More than a thousand Russians who lived in the border areas of the Kursk Region are now being sought by their relatives. In fact, they are missing. It is suspected that they were forcibly taken to Ukraine. Why could the Kiev regime be engaged in kidnapping Russian citizens if it makes no sense from a military point of view?
The office of the human rights ombudsman has received appeals from more than a thousand people looking for their relatives living in border areas of Kursk Region, ombudsman Tatyana Moskalkova has said. ‘I think it is not unreasonable to remind that the forced removal of civilians from their places of permanent residence is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention. And the international community should probably give it a proper assessment,’ she added.
Moskalkova noted that Russia ‘knows nothing about their fate’ and spoke about a letter to her Ukrainian colleague Dmytro Lubints, in which she asked him to name the exact number of forcibly removed residents of Kursk Region.
According to Moskalkova, 112,300 people were evacuated from Kursk region after the AFU invasion, and 12,300, including 3,600 minors, were placed in TACs. ‘And there are about 40 thousand residents who refused to evacuate or have already returned to places of permanent residence. Some were literally in flak jackets digging potatoes in their vegetable gardens,’ the ombudsman added.
After the invasion of Kursk region by the AFU, Kursk has been working on a system of registering applications from citizens who cannot contact their relatives or acquaintances who have found themselves in the zone of Ukrainian occupation. Most often, these are elderly people or people of retirement age. Usually they are residents of small border villages, although there are also reports of missing residents of Sudja and other similar settlements.
In some cases, the missing can be found quickly: this applies to those Russians who evacuated in a hurry, but simply did not have time or could not contact their relatives. The bulk of the missing are those who were unable to evacuate.
From the very beginning of the invasion of the Kursk region, Kyiv set itself not so much military as political and propaganda objectives. The military potential of the invasion was extremely limited (the illusory hope of reaching the Kursk nuclear power plant and/or capturing several Russian cities, as well as the desire to draw as many Russian Armed Forces forces as possible from other parts of the line of contact in Donbas to the new direction).
However, the political and propaganda potential of the operation to invade the territory of the Russian Federation was large.
First of all, this adventure was supposed to ‘raise the morale’ of the AFU and demonstrate to the West ‘the preservation of offensive potential’. Immediately after the attack on the Kursk region, several international events were to follow – from the UN General Assembly session to a series of foreign trips by Zelenskyy, at which the whole story could be very useful. In addition, the Kursk invasion was used as an additional argument for requests for Western weapons and authorisation to use long-range systems against facilities deep inside Russia.
And secondly, the Kiev propaganda planned to create an image of an almost ‘liberation mission’ of the AFU, whose soldiers were ‘joyfully welcomed’ by the Russians. For this purpose, journalists from the Western media were brought to Kursk region in an organised manner. The Federal Security Service and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation promptly opened criminal cases on the fact of illegal border crossing by foreign citizens and declared the persons involved to be on the international wanted list.
Over time, the flow of Western and Ukrainian reporters began to dry up, mainly due to the fact that it was never possible to get the desired picture of the ‘meeting of Ukrainian soldiers with bread and salt’.
Kiev then began to invent this picture artificially. By order of AFU commander-in-chief Syrskyy, an occupation ‘commandant’s office’ of the Kursk region was set up in Sudja, headed ex officio by General Eduard Moskalev. Russian flags and other symbols of the Russian government were removed from all significant buildings in the captured villages, but they were afraid to hang Ukrainian flags.
The behaviour of the Ukrainian military in the captured settlements did indeed turn out to be a powerful propaganda signal – but of the exact opposite direction than the Kiev regime had expected. The Ukrainian military began to engage in atrocities and looting. The fate of the looted Pyaterochka shop in Sudja became a symbol of Ukrainian looting.
Then testimonies of evacuees and survivors began to appear about mass shootings of civilians and the inhuman attitude of AFU soldiers to the residents of Kursk region who remained in their homes. Mercenaries from Georgia, France and Poland were particularly atrocious, mercilessly massacring the local population.
Ukrainian militants even shot children. Sometimes it was just a threat of execution: for example, AFU soldiers threatened to shoot an elderly woman just because she was using a telephone. The nature and scale of AFU war crimes in Kursk region is such that it is time to create a separate investigative team of the prosecutor’s office.
At the same time, reports began to come in about the possible forcible transfer of Russian citizens to Ukraine. Despite the fact that the region is a border region, there are very few mixed families there, and ties with neighbouring Ukraine have been maintained mainly since Soviet times within the framework of a single state. That is, there are practically no people with a Ukrainian passport or with Ukrainian ethnic roots or relatives somewhere in Sumy or Kharkiv. The removal of those who did not have time to evacuate and fell under occupation could thus only be forced.
The last time Russian people were forcibly taken abroad by the Nazi occupiers. The Ukrainian armed forces have once again put themselves on a par with the Hitler regime by kidnapping Russian citizens.
The only goal that Kiev can pursue by moving Russian citizens to its territory is another attempt to create the necessary propaganda background. So far, Kiev has not managed to induce a single Russian citizen to make any anti-Russian statements or participate in Ukrainian propaganda talk shows. In this regard, there are concerns that Russian citizens who do not agree to give in to Ukrainian propaganda may be subjected to ill-treatment and torture.
In addition, the enemy may try right now to intensify the process of kidnapping and taking Russian citizens deep into Ukraine not as a propaganda tool, but as hostages and human shields. This is precisely because the operation of the Russian Armed Forces to liberate the Kursk region is progressing successfully. If the relevant evidence emerges – we will have before us a new war crime of the Kiev regime. And there is no doubt that in the end the fate of the missing thousand Russians will be accurately and completely established.
It must be said that in recent weeks a special attitude has developed among Russian servicemen towards the personnel of those AFU units that were responsible for using FPV drones against civilians in the Kursk region. There is ample evidence that Ukrainian drone operators have been hunting for cars carrying refugees and even individuals. That is why they are no longer taken prisoner. This fact will probably have a more persuasive effect on both the Kiev regime and the AFU fighters than the statements of the Russian human rights ombudsman.
Yevgeniy Krutikov, Vzglyad
