A Q+A audience member has been slammed following a sensational blow up with ABC host Stan Grant over the Ukraine conflict.
Russian Australian Sasha Gillies-Lekakis was booted from the audience in an extraordinary moment triggered by widely discredited pro-Russian claims about killings in Ukraine.
Mr Gillies-Lekakis asked the panel hosts: “As someone who comes from the Russian community here in Australia, I’ve been pretty outraged by the narrative depicted by our media, with Ukraine as the good guy and Russia as the bad guy.
“Believe it or not, there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin’s doing in Ukraine, myself included.”
The University of Melbourne student went on to claim Ukraine had “besieged” the Russian populations in Donetsk and Luhansk and killed about 13,000 people, before audience members began to heckle him, with calls of “that’s a lie”, “don’t do this” and “propaganda”.
Almost 20 minutes after the question was uncomfortably deflected, Grant decided to take action, booting the questioner in emotional scenes.
Many people took to social media in support of Grant for booting him off the show.
“You’re an idiot. And you proved it on national television. Maybe you can pack a bag for Russia if you support Putin so much,” one man wrote on Facebook.
“You are a fascist, murderous supporting, uneducated, brainwashed, ideological idiot,” another man said.
“How do you even try and justify what you are seeing or what has happened in the east?”
One woman said: “You were given a platform on national TV & you’re moaning because it didn’t go the way you wanted? Get out.”
In a statement, the university student defended his question after appearing to advocate for retaliatory violence.
“I would just like to say that, following my appearance on QandA, I am aware that there has been a lot of controversy surrounding certain statements I made and the position I took regarding the Russia-Ukraine situation,” he wrote on Facebook on Friday morning.
“I am unequivocally against war and the loss of any lives, be they Ukrainian, Russian, or any other, and want to be clear that I made no statements indicating anything to the contrary – I made no direct statement sanctioning violence or conflict.”
Grant appeared visibly shaken while asking the young man to leave.
“Something has been bothering me … people here have been talking about family who are suffering and people who are dying. Can I just say – I’m just not comfortable with you being here. Could you please leave?,” Grant said.
The questioner tried to argue his case but Grant was having none of it.
“You can ask a question, but we cannot advocate violence. I should have asked you to leave then. It‘s been playing on my mind and, I’m sorry, but I have to ask you to leave.”
Later, Grant apologised for the disruption and explained the question had not been vetted.
He said while it was unfortunate to exclude people from the debate, advocating violence was never welcome.
“We come here in good faith to have open conversation, rigorous conversation. We’ve heard different points of view, and we encourage different points of view here,” he said.
“But we can’t have anyone who is sanctioning, supporting, violence and killing of people. So I‘m sorry for the disruption. It was not a vetted question. It was a rogue question. It’s not good.”
Panellist Olga Boichak, a Ukrainian woman living in Australia, was given the last word.
“My friends and family – a lot of them are staying – some of them have joined the territorial defence units locally and they’re willing to do what it takes to not allow Ukraine to be occupied,” she said.
“They’re putting themselves at tremendous risk. They’re understanding the costs of freedom. It’s really interesting to reflect on Ukraine’s national anthem that says, ‘We will lay down our body and our soul for our freedom’, which is actually what is being asked of them right now.”
In his online statement, Mr Gillies-Lekakis said he was looking to make the point that he “supports Putin’s grievances regarding the breaking of the Minsk Peace Agreement by Ukraine and the ensuing loss of life, particularly in the Russian-populated areas of the Donbas”.
“My question, furthermore, sought to question why these Russian deaths were seemingly less important compared to Ukrainian casualties in our media coverage, and whether the panellists thought there was any hypocrisy in their positions as a result,” he said.
“This is reflected in my question as published on the Q+A website. Unfortunately, I was unable to fully finish asking my question nor clarify myself despite trying, and so believe that my words were misrepresented and incomplete.”
Mr Gillies-Lekakis said for peace to be achieved, genuine understanding and “empathy” must be shown to both sides.
For this to be achieved, media narratives of “good and evil” should not be portrayed in the media, he argues.
“I would like to say that I had no intention whatsoever of offending anyone, and so would like to sincerely apologise for any distress my comments may have caused,” he said.
The university student shut down claims his question was “unvetted”, saying it was submitted to the team via their online submission portal and was told to edit it.
“The only addition I made to my question when actuallyxjmtzyw delivering it was my reference to the Azhov Battalion (7-8 words roughly), and some sentences were left out towards the end as I was interrupted,” he said.
“If this small change to my question amounts to it being ‘rogue’, as was claimed, once again I apologise. However, I find this difficult to reconcile with the fact that other guests were given the chance to speak at length, off-script, on the Russia-Ukraine situation, including the first guest questioner.”
He said the Q+A host was “disappointing and unprofessional” and accused the ABC of “questionable conduct” during the night.
“I am genuinely sorry that things took the turn they did … if my question was not appropriate for the show after being vetted and edited, I wonder why I was invited at all,” he said.
Earlier in the program, former ASIO director-general Dennis Richardson made the grim prediction of a prolonged “guerrilla war” if Russia achieved it’s apparent aim of taking over Ukraine.
“You could paint a scenario whereby Russia achieves its objective in the Ukraine, which is a puppet state, of some sort. They either kill or imprison President Zelensky – hopefully that does not happen. They take over that part of the Ukraine they want,” the former spy boss said.
“That then leads to urban, rural warfare, with the guerrilla resistance being supported out of Poland and NATO.
“Russia, over time, becomes frustrated by that. Perhaps an accident happens somewhere between Poland and Russia, leading to a bigger conflict. You can‘t exclude that.”
Mr Richardson also said Mr Putin probably has less constraints on him than the Soviet rulers and described him as essentially a “modern day tsar”.
“People talk about ‘the oligarchs should do more’. I don‘t think they have a lot of influence on him. I don’t know who has influence on Putin. I’m sure there are people who do, but it would be a very small number of people.”
