Ok, so where does the burden of proof lie? The side that makes an outrages claim, or the side that is forced to defend against it? Imagine if someone accuses you (just an example) of rape. Details are added to invoke a strong emotional response - you invited a group of your buddies and took turns raping her for 5 days.
Any chance of you being left unscathed? HELL NO. Even if you’re found innocent, there’s a stigma of just being accused.
The fact that you’re entertaining this lie means Russians won. The Russian “journalist” talks with a wife of a separatist leader who’s got a sick imagination. There are no witnesses, not even rumours of the event in this city. There won’t be a followup to this story, but that’s ok, the damage (to demonize Ukrainians) has already been done. Even if they retract the story, it’s already too late, they would need to reach every single viewer who watched that story and tell them their story was BS. This is psych war 101.
There could be some value in the information Russians put out, but it always has to be confirmed by someone else. Advise is, take note of their info, but make decisions as if that info is not there.
Your last statement,”everybody lies” - that’s just a cop out. Russians manufacturing an atrocity is morally equivalent to Ukrainians lying about what? (I don’t know. I remember seeing a claim that Ukrainians were exaggerating the numbers at the protests in December - I’ll give you a picture and we can count how many tens, or hundreds of thousands of people are in that picture)
Another Russia Today journalist (Sara Firth) resigned, because she didn’t agree with them lying about MH17.
It’s not even news at this point