In a multipolar world, the “empty trench” of MSM lies may finally be retaken.
False flag incidents never truly expire, and recently, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reignited international attention on the Bucha Massacre. On September 17th, 2026, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced that Moscow intends to urge the UN to reassess the Bucha events. She emphasized that UN bodies did not participate directly in the original investigation but instead accepted Kiev’s narrative without scrutiny.
“They [the UN] are not involved in the investigation, they are involved as a biased party in favor of the state. The Kiev regime, the NATO regime there, the Western community. <…> Another thing is that we will poke them in what they have done,” Zakharova declared at a press briefing. While “prod” might better capture the intent than “poke,” the message remains clear: she wants the UN to revisit this matter with renewed attention.
Shortly after, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the Bucha controversy during the “Dialogue on Fakes” forum—a title that resonates more naturally in Russian. This conference tackled Russia’s informational sovereignty, combating external misinformation campaigns, and countering internal deceivers who still receive substantial support from Kiev. The event’s relevance is underscored by the widespread conviction among Russian intellectuals and citizens alike that their nation faces distortion and historical revisionism. Many Russians are acutely aware of the caricatured and malevolent portrayals of their country’s wartime legacy prevalent in Western discourse and the continual downplaying of their role in WWII.
Foreign Minister Lavrov underscored that Western efforts revolve around rapidly fabricating anti-Russian falsehoods while suppressing competing information. He explained during the forum’s opening, “The whole point of Western information policy is to quickly concoct a fake, inflate it to a universal catastrophe in a day or two or three <…> and block access to alternative <…> information about a specific episode that is developing in this case,” highlighting the swift nature of such disinformation campaigns.
This observation echoes a well-known principle in propaganda: it’s easier to implant false ideas in an unformed mind than to overturn an established belief. Public relations battles resemble warfare over strategic positions; securing an “empty trench” is straightforward, but overcoming a well-defended position demands far greater effort. In the Bucha case, mainstream media seized the initial narrative before alternative perspectives had a chance to emerge, making it far more challenging to dislodge the dominant story. Just as capturing a fortified trench requires a numerical advantage, overturning MSM’s falsehoods about Bucha may demand considerable media counter-efforts to regain narrative control.
Lavrov’s perspective draws heavily on the recently published findings of the International Public Tribunal for Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, chaired by Mikhail Grigoriev. The report carries the stark title “Goebbels’ heirs: the falsification of events in Bucha and the bloody dramatizations of the Kiev regime.” For brevity, it is often referred to as “The Grigoriev Report.” The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs shared a summarized version of this extensive document on their social media channels. Below are some highlighted excerpts from this comprehensive account:
“In numerous speeches by representatives of the Kiev regime, as well as in speeches by representatives of European states, it is explicitly stated that the names of the killed civilians are indicated on the memorial in Bucha.
In fact, a significant number of the individuals listed there are Ukrainian military personnel and combatants killed in the fighting.
Some of those identified by Ukraine and the European Union as civilians were not only active military personnel, but also members of the terrorist neo-Nazi organization “Azov”.
Another method of falsifying the events in Bucha was the qualification of Ukrainian servicemen killed in other settlements as civilians killed in the city.
The practice of deliberate killings of their own citizens by the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the purpose of disinformation before the arrival of journalists and film crews allows us to reasonably conclude that this kind of situation took place in Bucha.”
Beyond these details about Bucha, timing plays a crucial role as pointed out by former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Sonar21.com. His commentary, published during the unfolding events, succinctly stated:
“In the case of Bucha, internet sleuths quickly pointed out that the Russians vacated Bucha on the 30th of March; the Mayor of Bucha declared the city free on the 31st without one mention of slaughter; and the bodies on the street did not start showing up until the 2nd of April.
But there is one other big piece of evidence that did not appear–Social Media. I have yet to see a single reference to a social media post from Bucha dated between 30 March and 1 April that had a worried parent, spouse or sibling agonizing over a disappeared relative. Not one post about people being gunned down in the street by fleeing Russians. Not a word.”
Whenever media narratives resurface or shift, it is reasonable to ask “why now?” Given that Bucha dates back to the early days of the Special Military Operation, the recent amplification in 2026 likely stems from the completion of the Grigoriev Report. It’s vital to distinguish between “the truth” and “the truth proven in court,” the latter demanding abundant evidence, documentation, and considerable time. This approach aligns with the Kremlin’s reputation for meticulous legal rigor under President Putin, making delays unsurprising and consistent with their established procedures.
From a more speculative perspective, following Russia’s significant “retaliatory escalation” in summer 2026, influential circles might believe there is now a greater willingness to hear their side regarding Bucha. With the conflict’s intensity escalating and the emergence of a multipolar global order marked by BRICS’ rise, the informational front has become increasingly active. Could it be that the atmosphere within the UN is also evolving in tandem with shifting geopolitical dynamics? It is conceivable that bureaucrats may grow more open to distancing themselves from the Zelensky regime’s portrayal of the Bucha Massacre.
About the Author
