Thread: Local people comment what happened in Mariupol at 9th May (video) + related

The massacres in Odessa and Mariupol are obviously exactly what the West wants - since Victoria Nuland hand-picked the murderers (leaders) of the neo-Nazi interim government. And also since they downplay the atrocities in the Western media.
What they need to understand is that the atrocities in Ukraine and Syria are both a perfect reflection of what the West represents... And it couldn't be worse if Satan was in power in Kiev. But then maybe he is.
All that blood is on the hands of everyone that supports the interim government in Ukraine.

Heh, atrocities in Syria done by whom? Skunky Assad's government and military, or whoever else? And by the way, the rebels there are fighting it back just like that. So what's the difference? It seems like all of us are the same victims of propaganda, the question is what team we joined. Very few people really know what the truth is... But hey, all those who wanted bipolar world can celebrate now --- at least, the propaganda model sure is. I personally never seem to be able to accept the idea of encouraging dictators or authoritarian style rulers in power, or meddling with other countries' business out of helping a few so called compatriots at the cost of everyone else in those countries, BUT it's just me. You guys, every one of you, is sure entitled to choosing whatever side that you find fits you better. All I wanted to say by this is, doesn't it seem a little weird to you that in fact you have to pick one of two?...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Heh, atrocities in Syria done by whom? Skunky Assad's government and military, or whoever else? And by the way, the rebels there are fighting it back just like that. So what's the difference? It seems like all of us are the same victims of propaganda, the question is what team we joined. Very few people really know what the truth is... But hey, all those who wanted bipolar world can celebrate now --- at least, the propaganda model sure is. I personally never seem to be able to accept the idea of encouraging dictators or authoritarian style rulers in power, or meddling with other countries' business out of helping a few so called compatriots at the cost of everyone else in those countries, BUT it's just me. You guys, every one of you, is sure entitled to choosing whatever side that you find fits you better. All I wanted to say by this is, doesn't it seem a little weird to you that in fact you have to pick one of the two?...

The difference is respect and there are no choices. When there's a fight, I don't "pick" which side I'll migrate to. The only side to migrate to is the side that AGREES WITH ME. That's called honor. It can't be bought and it doesn't even have a National label.

Syria? Try this.
Obama Bypasses Terrorism Rule To Give Weapons To Syrian Rebels | FDL News Desk

Traitor (trā-tər) = A person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy.

What people do is not propaganda. And the slaughter of civilians in Odessa and Mariupol are not propaganda. They are video recordings of real events (like Nuland's phone call). You don't have to read anyone's views to see what's happening.
I don't understand this war on Russia but it basically seems to be a war against Slavic people (rewind to the bombings of Yugoslavia). So if you ask me to "pick one of two", I can't because I'm already on the side that AGREES WITH ME... Russia.
As for me, I strongly condemn what the interim government is doing in Ukraine and I strongly support the annexation of Crimea & Sevastopol. And I also strongly support the Peoples Republic of Donetsk.
"Only God knows why Novorossiya became part of Ukrainian SSR in 1922." - President Putin. Tbh, Novorossiya, Sevastopol, and Crimea were Ukrainian land-grabs after the break-up of the USSR.

Oh, and while I'm on the topic of quotes: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” (President) Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”. I think that was after Congress blocked him from selling 7 vital US shipping ports to the United Arab Emerate. It would have been the perfect way to import terrorists into the US.
Anyway, 3 Republican Congressional Leaders confirmed that quote from President Bush. It was made during a meeting to renew the Patriot Act. Patriot of what? "a goddamned piece of paper!”? *srsly confused*
So you tell me. Is siding with Russia on a specific issue somehow worse than being a Constitution hater or aiding the enemy? I very seriously doubt that.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Это просто малообразованные люди, как написал Ит-ого:

The reason is obvious: educated people can have an idea of perspectives and real consequences of making our region a rogue state under the control of Russian militaries (there are three such states already so we can compare). Less educated people don't think about that, they just feel abused by Kiev's rebellion and say "why can't we do the same?"

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Это просто малообразованные люди, как написал Ит-ого:

Они хоть знают, что в России им больше нельзя будет материться и, в случае чего, демострации протеста устраивать?

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Это просто малообразованные люди, как написал Ит-ого:

The reason is obvious: educated people can have an idea of perspectives and real consequences of making our region a rogue state under the control of Russian militaries (there are three such states already so we can compare). Less educated people don't think about that, they just feel abused by Kiev's rebellion and say "why can't we do the same?"

Yes, but even if that's true, are their opinions not worth anything?
Just because they are not well educated, that doesn't mean they should put up with everything the central government wants to do!
Surely they have the same right as educated people to look after their best interests.

It-ogo on the other hand, fears he would be worse off financially as a Russian citizen, and also believes that the political climate in Russia is restrictive and has some other concerns about Russia's outlook on things.

There is a lot of poverty and difficulties in that area, aren't there. Particularly among working class people.
So the question would be, which would give them a more comfortable life: Remaine Ukrainian, Independent Donbass, or Russian citizen?

I can understand that if a person is struggling with finances every day, and their nationality is a complex question, then finance will weigh in as they decide their way forward partly based on that. If their national identity is a bit hazy, then why not make a decision based on whatever gets them the most money in their pockets, and money to their region to improve public services.

As I understand it the Ukrainian state is broke. They won't be able deliver anything but the bare minimum of public services for many years to come. Russia can trump that. An independent Donbass - I don't know.

They might have almost a repetition of the 1990s ahead of them, in Ukraine.

The EU / USA / IMF who say they will help Ukraine don't care about people's lives. They care about creating a good climate for business, selling all state property that can possibly be sold, privatizations and pave the way for big business. Russia wanted to try to let Ukraine continue as before.
In Romania, an EU member country, people sell their kidneys, to citizens of richer EU states. The EU doesn't see a problem with this. And between the EU, USA and IMF, the EU is the most decent entity. It could get really ugly.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Они хоть знают, что в России им больше нельзя будет материться и, в случае чего, демострации протеста устраивать?

Ты, как настоящий либерал, сразу сумела заметить главное.

Another video from Mariupol (opinion of people standing in line to give their vote at referendum):

The reason is obvious: educated people can have an idea of perspectives and real consequences of making our region a rogue state under the control of Russian militaries (there are three such states already so we can compare). Less educated people don't think about that, they just feel abused by Kiev's rebellion and say "why can't we do the same?"

The Donetsk region voted 89.07% for self-determination. For Lugansk, it was 96.2%. In our country, people are very proud of the phrase "We the people.". Well, the people have spoken in those regions.
So who else has an idea of perspectives and real consequences? Kids being bullied in school. They know they'll be outcasts if they report it so a lot of them just let it continue. One was even arrested recently for speaking out.
There's very obvious prejudice in the West and the UN towards ethnic Russians so the only real chance that those 89.07% and 96.2% have is to turn to the nations that support them.
You won't find that in the classroom criteria for "perspectives and real consequences" but hey, classrooms aren't where real-life happens.

So maybe western Ukraine will have a better chance with the West but imo, eastern Ukraine has made the only intelligent choice that was available for them.
Also imo, Ukraine will never survive as a single country. The ethnic divide is way too extreme and all the hate speech I've heard is unbelievable. I can't even imagine what it would take to fix that.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes, but even if that's true, are their opinions not worth anything?

I suppose BappaBa's remark was sarcastic.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

The Donetsk region voted 89.07% for self-determination. For Lugansk, it was 96.2%. In our country, people are very proud of the phrase "We the people.". Well, the people have spoken in those regions.
So who else has an idea of perspectives and real consequences? Kids being bullied in school. They know they'll be outcasts if they report it so a lot of them just let it continue. One was even arrested recently for speaking out.
There's very obvious prejudice in the West and the UN towards ethnic Russians so the only real chance that those 89.07% and 96.2% have is to turn to the nations that support them.
You won't find that in the classroom criteria for "perspectives and real consequences" but hey, classrooms aren't where real-life happens.

These self-style people's republics have already asked Russia to bring them back into the fold today. Actually, it’s the ultimate sanity check for Putin now. He must unequivocally reject the request and reiterate the claim for dialog about federalization with Kiev. Otherwise, consequence for his country may be very close to dire.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

Actually, it’s the ultimate sanity check for Putin now. He must unequivocally reject the request and reiterate the claim for dialog about federalization with Kiev.

Has he passed the check now?

Originally Posted by www.bbc.co.uk/russian/rolling_news/2014/05/140512_rn_mid_referendum.shtml

По мнению представителей МИД, претворение в жизнь итогов референдумов должно проходить в рамках диалога между Киевом, Донецком и Луганском.

Not yet,IMHO. He still needs formally postpone reject the plea to show himself as a proponent of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Croc, remember his final goal is not DPR & LPR but Novorossia as a whole. Blessing is in disguise.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

These self-style people's republics have already asked Russia to bring them back into the fold today. Actually, it’s the ultimate sanity check for Putin now. He must unequivocally reject the request and reiterate the claim for dialog about federalization with Kiev. Otherwise, consequence for his country may be very close to dire.))

"his country" ? Aren't you Russian? Or are you Ukrainian?

I too think he should continue to push for federalization. Politically it's definitely the thing to do.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't lose any sleep if Russia annexed either. That would teach the USA once and for all, about the price of engineering coup d'etats in Europe. I mean, if they can do this in Ukraine, who in Europe is next?

What do most people in Russia think he should do?

At the same time, I also think Putin is a bit cruel towards the people in these regions. After what they saw happening on Crimea, they probably thought there was a good chance they could trigger something similar.
And now, it looks like it's not going to be possible? If he had made it completely clear from Day 1 that Russia would never annex them, a lot of chaos could have been prevented, and lives saved. So it seems unfair to "lead them on" and then pull back.

If this had been the 18th century, Russia (and/or someone else!) would have conquered all, or parts of Ukraine by now. It's served up on a silver platter, practically. As countries goes, it as young as a child, and it's been on artificial breathing all its life. It just doesn't seem to be able to stand on its own feet. But alas, today in the 21st century, we don't do that (well, the US does, sort of.. but no other country, really)

If Russia does anything, it will be called an invasion. If NATO somehow figures out a way to get a legitmate foothold in Ukraine, it will be called "stabilisation" or "peacekeeping" or something like that.

As for the price that Russia would have to pay: I don't think much more can be done. Serious sanctions against Russia are not an option in Europe. The rhetoric is already at the level of comparing Putin with Hitler, so how much worse can that get; not much.... or?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Has he passed the check now?

I've enjoyed your argumentation in this question - always wanted to see you come out squarely in one camp or another and on Crimea etc, you finally did. It doesn't make your posts any less interesting, so keep it up!
Hard to follow all of it for me though, but nonetheless. No more devils advocate crocodile..

I am more like you normally are, in this. I don't really know who's right or wrong and I can see both sides of the argument. I sway back and forth.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Not yet,IMHO. He still needs formally postpone reject the plea to show himself as a proponent of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Croc, remember his final goal is not DPR & LPR but Novorossia as a whole. Blessing is in disguise.))

Que? What is Novorussia (I can guess, but I never heard it, where does the expression come from..? )

From the completely detached, political science perspective, this is fascinating because nobody really pulled off an actual land grab in Europe since 1939 -1945.... Putin just did it in Crimea, but without anybody dying and with more or less the full support of the population. It really is genius work, from a Political Science perspective.
But part of being a Political Science genius is to quit when you are ahead. Not get greedy and lose all.

The US was genius too, when it "won" the Cold War despite having less noble ideals and all of that, essentially making all of Eastern Europe just resign and hand themselves over to the American sphere, including NATO membership etc. And then getting the Soviet Union into an economical competiton it couldn't win.
But still, none of the areas became American territory like Crimea became Russian.
The areas became under strong US influence, in NATO but still with their own borders.

I thought that maybe the time of land-grabbing wars in Europe are over, the new way is just who controls the economy and which foreign bases are on that country's territory?
But here it's actual land changing names.

If Russia DID go into Ukraine, it wouldn't meet any serious resistance though, would it? Hardly much from locals and probably not much from the UA army... NATO cannot enter Ukraine as far as I know.

So this is like when you are trying to diet and somebody brings you chocolate. Just say no!

Originally Posted by Basil77

Another video from Mariupol (opinion of people standing in line to give their vote at referendum):

Omg, the accent of the British reporter, lol ! I guess they had to pull him out of the closet after Ukraine wouldn't allow entry to the regular native speaking reporters. But well done him to get these ladies to open up and speak their minds!

Your first clip I couldn't follow, but this I more or less understand.

However, from a Western perspective, anything that RT says is "Russian propaganda". So.......

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

The Donetsk region voted 89.07% for self-determination. For Lugansk, it was 96.2%.

Ok, the question is, how many percent participated, how honest was the vote counting etc...?
This to me seems less clearcut than Crimea.
It very much appears like those who are against self determination did not bother voting. The question is how many were that?

For this particular referendum, sure it gives an indication, but I don't have the impression that it would stand for much international scrutiny, whereas Crimea would have...

Not to say it's phony or that they deliberately cheated - I wouldn't know, and clearly a lot of people are FOR.
But what precisely did they vote for? They had nothing concrete beyond "more self-determination" and after the referendum the first thing they do is call Moscow and ask for annexation.

Although I sympathise with these people it's just not as professional or convincing as it could be.
Which is why it seems ludicrous to believe that Russia is pulling the strings.

And I pity the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk people states.
If they can't pull something off, they are at risk of some very long prison sentences I imagine.

All of this makes me think of a REAL and genuine working class uprising situation. Even the language they use. It's not polished and it's not impressive. Remains to see what they can pull off and whether they are all alone or have friends in Russia.... I have a lot of sympathy for them.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Que? What is Novorussia (I can guess, but I never heard it, where does the expression come from..? )

Novorossiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't miss "Present-day References" section.

Originally Posted by diogen_

These self-style people's republics have already asked Russia to bring them back into the fold today. Actually, it’s the ultimate sanity check for Putin now. He must unequivocally reject the request and reiterate the claim for dialog about federalization with Kiev. Otherwise, consequence for his country may be very close to dire.))

Exactly. It's a long long way to Novorossiya...

Originally Posted by Hanna

Ok, the question is, how many percent participated, how honest was the vote counting etc...?
This to me seems less clearcut than Crimea.
It very much appears like those who are against self determination did not bother voting. The question is how many were that?

For this particular referendum, sure it gives an indication, but I don't have the impression that it would stand for much international scrutiny, whereas Crimea would have...

Not to say it's phony or that they deliberately cheated - I wouldn't know, and clearly a lot of people are FOR.
But what precisely did they vote for? They had nothing concrete beyond "more self-determination" and after the referendum the first thing they do is call Moscow and ask for annexation.

Although I sympathise with these people it's just not as professional or convincing as it could be.
Which is why it seems ludicrous to believe that Russia is pulling the strings.

And I pity the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk people states.
If they can't pull something off, they are at risk of some very long prison sentences I imagine.

All of this makes me think of a REAL and genuine working class uprising situation. Even the language they use. It's not polished and it's not impressive. Remains to see what they can pull off and whether they are all alone or have friends in Russia.... I have a lot of sympathy for them.

Voter turnout was about 75% in both regions. In Lugansk there were 30 International Observers. None of the Observers registered for the Donetsk referendum and they were invited. But there were hundreds of journalists in Donetsk and they were watching for cheating. A journalist caught one woman cheating and reported it. Btw, voter turnout for both Obama elections was about 65%.
Also, anyone who decided not to vote chose to let the voters make the decision. Since they didnt want a choice they didn't get the choice so they have to accept the results.
The same is true in the Obama elections. The 35% of registered voters that didn't vote had to accept the results.

Because the Observers and journalists were watching for cheating - and the voter turnout was that high - I accept the results of those votes. But it could be the start of a civil war.
The leader of the Peoples Republic of Donetsk said they need to work fast and the first things on the agenda was securing the economy and re-building the military in the region. He also said that anyone that wouldn't swear an oath would be deported to Ukraine.
That's why talks are very important right now because if the Ukraine military tries to destabilize the new Republics, they will fight back and may even ask Russia for military assistance.
It's a huge level up from just being labelled terrorists.
Btw, I don't understand why they were talking about annexation either.

About Novorossiya, you can see in the list that 3 of the regions were in the Russian Federation before the conflict, not in Ukraine: Krasnodar krai, Rostov oblast, and the Republic of Adygea. Also, the slow creation of Novorossiya involved a lot of signed treaties.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Also, anyone who decided not to vote chose to let the voters make the decision. Since they didnt want a choice they didn't get the choice so they have to accept the results.
.

For that argument to be valid, the 'election' would have to be free and fair in the first place. And that would imply: "no fraud and no intimidation." - both were not given. Do you honestly think any person in this referendum could have openly been against the 'separation' and vote 'pro-Kiev' without fear for his safety? Secondly I have seen documented instances where the same person voted at different times (voted more than once); and it is common knowledge that persons were allowed to vote on behalf of others. So this hardly qualifies for 'free and fair'. Having said this, i nevertheless believe that the majority in a genuinely fee and fair referendum would have been for independence; but not 85-90% of the vote.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

For that argument to be valid, the 'election' would have to be free and fair in the first place. And that would imply: "no fraud and no intimidation." - both were not given. Do you honestly think any person in this referendum could have openly been against the 'separation' and vote 'pro-Kiev' without fear for his safety? Secondly I have seen documented instances where the same person voted at different times (voted more than once); and it is common knowledge that persons were allowed to vote on behalf of others. So this hardly qualifies for 'free and fair'. Having said this, i nevertheless believe that the majority in a genuinely fee and fair referendum would have been for independence; but not 85-90% of the vote.

I wouldn't honestly think that in the last Obama election people coulda been openly against Obama in a lot of cities in the US. But there were no mass executions here after the election and I haven't seen any news feeds about any mass executions of the 12% of the voters that voted against the referendum either.
Tbh, there have been lots of cases of voter fraud and voter intimidation in the US but the outcomes were still accepted. Another phrase that Americans like is "Innocent until proven guilty.". So if I don't see any proof of mass voter fraud or intimidation or both then I still stand by what I said. I accept the outcome of the referendums... until I'm proven wrong. And a few isolated cases of cheating isn't enough to prove that.

But those issues aren't as important as what the vote enabled - the rebuilding of those regions as separate, organized States with their own Military bases. And that's probably what the referendums were all about - to create a strong and accepted (by the people at least) Military front against the deadly assaults of the Ukrainian Military forces.