The BBC who cried 'Russia!'
The state broadcaster's claim that Russia was behind the arson attacks on Keir Starmer's former properties was roundly mocked on X
The head of Counter Terrorism Policing London may have admitted that there is “no evidence” to suggest that the arson attacks on Keir Starmer’s old car and former properties were Russian state-directed — but the BBC wasn’t going to let that get in the way of a good yarn.
The state broadcaster “revealed” this week — in an investigation that frankly reeks of an MI5 psyop — that the Kremlin was behind the attacks.
While the report makes the bold claim that the evidence leads “all the way to the Russian state,” it does not actually deliver any such proof.
In fact, on close reading, the BBC’s conclusion rests on what is essentially a chain of inferences made from some social media sleuthing. The objective was to identify the alleged “handler” of the two Ukrainian-born men convicted of conspiracy to commit arson on Monday — and link him conclusively to the Russian state.
The BBC identifies the handler “EL” as 23-year-old Evgeny Lyukshin. Then, some 75 paragraphs later — after a deep dive into Lyukshin’s Telegram history — the broadcaster admits:
“We do not know for sure if Evgeny Lyukshin is EL.”
Here’s what we do know for sure:
The Central Criminal Court made no conclusion as to who EL was, or what their nationality is — Russian, Ukrainian or otherwise
Cdr Helen Flanagan, head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, said they have not been able to identify EL and that there is no evidence to suggest that the operation was Kremlin-backed
No evidence has been made available to the public via govt/intelligence services suggesting Russian state links
Flanagan’s admission was buried at the very end of the BBC’s investigation. It was followed by a paragraph noting that UK and Ukrainian “authorities” have “privately concluded” that Russia was behind the arson.
Forgive me if I’m a bit sceptical of unspecified UK and Ukrainian “authorities” in this instance.
Is it plausible that the successor agency to the KGB sent two Russian-speaking Ukrainians to throw wheelie bins at the door of the British Prime Minister’s sister-in-law and that the Kremlin’s intelligence was so outdated that they set fire to a car that he sold to his neighbour two years ago? I mean, nothing is impossible, but I’m not buying it.
FSB or MI5?
There is no question that Russia engages in information warfare and a range of influence operations in the West. Likewise, Western states do so in Russia and every other ‘adversary’ nation. This is a standard feature of modern geopolitical competition and very few would dispute it.
The issue here is not whether the Kremlin possesses the capability to direct some form of attack on Starmer — of course it does. The question is whether the evidence presented by the BBC is actually substantive, or whether stories like this are part of the domestic information war perpetrated on British citizens by their own intelligence services.
These incidents play neatly into the narrative which No. 10 and the British Armed Forces have been pushing for years — and such stories are instantly met with public calls for more defence spending.
To not be suspicious of that is naive.
My suspicion only grew when I learned that lawyers for the two arsonists requested that prosecutors hand over wider information on “EL” — including information on whether he was associated with any intelligence services and where he was based. Strangely, the judge refused the application, ruling it “wholly irrelevant” to the case.
Is it plausible that the perpetrators were in fact being played by MI5 in a scheme to orchestrate a fake ‘Russian attack’ on the UK and that the entire story was then fed to the BBC to do the narrative work? Anything is possible.
Credibility problem
If every nefarious incident is reflexively attributed to the Kremlin, you end up with a serious credibility problem. You become the boy who cried wolf, or in this case, the BBC who cried ‘Russia!’
Repeated accusations built on flimsy evidence weaken public trust to the point that even legitimate claims will be regarded with deep scepticism.
This was clear on X yesterday, where users were making an absolute mockery of the BBC report. To make matters worse, in the midst of it all, the broadcaster published a story suggesting that trust in news media has hit a new low, which garnered the kind of reaction you might expect.
Vlad fires on pensioners!
A second incident this week demonstrates the same knee-jerk hysteria.
When Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich encountered a UK-flagged yacht in the international waters of the English Channel on Tuesday, it attempted to contact the vessel by radio, flares, and sound signals.
When the yacht did not respond and was heading toward a collision risk, the Russian ship fired a warning shot across its path. The yacht then altered course. No damage, no harm.
There appears to be some dispute between the British yachting retirees and the Russian Navy over the exact sequence of events, but the British Ministry of Defence concludes that the Grigorovich fired warning shots that were “not aimed at the vessel” and were simply “an attempt to prevent a possible collision.”
The sailors, Jane and Alan Kelvey, have since said they don’t want the incident “blown out of proportion” and “don’t want world war three to start” over it.
All’s well that ends well, right?
Not according to British news media, which went into instant hysterics over the incident. “Putin’s ship opens fire,” roared the Daily Express. GB News called the incident a “Russian Navy attack” on Britain.
But I’ll leave you with The Sun’s take, which was as calm and measured as ever…
Why would the Russians want Starmer dead? He's doing a better job of wrecking the country than any army ever could.
Great piece… This story is so ridiculous not even the fiercely anti-Russian Telegraph readers could swallow it. Jokes in the comments abounded. Would love to know the truth of this bizarre tale though. Why did two Ukrainian male models set fire to a car Starmer no longer owned, and places he used to live?