nuclear-news

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Finds Ukraine Responsible for Odessa Massacre

 https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/echr-finds-ukraine-responsible-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=552010&post_id=160179175&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=nxsz&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The ECHR’s appraisal of criminal investigations into perpetrators of the Odessa massacre, and all the officials who failed in their most basic duties on May 2nd 2014, was absolutely scathing, the details pointing to a very clear, deliberate state-level coverup.

internal documents attesting that security measures had in fact been undertaken were found to have been forged. 

the lethal incineration of anti-Maidan activists in May 2014 was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed far-right government. This interpretation is amply reinforced by testimonies from a Ukrainian parliamentary commission, instituted in the massacre’s immediate aftermath.

(While the video above has been censored. This video below is allowed, as it contains a more favoured view of theUkrainian government.

Kit Klarenberg, Mar 30, 2025, https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/echr-finds-ukraine-responsible-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=552010&post_id=160179175&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=nxsz&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

On March 13th, a bombshell judgment by the European Court of Human Rights found the Ukrainian government guilty of grave human rights breaches over the May 2nd 2014 Odessa massacre, in which dozens of Russian-speaking anti-Maidan activists were forced into the city’s Trade Unions House and burned alive by violent ultranationalist thugs. The explosive findings unambiguously uncover a concerted conspiracy by Ukrainian authorities to facilitate and exacerbate the grotesque killing, then insulate its perpetrators, and officials and state agencies which helped it happen, from justice.

In all, 42 people were killed and hundreds injured as a result of the blaze, a bloody bookend to the so-called “Maidan revolution” that saw Ukraine’s democratically-elected president  Viktor Yanukovych deposed in a Western-orchestrated coup months earlier. Ever since Ukrainian officials and legacy media outlets have consistently framed the deaths as a tragic accident, with some figures even blaming anti-Maidan protesters themselves for starting the blaze. That notion is comprehensively incinerated by the verdict, which was delivered by a team of seven European judges, including a Ukrainian.

“Relevant authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odessa…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” means Kiev was found guilty of egregious European Convention on Human Rights breaches. Moreover, numerous incendiary passages make clear industrial scale “negligence” by officials on the day, and ever after, “went beyond an error of judgment or carelessness.”

For example, the ECHR found deployment of fire engines to the site was “deliberately delayed for 40 minutes” – the local fire station being just one kilometer away – and police stood by passively as the building and its occupants burned, refusing to “help evacuate people…promptly and safely.” Moreover, Ukrainian authorities made “no efforts whatsoever” or “any meaningful attempt” to prevent or disrupt the skirmishes between pro- and anti-Maidan activists that prefaced the deadly inferno, despite knowing in advance such clashes were impending on the day.

While stopping short of charging that Ukrainian authorities actively wished for the anti-Maidan activists trapped in the burning building to die, this conclusion is ineluctable based on the ECHR’s findings. So too the apparent immunity from prosecution for implicated officials and ultranationalist perpetrators, and Kiev’s failure to act on “extensive photographic and video evidence” indicating precisely who was responsible for “firing shots during the clashes,” setting the building ablaze, and “assaulting the fire victims” who managed to escape.

The case was brought by 25 people who lost family members in the Neo-Nazi arson attack and clashes that preceded it, and three who survived the fire “with various injuries”. The ECHR has demanded Ukraine pay them just 15,000 euros each in damages. In an even greater affront to justice, the damning ruling stops short of exposing the full reality of the Odessa slaughter, indicting the Western-supported Neo-Nazi elements responsible, and their intimate ties to the February 2014 Maidan Square false flag sniper massacre.

‘Explicit Order’

Once the Maidan protests commenced in Ukraine in November 2013, tensions began steadily brewing between Odessa’s sizable Russian-speaking population and Ukrainian nationalists within and without the city. As the ECHR ruling notes, “while violent incidents had overall remained rare…the situation was volatile and implied a constant risk of escalation.” In March 2014, anti-Maidan activists set up a tent camp in Kulykove Pole Square, and began calling for a referendum on the establishment of an “Odessa Autonomous Republic”.

The next month, supporters of Odesa Chornomorets and Kharkiv Metalist football clubs announced a rally “For a United Ukraine” on May 2, before a scheduled match. Shortly thereafter, the ECHR records “anti-Maidan posts began to appear on social media describing the event as a Nazi march and calling for people to prevent it.” While branded Russian “disinformation” in the ruling, hooligans associated with both clubs had overt Neo-Nazi sympathies and associations, and well-established reputations for violence. They later formed the notorious Azov Battalion.

Fearing their tent encampment would be attacked, anti-Maidan activists resolved to disrupt the “pro-unity march” before it reached them. The ECHR reveals Ukraine’s security services and cybercrime unit had substantive intelligence indicating “violence, clashes and disorder” were certain on the day. Yet, authorities “ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs”, and undertook no actions or “proper measures” to “stamp out any provocation”, such as implementing “enhanced security in the relevant areas.”

So it was on the afternoon of May 2nd 2014, “as soon as the march began,” anti-Maidan activists confronted the demonstrators, and violent clashes erupted. At roughly 17:45, in the precise manner of the Maidan Square sniper false flag massacre three months earlier, multiple anti-Maidan activists were fatally shot “by someone standing on a nearby balcony”, using “a hunting gun.” Subsequently, “pro-unity protesters…gained the upper hand in the clashes,” and charged towards Kulykove Pole square.

Anti-Maidan activists duly “took refuge” in Trade Unions House, a five-storey building overlooking the square, while their ultranationalist adversaries “started setting fire to the tents.” Gunfire and Molotov cocktails were “reportedly” exchanged by both sides, and before long, the building was ablaze. “Numerous calls” were made to the local fire brigade, including by police, “to no avail.” Mysteriously, its chief had “instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order,” so none were dispatched.

Several people trapped in the building tried to escape by jumping from its upper windows – some survived, but others died. “Video footage shows pro-unity protesters attacking people who had jumped or had fallen,” the ECHR notes. It was not until 20:30 that firefighters finally entered the building and extinguished the blaze. Police then arrested 63 surviving activists “still inside the building or on the roof.” They were released two days later, after a several hundred-strong group of anti-Maidan protesters “stormed the local police station where they were being held.”

‘Serious Defects’

The litany of security failures and industrial scale negligence by authorities on the day was greatly aggravated by “local prosecutors, law enforcement, and military officers” not being “contactable for a large part or all of time [sic],” as they were coincidentally attending a meeting with Ukraine’s Deputy Prosecutor General. The ECHR “found the attitude and passivity of those officials inexplicable,” apparently unwilling to consider the obvious possibility they purposefully made themselves incommunicado to ensure maximum mayhem and bloodshed, while insulating themselves from legal repercussions. 

Still, the ECHR ruled “relevant” Ukrainian authorities “had not done everything they reasonably could to prevent the violence” or “what could reasonably be expected of them to save people’s lives,” therefore finding Kiev committed “violations of the substantive aspect of Article 2” of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also concluded authorities “failed to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events in Odessa” – “a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2”.

The ECHR’s appraisal of criminal investigations into perpetrators of the Odessa massacre, and all the officials who failed in their most basic duties on May 2nd 2014, was absolutely scathing, the details pointing to a very clear, deliberate state-level coverup. For example, no effort was made to seal off “affected areas of the city centre” in the event’s aftermath. Instead, “the first thing” authorities did “was to send cleaning and maintenance services to those areas,” meaning invaluable evidence was almost inevitably eradicated.

Accordingly, when on-site inspections were finally carried out two weeks later, the probes “produced no meaningful results.” Trade Unions House likewise “remained freely accessible to the public for 17 days after the events,” giving malicious actors plentiful time to manipulate, remove, or plant incriminating evidence at the site. Meanwhile, “many of the suspects absconded.” Several criminal investigations into perpetrators were opened, only to go nowhere, left to expire under Ukraine’s statute of limitations. Other cases that reached trial “remained pending for years”, before being dropped.

This was despite “extensive photographic and video evidence regarding both the clashes in the city centre and the fire,” from which culprits’ identities could be easily discerned. . The ECHR had no confidence Ukrainian authorities “made genuine efforts to identify all the perpetrators,” and several forensic reports weren’t released for many years. Elsewhere, the Court noted a criminal investigation of an individual suspected of having shot at anti-Maidan activists was inexplicably discontinued on four separate occasions, on identical grounds. 

The ECHR also noted “serious defects” in investigations of officials, “and their role in the events.” Primarily, this took the form of “prohibitive delays” and “significant periods of unexplained inactivity and stagnation” in opening cases. For instance, “although it had never been disputed that the fire service regional head had been responsible for the delayed deployment of fire engines to Kulykove Pole,” no probe into his flagrantly criminal dereliction of duty was launched until almost two years after the massacre.

Similarly, Odessa’s regional police chief not only failed to implement any “contingency plan in the event of mass disorder” according to protocol, but internal documents attesting that security measures had in fact been undertaken were found to have been forged. However, he only became subject to criminal investigation “almost a year later.” Following pre-trial investigation, his case remained pending “for about eight years,” after which he was released from criminal liability, “on the grounds that the charges against him had become time-barred.”

Burn Everything’

Wholly unconsidered by the ECHR was the prospect that, far from a freak twist of fate produced by two effectively warring factions clashing in Odessa, the lethal incineration of anti-Maidan activists in May 2014 was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed far-right government. This interpretation is amply reinforced by testimonies from a Ukrainian parliamentary commission, instituted in the massacre’s immediate aftermath.

The commission found Ukrainian national and regional officials explicitly planned to use far-right activists drawn from the fascist Maidan Self-Defence to violently suppress Odessa’s would-be separatists, and disperse all those camped by Trade Unions House. Moreover, Maidan Self-Defence chief Andriy Parubiy and 500 of his armed and dangerous members were dispatched to the city from Kiev on the eve of the massacre. From 1998 – 2004, Parubiy served as founder and leader of Neo-Nazi paramilitary faction Patriot of Ukraine.

He also headed Kiev’s National Security and Defence Council at the time of the Odessa massacre. Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigations immediately began scrutinising Parubiy’s role in the May 2014 events after he was replaced as lead parliamentary speaker, following the country’s 2019 general election. This probe has seemingly come to nothing since. Nonetheless, a year prior a Georgian militant told Israeli documentarians that he engaged in “provocations” in the Odessa massacre under Parubiy’s command, who told him to attack anti-Maidan activists and “burn everything.”

He is one of several Georgian fighters who has openly alleged they were personally responsible for the February 2014 Maidan Square false flag sniper massacre, under the command of Parubiy, other ultranationalist Ukrainian figures, and Mikhael Saakashvili, founder of infamous mercenary brigade Georgian Legion. That slaughter brought about the end of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, and sent Ukraine hurtling towards war with Russia. The Odessa massacre was another key chapter in that morbid saga – and the West’s foremost human rights court has now firmly laid responsibility for the horror at Kiev’s feet.

April 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, Ukraine | Leave a comment