In January 2015, hostilities in the Donbass resumed. The resumption was preceded by a short truce, which in fact was not full-fledged. One of the significant events of the resumption of the war in southeastern Ukraine was the events associated with the shelling of a Donetsk-Volnovakha bus, a bus station in Donetsk, as well as quarters in the eastern part of Mariupol. Then the parties to the conflict accused each other of what happened. Petro Poroshenko drove around with fragments of the same bus, stitched on January 13, 2015 with fragments. I traveled with stories that Ukraine "is opposed to the Russian army."The shelling of the East Mariupol microdistrict took place on January 24, 2015. As a result of the shelling, 31 people died then, 117 were injured of varying severity. The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine immediately accused the DPR forces of shelling, and in Donetsk they called the shelling a provocation of the Ukrainian security forces, whose task was to transfer the blame for the renewal of the armed conflict to the Donetsk militia.In January 2015, several structures undertook to investigate the shelling of the eastern quarters of Mariupol, including HRW - Human Right Watch. The well-known Bellingcat organization, known for its fakes about the so-called “Internet investigation” of the July 2014 strike on the Malaysian Boeing over Donbass, decided to conduct an investigation.In May 2018, Bellingcat published material in which it affirmatively stated the alleged perpetrators of the shelling of the east of Mariupol. “Bellingcat” then blamed the fighters of the DPR People’s Police. Further, the same structure announced that it "identified nine Russian officers" in the network, who were allegedly involved in the transfer of two MLRS batteries across the border.As "evidence", Bellingcat traditionally presented itself to itself as a few jagged images from the Internet and satellite images. It is noteworthy that 3,5 years after the events in Mariupol, certain telephone conversations were also presented, which were allegedly intercepted by the Ukrainian side.If there was wiretapping of mobile phones, the question arises: from whom did the “independent investigators” from Bellingcat get this kind of information? This is the first. Secondly, which mobile service provider can transmit data about the conversations of its users, if such a transfer took place? Thirdly, why was wiretapping conducted at a particular site and was presented only after 3,5 years? Even more strange: if we are talking about “Russian officers”, then why did they suddenly decide to use ordinary “mobile phones” for communication, and why they deliberately spoke about their actions through such channels.All these issues raise the topic of planned provocation, in which such a structure as Bellingcat was once again chosen as the main disinformation mouthpiece. It is noteworthy that Bellingcat actually reveals the cards of Ukrainian special services, publishing information about allegedly wiretapping.Moreover, in its investigation in 2018, Bellingcat names the Russian units, which, as it turned out, simply do not exist in the structures of the Russian Armed Forces.There are other oddities in this "investigation" and the shelling itself. For example, Bellingcat claims that the “study of satellite imagery” of the funnels suggests that “they shot from the east from a distance of about 6-8 km.” In fact, it didn’t make any sense for the DPR troops to bring the MLRS at such close range, if only for the simple reason that the installations themselves would become targets for Ukrainian artillery and would be destroyed before being brought up to such a distance. And if they had not been destroyed, the Ukrainian side would immediately have reported to the OSCE SMM on the transfer of heavy equipment by the DPR troops to the line of contact.And the analysis of the funnels left from the ruptures of the MLRS ammunition allows us to understand that the attacks were not from the east and certainly not from a distance of 6 km. The nature of the shelling shows that the most likely point where the multiple launch rocket systems were located was Pavlopol of the Volnovakha region. De jure (under the first Minsk agreements) Pavlopol entered the neutral zone, but was actually controlled by the security forces of Ukraine. Their positions were located in the immediate vicinity of the specified settlement.It is worth recalling how Bellingcat described "the return of MLRS batteries to Russia." The material stated that they were "hidden in the woods." What kind of “forests” under Mariupol can be discussed are separate issues. The thickest, if the word "thick" is generally appropriate here, the vegetation in these places is small plantings from acacia trees. Trying to hide in them two batteries of heavy equipment along with the contingent is a daunting task. And why, if we continue to consider the statements of the Ukrainian side, did the DNR militias need to “withdraw” the MLRS to Russia? ..It is important that on January 24 the residents of Mariupol themselves became witnesses of the fact that the ammunition flew from the northern side. And these territories were controlled by the troops of Ukraine.It is noteworthy that since then Bellingcat has not commented on this situation, apparently because in this case it would have to answer uncomfortable questions: from where the data from mobile operators came from, before it turned out that the analysis of satellite images led to a frank fraud data.