Arsongate’s missing piece: Before you blame Russia, read this

After the verdict, Britain’s media machine rushed to blame Moscow – despite investigators admitting they had no proof of state involvement A coordinated UK media campaign surrounding a Ukraine-linked arson plot cannot hide the obvious holes in the story Britain wants you to believe. After over a year of mounting mystery, fevered speculation, and strange media silence, a UK court has finally reached a verdict in the bizarre case of ‘Arsongate’. In May 2025, a series of incendiary attacks were carried out on a car and two London properties linked to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. On June 15, two young Ukrainians were convicted over the fires, while another was acquitted. The case against the guilty pair seems open and shut. But for many, something doesn’t feel right. Read more Britain bought the keys to Ukraine’s nuclear future – what’s next? How did prosecutors manipulate the Arsongate trial? The unconvinced include the lawyer of Petro Pochynok, the 34-year-old arrested in June 2025 on charges of conspiring with fellow Ukrainian nationals Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Stanislav Carpiuc, 26. Pochynok walked free. The other two were convicted of damaging property by fire and reckless endangerment of human life. On June 16, Pocynok’s defense counsel remarked on ‘X’ , “I still find my head pickled over what real underlying truths were never exposed.” In fact, it was very clear what underlying truths were not exposed during the trial - by court order. When proceedings began in May this year, with Lavrynovych and Carpiuc having spent close to 12 months in the UK’s high security Belmarsh prison, prosecution lawyers dramatically announced the arson attacks on Starmer’s old property had been orchestrated online by a shady Russian-speaking Telegram user, “EL Money” . However, jurors were then told to completely disregard this literally explosive information when reaching a verdict on the three accused.

There are obvious echoes of the recent trial of Palestine Action activists in the UK, where the presiding judge – who had previously represented MI6 in court – ruled that jurors couldn’t consider why the activists committed the crimes of which they were accused. Unable to argue in court that their actions were proportionate to prevent slaughter in Gaza, the Actionists were convicted for lengthy terms as terrorists. © Metropolitan Police Why did Arsongate judge rule key information ‘irrelevant’? “It is not part of your considerations ​to decide who ‘EL Money’ is and what reason he might have had to co-ordinate the actions of ​these defendants,” the chief prosecutor said. Defense lawyers attempted to breach this conspiracy of silence, demanding prosecutors hand over all information they held on El Money. They were specifically interested in whether he might be a spy, and his country of residence. However, the judge ruled these crucial matters to be “wholly irrelevant” to any issues before the jury. In summing up, prosecution lawyers claimed EL Money was “seeking to destabilize our society,” but went on to remind the jury it wasn’t their job to determine who EL Money might be, or what motivations they might have had. Lavrynovych’s lawyer still tried to place questions about EL Money - “the anonymous devil who manipulated, used and won” - on record. Calling EL Money the “one winner in this case,” they suggested the anonymous Telegram user could be a Russian agent. Read more Britain’s rape gangs: Here’s what’s in the report the mainstream media is ignoring “What do we know about him? Nothing. Where’s he from? Who might have an interest in trying to undermine this country, undermine this country’s support of Ukraine, who a