Summary
In March of 2022, two Ukrainian reporters convinced the world that Russia had bombed a maternity hospital. They used deceptive techniques to create a false narrative that was not based on any solid evidence or eyewitnesses.
A couple weeks later, Italian reporter Vittorio Rangeloni properly investigated the scene and discovered the truth. That truth is still being ignored after 4 long years.
In this article, I will show that all available evidence proves Ukraine is responsible for the March 9, 2022 “Maternity” Hospital Bombing in Mariupol at the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
History Repeats Itself
The claim that “evil Russia bombed the maternity hospital” is reminiscent of the fake story about Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, which was used to encourage U.S. military intervention following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And it worked.
Although the maternity hospital bombing did not result in direct military intervention, it did sway public opinion firmly against Russia, which allowed for the flow of billions of dollars in military assistance.
The Reporters
At the time of the incident, all Western journalists had left Mariupol. The two journalists who documented the aftermath of the bombing (but did not investigate any of the evidence) were two Ukrainians working for AP News:
- Mstyslav Chernov: video, writer
- Evgeniy Maloletka: photographer
All claims of a Russian airstrike come from the reports of these two biased individuals, who (as I will examine later) are not afraid of making provably false statements.
Outline
- Maps and Photo Evidence
- Motives
- Eyewitnesses
- Physical Evidence
- Credibility (and False Claims)
- Creating the False Narrative
- Advanced Knowledge
- Conclusion/Final Thoughts
Maps and Photo Evidence
Location of the bomb crater, Maternity Hospital
First, it should be noted that the bomb did not go off near Maternity Hospital #3. Instead, it went off next to an (apparently empty) wing of the children’s hospital. Based on documentary footage, the only wing that was occupied at the time of the explosion was the north wing (furthest from the bomb crater).
“We are actually a children’s hospital.” – hospital staff member
https://vkvideo.ru/video-228360395_456261244
I was never able to find any official explanation as to why the pregnant women might have had a legimate reason for being at the children’s hospital (as opposed to the nearby maternity hospital).
The maternity hospital and the children’s hospital share the same address because they are both located on the same medical compound. (Source: Russian language wiki with addresses and coordinates.)
Between the children’s hospital and the maternity hospital was a building where the oncology department was located. According to hospital staff, Ukraine soldiers were stationed at this building up until the day before the explosion.
source: https://vkvideo.ru/video-228360395_456261244
Damage Disproves Official Narrative
According to the official narrative, a bomb (which caused the large crater) was responsible for the injuries. However, the building closest to the bomb crater resulted in almost no visible damage. Rangeloni’s reporting suggests this could only have been possible if the bomb had been planted under ground, which would maximize the size of the crater while minimizing the size of the damage. Obviously, this would also mean that the bombing was a staged event.
“…It was probably staged.”
https://vkvideo.ru/video-228360395_456261244
The Exploded Oxygen Tanks
Multiple eyewitnesses claim their were two explosions. The second was the result of a stack of oxygen tanks exploding; potentially this explosion was accidental.
Location of the two explosions
The map above shows the relation of the damage vs. the locations of the two explosions. Given the low damage inflicted to the building next to the bomb crater, it is almost certain that the exploded oxygen tanks were the cause of most of the damage and injuries.
“I suspect that most of the damage was not caused by the explosion that caused this crater, but rather by the oxygen tanks further away.” -Igor Brazhink
https://www.facebook.com/100009898025747/posts/1663290047344247/?d=n
Oxygen Tanks Coverup
In the above photo, an emergency response vehicle is parked directly in front of the oxygen tanks. Potentially, the purpose of the vehicle was to hide the fact that the tanks exploded, as this would have hurt the official narrative of a Russian bomb causing the injuries and damage.
Also note that although the pile of exploded oxygen tanks is quite obvious, it was never mentioned in the 20 Days in Mariupol documentary. Instead, the documentary focused on the bomb crater.
The Photo Op Evacuation Route
In the documentary, a seriously wounded pregnant woman was carried on a stretcher along an unnecessarily long route while being taken to an ambulance. The documentary footage itself also shows a second lady who is evacuated on a stretcher using a much shorter route. This suggests that the pregnant lady was specifically taken along the longer route in order to conduct a photo op for propaganda purposes.
According to official reports, this lady (and her unborn child) were two of 3 victims who died. There is no information regarding the identity of the 3rd victim, nor any photo/video evidence of a 3rd individual at the scene with life-threatening injuries.
Taking the shorter route (with an unidentified woman who has no visible injuries of any kind):
In the screenshot below, we have definitive proof that the woman was carried under the elevated walkway (the shorter route) and directly to a parked ambulance:
screenshot from an AP News video
https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=79bacc7cefbf4e3cbf24854b919505bb&mediatype=video
Location of the Reporters
One of the biggest tell-tale signs of a coverup is that the story continually changes…as each subsequent lie is used to hide a previous lie.
One obviously suspicious fact about the maternity hospital bombing was that the Ukrainian reporters happened to be RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET with cameras rolling and pointed in the exact direction needed to film the explosions. In the real world, such a coincidence is next to impossible. This fact alone gives us 99% certainty that the bombing of the hospital was a preplanned event.
To cover up this coincidence, AP News later claimed that the reporters were “25 minutes” away from the hospital at the time of the explosion. This is obviously untrue, because in that case it would have been impossible to have taken the video footage of the explosions that we see in the following image:
The video footage shows the the reporters were roughly a couple hundred yards from the explosion.
Screenshot taken from the 20 Days in Mariupol documentary
Motive
Bombing hospitals is bad press and something Russia would potentially want to avoid. Although Russia did claim at the UN that Ukrainian military had taken over a maternity hospital, they specifically mentioned that it was Maternity Hospital #1, which is located in a completely different area of the city than Maternity Hospital #3.
So while Russia had no motive to attack this particular hospital, their claim that a maternity hospital was being used by an AZOV unit was used by the media to falsely accuse Russia of having a motive to bomb Maternity Hospital #3.
“Maternity Hospital No. 1 in Mariupol was used as a base for the Azov Battalion.” Sergey Lavrov
https://vz.ru/news/2022/3/10/1147883.html
In contrast, Ukraine had a clear motive for bombing the maternity hospital, which was to turn public opinion against Russia. A second motive was that this event allowed Ukraine to deny (truthful) reports that their troops were using hospitals and school buildings to shield themselves from attack.
A third (and perhaps more important) motive was to convince Western countries to get directly involved in the conflict. In particular, President Zelensky demanded that U.S./NATO directly interfere in the conflict by providing air support.
Screenshot above: Zelensky appeals to US/NATO to get directly involved in the conflict.
https://t.me/V_Zelenskiy_official/797
Additionally, reporting on the incident was wildly inaccurate and sensational. Zelensky himself falsely claimed there were children trapped under the rubble (see above), while DW local news correspondent Roman Guba claimed that Russia dropped “several” bombs, and the hospital was completely destroyed (see below).
These claims are complete nonsense: all evidence points to a single bomb (plus the secondary explosion of the oxygen tanks), all three wings of the hospital remained fully intact, and I have found no photo or video evidence to confirm that any child was injured during this event.
Russian occupation forces dropped several bombs on the children’s hospital…[it] is completely destroyed.
https://www.dw.com/uk/u-mariupoli-vnaslidok-aviaudaru-znyshcheno-dytiachu-likarniu/a-61070665
Not to be outdone, the Guardian reported that Zelensky accused Russia of genocide on the same day as the attack, even though at this point it has been reported that there are 0 dead and only 17 wounded.
In contrast, when the U.S. conducted an airstrike on a hospital in Konduz, Afghanistan in 2015, 42 people were killed and at least 32 more were injured. It’s also worth noting that every day Zelensky decides that the armed conflict is worth prolonging, 1000+ Ukrainian soldiers die on the battlefield. That’s 1000+ soldiers who die EVERY DAY.
“Russia is guilty of genocide for injuring 17 people.” (paraphrased) – President Zelensky
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/ukraine-mariupol-civilians-russia-war
Months later, the wildly false claims continued: in September of 2022, a local Ukrainian documentary was released with a witness claiming that corpses littered the bomb site… despite the fact that by this time is was well established that not a single person died on the day of the bombing.
“A woman is walking towards me; I ask what’s there?…Don’t go there, there are only corpses.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cGI1yeTFF8M
Below is U.S. propaganda, courtesy of USA Today. Published the same day as the bombing, U.S. media went straight to “Putin must pay.” No need to wait for the evidence because we all know that evil Russia is responsible (sarcasm).
Source (behind paywall):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/03/09/russia-bombs-childrens-hospital-putin-war-criminal/9443049002/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p
Some individuals might argue that Ukraine would never attack its own hospital. That said, I will be discussing the possibility that the injuries were accidental. In any case, Ukraine had multiple reasons for attacking the hospital, while there is no clear motive for Russia.
Summary of Motives:
Russia: no motive
Ukraine:
- To turn public opinion against Russia.
- To (falsely) deny the fact that Ukrainian soldiers were using hospitals and schools as defensive positions.
- To try to bring NATO directly into the conflict.
Eyewitnesses
Incredibly, the documentary does not have any 3rd party eyewitnesses. No patients, medical staff, or rescue workers were interviewed at the scene. Instead, the Ukrainian journalists took it upon themselves to be the gatekeepers of the narrative, with the one exception of a (biased) police officer who blames Russia without any evidence .
Marianna
In multiple interviews, eyewitness Marianna Vishegirskaya was always adamant that there was no evidence to prove an airstrike.
March 10, 2022 interview with the Ukrainian journalists (Chernov and Maloletka)
Soon after giving birth, the Ukrainian journalists interviewed Marianna while she was still recovering in the hospital. Note that if she knew Ukraine had staged the event, it would have been unsafe for her to admit this while surrounded by Ukrainian soldiers who were stationed at Hospital #2..
“We don’t know what happened. There are a lot of rumors, but little evidence.” – Marianna
https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=d33ecb51a8974b179137df57061ca68f
April 2, 2022 Interview Russian blogger Denis Seleznez
In this interview Marianna mentioned:
- It was the 2nd explosion that caused the windows to blow out.
- The consensus of the other eyewitnesses whom Marianna talked with agreed that there was no evidence of an airstrike.
The original video has been removed from YouTube; a copy can be found here:
https://voxukraine.org/en/false-interview-with-marianna-vyshemirska-proves-that-the-bombing-of-a-maternity-hospital-in-mariupol-is-a-fake
April 7, 2022 Interview with Italian journalist Giorgio Bianchi
In this interview, Marianna is adamant that there is no evidence of an airstrike. More specifically, she mentions that: (1) nobody heard airplanes flying overhead, and (2) (in her opinion) an airstrike would have caused much more damage.
“If the bomb had come from a plane, the destruction would have been much more serious and everything would have ended much more tragically.” -Marianna.
https://vkvideo.ru/video-228360395_456261244
The Hospital Staff
Several members of the medical staff were interviewed by Italian journalist Vittorio Rangeloni two weeks after the bombing. None of the staff believed that Russia was responsible. Staff who were interviewed included:
- Sergey Rybalko: children’s surgeon
- Igor Brazhnik: head of pediatric intensive care
- Elena: head nurse
- Anastasia: nurse
“No one could support the theory of an airstrike.” Italian reporter Vittorio Rangeloni.
https://www.facebook.com/100009898025747/posts/1663290047344247/?d=n
When asked directly about the attack, these are the responses:
- Vittorio: “Why was the hospital attacked?
- Igor: “It was in the middle of the city…I don’t think it was on purpose.
- Vittorio: “Was their an airstrike…or what happened?
- Anastasia: “I can’t say what happened.”
source: https://vkvideo.ru/video-228360395_456261244
Perhaps what it most important is not what was said, but what was not said. While Mariana and the hospital staff did not point the finger at Russia, nobody was willing to give an opinion as to what did occur…and who was responsible. This is typical of situations in which a person knows the truth, but the truth is potentially self-incriminating.
In summary, there are no credible witnesses to prove Russia was responsible, while there are multiple, credible witnesses who refute the claim that there is any solid evidence of a Russian airstrike.
Physical Evidence
There are no images of Russian planes caught on film, no sounds of Russian planes caught on film, and no images of bomb fragments found in the bomb crater (that were publicly released as evidence). Since Ukraine completely controlled the crime scene, the lack of hard evidence suggests that there wasn’t any evidence to prove a Russia airstrike.
Regardless, the bomb site did leave behind several important clues. First of all, the building closest to the bomb crater received the least amount of damage. The documentary footage also reveals that only the north wing was occupied at the time of the explosion, and the other two wings closer to the bomb crater were empty. This is the perfect setup for staging a bombing while keeping everyone safe.
But if this was the case, things did no go according to plan because damage to the buildings reveals that a second explosion occurred. The cause of this explosion, as confirmed by the Italian journalist, was a stack of oxygen tanks which were closer to the occupied building.
So let’s summarize what appears to have happened. The large crater, according to the Italian journalist’s investigation, was most likely the result of burying a bomb underground, which would maximize the size of the crater while causing minimal damage.
“They planted a landmine to dislodge the soil so the crater would be large. That’s why the walls didn’t collapse. That’s why you didn’t collect any shrapnel there.” -explosives expert.
https://www.kp.ru/daily/27377.5/4570569/
This first explosion sets off the oxygen tanks, which potentially was an accident. But what we do know is this:
1) the bomb crater was likely NOT caused by an airstrike, and
2) the injuries of the 17 wounded were likely the result of the oxygen tanks explosion.
So once again, all evidence supports the hypothesis of a staged event planned by Ukraine, rather than a Russian airstrike. This theory is strengthened by the fact that the documentary never discusses the exploded oxygen tanks nor explains why only one of the three buildings was occupied at the time of the explosions.
Credibility
To pull of the a staged event, it was crucial to pass off the journalists as unbiased and credible. This was done by falsely claiming that the Ukrainians were Western journalists in order to make them seem unbiased. But for journalists to be credible, it is important to disclose any possible bias, not cover it up.
Another issue affecting their credibility is the fact that they made multiple false statements regarding the bombing itself. Let examine three of of them.
Claim #1: “A few blocks away”
According to the documentary narration, “[they] were a few blocks away” from the hospital at the time of the explosions. The documentary crew’s own photo and video evidence proves they were directly across the street. Yet at various times, these reporters also claimed to be at 3 other locations at the time of the explosions.
#1) right across the street (the truth, although incriminating)
#2) behind the store “1000 Small Things”
#3) several blocks away
#4) 25 minutes away
The last claim is completely absurd, as the town border is only 5 minutes away from the hospital. Not only would they not have been able to film the explosions from that location, they would most likely have been behind enemy lines.
The 4 locations the journalists claimed to be at the time of the explosions
In the following interview, the reporters claimed to have been both behind the store AND right across the street at the same time. The implication is that the store is right across the street, but in reality it’s not.
source:
https://www.currenttime.tv/a/mogila-v-meshkah-horonyat-detey-plachesh-i-snimaesh-kak-mstislav-chernov-i-evgeniy-maloletka-dokumentirovali-unichtozhenie-mariupolya/32118928.html
“Just a few blocks away.”
Screenshot is from the 20 Days in Mariupol documentary.
The most absurd claim: 25 minutes away.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3112779032268970&rdid=Awh4jjxWkuyvQqIa
Claim #2: The number of casualties was unknown
The narrator of the documentary (Mstyslav Chernov) claims that due to the chaos, he could not figure out how many people had been injured or killed. However, Chernov’s own footage includes a hospital staff member who clearly states that nobody had died. This statement was made soon after the journalists arrived on the scene.
“Everyone has survived” – hospital staff member on the day of the incident.
https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=d9d964c422da4c4bba1aaa22b30baa93&mediatype=video
In addition, the Donetsk Police published a Facebook post at 4:40pm local time on the day of the incident stating that preliminary reports indicated 17 people were injured.
Approximately 2 hours after the explosion occurred, local police reported 17 injured on a social media post.
https://www.facebook.com/don.gunp/posts/pfbid02MJ65BbGyn6hy4zhjTSp5bYtq8eMoSwofkvxGU3oES1jJA5yJz6kv9W63Mxgitwo4l
In other words: if Chernov wanted to know the casualty count, he could have asked his police buddy Volodymer.
Claim #3: There was Only one Internet Access Point
In the documentary, the police chief Volodymer took the Ukrainian journalists to what was claimed to be the only place in town with Internet so they could send the photo and video evidence to AP News (and become heroes). However, other videos of the bombing were published the same day, and it appears that the regional governor Pavlo Kirilenko (what was he doing there?) even live-streamed the rescue effort.
Note: the exact time of the explosions was not reported. However, timestamps on Evgeny Maloletko’s photos put the Ukrainian reporters at the scene at 3:30 pm local time, which implies the explosions must have occurred at around 2:30pm. All times listed below are local Ukrainian time. (Note that in the screenshots, the times are not local time; they are GMT+5).
At 4:30PM, Pavlo Kyrlenko (governor of the Donetsk Region) published a video (original content) to his Facebook account:
Pavlo’s video includes footage of the exploded oxygen tanks.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=664962265240384
The video above was then reposted to the “Mariupol Now” channel on Telegram at 4:37pm. However, this version shows overlays that suggest the video may have originally been live-streamed:
Source:
https://t.me/mariupolnow/1735
At 4:35pm, Mariupol City Council published a video (original content) to its official Telegram account:
“Fascists from Russia deliberately bombed a children’s hospital in Mariupol from airplanes…Russian occupation forces have dropped several bombs on a children’s hospital. The destruction is colossal. We will never forget! We will never forgive these b-stards!“
https://t.me/mariupolrada/8765
At 4:40 PM, the Donetsk Regional Police published photos (original content) to its official Facebook account:
“As a result of the impact, 17 people were injured: pregnant women and staff!!!”
https://www.facebook.com/don.gunp/posts/pfbid02MJ65BbGyn6hy4zhjTSp5bYtq8eMoSwofkvxGU3oES1jJA5yJz6kv9W63Mxgitwo4l
At 7:36pm (local Ukrainian time), AP News published a video (also original content) to its official YouTube channel. This video did NOT come from its own Ukrainian reporters (Chernov and Maloletka), but instead from Kyrlyo Tymoshenko, who worked for President Zelensky’s office.
“A Russian strike has hit a children’s hospital”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcK0N24TRbk
To recap: despite the claim that there was only 1 internet access point in the entire city, multiple people were able to publish original photos and videos to multiple websites on the same day of the incident. An unbiased observer might even propose that these posts were “a coordinated effort.”
And before we move on to the next topic, it might be worth noting that two of the sources mentioned above were later accused of corruption and resigned from their government positions.
Kyrylo Tymoshenko, a humble Ukrainian public servant (and apparently a trustworthy steward of U.S. taxpayer money).
https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2022/12/01/7378712/
A photo of Pavlo Kirilenko’s BMW X3. Not to brag, but Pavlo also bought himself 7 apartments and one house.
https://www.facebook.com/sap.gov.ua/posts/pfbid0MLYsfByvr35CtTNffRt2cRjaU7X9UTGHgMqz4aHCwmfqpiA5RTaTYznTFLdADfP5l
Creating the False Narrative
Once we get passed the heart-wrenching footage enhanced by melancholy background music and the sorrowful voice of the narrator, we realize something startling: there is no actual evidence of an airstrike.
“Evidence” of a Russian airstrike:
In the documentary, evidence of a Russian airstrike (as opposed to a planted bomb) is based on 3 items:
- A single, vague phrase
- A baseless claim (from an untrustworthy source)
- A loud noise
#1: A vague phrase: While witnessing the explosions, one of the reporters comments: “he’s coming back.” This implied that the journalist could either see or hear an airplane. But nobody says “I see a plane” or “I hear a plane.” The claim that there is a plane is implied.
#2: A baseless claim: near the end of the maternity hospital scene, police chief Volodymer claims in a statement “today there was a Russian airstrike.” He doesn’t say: “Based on evidence…” or “eyewitnesses saw Russian planes” or provide any information to suggest that his claim is based on evidence vs. speculation.
#3) A loud noise: Going back to the explosions, the documentary footage deleted out the initial boom of the first explosion. What we are left with is a few seconds of a rumbling shock wave that I suspect the documentary producers wanted us to believe was the sound of an airplane.
It is very important to emphasize that:
- Nobody explicitly claimed to see a plane (much less a Russian plane).
- Nobody explicity claimed to hear a plane.
- Nobody ever explained how they concluded that the Russians were responsible.
In other words, the idea that it was a Russian airstrike was completely based on speculation. The implication is that Russia is evil, which is apparently the only evidence needed to prove that Russia bombed the hospital.
Tactics Used to Create the False Narrative
Faking credibility
As previously discussed: to hide the fact that they were biased Ukrainians, the journalists (Chernov and Maloletka) were reported in the press as being “Western” journalists.
Gatekeeping the facts
To create the desired narrative, the journalists did not interview a single eyewitness. In the documentary, the narrative was created using heavily-edited video footage and narration.
Deceptive editing
Comparing the “raw footage” released by AP News with the documentary footage shows that video footage in the documentary was in the incorrect order on three separate occasions. There were also numerous deletions. All of this editing made the scene to appear more chaotic than it actually was.
Above: an excerpt of a spreadsheet comparing the timelines of the raw footage vs. documentary
Raw footage Part 1: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=d9d964c422da4c4bba1aaa22b30baa93&mediatype=video
Part 2: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=d33ecb51a8974b179137df57061ca68f
Incorrect translations:
Twice during the maternity hospital scene, people’s words were incorrectly translated to change the narrative:
#1 The soldier and the boy:
When the young soldier is talking to the boy, the translations give the impression that the boy is upset because his mother is missing. In fact, the boy’s concern is that his mother is going to be shocked when she sees their damaged car. (“Where’s your mother?” vs. “What do you mean (about your mother)?”
#2 Marianna
When filming Marianna, a man tells her something that the documentary translated as “I’ve got your things.” What the man actually said was “Let’s go get your things.”
Marianna (as she later explained when being properly interviewed) was waiting to go back inside to collect her personal belongings, and the man came to escort her.
The change was likely made to hide the fact that the hospital building was not “totally destroyed” but instead safe enough for a full-term pregnant lady to go back inside to collect her stuff.
Censoring out undesired details
The following scenes were deleted from the documentary:
1) A man’s statement that everybody survived
2) Footage showing multiple rescue workers standing around smoking cigarettes.
Rescue working standing around smoking.
AP raw footage
3) The exploded oxygen tanks.
4) The second woman on a stretcher while being carried along the shorter route* (under the elevated walkway) to an ambulance.
*This last video footage was also deleted from the raw footage; it can be found at 2 minutes and 54 seconds on the video posted here: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=79bacc7cefbf4e3cbf24854b919505bb&mediatype=video
Ignoring false claims
The following were reported by the media but are not collaborated by documentary video footage:
- Children trapped under the rubble
- A “completely destroyed” hospital building
- Injured children
- Corpses littering the ground
- Evidence of genocide (i.e., a direct impact with the hospital building)
Adding an official statement
In the documentary, police chief Volodymer Nikulin gives a statement claiming a Russian airstrike. (Note that this is the same police officer who took part in the staged tank scene discussed in Episode 1). However, this statement is not found in the raw footage released by AP News, and it is not filmed at the bomb site. (The actual location is unknown).
The footage of this statement was deceptively edited into the documentary to make it appear that it was filmed near the hospital.
screenshot of 20 Days in Mariupol documentary
For the record, the police chief was also filming the rescue effort; this was edited out of the documentary.
Why is the Police Chief filming uninjured people?
screenshot from “raw footage” publishe by AP news: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=79bacc7cefbf4e3cbf24854b919505bb&mediatype=video
To summarize, the entire case against Russia is based on the statements of three biased Ukrainians known for making false statements and creating staged scenes included in the documentary (see 20 Days of Deception Episode 1, Episode 2, and Episode 3 for more details).
Damage Control
One thing that is often overlooked is that the Ukrainian reporters waited to interview Marianna in the hospital instead of interviewing her on the day of the bombing. This is a very important point because any reporter who was interested in the truth would not have waited. The reason Chernov and Maloletka waited was because the interview was not about getting the truth; it was about damage control for the false narrative.
When the photos and images of the event were posted to social media, locals instinctively knew that something wasn’t quite right. In addition, multiple people recognized Marianna as an Instagram beauty blogger, which immediately led to the social media erupting with accusations that the event was fake (instead of staged).
This accusation actually helped support the false narrative, because Chernov and Maloletka then went to interview Marianna to prove that in fact the bombing was very real. It’s worth pointing out that the reason people decided that the bombing was fake instead of staged was because nobody considered the fact that Ukraine would actually explode a real bomb near an occupied hospital.
Advanced Knowledge
There is one key piece of evidence that – on it’s own – is solid evidence that Ukraine is responsible for the maternity hospital bombing:
Due to their location at the time of the explosions, the documentary crew must have known about the bombing in advance.
When the two explosions occurred at the hospital, the documentary crew were already located across the street. From a statistical standpoint, the chances of this happening by coincidence are close to zero. But what is even more remarkable is that the journalists, who claimed in an interview to be on their way to the “1000 Small Items” store to charge their computers, managed to catch both explosions on film. I.e., the crew weren’t going anywhere, instead they were standing at the entrance of a building with their camera turned on at the exact right moment and pointed in the exact right direction in order to catch the explosions on camera.
The chance of this being a coincidence is – in practical terms – zero; there simply isn’t any possibility how this could occurred without foreknowledge. Suspiciously, the footage of the first explosion was edited out of the documentary, but can be found at the 3 second mark of the raw footage posted by AP News.
Because this coincidence cannot be explained away, multiple lies were created regarding the documentary crew’s location at the time of the explosions. In addition to falsely claiming they were (1) several blocks away and (2) behind the 1000 Small Items store, AP News at one point bizarrely claimed that their reporters were (3) 25 minutes away at the time of the explosion. Not only does that completely contradict other claims; it also potentially places the reporters behind enemy lines.
Evgeny Maloletka: “And the hospital was right across the street, so we went to that hospital.“
https://www.currenttime.tv/a/mogila-v-meshkah-horonyat-detey-plachesh-i-snimaesh-kak-mstislav-chernov-i-evgeniy-maloletka-dokumentirovali-unichtozhenie-mariupolya/32118928.html
“It took them 25 minutes to get to the hospital” -AP news runs interference for their reporters.
https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=d33ecb51a8974b179137df57061ca68f&mediatype=video
Conclusion
Before I end this article, I want to address a question that probably many are asking, and that is: if the bombing was staged, why would those pregnant women agree to participate in this event? This is a fair question, and surprisingly, the answer has been hiding in plain sight since day one. First of all, I want to reemphasize that potentially nobody was supposed to get injured in the initial blast, and – if we are to give Ukraine the benefit of the doubt – the explosion of the oxygen tanks and subsequent injuries – was an accident.
But the assurance that they would be safe is still not reason enough to explain the pregnant women’s motivation for participating. Instead, we have to take into consideration the highly unusual circumstances that these women found themselves in. Imagine you are about to give birth when all of a sudden your country is invaded and the city where you are living comes under siege.
There is a lack of food, water, electricity, and basic supplies. The stores have been looted, people are dying, and there is active fighting in the streets. So it’s possible that these women were “bribed” to participate by promising them baby supplies that were no longer available in the stores.
This hypothesis is based on the following evidence:
#1) Marianna mentioned in one of her interviews that the the women in the hospital were given boxes of baby supplies. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj5ElB3Fnp0)
#2) If you watch carefully in the documentary, you’ll realize that the whole time Marianna is being recorded, she is tightly clutching a bag of diapers under the blanket she is wrapped in.
Mariana holding a brand new bag of diapers.
screenshot from the documentary “20 Days in Mariupol”
If the women were indeed bribed, I think we can forgive these ladies for agreeing to participate in this staged event in exchange for supplies for their babies. Most people would have probably made the same choice.
Final Thoughts
One might reasonably expect that the victims of this bombing would have become anti-Russian. However, Marianna has since moved to Russian territory and is now considered a traitor by the Ukrainian government.
Additionally, survivors of the Mariupol siege in general seem to be content living as part of Russia (judging by content posted on Youtube). Below are comments of one Mariupol resident regarding the siege of Mariupol (video is in English).
“…I was hoping that this war would end in a week, that Mariupol would just change flags, join Russia, and no one would die…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yURQhYjLw3w&t=1s
…One of the reasons I hate Ukraine is because the city government of Mariupol didn’t evacuate anyone; they told everyone to stay put and the soldiers [prevented citizens from leaving]…
…I even saw videos of Ukrainian soldiers shooting civilians who tried to leave. The Ukrainians needed [human] shields.”
-Nick, Mariupol survivor
Epilogue
On June 18, 2026 the Director of National Security released previously classified documents which confirm that Anthony Fauci illegally funded gain-of-function research and then lied about doing so under oath before Congress. While many people may feel vindicated now that the truth is finally out, one big question remains: what justification did U.S. intelligence have for keeping this a secret in the first place?
It has been confirmed that from at least May 2020, U.S. intelligence knew that illegal gain-of-function research was occurring. This means that when Fauci lied before Congress, U.S. intelligence knew…and they let him get away with it. Why? The only reasonable answer is that U.S. intelligence was part of the conspiracy to begin with.
When it comes to the maternity hospital bombing in Mariupol, U.S. intelligence also knows the truth. In fact, this event has all the signs of a covert CIA-run operation which used the Ukrainian reporters, police, and military as assets, and regarded civilian casualties as collateral damage. It is possible (if not likely) that the reporters themselves had CIA handlers and were just doing what they were instructed to do.
If the maternity hospital bombing had actually been a real war crime, U.S. and NATO forces would have likely intervened to help Ukraine. Instead, it appears that Western countries decided to help themselves by using Ukrainians as an expendable resource to help them achieve their long-sought fantasy of installing a puppet president in Russia in order to plunder the country of its natural resources…similar to what they did to Ukraine.