Putin and the Missing Children: The Big Western Lie

Gillian Schutte The West claims Putin stole Ukrainian children while they remain silent on Ukraine’s own conduct. Russian-speaking families forced into basements before buildings are detonated are caught on video yet dismissed without examination. Thousands of children vanished through Ukraine’s undocumented evacuation routes with no official records or follow-up. These realities are denied because they contradict the narrative required to sustain Western geopolitical strategy. The dominant Western line on the war in Ukraine has been repeated so consistently that it is now treated as fact, not claim: Russia is stealing Ukrainian children. The ICC’s arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin is presented as the final proof that this is a crime committed with intent, organisation and state-level authority . The ICC alleges that Putin “is responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children), and unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation,” citing Articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute. The charge states there are “reasonable grounds” to believe he bears individual criminal responsibility “for committing the acts directly, jointly with others, through others,” and through failure to control subordinates. This is a serious accusation — but it is being circulated without allowing the public to hear the surrounding facts. The depth of the charges is framed as proof of guilt rather than what they are: allegations — shaped through the same geopolitical filter that has defined every stage of this war. To understand what is missing, one must begin with the point that Western media and governments refuse to address: Russia keeps a paper trail. Russia is bureaucratic by history, culture and system. It documented under Tsars, under the Soviet state, and under the Federation. When Russia relocates people — refugees, the elderly, prisoners, or children — documentation follows the action. It may be slow and heavy but administration is the default setting of the state. When children were moved out of front-line towns, Russia recorded: Whether one approves or disapproves of the relocation, a documented process exists. Regional authorities have presented files, case summaries, and return events publicly. The system exists because bureaucracy is Russia’s official mode — and the global community knows this. intake interviews names and birth dates medical details school placements guardianship forms family identification records of return Yet the same Western media ecosystem that demands proof dismisses the paperwork because Russia produced it. Evidence becomes labelled propaganda; documentation is treated as deception; the existence of records becomes suspicious rather than informative. Meanwhile Ukraine’s paperwork is not demanded at all, despite the scale of unregulated child movement during the first year of war. Millions fled the country through fractured corridors. Thousands of minors crossed borders: unaccompanied with neighbours or volunteers with unrelated adults or into informal placement networks Local records offices collapsed. Emergency evacuations happened without standard administrative tracking. Databases crashed. Files burned. NGO handovers were undocumented. European placements varied from regulated to ad hoc. There is no Western demand to audit Ukraine’s recordkeeping. No ongoing tribunal. No headline campaign asking: Where are the children who left Ukraine and were never tracked again?Who was responsible for monitoring them?Which government holds the files?Which NGOs lost them?Where are the names, the paperwork, the follow-up checks? The narrative only asks: Where are the children Russia relocated?It never asks: Where are the children who left Ukraine? This selective outrage exposes the core issue: this is not about child protection; it is about narrative control. Western press coverage has created a one-dimensional war: Russia — the perpetratorUkraine — the victimNATO — the rescuer Any fact that disrupts this alignment is excluded. Consider the basement footage. There is war media that shows Ukrainian units forcing Russian speaking civilians into basements in tactical contexts that have resulted in those buildings being shelled or detonated by them. This is seen on broadcasts in the Donbas region, outside NATO’s information pipeline. The interpretation of those scenes is never allowed to be publicly questioned inside Western media space. The cause is assigned immediately; the explanation is decided before analysis. And it is never in Russia’s favour. And no Western media ever points out that on the Russian side, strict military protocols exist regarding civilian engagement. Whether the West accepts this or not, the enforcement record shows internal disciplinary action, removals, and prosecutions of soldiers who act outside of these protocols. Ukraine, however, has moved into worsening conditions of corruption and human rights abuse that reach Zelensky’s office and inner circle. Arms trafficking, extortion, forced conscription, black-market weapons pipelines and unexplained assassinations have been documented by sources that the same media chooses to bury or minimise. Yet the public is still told to believe that Ukraine represents democratic purity while Russia represents criminal impulsivity. The contradiction is clear: Ukraine’s documented misconduct does not alter the Western script because the script serves strategy, not accuracy. The ICC warrant must also be understood within this context. The Court did not issue warrants for NATO leaders who authorised Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or the bombing of Yugoslavia without UN approval. Civilian deaths caused by Western forces never resulted in Western heads of state being named, charged or pursued. When the ICC investigated the US, Washington threatened economic retaliation, revoked visas, and openly intimidated ICC staff. The message was blatant: the ICC has jurisdiction where Western power approves, and nowhere else. That does not mean the charges against Putin should not be examined. Indeedxit must be because it will prove how ludicrous the charges are. But it is imperative that his examination must take place in a framework that is consistent, neutral and universal — not selectively applied to suit geopolitical aims. South Africa’s position adds another layer. Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent blind signing of Western-aligned agreements shows how easily post-colonial states are drawn into the orbit of Empire through diplomatic pressure, donor leverage, debt mechanisms and foreign policy incentives. Instead of acting as an independent voice within BRICS, Ramaphosa has signalled compliance with US and EU strategic interests without public mandate

Reclaiming the United Nations from Western Decline.

By Gillian Schutte In 2025, on the eve of the United Nations’ 80th anniversary, a growing chorus of Western voices is declaring the organisation obsolete. The critique, echoed uncritically in South African liberal media, laments the “ineffectiveness” and “paralysis” of the UN, suggesting that its time has passed in a rapidly shifting world order. What is striking, however, is that this apparent concern for global governance is being deployed at the moment when the West is losing its grip on that governance. The narrative, rather than being rooted in a desire for democratisation, is shaped by anxiety over the collapse of Western exceptionalism. The Russian Federation has responded by reaffirming its support for the UN, but with a clear call for reform. This reform is not cosmetic. It involves expanding the power of the Global Majority while resisting the return to a world dictated by NATO coalitions and closed-door Western interests. This position, presented in the liberal press as opportunistic, is in fact grounded in both history and realpolitik. It recognises the UN’s contradictory nature. It was born from anti-fascist resistance and post-war consensus, but later hijacked by unipolar ambitions during the Cold War and the consolidation of neoliberalism. The United Nations was founded as a post-war mechanism to prevent another global catastrophe. It embodied the hope for international law, collective responsibility, and the protection of sovereignty. The “decolonisation” of Africa and Asia in the mid-20th century was legitimised in part by the UN Charter. It offered, however imperfectly, a platform for the dispossessed to speak. Yet from its inception, the UN was structurally skewed. The Security Council’s composition, with five permanent members holding veto power, enshrined the hierarchy of “victors” from World War II – an imbalance that meant that while former colonies could speak in the General Assembly, they could never dictate terms in the Security Council. This imperial architecture was later exploited during the Cold War, most aggressively by the United States in the post-Soviet era. What the Russian critique acknowledges, and what many African analysts echo, is that the UN became a tool of unipolar domination in the 1990s and early 2000s. Humanitarian interventions became a euphemism for regime change. UN bodies were captured to serve neoliberal agendas. Development was reduced to IMF diktats, and peacekeeping mandates protected Western economic interests over local sovereignty. The West’s current disillusionment with the UN stems from the erosion of its ability to control the narrative. When the UN fails to rubber-stamp NATO interventions or US foreign policy, it is deemed ineffective. When Russia or China exercise their veto rights, it is labelled as paralysis. Yet the same veto was tolerated, even ignored, when it was used by the United States to shield Israel from accountability or to justify illegal wars. This hypocrisy has reached fever pitch in the context of Ukraine and Gaza. The UN’s attempts at consensus have been sabotaged by US-led bloc politics. When the General Assembly condemns Israeli aggression, the US invokes its veto. When Russia challenges NATO expansion, it is accused of imperialism. This takes place while NATO continues its own undeclared wars through economic sanctions, proxy forces, and disinformation. In this climate, the Western call for reform rings false. While pretending to seek democratisation, it seeks the removal of obstacles to Western domination instead. The push to abolish or dilute the veto is less about accountability and more about ensuring that no counter-hegemonic bloc can halt the Western agenda. The Russian position does not reject reform. On the contrary, it calls for a more representative UN. This includes reforming the Security Council to reflect the multipolar realities of the 21st century. Russia has consistently backed the inclusion of African, Asian, and Latin American nations as permanent members of the Security Council. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has emphasised that African nations must not only have a seat at the table. They must also have permanent status that reflects their role in global politics and history. Unlike the Western reformers, Russia does not call for the dismantling of the veto. It calls for its preservation as a stabilising mechanism. This is not regressive. It is a brake on militarism and economic coercion. Without the veto, the world would already have seen direct NATO engagement in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and beyond. In addition, Russia’s call to reform the UN is consistent with its broader doctrine of multipolarity. It rejects the notion of a single rules-based order imposed from Washington or Brussels. It champions a world of sovereign civilisations with diverse pathways to development, governance, and culture. This resonates with the Global South, which has suffered under the homogenising violence of liberalism presented as democracy. South African Liberal Media and the Betrayal of Sovereignty In this context, the repetition of Western anti-UN narratives in South African media is not only disappointing. It is dangerous. To declare the UN obsolete without interrogating whose interests that serves is to function as a mouthpiece for empire. It is to forget the role the UN played in challenging apartheid, in opposing colonialism, and in advocating for non-aligned voices. South African liberal media, shaped by donor money and Western ideological assumptions, has long been complicit in constructing narratives that align with global capital and undermine African agency. Its attack on the UN is another example of its alignment with elite global interests masquerading as progressive critique. It ignores the broader movement in the Global South for a reformed but preserved multilateral order. It ignores the desire for sovereignty to be restored without returning to the logic of Western-led governance. The question is not whether the UN is flawed. The question is whether we abandon multilateralism and return to a world of unilateral coercion. That world is shaped by coalitions of the willing, where bombing precedes dialogue and sanctions replace diplomacy. Russia’s position, whether one agrees with its geopolitical strategy or not, represents a clear alternative. It calls for the preservation of multilateralism, the reform of international structures, and the restoration of a