Exclusive: Russia Withdraws Some Forces From Ukraine in Response to Kursk Invasion

SUMY, Ukraine—Russia is withdrawing some of its military forces from Ukraine to respond to a Ukrainian offensive into Russian territory, U.S. officials said, the first sign that Kyiv’s incursion is forcing Moscow to rejigger its invasion force.

The officials said the U.S. is still seeking to determine the significance of Russia’s move and didn’t say how many troops the U.S. assesses Russia is shifting. But the new U.S. assessment bolsters claims by Ukrainian officials who said last week’s surprise invasion of Kursk province had drawn Russian forces away from Ukraine, where Moscow’s advantage in manpower and equipment is allowing them to grind forward in several places.

Ukraine, meanwhile, sent tanks and other armored vehicles to reinforce troops that have stunned the Kremlin by seizing a chunk of Russian territory.

Ukraine says its forces have seized control of 386 square miles of Russian territory after it launched a surprise armored incursion into Russia’s Kursk region.

Ukrainian forces have advanced at least 20 miles into Russian territory since launching the surprise assault last week, quickly overrunning the lightly defended border. Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered his military and security forces to eject Kyiv’s military, but Russia is struggling to mount a coherent response.

On Tuesday, a Ukrainian soldier raised his fist as he rode a tank toward the Russian border. Heavy equipment and trucks loaded with logs used to reinforce bunkers and trenches trundled the same way. In the opposite direction, a pickup truck raced by carrying a half-dozen Russian prisoners with tape over their eyes.

Ukraine’s top military commander said Ukrainian forces were advancing and had taken control of 74 Russian towns and villages.

Mr Alexander Stamatis Mercouris
Barrister Status:
Disbarred
Called:
Nov 2006
Inn:
Middle Temple
Hearing type:
Disciplinary Tribunal (5 Person)
Decision date
12/03/2012
Breach details:
Paragraphs 301(a)(iii) and 901.7 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (8th Edition)
Offence details:

Alexander Mercouris engaged in conduct likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(iii) in that on 28 October 2009 you purported to obtain a statement from H that was not a true document and you knew was not a true document and you had not had any contact with H.

Alexander Mercouris engaged in conduct likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(iii) in that you instructed J not to attend an appeal hearing in relation to a purported dispute with Westminster City Council on the basis that you were negotiating with Westminster City Council when no such negotiation was being conducted and you knew that no negotiation was being conducted.

Alexander Mercouris engaged in conduct likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(iii) in that you stated that you would be making an application to the Court for an interim payment of ?50,000 when you knew that no such application had been made or was going to be made.

Alexander Mercouris engaged in conduct likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(iii) in that you claimed that ?983,000, a settlement by Westminster City Council in favour of J, had been stolen by your brother.

Alexander Mercouris engaged in conduct likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to section 301(a)(iii) in that you purported in a statement dated 11 December 2009 that you had been detained by bogus police officers and taken to a meeting at the Royal Courts of Justice where P a senior law lord tried to bribe you to drop a legal case in return for a payment to you of ?50,000 plus payment of your debts and mortgage knowing that this did not happen and dishonestly claiming that it did.
Sanction:
Disbarred
Costs:
£¤786.00
Status:
Final

Disgraced barrister turned pro-Putin commentator investigated by police for fraud and misconduct
Patrick Sawer
5–6 minutes

Scotland Yard is investigating a disgraced London barrister turned pro-Putin commentator for allegedly forging a letter from the first female head of the Supreme Court.

Alexander Mercouris is said to have forged the signature of Baroness Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, on a bogus document as part of his attempts to fool a former client.

Lorna Jamous accused Mr Mercouris of fraud following “appalling” behaviour towards her in a case which led to him being disbarred.

The 56-year-old was struck off by the Bar Standards Board (BRB) in 2012 after making a series of bizarre claims about the then Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Lorna Jamous says Mr Mercouris caused her psychological and financial damage after lying to her in an action she brought against Westminster Council when her son was taken into care for a year.
Lorna Jamous says she felt “betrayed” by Mr Mercouris
Lorna Jamous says she felt “betrayed” by Mr Mercouris Credit: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph

In October 2009 Mrs Jamous was offered a £5,000 settlement by the council over the treatment received by the then 10-year-old.

However, she says Mr Mercouris persuaded her to turn down the offer, claiming he had managed to get the settlement increased to £983,000.

When Mrs Jamous began questioning Mr Mercouris as to why the money had not materialised he embarked on what the Bar Standards Board (BSB) later described as a series of “bizarre assertions to hide the truth”.

To convince Mrs Jamous he had obtained the huge settlement he showed her a letter purporting to be from Baroness Hale, expressing concern that the payment had not arrived.

The letter turned out to be a forgery.
Baroness Hale of Richmond, President of the Supreme Court
Baroness Hale of Richmond, President of the Supreme Court Credit: PA/Supreme Court

He then made what the BSB described as “the most peculiar allegation” of all, that bogus police officers kidnapped him and took him to a meeting with Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the then Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Mr Mercouris claimed Lord Phillips had pleaded with him to drop the case in exchange for a £50,000 bribe and that he had threatened to have his 102-year-old grandmother put into a care home.

At a BRB hearing in March 2012 Mr Mercouris, a former Citizens Advice Bureau worker who was called to the bar in 2006, was struck off and banned from practicing law.

In mitigation he said he had had been diagnosed with depression after a nervous breakdown due to the strain of caring for his sick grandmother, and that he was “very sorry” for what he had done.

Mrs Jamous, 53, a beautician, never received any payment from Westminster council as a result of Mr Mercouris’s botched handling of her case.

Within a few years, however, he had managed to reinvent himself and become a commentator on world affairs for Russian TV news outlets and websites.

This led to him being regularly interviewed by the news channel RT, which is funded by the Russian government, about topics such as the Ukraine crisis, the defection of US whistleblower Edward Snowden and the conflict in Syria.

He is also Editor-in-Chief of an English language pro-Russian website The Duran.

But Mr Mercouris’ past is now threatening to catch up with him. Following a complaint from Mrs Jamous the Metropolitan Police has decided to investigate allegations of fraud and misconduct in a public office against him.

An officer from the Met’s Professional Standards Unit contacted Mrs Jamous last week, stating: “I can confirm that we are re-investigating your allegation of Fraud against Mr Mercouris. Once all of the actions have been completed the case will be reviewed and I hope will then be referred to the CPS for their consideration.”

Ms Jamous, who is also suing Mr Mercouris for £200,000 over his handling of her case, said: “I am very pleased that the Met finally appear to be taking the matter seriously. In order that me and my son can move forward with our lives we needed this assurance.”

Mr Mercouris said: “I’m told the investigation is in its early stages and I’m told by the police I will not be interviewed or required to give evidence. I absolutely deny any allegations. Ms Jamous knows that at the time I had mental health problems. It happened when I was severely ill and not in my right mind.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.