my back. After I lost consciousness several times, they pulled down my pants and applied the wires to my genitals.... They wanted to know something about a handgun but I told them that I’d never held a weapon in my entire life. They threatened to cut my thumb and then placed a wet mop on my face and started pouring water on it. I felt like I was drowning. There was this official in charge, everyone called him Polkovnik [“colonel” in Russian]. [He] wanted to know about my family and when I said my son was just six years of age, he shouted to the others, “Bring him here, I’ll tear the kid apart in front of him!” After this I told them I’ll confess to anything, do anything they want.[70]


Transfer to Mariupol SBU and to remand prison

On February 7, the guards moved Artem from the basement to a makeshift cell in the same building, where he was allowed to take the bag off his head for the first time. Several hours later, two officers who said they were from the SBU told Artem that they had been looking for him for six days and instructed the guards not to touch him. They took Artem to the SBU building in Mariupol, where he spent two days in incommunicado detention. On February 9, SBU officials informed Artem that the Zhovtnevyi court in Mariupol had ordered his pre-trial detention for 60 days on charges of “aiding a terrorist organization.” On the same day, Artem was transferred to a pre-trial detention center in Kamensk. Upon arrival, Artem was examined by medical personnel, as the law requires, who noticed multiple bruises and abrasions on his body. A law enforcement official present during the examination told Artem: “It’s impossible to find the people who did this to you because of the [chaotic] situation in town, and it’s in your best interests to have them recorded as injuries during your arrest.” Artem agreed to do as he was told.[71]

Transfer to Kharkiv SBU compound

On March 12, Artem was brought before a judge who considered and approved a request submitted by an SBU investigator to lift Artem’s remand.[72] However, on March 13, instead of being released, Artem was again forcibly disappeared, together with nine other inmates, and held at the SBU compound in Kharkiv. He was not presented with any official paperwork, nor given any explanation.

Artem spent the next 11 months forcibly disappeared—in unacknowledged detention—on the premises of the SBU compound in Kharkiv and was finally exchanged for detainees held by the separatist forces on February 20, 2016.

He described his cell at the SBU compound in Kharkiv:

The cell was about eight by eight meters with bars on the windows and a plastic sheet behind the bars so we could not see anything on the street. There were 11 other people in the cell when I arrived. I stayed there until 20 February 2016. They fed us three times per day, two spoons of oats and a tiny slice of bread with tea. On Saturdays and Sundays for breakfast we had only tea.... At the end of August 2015, the canteen refused to cook for us, so we started doing it on our own... They allowed doctors in only when something was very urgent. But once, when a person had a stroke and half of his body was paralyzed, they did not call a doctor. A person with diabetes was given insulin only once every two weeks. If there were some altercations between us, the guards used pepper-spray in the cells. They did not allow us to contact our relatives or anyone else.[73]


Artem claims he met Kostyantyn Beskorovaynyi at the SBU compound in Kharkiv and gave a similar description of the conditions there.[74]

Once in the DNR-controlled territory, Artem underwent a forensic medical examination. His medical records documented visible scars from deep wounds on his wrists, consistent with his claims of being suspended by handcuffs for a long period of time, and a broken tooth.[75] These scars were visible during his interview with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch researchers.

Artem has not filed any complaints with the Ukrainian authorities regarding his enforced disappearance and ill-treatment due to fear of reprisals against his wife and child, who are still in Mariupol. For the same reason, he is afraid to contact his wife and does not know if she has contacted any official agencies about his fate and whereabouts.

The official response received by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch from the SBU and dated June 17, 2016, stated he has been under investigation by the SBU and was on remand between February 7 and March 12, 2015 and released thereafter.[76]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Next

Return to THE COMING WAR WITH RUSSIA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest