A former Russian soldier, turned journalist, was found shot in his Kiev apartment by his wife, having been allegedly murdered. Arkadiy Babchenko (born 1977, in Moscow) had first-hand experience in warfare – he fought for Russia in both the first and second Chechen wars.
According to RT, the Ukrainian police have already ruled out suicide, and believe he was targeted for his work. The Ukrainian Interior Ministry has released a drawing of a suspect connected with Babchenko’s murder.
В‘ячеслав #Аброськін: На цей час складений фоторобот підозрюваного у вбивстві Аркадія Бабченка. Встановлюються свідки та обставини події. На місці події працює слідчо-оперативна група, оперативні підрозділи апарату Національноі поліції, а також ГУНП в Києві pic.twitter.com/wTxLRwfKgp
— МВС України (@MVS_UA) May 29, 2018
Babchenko was critical of Russia
The most relevant thing to point out about his work, for which authorities think he was possibly murdered, is that he was known for being very critical of the Russian government.
Babchenko was drafted into the Russian Army during the First Chechen War, but volunteered to return and fight in the second. After being released from the military in 2000, he became a war correspondent covering the deadly conflict. He developed a pessimistic view of Russia, and of a perceived fatalistic Russian attitude of “indifference“.
Russians often describe this as the attitude of “Moya Khata za Krayu“, a general attitude of “it’s not my business, so I don’t care” and the idea that “Yes, there are problems, but I can’t change it, so why bother”. This is not to say that represents the real Russia, but its often an issue that bothers the Russian soul in whatever place they witness it.
Whereas most Russians endured, with a positive view of their Motherland, as the future began looking brighter and brighter for Russia, Babchenko began participating in opposition movements instead. He was no friend of the Russian government.
After the Ukraine Crisis began, he followed the voices of western propaganda, accusing Moscow of waging a war of aggression in Eastern Ukraine.
This culminated in 2017, when Babchenko left Russia and moved to Kiev, where he worked for the television network ATR. Now, the Ukrainian authorities feel the assassination may be tied to his professional work – the question remains as always: Whodunit?
As a result of the world of fake news, and propaganda we live in, it is of course only a matter of time for someone to blame Russia, as usual, without any evidence. You will surely hear plenty of stories in the mainstream media about why Russia is to blame, there is no lack of that, and therefore no need to explore it. Here is an argument as to why Russia wouldn’t do something like this.
Why Russia didn’t do it
First of all, I think we can all agree, that whenever someone critical of the Russian government dies, there will always be a narrative by some, to blame Russia. If we separate Russia from the argument, and just say that a person who was critical of a powerful nation was killed, it is not unreasonable to consider all possibilities. The devil is in the details – and it’s NOT Russia.
The motive presented by those who will blame Russia is “He talked bad about Russia, so they killed him”, but the question that is never asked, is “Would that motive be worth the consequences?”
Because no matter what happened, the West will always blame Russia, and Russia knows this, anyone with a brain knows this.
The Russian Ambassador to the UN already understands this, and he said Russia expects that Ukraine will simply blame Russia for this murder, rather than actually investigate.
It’s already established that Russia will be blamed, because it’s blatantly obvious, too obvious.
Those who disagree will claim that Russia knows it will be obvious, but does not care, because she is doing this to defend her image and send a message to potential enemies. This just seems totally illogical in this situation.
Yes, Russia is very powerful, and she has never hidden the fact that she will always defend herself and her people from attack, but she is also very smart. Any decision that any country makes is carefully weighed, and calculated.
When you think about it, Russia has a LOT more to lose, and not very much to gain from being involved in something like this.
Having absolutely nothing to do with it, will still be bad for Russia, because she will be blamed anyway.
Russia knows she would be blamed, and therefore, she would not take such a risk, with no reward. Russia is not petty, and she will not sacrifice long-term goals for silly revenge plots against people who aren’t even important enough to take revenge against.
This man was not a VIP, nor a high-value target. This former Russian soldier was just a disenfranchised citizen, whose work was largely irrelevant to Russians. He even said in his own words that his work has “no effect” on Russia or its people. There are already plenty of anti-Russian journalists, with credentials and audiences far greater than he had.
Russia really has nothing to gain from his death, but a lot to lose, and here is the golden question. If Russia will have nothing to gain from this, then who has something to gain, if Russia is always to blame? Does it rhyme with gain? Could it be Ukraine?
To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of anything, as an investigation must be conducted, however, as with MH-17, we have seen Ukraine directly profit from false flags in which Russia was blamed.
The reality is, Russia is a country which suffered greatly from revolutionary change, and needs stability, and her leadership would prefer stability in Europe. Some feel Russia is even a reactionary force, ultra-conservative and always fighting change – but this is just a theory, some agree, some don’t.
There are many forces, however, who don’t benefit from stability or order, but rather thrive on chaos. This is principally the Western Military-industrial Complex, and their vassals.
Ukraine is a prime example of one of those vassals, and her occupying and criminal government has been eager to ramp up the war in Donbass, at the expense of Ukrainian people. Russia has a lot more to lose from Ukraine using his murder, (even if they had no involvement) as an excuse to continue killing Donbass people, then Russia would gain by sending some kind of message.
Russia is a nuclear superpower, not a New York street gang, she does not need to send messages like this, everyone knows she is powerful.
Once again, there is no evidence for anything yet, so I am not accusing anyone. I merely wish to point out one of the many holes in the “Blame Russia” narrative. In any event, the murder of a journalist in Ukraine is a sign of chaos, not order. Russia does not need more chaos in Ukraine, which the Kiev regime may use to justify more attacks against Donbass.
Three years ago, a great man and Christian, the famous Russian-Ukrainian journalist Oles Buzina, was brutally assassinated in Kiev, in a similar way. There has been no justice for him, nor the 10,000 killed in Donbass.
Before blaming Russia for the events of the Ukraine Crisis, consider this: if Ukraine turns into the Somalia of Europe, if a Neo-Nazi failed state melts down on the Russian border, who benefits from it? Does Russia benefit from the self-destruction of a Slavic brotherly people, and a land on which the Russian Orthodox Faith began?