There is a stunning contrast between the access given by the UK to the Israeli Embassy to influence prosecutions of anti-Genocide journalists and protestors, and the repudiation by the UK of United Nations querying such prosecutions. The UK has rebuked the UN for “outside interference”.
I cannot state enough how unusual it is for the UK to give direct access to the Israeli Embassy to the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, in order for the Israeli government to influence the prosecution of UK citizens. This is not about extradition, in which case there may be treaty arrangements for direct contact between prosecutors. It is just not normal nor right for an Embassy to be involved with domestic prosecutions in this way.
This is one of a series of heavily redacted emails seen by the Guardian, Middle East Eye and lawyers for Palestine Action. They show the Israeli government being granted direct influence with UK police and prosecutors, to urge the prosecution of UK citizens protesting in the UK, against a genocide for which Israel stands accused at the International Court of Justice, with her leaders indicted before the International Criminal Court.
There is no British precedent for this situation and it is very much against international practice, although comparators may be found in influencing prosecution decisions in Vichy France or the Eastern European communist bloc by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union – though there were instances of pushback even there. By contrast the UK system is openly influenced by the Israelis.
There is no reticence from the UK government in forwarding Israel influence. Although all released correspondence has been heavily redacted, it is plain that individual cases have been discussed with the Israelis, including those of Palestine Action.
The United Nations has written to the UK on the subject of its treatment both of pro-Palestinian protestors and journalists and the abuse of anti-terrorism legislation. It is almost certain that some of the same cases the UN cites are those the Israeli Embassy has been involved in. The contrast between the UK’s treatment of the Israelis and of the United Nations could scarcely be different. The Israelis are invited in, while the Starmer regime has repudiated the United Nations.
This is stunning hypocrisy. It is characterised as being in the interest of those being persecuted by the UK and Israel, to prevent “interference from international organisations” such as the United Nations. This is beyond the pen of Orwell or Kafka. You can imagine the authors sniggering as they wrote it.
But the truth is the exact opposite of the UK government line. Unlike the Israeli Embassy, the United Nations really does have a right to interfere. The Special Procedures mechanisms by which the United Nations approached the UK are a well-established part of international law, and the UK is a party to them. These are instituted by the Human Rights Council, and it has always been the position of the UK that all nations are subject to them.
In addition the UK is since 1971 a full party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is monitored by the Human Rights Committee and to the provisions of which the UN Special Rapporteurs specifically referred in querying the UK’s actions in this matter.
So the Israel Embassy has no right to interfere, and the United Nations has a direct right to interfere; yet the UK has encouraged the illegitimate while repudiating the legitimate. This is a classic example of the way that Zionism has fundamentally poisoned public institutions in the UK, and also of the profound Zionist capture of New Labour.
Yesterday’s revelation that David Lammy has lied to parliament and the country about suspending trade talks with Israel, while UK “trade envoy” Lord Austin is actually there, should be no surprise.
The hypocrisy does not even end there. The UK has been the most vociferous of countries in weaponising the UN Special Procedures against its own designated enemies, such as Russia and China. For the UK now to repudiate these UN investigations as “interference” is precisely to adopt the position of those states it has long argued against.
I have no doubt that this has been duly noted by any dictatorship the UK may seek to criticise in future.
You will recall that I am among a number of journalists about whose detention under the Terrorism Act and the seizure of whose electronic equipment, and thus correspondence, the United Nations interrogate the UK. You can read the UK government reply in full here.
Since the UN wrote, there have been further high-profile arrests of journalists, including Sarah Wilkinson and Asa Winstanley. The basic UK response is that the UN should not interfere, but one point of detail the UK states is particularly worth noting. Detentions and confiscations such as mine under the Terrorism Act specifically do not require the police to have any “reasonable grounds of suspicion”.
What kind of state makes a point of empowering its police to act unreasonably?
But read this further from the UK government reply:
I was detained and my electronics seized under Section 7. That means the UK government is claiming that I was “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. Just digest that for a moment.
I might say that nothing in my questioning – which was roughly equally split between the subjects of Wikileaks and Palestine – related in any way to the potential commission of any acts of terrorism. Is the government really pretending that, in travelling home from an Assange campaign meeting in Iceland, they truly suspected I was preparing to commit terrorism? This is ludicrous.
It has often been noticed that despite Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley, Richard Medhurst, Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Vanessa Beeley, Kit Klarenberg, Ernest Moret, Richard Barnard, Tony Greenstein and Natalie Strecker all being swept up under the Terrorism Act in a campaign against journalists this last two years, there has never been a single mention in UK mainstream media of the UK’s arrest of journalists under the Terrorism Act.
Even following the United Nations intervention to question the UK on the arrest of journalists the UK did not mention it. Even the UK’s tiny number of licensed anti-genocide voices in the mainstream media, such as Owen Jones, have never mentioned it.
Yesterday Asa Winstanley won an important legal victory at the Old Bailey where a senior judge ruled that the police raid on his home and seizure of his equipment was unlawful. That is an important and rare legal victory, and I am tempted to attribute it partly to the turning of the tide of Establishment opinion against sacrificing all principles of law to the interests of Israel.
You may perhaps not be surprised to learn that this victory, too, has not been covered by the mainstream media. This conspiracy of silence over extreme abuse of police power against journalists is deeply troubling.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
When I look at Craig Murray I see the antithesis of terrorism, an elderly, highly intelligent, highly educated, softly spoken, super articulate gentleman, in a woolly jumper. The idea he is involved in terrorism is frankly preposterous.
So this makes the UK police look dreadful, like jackbooted thugs in leather trench coats coming to get dissenters in the middle of the night. Just the same really in less dramatic black clothing. Squint your eyes and they are indistinguishable.
When they detained you (and all the other journalists) under terrorism legislation Craig I knew the UK had lurched into totalitarianism, a police state. Add this into the jailing of thousands of people for social media posts it is pretty clear they are going after free speech.
As for this article, I am not at all surprised, I think some are starting to realize that it is not just Palestine that has been occupied. I have been saying for some time that what is happening in the middle east is a lens. It is showing us reality and it is horrific what we have been turned into. Britain like the US has been totally captured. Looking back Corbyn was the canary in the mine folks.
Britain is in a really bad way right now, it is genuinely frightening.
I’m not sure a dozen unidentified men in head to foot, black, helmeted, riot gear, smashing down doors in the wee small hours to kidnap journalists is an improvement on full length leather trench coats
Steady on the ‘elderly’ bit there, Mac! Not sure CM would like that!
I thinks it’s time to go back to where it all began: in the UK Labour Party ‘witch hunt’ against anti semitism when the peace and justice leader was seen as an enemy to the Zionist war machine
https://witchhuntfilm.org/
Small typo, “the UK should not interfere” should be “the UN should not interfere”.
Excellent news about Asa Winstanley, and perhaps the UK’s argument about someone appearing to be involved in terrorism should be tested in court at some point, so that travellers might be protected from illegal harassment.
—
[ Mod: Typo amended. Thanks. ]
”Excellent news about Asa Winstanley, and perhaps the UK’s argument about someone appearing to be involved in terrorism should be tested in court at some point, so that travellers might be protected from illegal harassment.”
The right to silence and the right to have legal representation are well enshrined in the minds of UK citizenry, so I doubt that a case would ever be brought before a court to test these rights being suspended under the Terrorism Act. For this Terrorism Act grants more rights to a career criminal charged inside a police station than it does to a UK citizen with no criminal record being apprehended on arrival at a port or airport.
I don’t discount however the law being ‘tested’ before a Special Court of judges/legal experts devised for that very purpose. If Keir Starmer’s days as PM are indeed numbered, he might well still have important work to undertake.
Only with the ongoing genocide in Gaza, we finally see just how tight a grip the Zionists have on the West, and possibly further afield – consecutive British governments are defending the indefensible – a genocide in Gaza.
As for the police using the terrorism to haul journalist in and question them, and seize their equipment – I say that they are using these laws just to apprehend journalist – and force them to answer questions mainly on who they know, such as, contacts and groups to further widen their net of knowledge – that info can then be passed onto Tel Aviv, for me it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism – that’s the hook to arrest you that they use.
Of course the seizing of phones and laptops etc, causes certain journalists difficulty – and disrupts their ability to pursue the truth.
“… for me it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism…”
I understand what you mean. But it has everything to do with terrorism – that of the Israeli and UK states. For a small sample of the Israeli state’s terrorism, I suggest “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations” by Ronen Bergman. There are dozens of other good sources.
The terrorists are using “anti-terrorism” laws to prevent knowledge of their terrorist acts from leaking out.
As the first commentator says this is genuinely frightening.
The BBC actually did actually report Ernest Moret’s arrest:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66273327
It was very good news to hear that Asa Winstanley had won his case against the security services/police. As you set out in your article Craig, he wasn’t the only one. The way you were treated was disgraceful. The silence of our mainstream media is chilling. Run by oligarchs and mega corporations who care little for truth but love money and power. How do the people who became journalists feel when they collude with the current madness? They must know that by being craven they demean their profession and deserve the scathing term ‘churnalists’ – because that is what they do, churn out pap and crap for their masters.
It is a massive problem for our age: finding out the truth. The list of names in your article are shining beacons – those who tell truth to power are sadly rare in our ‘bread and circuses’ era and you are one of the beacons Craig.
With respect, Stuart, I suggest “Run by oligarchs and mega corporations who care nothing for truth but love money and power”.
Truth does not appear in their business model. Why should it? They get paid for saying whatever they are paid to say.
Little attention was paid either to the interference by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Office – then headed by Keir Starmer – in the Swedish investigation into Julian Assange’s alleged sex offences. A CPS lawyer wrote “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!” to Starmer’s then counterpart, the Swedish director of public prosecutions.
Interference in the affairs of other countries is allowed anywhere in the world as long as the people doing the interfering are on ‘the right side’.
I believe the CPS lawyer you mention was, in fact, Sir Keir Starmer himself.
It’s only when people will be able to openly recognise and discuss the threat that this current mutation of zionism is to the civil and political structures of Europe and America that it will be possible to reject it. It is, of course, virtually impossible, by design, to even point it out, staring us in the face thought it is. It has warped nearly every corner of social and civil life and discourse. If you need any evidence for this, just consider how we can have been witnessing, for over 18 months, the live extermination of an entire people, their homes and any means of survival. This is a holocaust for Palestinians, there is no point in pussyfooting around what is happening, it needs to be said, and loudly.
The fact that no mainstream outlet will even contemplate it, examine it, condemn it or report accurately on it is a savage indictment on the society we now inhabit, and even worse, the harassment and jailing of people who do speak up is a direct consequence of the infiltration of zionism into every crevice of our institutions. It is utterly shameful. The darkest irony is that crying ‘antisemitism’ when people do point it out is akin to claiming that this continuous massacre, the burning of babies, shooting children in their beds, bombing electrical power units for incubators is therefore some kind of inherent Jewish characteristic. Well, they are saying it, not me. I don’t believe it has anything to do with whatever social or cultural group you claim to belong to. Why should we be subjected to such inane, horrifying, despicably inhumane arguments and restrictions imposed on us by a shadow thought police?
We used to have an, albeit imperfect, liberal idea of tolerance, free speech and humane ethics. Zionism is only one of the forces extinguishing that idea, but is in the vanguard. When the criminal mass murderer Netanyahu speaks about representing ‘civilisation’ I feel sick, but maybe this is what the term means now – mass slaughter on an unprecedented scale.
Al Jazeera continues to cover it, despite a number of its people having been murdered by Israel, undoubtedly deliberately:
https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/israel-palestine-conflict/
It’s surprising how many people volunteer how disgusting and untrustworthy the BBC has become, entirely unprompted, these days. And how little disagreement they get from those around them, when they do express such feelings.
“maybe this is what the term means now – mass slaughter on an unprecedented scale.”
The history of the spread of European “civilisation” round the world shows that is what it has always meant.
Peter Oborne, former chief political correspondent at the Telegraph and Spectator, has written a book detailing Britain’s complicity in the Gaza Genocide.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DKKYNSMC9kW/
Hopefully the net will eventually close on them.
Herein lies the root problem in human society, ever since settlements of more than a few hundred people at the dawn of the agricultural age…
It’s not possible for any but a few to ‘see for themselves’ what is or isn’t happening – we became a species reliant on *mass media* as knowledge & information intermediaries… & that’s where it all went wrong & still is today.
There’s one policy we all need to adopt, setting aside others to achieve it, in order to open the democratic path for all the other issues we care about to be resolved.
The rich elite class control all the mass media which ‘informs’ our votes.
No surprise nothing changes -except to get worse as their propaganda grip tightens.
We don’t have to put up with this any longer. We can easily create a different structure for mass media…
There should only be two models for mass media businesses – either a private/commercial controlled sector, or a sector under direct citizens’ control. (IE no Gov appointee run sector at all – BBC Depts. could choose one or the other – no more Gov appointee run ‘public’ interest media fakes.).
Mass media in Western societies is near all owned & delivered by a small group of wealthy elites, & significantly funded via advertising for a handful of large Corporations.
But we can also create a system where citizens control a similar size sector of the media directly, through non-profit media Commons/Common Ownership structured publishers/providers, which exclude all private capital & revenue income. (Instead, they are controlled by members with equal voting rights, like Worker Co-ops or Community Businesses.)
In this sector, their only permitted income comes from our currency issuer Govs (at zero cost), but not directly. Instead of Gov directing which Commons Media enterprises get grant funding, citizens equally direct the funds via an annual voucher system, to sponsor their preferred Commons media providers.
This simple system ensures full democratic participation in a sector of mass media & the political discourse which elevates politics to power. There is no good reason not to do it.
Re: ‘I was detained and my electronics seized under Section 7. That means the UK government is claiming that I was “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.’
The fact that our host was detained at Glasgow airport doesn’t mean that the government are claiming that he has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism because Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 specifically states that police officers can question individuals at ports of entry whether or not they have grounds for suspecting them to be concerned in terrorism.
However, like Kneecap’s* Liam Ó hAnnaidh, they do have grounds for charging him under Section 12 of the above act for his daft tweet (which I note he still hasn’t deleted) in which he plainly expressed support for the proscribed Hamas & Hezbollah. Taking as a reference the punishment meted out to Anjem Choudary a few years ago for a similar offence, that could easily land him with an *eight-year plus* sentence. The security services might not be paying as much attention to this blog as they used to but, if I were him, I still wouldn’t be bringing stuff like this up in case it gives them and/or their Israeli counterparts a reminder.
* As I mentioned in the previous comments section, Kneecap have also directly incited their audience to murder their local MPs, but don’t seem to have got in any trouble for that.
It is beyond absurd for the UK government to presume to “proscribe” Hamas and Hezbollah. For a start they are organisations of foreign citizens operating in foreign countries over which the UK has had no jurisdiction since the UK government decided to abandon its Palestine mandate in 1948.
Hamas is the Gazans’ only government, and as such is entitled to all the protections and courtesies enjoyed by all governments. Hezbollah is, to say the least, the only organisation effectively protecting the citizens of Lebanon from foreign invasion and murder.
How would members of the UK government and armed forces like it if one or more foreign governments “proscribed” them as notorious terrorists and willing helpers of genocide?
”It is beyond absurd for the UK government to presume to “proscribe” Hamas and Hezbollah.”
Yes, and not just for the reasons you have given. I am not aware of any Hamas attack on British soil (although no doubt someone will claim that is due to their being proscribed!)
The IRA were not outlawed in Britain until 1974 when they began focusing their bombing campaign on the UK mainland; when they had previously confined their activities to Northern Ireland (which was part of the UK) they were not proscribed. Whatever, there was certainly a clear case for designating them a threat to national security. This does apply to Hamas in the UK as of now.
Therefore the point of proscribing these Palestinian organisations can only be to stifle debate on the whole history of Israeli occupation.
Proscribe. HTS. Say no more !
Proscribed = Antisemitism. ie. A tool to use against our enemies.
Quite unbelievable. The only way they could shoe-horn the treatment of journalists into the category of being “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism” is if the definition of ‘terrorism’ itself is is being itself rather tortured.
Under S1 of the Terrorism Act 2000…. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1/2009-02-16)
————-
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
————-
Subsection 2 concerns actual violence, the threat thereof, or …is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. . That part about the “electronic system” seems ludicrously vague, and allows a great deal to be applied under the rest of subsection 1.
Subsection 5 is the one most open to whatever interpretation the authorities might like it to mean:
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
A ‘proscribed organisation’ might not have any direct dealings with an individual or even be aware of their existence. But some form of behavour could – somehow, possibly, maybe – be taken as benefiting such a ‘proscribed organisation’ in any way whatsoever, then that individual has now become a bona fide terrorist in the view of the law.
No need to go to all the trouble of throwing bombs around or anything like that. Just say “What Israel is doing to Palestine is evil”, for example, and imagine that would put a smile on the face of a Hamas official for a brief instant. That’s good enough to be considered as having benefited such an organisation, and have someone saying something like that arrested, and fully searched and interrogated even if they’re not prosecuted. Right?
The act is discriminatory because it is not aimed at universally proscribing terrorism as described by the act but only selectively to entities that are designated as terrorist by the government. This is a political decision and not an absolute one. Moreover the ongoing open dialogue between western governments and the new Syrian jihadist led government makes a mockery of this law and how it is selectively used. Is there no constitutional or human rights lawyer who can raise this point as laws should apply universally to all and not discriminate against any group for political reasons?
More proof, if needed, that the UK is one nation under ZOG.
Until the zionists are flushed out of each and every area of government and the media and their evil influence is countered we must consider our country conquered and controlled. Everyone is required to do the goy grovel.
“I was detained and my electronics seized under Section 7. That means the UK government is claiming that I was “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. Just digest that for a moment”.
As I may have mentioned before, it is clear that the UK government’s definition of “terrorism” is anything that inconveniences or embarrasses the UK government. For instance any attempt to investigate its actions.
And now for the US ambassador to France. I cannot confirm if this is fake news. It seems too far fetched to be true, but from a post on FB
‘A way to say F you to France without even lifting a middle finger: the orange ass boil appointed Charles Kushner as Ambassador to France.
A felon that felon 47 pardoned in 2000. The French are not happy apparently and deservedly so.
So Trump just made Charles Kushner – father of his son-in-law Jared – the US Ambassador to France. The Senate confirmed him on May 19 with a 51-45 vote. Only one Democrat supported him – a very weird heel turn by Cory Booker. If you think people are upset just because the man is Jared Kushner’s father – have I got a fun story for you! ☕️☕️☕️NEW
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this guy once hired a sex worker to seduce his brother-in-law – then secretly filmed it and sent the tape to his own sister. No – I’m not making this up. Let’s rewind. Back in 2003 – our new diplomatic representative to one of America’s oldest allies was under investigation for tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions. His brother-in-law and sister were cooperating with federal prosecutors. Kushner didn’t appreciate this family disloyalty. So what did this paragon of diplomatic restraint do? He devised a honey trap that would make even the sleaziest spy novelist cringe. Kushner personally recruited a sex worker – paid her between $7,000-$10,000 – had her seduce his brother-in-law William Schulder at a New Jersey motel – and filmed the entire encounter with hidden cameras.NEW
Then – in a move that screams “ready for sensitive international diplomacy” – he mailed the tape to his own sister. The package was timed to arrive right before a family party. Subtle. This brilliant scheme backfired spectacularly. Instead of being intimidated – his sister took the tape straight to the FBI. Kushner was eventually charged with 18 counts – including witness tampering – tax evasion – and making illegal campaign contributions. Chris Christie – who prosecuted the case as US Attorney in New Jersey – called it “one of the most loathsome – disgusting crimes” he’d ever prosecuted. Kushner served 14 months in federal prison.
But wait – there’s more. Kushner was pardoned by trump in December 2020 during his final days in office. And now he’s representing American interests in France. At his confirmation hearing earlier this month – Kushner acknowledged he’d made “a very – very – very serious mistake” and claimed his past would actually make him “more qualified” for the ambassador job. Because nothing says “qualified diplomat” like vengeful blackmail schemes involving sex workers. The French aren’t exactly thrilled either. When trump announced the nomination back in November – former French ambassador to Washington Gérard Araud commented: “I recommend reading his résumé. ‘Juicy,’ as the Americans would say. Needless to say – he doesn’t have the slightest knowledge of our country.” This appointment clearly showcases the administration’s commitment to selecting only the most ethically sound individuals to represent America abroad. I mean – who needs actual diplomatic experience when you have a talent for elaborate revenge plots? The entire Kushner saga reveals the dark reality of power and privilege in American politics. Commit reprehensible crimes – have the right connections – and you might just end up with a prestigious diplomatic post representing 330 million Americans to one of our most important allies.
Our French friends deserve better. We deserve better. But here we are.’
Nothing fake about it. Well known on this side of the pond. Look at his bio at Wikipedia, which has strict rules about libeling living people.
Apparently the drones sent to down Putin’s helicopter got within half a kilometre of it. Can you imagine the world had those drones managed to kill him?
I am pretty sure it would be quickly WW3. Putin is the cork in the bottle at this point.
So really all of us were about 500 metres from chaos, death.
We are being set up here.
Why is there not a single western politician talking about ‘peace’. It is like the word peace is poison on their lips. FFS WHY?
Mac
May 28, 2025 at 21:41
Mac, if a HoS chooses to enter a war zone without seeking permission from the opposing force then if he dies from incoming fire, tough tits (sic).
Abraham Lincoln narrowly missed death from incoming fire during the American Civil War when the Confederates came close to Washington DC and died by assassination shortly after the Confederate surrender.
I doubt it the Nazis were concerned to avoid killing Churchill or Stalin when they attacked London and Moscow.
If Putin had died are you suggesting that his successor would have used nukes against Ukrainian forces?
A strategy that would result in Zapad land and air forces entering Ukraine.
This commentary from a Ukrainian source may help to clarify how close the little Dictator came to becoming collateral damage.
https://youtu.be/ZcKlX9x0YCs?si=hDl7X2f3tkSBMejj
So anyone from NATOLand yomping off Kiev for a photo-op & another spew of verbal diarrhoea is fair game then along with Zelensky etc?
Of course Bibi is also a legitimate target as is anyone involved in enabling the Gaza genocide and attacks on Yemin and many other things besides?
We want to be consistent about this, not a deliberately obtuse sh*stirrer don’t we?
Five hundred metres! That’s just under five football pitches, talk about a close shave, he must’ve been shitting himself.
That’s sarcasm by the way.
It was part of the Russian plan to assassinate Zelensky in the early stages of the invasion but the special forces inserted into Kyiv to carry this out were quickly rounded up and “neutralised’. There have reportedly been at least ten other attempts since, the suspects for the last are currently awaiting trial. Putin really has no grounds to complain.
The worst chaos and death would be in Moscow from the infighting to replace him.
Putin talks peace but wages war.
If we needed any clue as to Putin’s intent it’s right here:-
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/leader-who-killed-6000000-of-his-own-honoured-in-new-statue/ar-AA1FF2aO