“I Saw Horrific War Crimes Committed by Azov” [2022)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=gzERUR003EQ

A former French soldier goes on Radio Sud.

His name is Adrien Bocquet.

He had been in Ukraine for 16 days.

A special operator (commando) there to render humanitarian (medical) aid.

He was in Kiev, Bucha, and Lvov.

Which is to say–he was everywhere.

He was where most don’t go (particularly Bucha).

Here is a man with extensive military and war experience.

[He is a paraplegic as a result of a military training exercise.]

The French speak to the French.

The carrots are cooked.

The carrots are cooked.

Study your history.

The French Resistance.

What were they resisting?

The Nazis.

Who had occupied their country.

And what were these cryptic radio broadcasts?

They were mainly rubbish.

Until the Resistance got the message they had been waiting for.

The French Resistance received a message.

And that message activated a network of saboteurs who wrecked railway lines, etc.

The French Resistance prepared the battlefield (the best they could) in a very important way for the Allies who landed on the beaches of Normandy (D-Day).

And today…the former allied countries (USA, France, etc.) are sending weapons to Ukrainian neo-Nazis (and lying to their domestic populations about the nature of this new ally [Ukraine] which they are supporting with unspeakable monetary and military donations).

Sud Radio Bercoff.

Present-day.

Parlons vrai.

Bocquet has written a book about his paralysis.

Published by Max Milo.

Every detail is important.

Lève toi et marche.

YouTube removed my song “Crimes Against Humanity”.

Here it is:

https://open.spotify.com/track/0MzTHxuzAqgGhkcukKDsBf?si=aa308652430d4839

https://music.apple.com/us/album/crimes-against-humanity/1606516493?i=1606516495

Who can most-easily recognize war crimes?

A soldier.

A soldier who has been trained to never (under no circumstances) ever commit these violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Bocquet says he saw no war crimes committed by Russians in Ukraine.

But that he saw MANY, MANY war crimes committed in Ukraine.

By the Ukrainian military (primarily the Azov Battalion [which, by the way, is a group which is closer to 20,000 neo-Nazi soldiers rather than just 5,000 neo-Nazi soldiers]).

And, as has been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, the Azov Battalion is part of the official Ukrainian military force structure.

They are not a militia.

They are not separate from the Ukrainian military.

They are very much indeed a substantial portion of the mainline Ukrainian military.

And they are neo-Nazis.

And they were trained by NATO.

And they are currently being funded by the countries of NATO (including the $46 BILLION dollars flowing from the USA [thanks to the U.S. Congress being a bunch of ignorant fucking retards]).

Why did the Azov Battalion take as their main symbol the Wolfsangel of the Nazi SS?

Why did they likewise complement it with the Nazi “black sun” symbol (merely inverted to a white sun)?

[The Azov Battalion has, of course, recently (in the last few weeks) completely redesigned its patch.  Does that satisfy you, dear readers, that they are decidedly no longer neo-Nazis?  I’m sorry.  It doesn’t satisfy me.]

IMG_8420

Compare to the emblem (below) of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich (to cite but one example).

IMG_0104

What did Zelensky say about the Azov Battalion when questioned about them by (it must be admitted) rather pathetic Fox News journalist Bret Baier?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=yGiNzgxeoNk

This was the translation that played on Fox News:

“So, Azov was [sic] one of those many battalions.  They are what they are. (!)  They were defending our country.  And later I want to explain to you.  Everything, uh, from, uh, all the components of those volunteer battalions later, uh, were, uh, incorporated into the…the military of Ukraine.  Those, uh, Azov, uh, fighters are no longer self-, uh, established, uh, group:  they are a component of the Ukrainian military.  Back in 2014, there was [sic] situations when our volunteers was [sic] encircled and some of them did violate laws.  Uh, laws of Ukraine.  And they actually were taken to court and got, uh, prison sentences.  So law is above all.”

Have you ever known a Jew (like Zelensky) to defend neo-Nazis?

“They are what they are”?!?

“They were defending our country”???

It should be noted that Fox News seems to have eliminated this segment from the main Bret Baier broadcast featuring Zelensky.

It cannot be found within this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=pgxJwmL2_h0

But here it is again (as an isolated clip):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=nBYopwtwQ9U

Indeed, it appears Fox News was trying to cover for Jewish Zelensky’s rather unfortunate (and perhaps inadvertently-candid) defense of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/04/02/brett-baier-asks-volodymyr-zelenskyy-about-azov-battalion-reportedly-shooting-pows/

But let’s get back to the video at hand.

Radio Sud.

Bocquet continues:

The Azov Battalion (still very much existing and not, as Zelensky claimed, a thing of the past) were speaking in front of him in English, Russian, and Ukrainian (all languages in which Bocquet has at least some level of comprehension) and, “The joked and laughed that if they came across Jews or blacks, they would skin them.”).

Keep in mind that Zelensky, as commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian military, could (at any time over the past eight years [including now]) BREAK UP the Azov Battalion.

He could disband them.

He could disown them.

They could be deported.

Zelensky could (and should) refuse their services in “defending our country”.

But he doesn’t do this.

And it is quite surprising to me.

Because, as an actor, he should know the EASY, EASY impression this makes upon people across the world.

If a battalion sports Nazi symbols on its patch, it is VERY, VERY bad public relations.

Unless the goal is to tell the world, “We’re neo-Nazis.  Please save us from the awful Russians!”

The most epic and quintessential meme of the war:

IMG_9180

Bocquet says that the Azov members talking about skinning Jews and blacks seemed to view this kind of talk as “a total blast of fun for them”.

Hmmm…

I wonder why?

MAYBE THE FUCKING NAZI PATCH ON THEIR ARM SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM AWAY????????

But it gets worse.

It goes beyond talk.

Bocquet says he witnessed (and possesses video evidence of) “…Russian soldiers who had been captured and who were already badly beaten and were tied up. […]  And these Russian soldiers who were captured, they were brought in in little vans, three or four at a time.  Every time they brought [sic] made these soldiers get out of the van, the Ukrainian military, asked them, ‘Who’s the officer?  Who’s the officer?’  […] Every soldier who got out of the van was shot in the knee with a Kalashnikov.  […] while they were defenseless, tied up.  […]  And those who had the misfortune to say, ‘I’m the officer,’ would get shot in the head.”

Bocquet goes on to state that he saw American journalists lying about “Russian” bombardments of certain locations.

Their answer was:  “It’s okay.  It will make great photos.”

These were American journalists who were totally cognizant about the fact that they were deliberately misattributing Ukrainian bombings as “Russian” bombings.

The bombings in question were maladjusted, poorly-calibrated Ukrainian mortars.

So the American media on the ground was lying about most everything.

According to Bocquet.

Keep in mind, he has videos of the Russian soldiers being shot in the knees and heads.

Bocquet correctly states that in urban warfare, two sides (Ukrainian and Russian) shelling each other are BOTH going to hit civilian targets.

But the news coverage has portrayed every civilian target hit as being the result of “Russian bombing”.

That is simply not possible.

Bocquet survived a Russian missile attack on Lvov.

He went to assess the damage (near his hotel).

Of the five missiles fired by the Russians, four hit arms depots.

“…arms depots with weapons from Europe which were stored in Lviv waiting to be brought to Kiev and to the units.”

“…they store them in civilian facilities and in civilian houses, without people even knowing that.”

Bocquet says that, to avoid suspicion, even DHL vans are being used to transport weapons into Ukraine.

So that civilians are not aware that weapons are being stashed near their residences.

Bocquet is correct:

“I call that using the civilian population as human shields.”

Absolutely.

Bocquet was in Bucha.

About Bucha he says,
“…cadavers were left behind on purpose.  Even some bodies were moved for pictures [sic] purposes.”

Bocquet is calling for talk,

“about the war crimes of Ukraine, because those exist.  And all the people who are on the TV sets who say the opposite…”

Bocquet also accurately points out where the Western weapons are going:

“…the weapons we give are mainly to the Azov units.”

Bocquet accurately assesses the true size of the Azov Battalion:

it is not merely 5,000 troops, but at least three or four times that big (when “committed volunteers, plus volunteers from all over the place who come” are added to that number).

15,000-20,000 neo-Nazis.

In that particular battalion.

Which has the complete blessing of Zelensky and the central government in Kiev.

Indeed, Bocquet further adjust his number to claim that the Azov Battalion has AT LEAST 20,000 troops.

Keep in mind that this interview is from at least five weeks ago (no later than May 13, 2022).

Bocquet reiterates that this neo-Nazi battalion (the Azov Battalion), which had (until perhaps two weeks ago) a patch which features not one, but two Nazi symbols, is receiving weapons from Europe and the USA which they then use to commit war crimes.

Of this he has video.

And to be quite clear:

he is talking about 19-year-old Russian soldiers who have surrendered, are tied up and unresponsive, and are being shot twice in the knees and allowed to bleed to death.

Bocquet claims his video documentation of this includes “dozens and dozens of videos”.

How did he get such video?

Well, in addition to being a commando, he was also allowed to ride in automobiles because he is paralyzed.

I am guessing these factors allowed him to position himself in such a way while documenting as to not be noticed.

Bocquet makes a final point.

There are American and French MERCENARIES fighting on the side of Ukraine.

This term is important.

Do mercenaries enjoy all the protections of the Geneva Conventions?

I will let you research and decide that for yourself.

Bocquet reiterates:

these are mostly mercenaries (as opposed to foreign volunteers).

Bocquet was kidnapped and held for ten hours by the Azov Battalion.

They searched everything including his phone.

Bocquet was exfiltrated (by whom?) to Slovakia.

[main candidate:  DGSE]

The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aware of what is REALLY happening in Ukraine (as a result of Bocquet’s reportage).

By the way, this Ministry has a new head as of May 20, 2022 (after Bocquet’s interview).

The current officeholder is Catherine Colonna.

From Slovakia, Bocquet was taken to Krakow and then back to France.

As you might imagine, Bocquet is now no longer welcome in Ukraine.

Bocquet’s book title in English is Get Up and Walk.

Has the book been translated into English?

These are the kind of people we need to support.

If you need a musical dissertation on these topics, I humbly ask that you start here:

https://open.spotify.com/album/11Wzm0XHozgjD5Zfz45Sv7?si=tM-hdOrjQW-VDDMOYqUL1Q

https://music.apple.com/us/album/mariupol/1619627311

If you wish to research further, I humbly ask that you continue here:

https://deathwish.substack.com/p/denazification

-PD

N.B.  The Ukrainian military (primarily the Azov Battalion) killed approximately 14,000 Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians in the Donbass between 2014 and 2022.

Das Boot [1981)

Here we sit at the bottom of the ocean.

280 meters below Gibraltar.

On a high place.

In a film which (throughout) performs the strange trick of forcing us through cinematic language to sympathize with a boat full of Nazis.

Funny trick, that.

I challenge you to watch this film and see if you don’t also end up pulling for the Nazi U-boat crew.

There is no shame in it.

For Das Boot is itself a propaganda film.

But to what end?

It seems, more than anything, like an intellectual exercise.

And it is precisely because it eschews convention that it is an enjoyable and riveting film.

Indeed, it comes close to being a masterpiece.

It is also a case study in personalities.

Nothing magnifies personality clashes like a claustrophobic metal tube.

I guess we all have to pay our dues.

And sometimes we have to pay them again.

Perhaps we are always paying dues.

Until we are dead.

The stress can drive you crazy.

And there are always people floating in the water.

Which is to say, life is war.

A war to feed ourselves.

To retain shelter.

To ward off the tax man.

To warm our bones.

To stay dry and clothed against the elements.

Urgent need to let some rest.

In need of medical attention.

Eating an orange like a scurvied maniac.

In which you root for the Nazis.

Like Godard as a boy in Switzerland.

In this strange, strange film.

And then the Allied hammer comes down.

And you are shown your sins.

You realize you have been rooting for the Nazis.

And as you watch them die, you are sad.

Because they were the stars of a good story.

And you became emotionally invested in them.

Even though they were (in reality) scumbags.

Or maybe they were just doing their jobs.

This isn’t sympathy for concentration camp guards.

This is a portrait of the poor schmucks who were floating on (and beneath) the sea.

And if I remember correctly, 75% of the 40,000 U-boat submariners in WWII died.

These guys had a very slim chance of surviving this ordeal.

Hard to tell if this is a great film (elegant simplicity) or a shit film (clunky ending).

It’s worth watching, though.

 

-PD

Citizenfour [2014)

Four days till the US election.

OK, three.

But we must take a look at things as they seem.

And analyze what they might be.

I have always written about Edward Snowden glowingly.

But this film is an enigma.

If you know the history of film, you realize that certain filmmakers (particularly Robert Flaherty) presented staged events as if they were documentaries.

This is known as docufiction.

And if you have followed my take on the two US Presidential candidates (Johnson and Stein can suck it…though Stein has true credibility), you’ll know that my assessment of Trump and Clinton has been mainly through the lens of film.

What we (I) look for is credibility.

Having watched all three Presidential debates (in addition to extensive supplemental research), it has been a no-brainer to conclude that Hillary Clinton has ZERO credibility while Donald Trump has immense credibility.

The differentiation could not be more mark-ed.

[Docu-fiction]

But what about Edward Snowden?

Let me start off by saying that Mr. Snowden does not come off as a wholly believable whistleblower in this film.

Perhaps Laura Poitras’ inexperience as a filmmaker is to blame.

Perhaps it is indeed because Edward Snowden is no actor.

But Mr. Snowden is completely inscrutable and opaque in this documentary.

HOWEVER…

there is something about his ostensible North Carolina drawl which rings true.

And so there are two major possibilities…

  1. Edward Snowden is an extremely brave individual who succeeded in “defecting to the side of the public” (to paraphrase)
  2. Edward Snowden is a superspy

I had read of Snowden.  In studying what he had leaked, his credibility seemed beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Such a damaging agent could not possibly have been a Trojan horse operation (so I thought).

Indeed, the most believable part of this film is the last 10 minutes or so.

Sadly, my “copy” of the movie switched to a German overdub for this final segment.

Which is to say, I was more focused on images in the finale.

Every once in a while I was able to make out the beginning of a phrase from William Binney or Glenn Greenwald.

At all other times during this last portion, the German superimposed upon the English made the latter an almost palimpsest.

My German is that bad.

Entschuldigung.

But here are my reservations concerning hypothesis #1 (from above).

A).  Glenn Greenwald’s earliest interview after the leak was clearly shot with the skyline of Hong Kong in the background.  It is somewhat inconceivable that the NSA in conjunction with the CIA (and possibly the FBI or DIA) did not immediately follow Greenwald’s every move from that point forward (courtesy of operatives under the Hong Kong station chief of the CIA).

B).  Glenn Greenwald is a little too smooth to be believable (the same going for Snowden).  Greenwald’s sheer fluency in Portuguese (a bizarre choice for a second language) seems particularly suspect.  The credulous me wants to believe that Greenwald is simply brilliant.  The incredulous me sees Greenwald as just as much a CIA operative as Snowden.

Indeed, hypothesis #2 would be that Edward Snowden is in fact a CIA operative.  His complete calm at The Mira hotel in Hong Kong does not harmonize with a computer geek who just lifted the largest cache of the most top-secret files in world history.  Instead, his mannerisms almost all point to someone who has been hardened and trained at Camp Peary rather than someone who grew up so conveniently close to NSA headquarters.

Snowden is admittedly a former employee of the CIA.

But what could the purpose of such a Trojan horse exercise possibly be?

One strong possibility comes to mind.

As we learn in Dr. Strangelove, there’s no purpose in having a “doomsday machine” if the enemy doesn’t know about it.

In fact, we don’t even need cinema to illustrate this.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were demonstrations as much as they were mass-murder war crimes.

Weapons are “tested” often as much for the power of display as for the exercise of weapon efficacy.

But the world has always been a weird place.

And it is indeed possible that Edward Snowden is an idealistic, independent party in this affair.

The esteemed Dr. Steve Pieczenik (of whom I have spoken much recently) has lately called Snowden “no hero”.

I’m not exactly sure what he means by that.

Possibly Pieczenik knows the Snowden affair to positively be an intel operation.

Possibly Dr. Pieczenik (whom I respect deeply) merely sees Snowden as of no great bravery when compared to the men and women (both military and intelligence employees) who risk their lives on battlefields across the world…by direct order through the US chain of command.

But Dr. Pieczenik has also pointed out that some orders must be disobeyed.

That is part of the responsibility of defending the Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic”.

So we have a very interesting case here.

And it directly parallels our current election choices.

What SEEMS to be?

What is patriotism?

At what point must standard operating procedures be put aside?

What constitutes peaceful protest?

Who among us has the duty and privilege to spearhead a countercoup?

I’ve often thought to myself that I would be a horrible NSA employee because I would have a framed picture of Snowden on my desk.

Suffice it to say, I’m sure that is strictly NOT ALLOWED.

But this film makes me doubt the Snowden story.

As a further instructive detail, why does Snowden (in this film) feel so confident in his ability to withstand torture (!) as a means of coercing from him his password(s)?

Again, that does not sound like a standard ability of an “infrastructure analyst”.

Snowden does not admit in this film to ever having been a field operative.

Indeed, it almost feels like Louisiana Story or Tabu:  A Story of the South Seas when Snowden drapes a red article of cloth over his head and torso to ostensibly prevent Greenwald and Poitras from visually seeing his keystrokes.

It is overly dramatic.

These are thoughts.

No doubt, someone knows much more than me about the truth in this strange tale.

And so the film is, in turns, shockingly brilliant and daftly mediocre.

In a strange way, it is just as suspect as James Bamford’s books on the NSA (which I have long suspected were really NSA propaganda pieces).

One of the keys to propaganda and social engineering is gaining the trust of your targets.

In a large-scale psychological operation, the entire world (more or less) is the target.

Back to cinema, we need look no further than Eva Marie Saint “shooting” Cary Grant in North by Northwest.

Yes, Body of Secrets (Bamford) was damaging to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and US military in general (the revelation of Operation Northwoods) while also exposing Israel as a craven “ally” (the USS Liberty “incident”).

But if we are not careful, we are taken in by these juicy bits of “truth” (in all likelihood, very much true) on our way to accepting the whole book as an accurate exposé.

And this is what makes the world of intelligence so tricky.

Like a chess game in which you are blindsided by a brilliant move.

It takes years (perhaps decades) or an innate brilliance (perhaps both) to discern the organic from the synthetic in the shifting sands of this relativistic world of espionage.

I can only guess and gut.

 

-PD