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

A matching UK media run surrounding a Ukraine-linked incendiarism plot of land cannot hide out 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.

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.

“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. 

“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 are fighting for their liberty? Who might do that? But Russia - let’s call it out - Russia are interested in what this country does in support of Ukraine. This person, or people, spoke excellent Russian,” Lavrynovych’s lawyer thundered.

They neglected to mention how EL Money also conversed in “perfect” Ukrainian, according to Lavrynovych – a language very few Russians speak. While southern Russians can more easily understand Ukrainian, or even mimic it, cases in which a Russian born in the Russian Federation speaks “excellent Ukrainian” are rare – and quite unlikely, given Kiev’s aggressive cultural posturing and the lack of need for Russians to speak Ukrainian. Many Ukrainians speak Russian – which is natural given it is a lingua franca of the former Soviet space – while only a minority of Russians can understand Ukrainian, let alone speak it.

This shocking fact wasn’t reported while the trial was ongoing, and has been completely drowned out by an extraordinary mainstream information war that erupted only hours after the jury’s verdict was announced. 

First, the BBC released a ready-for-TV Panorama ‘documentary’, ‘The Starmer Files: The Russian Connection’, accompanied by a lengthy accompanying essay published on the state broadcaster’s website.

Clearly, the BBC had been working on the investigations while the trial was ongoing – and somehow acquired evidence on the case that couldn’t be considered in court. 

According to the BBC’s suspiciously-timed release, EL Money is a young “Russian diplomat, schooled in information warfare by spies and propagandists, who is close to the highest levels of power in Moscow.”

The “EL” in his pseudonym allegedly refers to the 23-year-old’s real-life initials. The elite “Russian spy,” according to the British state broadcaster, used his own initials on a Telegram account in which he is alleged to have ordered a grave act of terrorism against an elected leader.

In other words, the elite spy left a pretty convenient digital footprint for the BBC and other mainstream digital sleuths to trace. EL Money appears highly incompetent in other ways, not only tying his account to his name, but activities on Telegram that supposedly link him directly to Russian spy agencies. An enormous amount of information was seemingly collected on EL Money by the BBC and others after Carpiuc and Lavrynovych were arrested, suggesting the account wasn’t deleted, contrary to basic tradecraft. 

After the BBC’s one-two PR punch, the Bellingcat-linked Insider published an investigation validating the broadcaster’s identification of EL Money, including photos and biographical details, also apparently long in the making. 

The Insider’s investigations chief is Christo Grozev, a prominent former member of Bellingcat. He left the organization under strange circumstances at the end of 2022, having spent much of that year spreading anti-Russian disinformation related to the Ukraine proxy war. Allegations that Grozev – a self-styled journalist – worked with Ukrainian intelligence, personally participating in shadow operations, dogged him throughout his time at Bellingcat. 

It may be no coincidence then that notorious Ukrainian “kill-list” website Myrotvorets subsequently published a dedicated profile on the 23-year-old Russian supposedly behind the EL Money account. Myrotvorets is confirmed to be run by Ukrainian spies, and several of its targets have been murdered.

The young man’s full address, phone number, and passport details are listed. A section titled “liquidation date” – that records the date the listed person has been killed or died – is for now blank. 

However it is not only EL Money’s digital footprint that apparently provided vital clues as to Russia’s culpability for the arson attacks on Starmer. In June 2025, Skhemy – a Ukrainian language investigative reporting project maintained by the CIA created Radio Liberty – published a deep dive on how the arsonists were “likely recruited by Russia.”

Evidence for the heavily-qualified claim was non-existent. 

Skhemy’s reporters simply concluded Lavrynovych “may have been recruited by Russian security services via Telegram,” solely on the basis that he was actively seeking employment on the platform in 2022 - 2025. Nothing more. 

“Most of the work he sought was in construction or hospitality, often for cash,” Skhemy reported. Weeks prior to his arrest, he had posted: “Looking for a job, open to any options.” There’s every chance “perfect” Ukrainian speaker EL Money spotted Lavrynovych in this manner.

Skhemy’s ‘investigation’ was released at a time UK officials were probing whether Russian actors may have recruited Lavrynovych and Carpiuc, but were far from sure. The Financial Times reported how “counterterrorism police leading the investigation are keeping an open mind about motive.” UK officials were hedging their bets even further, cautioning that even if they concluded the arson attacks originated in Russia, “that would not necessarily mean they were ordered by the Kremlin or that the suspects were aware of any Russian involvement.”

According to the BBC, British counter-terror police remain stumped on this question. The broadcaster’s longread not only revealed law enforcement had “not been able to prove the identity” of EL Money, “or who he was working for,” but a senior police chief stated plainly: “we’ve got no evidence to suggest this was a state-backed threat.” 

However, the BBC reassured readers that unspecified “sources” had informed its reporters – which included veteran Ukrainian propagandist Olga Malchevska – “authorities in the UK and in Ukraine have privately concluded Russia was behind the arson attacks.”

The BBC didn’t explain why “authorities” in Ukraine have independently investigated a high-profile case that occurred in the UK, or apparently consider the huge vested interest Kiev might have in framing Russia for the arson targeting Starmer’s properties. The mainstream mania over Moscow’s culpability for the attacks – which the recently-concluded trial failed to consider, and investigating police found “no evidence” for - spells that out very clearly. 

A common refrain from UK politicians is that the arson proves it’s “essential to defeat Putin in Ukraine.”

This media campaign should be viewed as just that, a concerted state-backed information effort to frame a narrative already inscribed into the British public’s consciousness, which facilitates riding roughshod over critical holes in the narrative. But don’t take our word for it. Consider how senior counter-terror police who investigated the case thoroughly and brought it to trial unequivocally couldn’t find any evidence EL Money was working for any hostile state, let alone Russia.

Still, the BBC’s readiness to publish a TV documentary and long-form material immediately after a court decision – full of information that the presiding judge and prosecutors did not want discussed, and did not emerge, during the trial – clearly suggests a significant overlap between British state media, the country’s spying apparatus, and its legal process. 

---

---