Just How Silly is the Ukrainian Government? Name a Place…

Just how silly is the Ukrainian government? Well, with the country mired – miring Poroshenkoitself – in ongoing war with Donbass, and stricken economy beset by high-level corruption, and looting, you would think they would be engaging all of their efforts to tackle these, and the many more problems (healthcare, plunging population, etc…) afflicting the country.

But yet … in the midst of all of this, Ukraine has somehow found the time to, seemingly randomly, rename places in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Republics which will clearly never return to Ukraine, as even most Ukrainians now accept. 

Here’s look at just a few: 

Torez, DPR – renamed to Chistyakovo.

where 1Krasnodon, LPR – renamed to Sorokino

Sverdlovsk, LPR – renamed to Dolzhansky

Kirovskoe, DPR renamed to Krestnaya

Stakhanov, LPR renamed to Kadievka.

And this list goes on, to 150 places renamed in the Donetsk, and Lugansk people’s republics – and Crimea. 

So, let’s make some points here – 

Absolutely no one who actually lives in these places calls them by their ‘Ukrainian names’.

Although lists were circulated, the renaming has hardly caught the public imagination, even in Ukraine, where the former names are still mainly. This Ukrainian ‘ATO’ resource, recently referring to Stakhanov, among other ‘Ukraine-renamed’ places, in a war dispatch.

However, some Ukrainians do use the Ukrainian names. So, fighting a war against places you’ve renamed yourself, some on the same side call them this, some call them the other … no one’s quite sure. Yeah, that’s a masterstroke, surely.

And if we’re speaking of maps, by the way, the maps printed out will all be in the previous place names. So what have Ukraine’s soldiers done? Tippexed out and filled in with biro? Or still using the names of the hated ‘occupiers’ (i.e. those people who actually live and are from the places)?

where.jpgBy the way – a Facebook comment when I mentioned this – Do you know how much money it costs to rename a street? You have to get all of the title documents changed on all of the paperwork for all of the residential and commercial areas. Then you need to update the cadastral plans, the city development plans and submit to the federal government for ratification. It is a logical and economic nightmare. Also, anytime there is this volume of paperwork there are bound to be errors. This means court cases, adjudication and all of the rest of that. Ridiculous.

More, it’s almost a form of self-trolling. How much more ridiculous can you get? Renaming places random names which they will never really be called? Causing untold expense, and confusion for yourself in the process…. is it some sort of new Ukrainian ‘victory’, if you can’t capture a place, just rename it? I mean, come on, this is supposed to be a serious country, we’re told, right? 

Oh, Ukraine, it’s just too silly….

The Sunday Times today: How they Faked News: Exclusive

A little while ago, I was contacted by the Sunday Times to give comments on my involvement in the Anna Ziuzina / Barry Pring case. I don’t trust the Sunday Times, or their ‘journalist’ James Gillespie – just a standard western prostitute of the press, and it was clear they had already decided the narrative of their article.

I was sure that Gillespie (pictured) would simply take the parts of my answers which suited his pre-set script, so this is how I replied – we’ll have a look at it, then the Sunday Times fake news.

My reply in full: 

Thanks James, sorry I was just busy and didn’t get around to it, am out of the country now in any case. Let me answer these for you – please either publish my answers to all your questions, in full, or do not include or mention me in your article at all. If you edit or abridge any of my answers below, you will accept a claim of £100,000 damages against the Sunday Times for misrepresentation, and defamation of character. I will donate this all to a children’s home in Lutugino, Donbass.

Just to be clear, James – your publishing anything apart from everything I have written to you below accepts liability from Sunday Times to pay £100,000 to a children’s home in Lutugino, Donbass – of which I will give you full details. I will not benefit from this transaction in any way, the funds will be transferred directly to the children’s home.

All my answers are below. If you misrepresent me, I will publish them in full, for public record, in addition to the above damages.

On 27 July 2017 at 22:51, Gillespie, James;james.gillespie@sunday-times.co.uk>

Hi Graham,

Sorry we haven’t been able to speak, I guess you’re busy.
I’m writing a piece for the paper on Sunday about the Barry Pring inquest, specifically focussing on how flawed the hearing was. As you know the verdict was quashed in the High Court and a new inquest ordered.

It’s a bit strange you’re writing this six months after the event. And you are leading with a deliberately biased narrative. Who has paid you to write this? It sounds a lot like the narrative the Ziuzina family pay their lawyers and representatives to circulate…

Part of the reason for this finding was that the coroner had allowed “hearsay evidence” including your written and verbal accounts.
I just wanted to give you the chance to have your say about those findings.
Do you accept that the material you gave was “hearsay” and not based on proven facts?

My evidence was absolutely based on proven facts. The coroner’s ‘quashing’ of the verdict itself contained several significant errors and untruths, which I set out in a letter of the time. The ‘quashing’ shows that the British justice system is entirely flawed – this case was quashed because it was inconvenient for UK-Ukraine relations. And you can call my evidence ‘hearsay’, but not one part of it was disproved, whereas I disproved the entire basis for the ‘quashing’, in my document of the time.

What evidence do you have for your claims that Ganna Ziuzina was involved in her husband’s death?

The evidence presented in my 58-page report, fulsomely praised by the coroner at the time, after she had been in possession of it for around 4 years, and studied it extensively in that time. Yet in one month, something suddenly happened to change that, and then it was ‘hearsay’. The coroner’s verdict, concrete at the time, was clearly compromised by external UK ‘interests’.

Why has your book on the case been withdrawn from sale?

Because Amazon do withdraw books when they are aggressively threatened by expensive lawyers, as Ziuzina did here.

Do you maintain that the evidence you gave to the inquest was true and accurate?

You’re repeating yourself here, all answered above. In any case, absolutely true and accurate.

Do you accept that you are known as an opponent of the Ukrainian government?

I’m an opponent of anyone who tells lies.

Will you seek to give evidence at any future inquest into Mr Pring’s death?
What kind of facile, wantonly (trying to be) provocative questions are these? If I’m asked by the coroner, I’l (sic) give evidence. If not, then I won’t. There isn’t an ‘open questions’ part of an inquest…
The Anna Ziuzina / Barry Pring inquest verdict was overturned because it was inconvenient for the UK government’s position on Ukraine. Look out for my further videos and reportage on the theme, all entirely factual, truthful, accurate, as all my work.
 

Best, Graham

Sunday Times today: (my comments in bold)

Crucially, the coroner admitted she had not realised there was an alleged commercial interest of a “witness who provided hearsay evidence”, a reference to Graham Phillips, 38, a vlogger — video blogger — who described himself at the inquest as an “investigative journalist” and who had written a book on the case.

So the Sunday Times have clearly just picked a term to belittle me ‘vlogger’, and the second is just a lie – I didn’t describe myself as an ‘investigative journalist’ at the inquest, the coroner herself did. (I describe myself as always, a journalist.)

The book has been withdrawn from sale after legal warnings of defamation but the material formed a central part of the evidence at the inquest.

There is also another element to Phillips’s work. He often reports on the Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine and is known for his pro-Russian views and opposition to Ukrainian authorities.

The BBC reported last week that from 2014 to 2015 Phillips was employed by Zvezda, a media channel run by the Russian defence ministry, and freelanced for the state-operated television network RT.

Again, the Sunday Times just selecting perceived negative aspects of my work to attack me. Any chance of something neutral to form a balanced picture? Of course not – this is a hit piece, just like the BBC’s was. 

In May 2014 Phillips was banned from entering Ukraine for three years on the grounds of “national security”. The Ukrainian government even took the unusual step of issuing an open letter to the UK condemning Phillips’s actions.

Just more negative about me, just in case you may have entertained any other notion, going into the ‘business part’. 

Apart from her lack of knowledge about Phillips’s activities, Earland also admitted she did not realise that hailing private cars in Ukraine rather than booking a taxi was a regular sight in the location where Pring was killed.

“Both strands of evidence are material and relevant and raise the potential of a different inquest conclusion being reached,” court documents record.

So you mean the coroner has claimed, or the Sunday Times are claiming, that in the 9 years the coroner had to work on this case, she didn’t do one Google search about me? A Google search would have thrown up all of the above negatives of the Sunday Times, because that’s what the western press do – write negative things about me, to attempt to discredit my work, because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

However, the coroner would have also found some ‘non-negative’ information – that I’m the journalist who has reported on the Ukraine crisis, then war in Donbass from the start. Thousands of videos, real reportage from the scene, first to the scene, risking my life to bring the truth, showing both sides.

And there are entire parts of my work which have nothing to do with ‘Ukraine’, for example my extensive Brexit reportage.

As for the nonsense about ‘hailing private cars’ I wrote of that yesterday even.Ziuzina with her new husband Ivan Lister, a Briton. She is now living in Spain

Which is exactly what Ziuzina wants. She is now living with a new husband, British businessman Ivan Lister, 48, in Spain and uses the name Julianne Moore.

“Despite the fact that I was the only witness to what happened, I was not told about the hearing,” she said in a Ukrainian newspaper. She also said reports that she had refused to give evidence were a lie and “the main witness of my ‘accusation’ was the famous pro-Russian propagandist and blogger Graham Phillips”.

She added: “For me, the death of my husband was a tremendous shock. Twice I went to a psychiatric hospital. Then there was a long way to rehabilitation, including being on antidepressants.”

Asked if she knew what had happened, she replied: “Whether he had enemies, I do not know. I can only say one thing: I am not involved in the death of Barry.”

All of this, of course Ziuzina’s side, sympathetic photo of her (but a key detail, see below), and having a go at me again. 

Phillips is still convinced she was involved. Approached by The Sunday Times, he accused the newspaper of being biased and said: “Who has paid you to write this?” He demanded £100,000 if all his answers to questions were not published in full, saying he would donate the money to a children’s home in Ukraine.

As above, I did indeed ‘demand’ £100,000, as above, to help the children’s home in Lutugino, Donbass, which I have been helping for a long time. I knew the Sunday Times would lie, as they indeed did, so wanted to give the opportunity that something good may come from their deceit. 

“My evidence was absolutely based on proven facts. The . . . ‘quashing’ of the verdict itself contained several significant errors and untruths . . . The ‘quashing’ shows that the British justice system is entirely flawed — this case was quashed because it was inconvenient for UK-Ukraine relations.”

Ok, so here’s what they’ve missed out from my answers, in bold: 

It’s a bit strange you’re writing this six months after the event. And you are leading with a deliberately biased narrative. Who has paid you to write this? It sounds a lot like the narrative the Ziuzina family pay their lawyers and representatives to circulate…

My evidence was absolutely based on proven facts. The coroner’s ‘quashing’ of the verdict itself contained several significant errors and untruths, which I set out in a letter of the time. The ‘quashing’ shows that the British justice system is entirely flawed – this case was quashed because it was inconvenient for UK-Ukraine relations. And you can call my evidence ‘hearsay’, but not one part of it was disproved, whereas I disproved the entire basis for the ‘quashing’, in my document of the time.

He said his book had been withdrawn for sale on Amazon because the website had been “aggressively threatened by expensive lawyers” and accused this newspaper of asking “facile, wantonly (trying to be) provocative questions”.

And so what else been missed out? A lot. It was a Sunday Times ‘pick n’ mix’ of what suited them. Nowhere to be seen, my answer to the question about my being an ‘opponent of the Ukrainian government’ –

I’m an opponent of anyone who tells lies.

Other answers, they’ve picked and chosen from, but they’ve completely ommitted all of this –

The evidence presented in my 58-page report, fulsomely praised by the coroner at the time, after she had been in possession of it for around 4 years, and studied it extensively in that time. Yet in one month, something suddenly happened to change that, and then it was ‘hearsay’. The coroner’s verdict, concrete at the time, was clearly compromised by external UK ‘interests’. 

When told The Sunday Times could not agree to his demand for £100,000 Phillips said he withdrew his comments.

The Sunday Times lawyer, Kirsty Howarth, had contacted me:

Your email exchanges with James Gillespie have been passed on to me. Your comments will be taken into account and fairly represented in any article.  They will not be published in full and there is no basis for any suggestion that The Sunday Times would then have to pay £100,000.

And I’d replied: 

I gave my comments exclusively on the basis they would be published in full. If not, I revoke all permission to use them, and the Sunday Times will therefore accept my claim for liability, defamation, misrepresentation, as previously stated, if they use part of them, incurring the stated amount, a charitable donation for Donbass.

Graham

And we go from there. Lies, fake news, misrepresentation from the Sunday Times, as I knew it would be. I wrote on the theme yesterday here. 


And an absolutely key point here: 
A spokesman for the chief coroner said: “The High Court has ordered that the chief coroner should arrange for the fresh inquest to be heard by a different coroner.” Earland and Ziuzina declined to comment.

So they didn’t even have an interview with Ziuzina?? They just republished her remarks from a months-old interview in Ukrainian media?? All her comments are taken from this interview, April 1st… 

So, a months-old interview with Ziuzina dug up, dressed up as ‘journalism’ in the Sunday Times, to further aid the UK government’s position (that it all just goes away so as not to cause problems), and adds to the recent attacks on me by UK media…. welcome to the world of our ‘great British press’…

I’ll look at the legal options to see if this time, something good may come out of more Sunday Times lies and fake news.

Barry Pring: Absolutely Betrayed by the British Legal System

As some of you know, I’ve extensively covered the case of Barry Pring, as all evidence shows, murdered by his Ukrainian wife Anna Ziuzina by Kiev, in 2008:

In January of this year, an inquest was held, which delivered a verdict of unlawful death, and more, the coroner, Dr Elizabeth Earland, stated that Barry had been ‘tricked’ into standing by the side of the road – clearly the only person who could have done this, his Ukrainian wife, Anna Ziuzina (pictured with Barry).

Things really started to move after that, with the case even being raised in Prime Minister’s Question Time, in late February, as MP Neil Parish asked the Prime Minister to ensure that justice was served against Anna Ziuzina. Pressure grew, and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson was due to discuss it with high-level Ukrainian officials in early April.

All of this was highly inconvenient for the UK, and their position of blanket support for Ukraine, whitewashing of any negatives in Ukraine. Boris Johnson was involved in the case, but never once publicly mentioned it – even when he was in Ukraine at that time. Actually, following the inquest verdict, there was considerable attention on it, all of which risked putting something in the public domain entirely, dangerously contradictory to the message the UK wants to project on Ukraine: corruption is just as bad, or worse, than it ever was there. (The UK message is that ‘everything in Ukraine is getting better after Euromaidan, reform‘ etc).

Actually, when I’d interviewed MP Neil Parish in February, he stated the problem with corruption in Ukraine:

As the case was going up, it was clearly going to have ramifications, and implications. The UK, only used to fawning over Ukraine (just have a look at Boris here, at the recent ‘UK / Ukraine reform conference’ in London. ), was going to have to ask some uncomfortable questions of Ukraine. The UK, used to only issuing glowing reports about Ukraine, was going to have to say some hard words.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

But just as things were about to get very inconvenient for the UK, something happened. After a letter by Ziuzina’s lawyer, long, rambling, full of factual errors, just two months after the inquest, the verdict was quashed. Just like that.

The coroner had had nine years to look over the facts of the case. Yet a claim based on easily disproved evidence by Ziuzina’s lawyer (and having earlier had his letter, I wrote to the coroner disproving it – he claimed a U-turn was 200 metres from the restaurant, it was actually over 600 metres – easily checkable on Google Maps), had the coroner suddenly ‘becoming aware of new evidence of this practice of hailing taxis’. This was one of 3 reasons cited in the quashing.

Meanwhile the coroner suddenly dismissed my evidence as being based on ‘commercial interest’ – despite the e-book I wrote on the subject not being on sale for over 4 years, that never having been for ‘commercial interest’, and my having done nothing of any ‘commercial interest’ on the theme. Plus, my evidence, praised so fulsomely in January by the coroner, was now ‘hearsay evidence’, despite everything in the 58-page document I’d submitted being fact-checked, and referenced.

The other reason given for the quashing was that Ziuzina herself was not present, despite her being given every notification, and opportunity to attend.

The quashing of the inquest verdict was a farce, an insult to the Pring family, a mockery of the reputation of the British legal system. Since then, Ziuzina has lauched a PR campaign to clear her name, with members of the UK press seemingly happy to take her lawyer’s word, perhaps more than that, and the UK government more than happy to allow the Ziuzina campaign, to avoid pressure for a second inquest from which may emerge more uncomfortable details of the UK’s new ‘best friend’, Ukraine, and its true nature.

The injustice for Barry Pring just goes on, as his murder in 2008 becomes an ‘inconvenience’ for the UK government in 2017.

More to come.

My flat in Odessa: Now for Sale

In 2012, I fell in love with the city of Odessa. In summer of 2013, I used what I’d saved in my working life, and borrowed some, to buy a flat there, a few kilometres out of the centre, in the Kotovsky area, for $55,000, in September.

I imagined a life there. But it didn’t work out that way. In November of 2013, Euromaidan began, in March of 2014, crisis, conflict, April 2014 – war, and I left for Donbass, not to return (as of this point in time).

I’ve not returned to Odessa since, being banned from Ukraine for 3 years. However, my ban from Ukraine has now expired. 

Thus, I am now entitled to sell the apartment in Odessa, with full rights, and as I am not banned from Ukraine, I shall expect FCO support in this, if necessary.

This is not a farewell to Odessa, but I’m not a rich man, and can’t just have an apartment somewhere, unsure when I’ll be able to visit. Moreso with the amount of radicals, terrorists in Ukraine, and Ukrainian media having splashed my apartment all over the news:

If I have to pay tax to fund Ukraine’s war against civilians in Donbass ‘ATO’, I’ll give that same amount to the armies in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics to defend themselves from ‘ATO’.

I will do everything fairly, and reasonably, as always. And we go forward.

My 3-Year Ban from Ukraine Has Now Expired: Statement

My 3-year- ban from Ukraine has now expired, and I’m legally free to enter Ukraine again.

I have no current plans to do this, the radicals and terrorists there are unlikely to pay much heed to my having served the ban, and even obeyed it – I did not once go into Ukrainian territory in this time.

However, it can’t be used to ‘discredit’ my work from Donbass any more by the BBC, other propagandists.

I am now not banned from Ukraine, and work in Donbass just like any other journalist.

Why is the UK Supporting Ukraine so Much? 3 Explanations…


1. Supporting Ukraine was the EU position at the start, and the UK just went along with it…. 
true, but then why recently has the UK been ramping up its support for Ukraine, as the EU is generally paying less attention? The EU leaders recently ‘holding peace talks‘, while the UK ups its military support for Ukraine. Why? 

2. A reason would seem to be the UK’s desire to demonstrate to the world that post-Brexit, they are ‘still a force’, not diminished in any way etc etc. This would seem to be the case, with Boris Johnson frequently repeating versions on the theme:

UK’s Johnson reassures Ukraine of support after Brexit vote

The UK are locked in tough Brexit talks with the EU just now, are they afraid that if they are perceived as being weak on Ukraine, it’ll impact on the Brexit negotiations? It’s a real shame the UK have chosen absolutely the wrong situation in which to overcompensate. 

3. Is there a deal in it for the UK? Has Ukraine promised something? More specifically, one of the UK government’s most favourite deals…. an arms deal.

Did you know that Britain is now the 2nd biggest arms dealer in the world, and it’ll sell arms to almost anyone…

“Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House “Freedom in the world” report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.” (source)

“UK Government approved Saudi arms deals worth £238m six months after deadly Yemen funeral air strike”. (source)

That recent large-scale, glitzy UK / Ukraine Reform conference in LondonPoroshenko’s visit to the UK. Just what was promised to the UK government to get them to up their support of Ukraine so significantly?

The UK’s been talking up war between Ukraine, and its former territories, talking up their own supplying of military aid to Ukraine. Are they anging for an arms deal? Has someone in Ukraine told them they’ve got the money for this?

How the UK Got it So Wrong on Euromaidan, and Ukraine

The UK, under then Prime Minister David Cameron, made their call from the start about whose side they were taking in the Ukraine situation. In March of 2014, then foreign secretary William Hague was lying to the UK parliament about Viktor Yanukovych having been ‘legimitately’ removed from power. He was actually removed by the violent coup which was Euromaidan.

Meanwhile David Cameron was telling parliament, in March of 2014: What has happened to Ukraine is completely indefensible. Its territorial integrity has been violated and the aspirations of its people to chart their own future are being frustrated.

This European Council sent a clear and united message to Russia that its actions are in flagrant breach of international law and will incur consequences. We agreed on a three-phase approach to stand up to this aggression and uphold international law: first, some immediate steps to respond to what Russia has done; secondly, urgent work on a set of measures that will follow if Russia refuses to enter dialogue with the Ukrainian Government; and thirdly, a set of further, far-reaching consequences should Russia take further steps to destabilise the situation in Ukraine.

It continues…

There was never an attempt to take into account the facts of Maidan:

A maximum of 500,000 (and that’s protesters figures, even) gathered on Euromaidan – that’s around 1% of the population of Ukraine.

But actually (and I was on Maidan), those who brought Maidan’s ‘victory’ (Yanukovych fleeing in fear of his life, government legitimately elected in 2012 just swept away) were not the mostly peaceful 500,000, it was the few thousand radicals, far-right, terrorists on Maidan.

So, take your pick: at best the UK supported the ‘right’ of 1% of the population of Ukraine on Maidan, over the 99% not on Maidan.

Or actually, the 0.01% who actually defined Maidan: the far-right, radicals, terrorists…

And Maidan ‘represented’ not the whole of Ukraine, in any way. Those there were almost exclusively from the west and centre of the country. Donbass didn’t take part, and was actually against Maidan, the South similarly.

So the UK chose to support a violent coup, dressed up as a revolution, in a country which had always had an east-west divide. And one which installed a government with an agenda dictated by ultra-nationals from the west, diametrically opposed to the life, history, culture of those in the east, who’d never voted for a Maidan government, and actually no one voted for a Maidan government. There were no elections, they just seized power. (Key figure in Maidan, and now chairman of Ukrainian parliament, founder of Ukrainian neo-Nazi Svoboda party, Andry Parubiy).

The UK chose to support a coup government, a junta, formed after a violent coup. Yet, all we were hearing about in the time in the UK was the BBC and co’s glowing coverage of the ‘revolution of dignity’ on Maidan, etc.

Most people in the UK know yet little about Euromaidan, the BBC, realising word was getting out, belatedly covered their proverbials with a documentary about the Maidan snipers.

Yet the general perception remains in the UK, is that if people know about Euromaidan, they generally subscribe to the narrative that it was a ‘revolution of dignity’, Ukrainians ‘fighting for their freedom’, etc – rather than a small proportion of the population in Kiev, peaceful maybe but supporting a minute proportion of ultra-nationals and radicals who overthrew a democratically-elected government before wanting to impose their own (unelected) agenda, on the east. And expecting that all to be ok.

If there’s an event about Euromaidan in the UK, be sure it will be universally pro-Maidan, that’s the only permitted position (this, the LSE from February of 2017):

Actually the unconditional support of the UK, US, Europe, was one of the fuelling factors in those on Maidan believing they could have it all their way.

And what happened after? Crimea, Donbass, war, mass loss of life due to war, ongoing misery due to war, which goes on to this day. And the UK? The position has remained set in stone = Maidan = Good. So everything against Maidan = bad.

This, despite the masses of evidence that a re-evaluation of Maidan is required. Because if Maidan wasn’t so good, then maybe all that went against it isn’t so bad…. that is a highly dangerous idea the UK is desperate to eliminate while still embryonic. The UK has remained entirely intransigent.

What have we had over the last few years?

Foreign Secretary William Hague taking a relentlessly pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia position.

Ukraine crisis: William Hague warns Russia

William Hague: Russia faces ‘isolation’ over Ukraine – BBC News

Russian actions over Ukraine may create new cold war – William Hague

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond taking a relentlessly pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia position.

Philip Hammond: Britain not ruling out providing ‘lethal force’ in Ukraine

Philip Hammond: ‘No let-up’ in pressure on Russia over Ukraine

Foreign Secretary denounces Russia’s continued illegal annexation of Crimea

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson taking a relentlessly pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia position.

UK’s Johnson reassures Ukraine of support after Brexit vote

Boris Johnson demands Russia end its ‘illegal’ annexation of Crimea during a visit to Ukraine

UK will not compromise on sovereignty of Ukraine: Johnson

Ukrinform: Boris Johnson says Britain will continue to provide Ukraine with non-lethal military aid

The position of Prime Minister Theresa May has hardly altered from Cameron’s. Lately, the UK has even been ramping up its support of Ukraine –

United Kingdom Steps Up Support of Ukrainian Army Still Shelling Civilians

A big question must be – why? That’s something I’ll be having a look at in the next Truth Speaker article.