Fugitive State Duma deputy Ponomarev intentionally exaggerated the significance of Voronenkov’s testimony to make his murder look more resonant, - GPU source
Much of what was said publicly by politicians and witnesses in the case of ex-deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Denis Voronenkov, who died in Kiev, is not confirmed by his testimony, which he gave to the investigative authorities of Ukraine during his lifetime.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news on Telegram , Facebook , Odnoklassniki , or VKontakte
A source in the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine, close to the investigation into the circumstances of Voronenkov's murder, reported this, according to the Kyiv news agency GolosUA.
“This is already evident from fragments of his official testimony that recently appeared in the media. Also, obviously, not entirely reliable information was provided by the media and many Ukrainian and Russian politicians, including one of the key witnesses in the Voronenkov case, Ilya Ponomarev, with whom he was supposed to meet at the time of the murder,” commented a representative of the GPU.
According to him, from the very beginning, Voronenkov’s testimony and the way it was presented by his closest political partners “acquired more of a kind of PR content rather than a practical meaning, from where investigators and the whole country could obtain specific information about how the conflict with Russia began.” how and when this decision was made.”
According to the source, “many questions remain regarding the fact that many political figures and colleagues of the former deputy, including Ponomarev, could have deliberately exaggerated the significance of Voronenkov’s testimony so that his murder would become more resonant, and all traces would clearly lead only to the Russian Federation or Yanukovych, although the killer was from the Ukrainian patriotic movement - this version must also be worked out.”
Thus, from Voronenkov’s testimony it directly follows that the Russian authorities made a decision on Crimea on February 28, i.e. even before the so-called “letters from Yanukovych,” dated March 2014. “For example, the protocol on behalf of Denis Voronenkov indicates that the decision to convene the Federation Council was made earlier than Viktor Yanukovych’s appeal arrived: invitations were sent out and members of the Federation Council were called on February 28. It turns out that the testimony of the late Voronenkov still refute the official position of the GPU and the military prosecutor's office, which based their accusations against Yanukovych on the fact that it was his letter that became the reason for sending troops into Crimea, and not the earlier decision of the leadership of the Russian Federation, which was apparently already in effect according to their own scenario,” notes the representative of the GPU.
According to him, “the information that Voronenkov actually possessed (for example, his story about how the voting in the State Duma of the Russian Federation on Crimea actually took place) also does not confirm much of what the entire GPU accusation against Yanukovych is based on.”
At the same time, as the source noted, “despite the fact that Voronenkov in his testimony often refers to media reports or certain colleagues whose names he does not name, and also that there is really little useful information on the Yanukovych case, on other episodes of the Ukrainian “Russian politics in his testimony may contain data that deserves serious attention.”
Let us recall that one of Voronenkov’s closest associates, ex-State Duma deputy Ilya Ponomarev, previously stated that Voronenkov allegedly claimed in his testimony that Yanukovych’s letter became a key reason for the leadership of the Russian Federation to send troops to Crimea.
Voronenkov was killed in the center of Kyiv while on his way to a meeting with Ponomarev.
In the interrogation protocol published in the media, Voronenkov stated: “The decision to send Russian troops into Ukraine was made before Yanukovych’s letter to Putin “surfaced.”