Butscha: Four years of fabricated narratives instead of facts

cc. More than four years ago now, in March and April 2022, there were promising peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. These were torpedoed primarily by the UK and the US. A key tool in this was the claim, effectively staged in the media, that Russian troops had committed massacres against civilians in the village of Bucha, north of Kyiv, during their brief occupation. Thus, a broad Western public was led to believe that Russian troops had committed the most serious war crimes. There were well-founded doubts about these claims from the very beginning. Nevertheless, those responsible in the West continue to stand by their version to this day, including on this year’s anniversary of the alleged war crimes. We have received a text from the Russian Ambassador in Vienna which once again calls the Western version into question. We are publishing this text, not least with the reminder: audiatur et altera pars!

Four years after the events in Bucha, there is no clarity, but rather a glaring lack of facts. Instead of an independent, transparent investigation, we continue to witness the repeated promotion of a narrative that has been presented by Kyiv and its Western supporters as an irrefutable truth from the very beginning – without any solid evidence, without critical scrutiny, and without room for doubt.
    The events of that time were not a tragedy that has since been clarified, but a deliberately orchestrated provocation whose political purpose was clear from the outset: to discredit Russia internationally, to torpedo negotiations and to justify a new level of escalation – including comprehensive sanctions.
    The parallels with history are hard to miss. As early as 1944, similar allegations were levelled against the Red Army in Nemmersdorf, East Prussia – allegations that were later exposed as deliberate propaganda fabrications. Today, those who accuse Russia employ strikingly similar methods: emotionalising the issue, prejudging the matter and systematically ignoring contradictory facts.
    Yet there are numerous unanswered questions – and they have never been addressed: Why is there still no complete list of the alleged victims in Bucha, even though Russia has repeatedly submitted requests to this effect to international organisations, including the United Nations? Why do these requests remain unanswered? How can it be explained that the images of bodies in the streets, which were circulated worldwide, only appeared several days after the withdrawal of Russian troops? Why did neither the local authorities nor the mayor report any alleged mass executions immediately after the withdrawal?
    Even more serious are the following inconsistencies: The claim that the victims were killed as early as late February or early March contradicts the condition of the bodies, which show no typical signs of decomposition in the published images. Given the mild spring weather, such a condition is simply implausible after weeks spent outdoors. It also remains unclear where and when these people actually died. Modern forensic methods could provide precise answers, yet the relevant data is not being published. Instead, it is claimed across the board that Russian soldiers committed these acts, without any verifiable evidence being presented.
    Further questions arise: why are there no traces of blood beneath the bodies in many of the photographs? This could suggest that the bodies may have been moved. Why were many of the dead found wearing white armbands – a symbol worn by civilians at the time to signal their neutrality or sympathy towards Russian troops? Could this suggest that these people were targeted as “collaborators” following the entry of Ukrainian units? Why did the Ukrainian National Police begin so-called “cleansing operations” immediately after the invasion? And why are witness accounts, including those of foreign fighters reporting violence against civilians, systematically ignored in Western discourse?
    Last but not least, the question arises as to why alternative explanations – such as the death of civilians as a result of artillery fire during the fighting – were ruled out from the outset. Even in published images, impact craters can be seen, yet these details apparently do not fit the preconceived narrative. All this does not paint a coherent picture of a tragedy that has been fully investigated, but rather that of a politically exploited narrative which, to this day, remains shielded from any critical scrutiny.
    Particularly worrying is the role played by Western media and political figures, who have adopted and disseminated this version of events with virtually no dissent. Instead of exercising journalistic rigour, reporting has been one-sided – with far-reaching political consequences. Today, the issue is being revisited, accompanied by melodramatic performances and commemorative events. Yet these, too, serve less to shed light on the matter than to perpetuate a narrative designed to secure continued political and financial support for Kyiv – both within Ukraine and in the European Union.
    Austrian and other European politicians have also joined this chorus, such as Foreign Minister Meinl-Reisinger, who diligently parrots Ukrainian narratives and calls for the establishment of a “special tribunal”. However, the effort involved – and the generous EU funding earmarked for it – could be spared. After all, the culprit has already been identified. A tribunal orchestrated by Ukraine and funded by the EU has no interest in establishing the truth.
    The Ukrainian regime will likely never provide answers to the questions raised in this article, as they would lead to the truth about the events in the small town of Bucha four years ago. And the truth seems to be the last thing on the minds of those in power in Kyiv, as well as the current EU leadership. Without answers to the key questions, Bucha remains not only a symbol of suffering, but also an example of how quickly, in times of geopolitical tension, fabricated narratives can take the place of facts. •

(Translation Current Concerns)

* Andrei Yuryevich Grosov has been Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Austria since October 2025. Born in 1961, he graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) in 1983. He speaks English, German and French and holds the diplomatic rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, which was conferred upon him by decree of the President of the Russian Federation on 13 September 2021. He has worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation since 1983, where he has held various diplomatic posts both at the Ministry’s headquarters and abroad. From 2004 to 2005, he was Minister at the Russian Embassy in Bulgaria. From 2009 to 2014, he was Consul General of Russia in Munich. From September 2014 to August 2018, he was Deputy Director of the First Department for CIS States. From August 2018 to October 2025, he was Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the statutory and other bodies of the CIS in Minsk.