By Marcus Pabian

As an audience member on the ABC’s current affairs programme Q+A, Russian-Australian student Sasha Gillies-Lekakis was no-platformed for asking a question that challenged the dominant pro-Ukraine / pro-NATO narrative. Live on national television Q+A host Stan Grant ejected Gillies-Lekakis from the studio during a March 2022 episode titled “Putin’s War”.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has more recently, again, come under intense criticism over what Antoinette Lattouf describes as the racist and illegal termination of her employment as a Sydney based radio news presenter – now being contested in the federal court. “Antoinette Lattouf is the first Australian journalist to be sacked for communicating a fact…” according to her lawyers. The Lebanese Australian journalist shared a tweet from Human Rights Watch alleging Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.

To understand more about how the ABC’s censorship works and to uncover the backstory of his brave defiance of the stifling conformism with NATO’s war drive and racist hysteria that the ABC helps to cultivate, Sasha Gillies-Lekakis spoke with Marcus Pabian for Red Ant.

—

MP: Sasha, on Thursday March 3, 2022, you were an audience member on the ABC program Q+A, which was addressing the war in Ukraine. The war had started the previous week. How did you first discover that Q+A would be covering the Ukraine war?

SG-L: I actually heard about this from a mate of mine, who said: “Hey Sash, they’re going to cover Russia-Ukraine” – he knows that I’m half Russian, very interested, very passionate about this particular issue. It started off as a bit of a joke: “Imagine if you went on and asked a question that went a little bit against the grain.” I thought, you know, why not? At the very least I’ll submit a question.

MP: The host seems to know the audience and their questions well. Could you describe the process that you personally went through to become an audience member with what’s called a “vetted” question?

SG-L: All questions are vetted. There’s quite a lengthy process. I originally submitted a draft of the question. The ABC said, “Your question is being considered for this panel on Russia-Ukraine.” But they had some changes that they required from me. The bits they suggested I get rid of were making reference to the Azov Battalion, or related Nazi units, that fight with the Ukrainian armed forces. So, I got rid of those. They said, “Yes that’s good.” They sent me the rest of the procedure for the night. They said, “Arrive at this time, you’ll have a quick security check and then you’ll go and wait in the back of the studio with the other people who are going to ask questions.” Just before we went into the studio, I was asked again to change my question slightly. In particular, they asked me to make some changes to the part where I spoke about UN statistics on the number of civilian casualties over the past eight years in Donbas.

MP: Does everyone in the audience get a chance to ask their question?

SG-L: Provided your question has been accepted, and vetted and approved, yes. To my understanding, I think with maybe one other exception in the history of Q+A, I’m the only person who hasn’t been able to finish their question.

MP: Would you say there was a balance of viewpoints during the first part of the program, before it was your turn?

SG-L: Definitely not. I was the only dissenting voice that didn’t go along with the mainstream narrative. All the others were pro-Ukraine, pro-NATO, pro-Western, pro this narrative of pushing for this war, pushing for the escalation of the conflict. There was even a question or discussion of trying to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine similar to what was done in Libya. Really kind of worrying calls for escalations of this sort between NATO and the Russian Federation. There was not a balance of viewpoints.

MP: What was your vetted question to the Q+A panel?

SG-L: This is what was approved for me to ask on the night: “As someone who is Russian themselves, or as a member of the Russian community in Australia, I’ve been deeply concerned by the narrative created by Western media depicting Ukraine as the ‘good guy’ and Russia as the ‘bad guy’. Believe it or not there are many Russians here and around the world that support Putin and what he’s doing in Ukraine, myself included. Since 2014, Ukraine has besieged the Russian populations in Donetsk and Lugansk unprovoked, killing an estimated 13,000 people, in flagrant violation of the Minsk Agreements. Where was your concern and outpouring of grief for those thousands of Russians? Do you not see that hypocrisy in your position by ignoring the terrible violence perpetrated by the Ukraine, which to many Russians seems perfect justification for Putin to intervene?” The only thing I changed on the night was that section, ‘since 2014 Ukraine’, I added ‘and the Azov battalion’, that’s the only thing I changed on the night. That is the reason they said I got kicked off.

MP: What happened when the host, Stan Grant, asked you to deliver that question?

SG-L: I think I got up to “killing an estimated 13,000.” I was heckled throughout the question by the audience. They weren’t asked to stop, but I continued, I did my best. Then Stan Grant told me to stop, so, I stopped asking my question and sat there for another 20 minutes, the discussion moved on. My question wasn’t really addressed by anyone, and then I was removed.

MP: Later on in the program, Stan Grant removed you from the audience saying that you, “advocated violence”. Do you think your contribution was misrepresented?

SG-L: I knew this was going to be an unpopular view in Australia and particularly in this audience considering who was running the panel. We were in an Australian government state media institution (the ABC), but I definitely think it was misrepresented. I’d never walk back on this, I do support Putin and the intervention, no one wants war, but this is a war to stop killing that has already been ongoing for eight years. As I mentioned in the question, those ethnic Russian-speakers, who did nothing except dispute an illegal takeover of their country in 2014, the Maidan, they’ve been living under siege for eight years. The means are difficult to reconcile, no one wants conflict and killing, but it’s extremely hypocritical for people to accuse me of advocating violence when they’ve ignored violence for the past eight years and they’re now calling for an escalation of this conflict. They were talking about no-fly zones, pumping weapons into Ukraine, to drag this conflict out as long as possible, a week after the conflict had started, that sort of rhetoric was being employed.

MP: The Ukrainian Azov battalion was founded in 2014 by Andriy Biletsky, shortly after the Maidan. Biletsky stated that their purpose was to, “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival.” The Azov battalion has since been incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces. Were you ever asked by Q+A to edit your original question to remove a reference to the Azov battalion? And, why do you think they did that?

SG-L: I think this, maybe, was at the core of the controversy of what happened because I did add those two words, “Azov battalion”, into the question. I did have that in my original submission, but it was suggested that I remove it. The only bit that was put in red by the ABC was both sections that specifically mentioned the Azov battalion. So, clearly, they didn’t want that to be mentioned. I did, some might say stupidly, decide to include it, because it’s the truth. You can’t deny that this group exists and operates as a part of the Ukrainian armed forces – it just does. That was what was going through my mind when I decided to say it in the spur of the moment. That was a step too far for them. They said, “adding those two words now means this is a question that wasn’t vetted”, and I was removed.

They received quite a lot of complaints, about kicking me off, from the general public. Because it’s meant to be a debate program, a question-and-answer program, and one of the questions that actually was different to the others got kicked off, and couldn’t even be finished properly. In their defence, the ABC statement said, “The question that was asked was not vetted, and therefore Stan Grant decided to remove him and the ABC supports that decision.” But the last speaker was given the chance to speak freehand for the entirety of their question, in response to Stan Grant, so there’s just incredible hypocrisy going on from that perspective. It was so controversial that I included Azov Battalion. I think that’s because this raises some really uncomfortable questions about who the West and NATO are supporting. If you dig any deeper you begin to uncover what the Azov battalion represents, what they’ve done in the Donbas, what their ideology is related to – Nazism, fascism. Do a bit more digging and you realise Azov isn’t the only far-right Nazi or fascist group that is involved in supporting Ukraine and is officially integrated into the Ukrainian armed forces, or into the Ukrainian political body. Then you keep on going and you realise this conflict is not as clear cut as our media would like us to believe.

MP: Do you know anyone who lives in the Donbas?

SG-L: My Russian family is originally from Crimea, and also a village that sits on the border of Donbas and Russia. They’re all Russian regions, just to give you an idea geographically. I’ve never been there myself, but my Nan has friends, relatives, that are still there. And a lot of acquaintances of ours too, also have friends and family in that region, or who used to live in that region. My connection is not as direct, through my Nan I hear what is happening to them, and from her friends as well, I get to hear a bit about the experience.

MP: What have they told you about the struggle in the Donbas before February 2022?

SG-L: When people talk about Russia-Ukraine, they say, “It began in 2022.” But it didn’t, it began in 2014. It began when there was an elected President Viktor Yanukovych. People can say that [the election] was fraud; we’ll never know 100% but he was certainly more legitimate than the Maidan uprising that overthrew him and unilaterally seized power. There was all manner of US and NATO and European Union support for that movement to overthrow Yanukovych and install this pro-Western, pro-NATO government (which was supported militarily by groups like Azov battalion, by these far-right organisations).

The eastern portion of Ukraine has always been Russian speaking, the majority is also ethnically Russian. It’s called Russkiy Mir, which means the Russian world. Yanukovych was popular in that part of Ukraine, [so] they decided to rise up and resist this illegal takeover in Kiev. Ever since then, since 2014, there has been a state of siege over the Donbas, of Donetsk and Lugansk, the two regions that make up Donbas. People have been running in-and-out of bomb shelters, kids have been killed, we have seen all sorts or terrible atrocities. I want to mention, groups like the Azov Battalion have a very cruel streak when it comes to dealing with these people, because they do view Russians as sub-human. They have stated it very publicly that that is part of their ideology. They call Russians “orcs”, all these very derogatory racist names, and in particular their treatment of Russians when they’re captured in this conflict has been horrific. So, it’s been a war, there is no other way to put it. Some people say it’s “low intensity”: it’s all well and good to say that when you’re not there, but it is very much a war, and it’s been like that for eight years prior to 2022. So, that’s what I would say has been told to me, relayed to me, that is the experience of people living in that region.

MP: In Australia, the Ukraine war is often presented as an act of pure aggression by Russia, and Russian President Vladimir Putin in particular. Did you feel nervous about challenging that narrative so publicly?

SG-L: Prior to actually entering the studio, not so much. I didn’t fully understand the situation I would be in, surrounded by hostile voices, hostile opinions, and on national television. But, once I actually sat in the studio, and the program started I did get nervous, I actually did get very nervous in there, because the gravity of that situation sort of began to dawn on me.

MP: What gave you the conviction that making an unpopular public stand was important at that time?

SG-L: Firstly, I am half-Russian and even in that first week of the Russian-Ukraine war I was really shocked to see the level of Russophobia. Things were being said about my nationality, my family’s nationality, my Nan’s nationality, that were really awful. People saying, “Oh, Russians should just be killed,” in comments sections of some news articles. You can still find them, it’s very easy. “The Russian mentality is just backwards”: if you said it about most other ethnicities, you would be shocked, affronted, you would call someone out for it for being racist. That got me quite angry, upset. When I saw this opportunity, I thought, well I’ll give the other side. This really is one of the defining moments in terms of wider political changes in the world, this Russia-Ukraine conflict. The economic changes that we’re seeing in the world, this gradual push towards de-dollarisation, Russia delinking from the SWIFT system, delinking from the US dollar system from international financial institutions, to me is a really critical moment – not just for Russia, not just for Europe, not just for America, but for the whole world. I thought, hopefully my contribution would make some people think a bit differently, because we can’t go back to the way things were before.  That was the other reason – what I think is the importance of this event for the world.

MP: John Mearsheimer, a Professor of International Relations from the University of Chicago in the US, and an advocate of the Offensive Realism school of thought, has stated that the US bears primary responsibility for the Ukraine war due to the US attempting to expand NATO toward Russia’s borders and by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO. What do you think of this perspective?

SG-L: John Mearsheimer makes quite a good analysis of this situation, particularly the origin, how it led up to this and contributed to the escalation of this conflict. Look at history: [the] Soviet Union collapsed in the 90s, the US is now the single world hegemon. Up until 2000, 2001, Russia sank into anonymity, it was really a shadow of its former self, and lost a lot of international influence, [it] had that terrible free-for-all capitalism that most of the post-Soviet world is well known for and has experienced, very sadly. Then we have Putin, who has this more nationalistic vision for Russia, who restores the economy, Russia’s international influence: it’s incredible because in those early years Putin was in favour of better relations with the EU, was in favour of Russia even potentially joining NATO, or the European Union, to try and create these more favourable economic relations with Europe and with the United States.

But the US always saw Russia as a competitor, or as a potential competitor, and there were certain red lines that Russia would never allow the US to cross, regardless of whether or not they were trying to have a good relationship with Washington. And the US kept on doing it. The US promised, without a written agreement, promised verbally, that NATO would not expand towards Russia. Now it’s right up on Russia’s border. There are missiles in Poland aimed at Moscow, and there are missiles in Romania aimed at Moscow. They have now been gearing up Ukraine for the very same thing. Angela Merkel even admitted as much in December 2022, when she was interviewed by Der Spiegel about the Minsk Agreements, about Ukraine being armed for the purposes of attacking Donbas and attacking Russia. She said: “The 2014 Minsk [peace] agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time […] to become stronger”.

If you just take 2022 in isolation, Russia can be seen as the aggressor, but that’s just a fantasy-land interpretation of it. You have to look at the decades and decades and decades of NATO encroachment, of arming these former Soviet countries that are now very anti-Russia, or their elites are at the very least. Look at how the US reacted with the Cuban missile crisis, when missiles were placed in Cuba on the US’s front doorstep it was almost a nuclear war. Compare that to what Russia has done for the past 20 years, [which] seems pretty tame by comparison. Most of it was Putin trying to get the peace agreements to work, trying to do things through a negotiated settlement. He said as much and that’s what the history demonstrates. But the other side was not negotiating in good faith. The other side always had this ulterior motive of continuing to contain Russia and encroach upon Russia’s border, and eventually deal some sort of geostrategic defeat to it. I think that’s now what they’re trying to do with the Ukraine conflict, drag it out as long as possible so that Russia is eventually defeated or mired in this endless conflict that ruins its economy. I think Mearsheimer has said similar things, or components of what I’ve just said, in his analyses. So, yes, I definitely agree with what he says on this conflict.

MP: In 2020, a couple of years before the Q+A program, Stan Grant was made a Senior Fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which is funded by the Defence Department and the defence industry. Soon after, he played an important role hosting panel discussions of keynote speakers at their conference called Strategic Vision 2020. To help promote the conference Stan Grant spoke with ASPI’s Executive Director Peter Jennings on the podcast called Policy, Guns and Money in July of that year. The conference itself was funded by French weapons manufacturer Thales. Did you know Stan Grant had these connections with the defence industry?

SG-L: Prior to Q+A, I knew he was part of ASPI. I knew that was like an Australian defence department think tank. What you’ve just told me about is news to me. We’ll never know how much bearing this had on Stan’s decision.

MP: Sasha, what advice would you give to people who are trying to get a more rounded understanding of the Ukraine war?

SG-L: When you see someone, for example John Mearsheimer, offering this analysis that doesn’t gel with our mainstream news, the Western, NATO, narrative, don’t just discard it as Russian disinformation, as Russian propaganda. I think that’s a really infantile attack that is often employed to just shut down any discussion. Listen to what people like Mearsheimer have to say, read what they have to say. You might conclude it’s rubbish, that’s fine, you might not think it’s useful, you might not think it’s true, but have a look at it. Other people as well, the late John Pilger, an Australian, he was quite even handed on this situation, he was quite against the Western, NATO, narrative. People like Pepe Escobar – he’s someone who travels, he considers himself a journalist nomad, he travels across Central Asia, Russia, to interview people, and again he has a really unique insight as a result. News sites like the Grayzone, which is an independent journalist site: you might come to the conclusion that you don’t agree with them, or you think that they’re wrong and that’s fine, but listen to what they have to say. Don’t just discount them out of hand because you are doing yourself a disservice. At the very least you owe it to yourself to at least try and understand where these people are coming from, where people like me are coming from. Even if you don’t agree with it. Otherwise we will just keep being stuck in what I consider to be this fantasy understanding of the situation with the Russia-Ukraine war. That’s what I would say.

Sasha Gillies-Lekakis is a member of the Russian community in Australia, completing a PhD studying Cuban health and education cooperation with Pacific Island countries at Melbourne University. Marcus Pabian is a friend of Red Ant, with an interest in social change and Marxist politics. The views expressed in this interview do not represent those off the Red Ant Collective.

Further reading

Antoinette Lattouf escalates legal battle against ABC with new federal court claim (Guardian)

Secret WhatsApp messages show co-ordinated campaign to oust Antoinette Lattouf from ABC

Tate, J.W. (2023), “No-Platforming”: Freedom of Speech and the Australian Public Sphere. Aust J Politics Hist. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12888