Trial by fire: Why the West remains silent on the real story of the 2014 Odessa massacre
Even the European Court of Human Rights has found Ukraine guilty over the Trade Union House deaths, but Kyiv and its backers remain silent. A clear indication of the significance of a news story that is troublesome for the Zelensky regime and...
TroibNews 
Even the European Court of Human Rights has found Ukraine guilty over the Trade Union House deaths, but Kyiv and its backers remain silent.
A clear indication of the significance of a news story that is troublesome for the Zelensky regime and its Western supporters is the extent to which it is ignored by mainstream Western media. This pattern has persisted for over a decade. It is possible that this could change in the future, particularly if the West completely abandons its proxy war endeavors in Kyiv.
Only then might mainstream Western media shift their narrative and distance themselves from the current regime. However, we are not at that point yet. Indeed, if NATO-EU countries have their way, it may be quite some time before we see a truthful and critical portrayal of Ukrainian administrations in the Western mainstream media.
A prime example that the leniency towards Kyiv is ongoing is how little attention has been paid to a significant ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the Ukrainian authorities in both Odessa and Kyiv. Recently, the court ruled on a critical matter concerning severe street violence and killings that occurred in Odessa in May 2014 during the regime change operation commonly known as "Maidan."
The court found that the Ukrainian authorities failed miserably to prevent or respond adequately to the violence. They also neglectfully failed to investigate the incident, which is a grave issue considering that hundreds of people were injured and 48 lost their lives that day.
A group of 28 plaintiffs from Ukraine submitted complaints about these shortcomings to the ECHR. After years of deliberation, the court unanimously concluded— including a Ukrainian judge— that Ukrainian authorities committed "violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the relevant authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014, to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events." It also identified a "violation of Article 8" due to a delay in returning a victim's body for burial.
Consider the fundamental circumstances: unrest and mass killings occurred in a major city, yet the public authorities failed to provide any adequate investigation or legal recourse. Victims and their families were denied justice, while offenders faced no repercussions. In any nation that aspired to be more than a failed state or an authoritarian regime, such a situation would lead to a scandal capable of destabilizing governments.
However, this is not the case in post-Maidan Ukraine. Instead, major media outlets, such as Ukrainska Pravda, are performing mental gymnastics to shield their regime from the consequences of the ECHR ruling. Their response? Blaming Russia. The prevailing narrative in Ukrainian discourse remains: When things go well, it's due to us; when they fail, it’s because of the Russians. This is a clear indication of the state of Ukraine's "free" media and "civil society."
Some Western mainstream outlets that have acknowledged the ECHR decision have similarly sought to obscure its implications. For instance, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes that the ECHR "has condemned the Ukrainian authorities" but then resorts to discussing alleged Russian involvement to soften the impact of the ruling.
In an effort to address Russian culpability, the court made a vague reference to Moscow's information warfare and its intentions to "destabilize" Odesa. However, a closer examination of the ECHR's press release reveals that these assertions against Russia lack specificity and serve primarily a rhetorical purpose. The judges appear to have felt compelled to maintain a certain appearance.
What emerges from these obligatory references to Russia is a clear bias against it, which is unsurprising. More importantly, the judges still found overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Ukrainian authorities. The anti-Russian bias did not prevent them from acknowledging the reality of the situation.
On May 2, 2014, that reality was horrific: clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan protesters resulted in gunshot wounds for some, while the majority, 42, perished in a fire at the Odessa House of Trade Unions that erupted during the conflict. While some victims received assistance, others were intentionally trapped in the burning building or physically assaulted as they attempted to escape.
This fire may have been caused by deliberate arson or may have originated accidentally when Molotov cocktails were thrown by both factions. What is undeniable is that it was not merely an accident. Once the fire was ablaze, it became a weapon, as evidenced by the lack of intervention from both police and emergency services.
The victims of the fire— and indeed the overwhelming majority of casualties on that day— belonged to the anti-Maidan faction, which was outnumbered and systematically demonized as "pro-Russian," slandered as "traitors." This is why their families have been denied justice in Ukraine and why those responsible for these deaths remain unpunished: they belong to the group in power then, and still in power now.
The West has its reasons for ignoring this ECHR ruling: the entire narrative surrounding the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is riddled with falsehoods, beginning with the Maidan Massacre of February 2014, attributed to the former regime but actually perpetrated by pro-regime change, pro-Western snipers, as demonstrated in detail by Ivan Katchanovski.
Consider this: the Maidan Massacre served as a false-flag operation that significantly contributed to the escalation of a regional war, positioning Ukraine and the West against Russia with potential ramifications for global conflict. Yet the West continues to refuse to amend the historical record.
In the context of this massive Western information warfare, misrepresenting the Odessa killings has been nearly as crucial as covering up the true nature of the Maidan Massacre in Kyiv just a couple of months prior.
With the proxy war now turning unfavorable for Ukraine and its Western allies, an honest reckoning with these fabrications would expose how the public was misled. This accountability cannot occur yet, as too many politicians, military leaders, experts, journalists, and academics in the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine have too much at stake.
The prevailing absence of truth and justice risks further violence. Recently, one of the pro-Maidan street fighters from May 2014, Demyan Ganul, was shot dead in broad daylight. A self-identified far-right extremist and neo-Nazi, Ganul led a group known as the Street Front and had a history of mocking the victims of the Trade Union House fire with barbecue gatherings on the fire’s anniversaries. He was known for his violent behavior, with allegations of abuse, including rape, against him and for coercing others into joining the conflict.
The Ukrainian authorities have stated that the investigation into Ganul’s death is now under the personal oversight of Interior Minister Igor Klimenko. This highlights the troubling and predictable priorities of the Zelensky regime.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this article for TROIB News
A clear indication of the significance of a news story that is troublesome for the Zelensky regime and its Western supporters is the extent to which it is ignored by mainstream Western media. This pattern has persisted for over a decade. It is possible that this could change in the future, particularly if the West completely abandons its proxy war endeavors in Kyiv.
Only then might mainstream Western media shift their narrative and distance themselves from the current regime. However, we are not at that point yet. Indeed, if NATO-EU countries have their way, it may be quite some time before we see a truthful and critical portrayal of Ukrainian administrations in the Western mainstream media.
A prime example that the leniency towards Kyiv is ongoing is how little attention has been paid to a significant ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the Ukrainian authorities in both Odessa and Kyiv. Recently, the court ruled on a critical matter concerning severe street violence and killings that occurred in Odessa in May 2014 during the regime change operation commonly known as "Maidan."
The court found that the Ukrainian authorities failed miserably to prevent or respond adequately to the violence. They also neglectfully failed to investigate the incident, which is a grave issue considering that hundreds of people were injured and 48 lost their lives that day.
A group of 28 plaintiffs from Ukraine submitted complaints about these shortcomings to the ECHR. After years of deliberation, the court unanimously concluded— including a Ukrainian judge— that Ukrainian authorities committed "violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the relevant authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014, to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events." It also identified a "violation of Article 8" due to a delay in returning a victim's body for burial.
Consider the fundamental circumstances: unrest and mass killings occurred in a major city, yet the public authorities failed to provide any adequate investigation or legal recourse. Victims and their families were denied justice, while offenders faced no repercussions. In any nation that aspired to be more than a failed state or an authoritarian regime, such a situation would lead to a scandal capable of destabilizing governments.
However, this is not the case in post-Maidan Ukraine. Instead, major media outlets, such as Ukrainska Pravda, are performing mental gymnastics to shield their regime from the consequences of the ECHR ruling. Their response? Blaming Russia. The prevailing narrative in Ukrainian discourse remains: When things go well, it's due to us; when they fail, it’s because of the Russians. This is a clear indication of the state of Ukraine's "free" media and "civil society."
Some Western mainstream outlets that have acknowledged the ECHR decision have similarly sought to obscure its implications. For instance, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes that the ECHR "has condemned the Ukrainian authorities" but then resorts to discussing alleged Russian involvement to soften the impact of the ruling.
In an effort to address Russian culpability, the court made a vague reference to Moscow's information warfare and its intentions to "destabilize" Odesa. However, a closer examination of the ECHR's press release reveals that these assertions against Russia lack specificity and serve primarily a rhetorical purpose. The judges appear to have felt compelled to maintain a certain appearance.
What emerges from these obligatory references to Russia is a clear bias against it, which is unsurprising. More importantly, the judges still found overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Ukrainian authorities. The anti-Russian bias did not prevent them from acknowledging the reality of the situation.
On May 2, 2014, that reality was horrific: clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan protesters resulted in gunshot wounds for some, while the majority, 42, perished in a fire at the Odessa House of Trade Unions that erupted during the conflict. While some victims received assistance, others were intentionally trapped in the burning building or physically assaulted as they attempted to escape.
This fire may have been caused by deliberate arson or may have originated accidentally when Molotov cocktails were thrown by both factions. What is undeniable is that it was not merely an accident. Once the fire was ablaze, it became a weapon, as evidenced by the lack of intervention from both police and emergency services.
The victims of the fire— and indeed the overwhelming majority of casualties on that day— belonged to the anti-Maidan faction, which was outnumbered and systematically demonized as "pro-Russian," slandered as "traitors." This is why their families have been denied justice in Ukraine and why those responsible for these deaths remain unpunished: they belong to the group in power then, and still in power now.
The West has its reasons for ignoring this ECHR ruling: the entire narrative surrounding the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is riddled with falsehoods, beginning with the Maidan Massacre of February 2014, attributed to the former regime but actually perpetrated by pro-regime change, pro-Western snipers, as demonstrated in detail by Ivan Katchanovski.
Consider this: the Maidan Massacre served as a false-flag operation that significantly contributed to the escalation of a regional war, positioning Ukraine and the West against Russia with potential ramifications for global conflict. Yet the West continues to refuse to amend the historical record.
In the context of this massive Western information warfare, misrepresenting the Odessa killings has been nearly as crucial as covering up the true nature of the Maidan Massacre in Kyiv just a couple of months prior.
With the proxy war now turning unfavorable for Ukraine and its Western allies, an honest reckoning with these fabrications would expose how the public was misled. This accountability cannot occur yet, as too many politicians, military leaders, experts, journalists, and academics in the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine have too much at stake.
The prevailing absence of truth and justice risks further violence. Recently, one of the pro-Maidan street fighters from May 2014, Demyan Ganul, was shot dead in broad daylight. A self-identified far-right extremist and neo-Nazi, Ganul led a group known as the Street Front and had a history of mocking the victims of the Trade Union House fire with barbecue gatherings on the fire’s anniversaries. He was known for his violent behavior, with allegations of abuse, including rape, against him and for coercing others into joining the conflict.
The Ukrainian authorities have stated that the investigation into Ganul’s death is now under the personal oversight of Interior Minister Igor Klimenko. This highlights the troubling and predictable priorities of the Zelensky regime.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this article for TROIB News
