Thread: Что произойдет в восточной Украине? (Eastern Ukraine?)

I am neither particularly pro-west (nor pro-russia), but for those claiming that Russia plays no active (and physical) role in the unrest in East-Ukraine, this is quite disingenious. In my opinion both sides have been meddling - but I think there is no denying that there is a presence of russian military forces (albeit unmarked) and equipment in the region. The previous argument that Russia had a right to 'forces on the ground' by 'contract' only relates to the Crimea. So why is Moscow denying it?

Originally Posted by eisenherz

I am neither particularly pro-west (nor pro-russia), but for those claiming that Russia plays no active (and physical) role in the unrest in East-Ukraine, this is quite disingenious. In my opinion both sides have been meddling - but I think there is no denying that there is a presence of russian military forces (albeit unmarked) and equipment in the region. The previous argument that Russia had a right to 'forces on the ground' by 'contract' only relates to the Crimea. So why is Moscow denying it?

Moscow denies many things obvious. It is called "Big lie" technique. It works the following way: Russian citizens that watch Russian TV only will believe anything they are told. Other people's opinion is ignored. Russia invades Ukraine and no other country is ready to use its army to protect us, despite of guarantees from NATO, so their politicians will look for excuse for not doing it. And Russian lie will provide the material for the excuse. So politicians will say something like "Russia has a point too, we must take into account all viewpoints, let us find a compromise", so they will be able to keep their face and not look like obvious failors.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Moscow denies many things obvious. It is called "Big lie" technique. It works the following way: Russian citizens that watch Russian TV only will believe anything they are told. Other people's opinion is ignored. Russia invades Ukraine and no other country is ready to use its army to protect us, despite of guarantees from NATO, so their politicians will look for excuse for not doing it. And Russian lie will provide the material for the excuse. So politicians will say something like "Russia has a point too, we must take into account all viewpoints, let us find a compromise", so they will be able to keep their face and not look like obvious failors.

WOW!!! o_O
So you support Kiev's POV, which is a perfect example of "Big lie" technique in itself? How are you less brainwashed than those "Russian citizens"?
Ukrainian official media presents only one point of view as well, and EU takes this one-sided POV for gospel, believing those ridiculous tales about "invasion" and "poor oppressed Ukrainian citizens".

The last examle of extreme hypocisy of Ukrainian government is their declaring Crimea an occupied territory "to protect people", which in fact strips Crimeans of any rights, and prohibits all kinds of everyday activities under the treats of criminal prosecution - among them are selling or buying things, working for any state institution (aka "working for occupants"), which covers all kinds of occupations, including teachers in public schools & medical personel, and others.

What I see in this actions is a spiteful desire to "punish" local population under pretense of "protecting" them (with EU and USA supporting this pretence game). Now they are trying to "protect" South-East of Ukraine in a similar manner (or rather to salvage the territory. The people? Who cares...).

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

WOW!!! o_O
So you support Kiev's POV, which is a perfect example of "Big lie" technique in itself? How are you less brainwashed than those "Russian citizens"?

Err... "Big lie" technique is not about POV. It is about... well... lie. When Russia states that there is no giant army concentrated on our border it is a "Big lie" because everybody can see that army on satelllite photos. When Russia stated that there are no Russian militaries on the streets of Crimea it was a "Big lie" because everybody was able to see specifically Russian armor cars on those streets on photos. "Big lie" is about stating obvious and overwhelming lie and insisting on it hardly untill some people stopped to believe their eyes. Ukrainian powers are unable to use that technique because they don't have the monopoly on the information. For example one evening SBU made a statement that there are 60 hostages and a bomb in captured Lugansk administration building. Next day nearly ALL Ukrainian media checked the statement, and published that it was wrong. And that was all. It was an attempt of lie but it failed.

Ukrainian official media presents only one point of view as well, and EU takes this one-sided POV for gospel, believing those ridiculous tales about "invasion" and "poor oppressed Ukrainian citizens"

Weren't heavily armed militaries attacked police station in my city four blocks from my home an invasion? Am I not oppressed by continuous danger, stopping with great efforts my wife from panic, my moter in law getting heart attack, and my former student taken away from his home in captured Slaviansk by unknown military to nowhere and disappered?

(Вытерто. Л.)

Originally Posted by it-ogo

For example one evening SBU made a statement that there are 60 hostages and a bomb in captured Lugansk administration building. Next day nearly ALL Ukrainian media checked the statement, and published that it was wrong. And that was all. It was an attempt of lie but it failed.

That is fantastic! So, what officials were specifically responsible for distributing the Big Lie? Do we know their names? Were they prosecuted in court? Was any investigation or legal case open against them? Is the public protected in any way from being manipulated that way in the future?

Do you really think people in Eastern Ukraine are so LAME that they can't organise an uprising if they want, without the help of Russia? The Western Ukrainians and Kievans could, so why shouldn't the Eastern Ukrainians be able to?

I don't think Russia has sent anyone there, because I don't think Russia has an agenda of annexing the area. If anything, I think Russia would prefer them to calm down and simply participate in the elections and vote for a pro-Russian government. Why would Russia want some average size heavy industrial cities and a few mines.... Doesn't Russia already have PLENTY of that? Crimea was a completely different cup of tea - it was unique, and it was a matter of national pride for Russia, and it's strategic.
That's how I perceive the difference, anyway.

And what is so strange about some of them appearing semi-military? Or officers?

I don't know, but I am guessing that Ukraine has compulsory military service for at least 9 months, probably more. I know that the USSR had compulsory military service. So the majority of the male population will have done a year or more in the military. Obviously based on that they can "appear as military" if they want to. And among all these men there will be ex special forces, officers and people who can comptently organise the taking over of a police station - particularly if the police aren't even motivated to resist them.....

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I think that Russia will do anything to break any kind of elections or referendum in Ukraine. If miraculously it will not succeed I will go and vote.

It's good to hear that you will vote at least - I guess the ultimate sign of total disillusionment is when people don't even bother to walk to a voting hall and vote (hm... when did I last vote....) Keep your head up and stick to your principles. I can't even imagine all the stuff that people in Ukriane have to suffer through. If it was me, I would probably gone insane or escaped the country a long time ago. So kudos to you.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't think Russia has an agenda of annexing the area.

Of course they have not. It's not the area, it's the Ukraine, the whole of it. At the very least, all of the East and the South. It is worth it, isn't it?

Originally Posted by E-learner

Of course they have not. It's not the area, it's the Ukraine, the whole of it. At the very least, all of the East and the South. It is worth it, isn't it?

You think Russia wants ALL of Ukraine?! And planning something military, in secret?
Seriously?

Like "USSR v2.0 (capitalist edition)" or "Imperial Russia 2.0 (fully revised digital edition)"

Nope, I don't believe that for a second. And I don't think the population of Russia would be back that whatsoever.

I think there is about 1 / 10 chance that all hell breaks lose in Ukraine and Russia ends up doing some kind of "peacekeeping" intervention and ends up annexing some more territory, perhaps following another referendum.

But it's quite possible that NATO would get involved if that happened. I don't think Putin would risk that - it seems quite insane. He's more pragmatic than that.

Like I said - they are more pissed off with Russia right now than they have ever been in my entire life. The blackpainting and demonising of Russia/Putin is complete.

NATO must have had some VERY grand plans for Crimea, considering how pissed off they were at having it snatched from right under their nose. I bet they were planning the mother of all foreign US bases right there in Sevastopol!

Originally Posted by Hanna

You think Russia wants ALL of Ukraine?! And planning something military, in secret?
Seriously?

I don't know. Maybe all of it is an improvisation.
Anyway, if possible, they will prefer non-military and "half-military" means.

I think there is about 1 / 10 chance that all hell breaks lose in Ukraine and Russia ends up doing some kind of "peacekeeping" intervention

At the moment, it does look like one of the cards being played.

NATO must have had some VERY grand plans for Crimea, considering how pissed off they were at having it snatched from right under their nose. I bet they were planning the mother of all foreign US bases right there in Sevastopol!

I don't know about that but I believe the rest of the Ukraine is no lesser prise.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Do you really think people in Eastern Ukraine are so LAME that they can't organise an uprising if they want, without the help of Russia? The Western Ukrainians and Kievans could, so why shouldn't the Eastern Ukrainians be able to?

I AM the one from Eastern Ukraine. So, please don't say "they" when speaking to me, say "you". And WE did the uprising in Kiev as well along with people from other parts of Ukraine. 2 of ~100 protesters killed at Maidan were from my city.

There is a great difference between people's uprising and military operation. In Kiev WE saw natural uprising with some support (like food etc) from business. Here WE see foreign military operation by people from outside leading some deceived locals. There is a kind of uprising but without giant militatry, informational, financial and organizational help from outside it were ended shortly - with some demonstrations. There are different organization, different methods, different weapon, different tactics and different society. And world politicians are not so LAME to not understand it.

I don't think Russia has sent anyone there, because I don't think Russia has an agenda of annexing the area.

To think or not to think is your choice. The events are going around me and I know what I see and what I hear. You can enjoy your nonconformism, your theories and viewpoints as you like, but here we have the real life.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I AM the one from Eastern Ukraine. So, please don't say "they" when speaking to me, say "you".

I was referring to Eisenherz post, not yours in specific, and used the words "you" in a generic way. I am perfectly aware that you are from there.

Like I said to you before, I totally respect your viewpoint and understand that probably at least half of the people there feel like you do. Nevertheless there are clearly a lot of people who are prepared to take big risks and go to a lot of trouble to for different views than yours.

Like I said to you before, I totally respect your viewpoint and understand that probably at least half of the people there feel like you do. Nevertheless there are clearly a lot of people who are prepared to take big risks and go to a lot of trouble to for different views than yours.

Witness: I saw the tiger from jungle entered the house, killed the man and partly devoured his body.
Attorney: I totally respect your viewpoint and understand that probably at least half of the house inhabitants there feel like you do. Nevertheless there is clearly the cat in the house who is prepared to take big risks and go to a lot of trouble to for different views than yours.

I witness that the guys that made actual armed violence are not from here. They look different, act different, speak different, they don't know local customs and geography. They don't discuss anything, they just make orders to their followers. When they are asked about their goals they reply mostly: "I am not the one in charge of answering". They don't make deals with locals, they demand complete obediance. They don't let local press (from the town) in the captured buildings, only Russian press. They say: "we don't need Khokhols (Ukrainians) here."

Their followers are happy to follow orders. They are completely sure to follow Russian militaries. There are people for "federalization" and unhappy with Kiev but they mostly sit at home as they are sane and responsible. Those who obey orders of greenies want to join Russia. If you ask them about "Donetsk republic" or "federalization" they say: "oh, yeah, Donetsk republic, federalization, yeah, definitely - that is what we are for". And put on Russian flags. They are not much but they are who on the streets and who sit in the official buildings cleared by armed squads. I believe they are deceived.

We have the situation here that "everybody knows" that Russians lead the protesters and ready to obey. They know it from Russain TV channels that are used to be popular here. The channels broadcast all the way about helping Russian brothers oppressed, tortured and killed in Ukraine. And that is the engine of all the people on the streets. The superpower express its intentions clearly. All Russian TV channels call people on the streets "our heroes", their opponents "fascists", "junta" etc. - no other ways of treatment. The reports are ridiculous with hundreds of killed at each event, and many obvious fakes.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I witness that the guys that made actual armed violence are not from here. They look different, act different, speak different, they don't know local customs and geography. They don't discuss anything, they just make orders to their followers. When they are asked about their goals they reply mostly: "I am not the one in charge of answering". They don't make deals with locals, they demand complete obediance. They don't let local press (from the town) in the captured buildings, only Russian press. They say: "we don't need Khokhols (Ukrainians) here."

That is incredibly suspicious. If you certain the people are not locals, then I change my mind. I was under the impression it was locals. Also I didn't think there was any noticeable difference between accents, looks and what not.... Of course, on further thought, there are always "finer" shades that local people can tell; if somebody is an outsider or not local.

The reason I didn't believe Russia was guilty was not because I think Russia is some saint... More like -- I simply didn't see any useful gain for Russia in creating chaos in Eastern Ukraine. Unless Russia is secretly planning annexation it's pretty awful to deliberately stir things up in a neighbouring country.

gRomoZeka said something that would also support you on this, even if she has a different view on Crimea than you.

I still don't get what Russia would want with this area, and against the will of the majority who live there. It makes no sense. Maybe I am missing something though, and Russia does in fact want the area, or it has some other agenda that it is pursuing. Apart from anything else, it would be incredibly bad for Russia's international image to go into Ukraine proper. I think educated people know that Crimea was a special case and that the current furore will eventually settle down. But Ukraine proper is a different thing altogether.

Originally Posted by Hanna

gRomoZeka said something that would also support you on this, even if she has a different view on Crimea than you.

What exactly?

BTW, read this article from BBC. There are a few embedded video reports, that show "local villagers" who are pretty active and opinionated on their own, without being browbeaten into it by some mythical Russian spies.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Military column 'seized' in Kramatorsk

Originally Posted by Hanna

Do you really think people in Eastern Ukraine are so LAME that they can't organise an uprising if they want, without the help of Russia? The Western Ukrainians and Kievans could, so why shouldn't the Eastern Ukrainians be able to?

I'm neither Ukrainian nor eastern Ukrainian, but I think here's what's going on. Even if we assume that Russia hasn't directly sent anyone to eastern Ukraine, those 2 "uprisings" are pretty much different by the goals and methods of implementation. While the Kyiv one was definitely a pro-Ukrainian one that simply targeted to put down Yanukovich's government, which the people thought was more of a burden than any sort of help for the Ukrainian people, the eastern one is more tricky, but by far it's clear that they (I don't mean all eastern Ukrainians by any means, but just those "fighters") don't really consider themselves Ukrainians, and don't really want to live in Ukraine, and they actually want to get separated from Ukraine, and it can easily be viewed that many of them would want to join Russia. Now, it's clear that it's NOT an internal argument in the country, it's Ukrainians on one side, and "those people" (whoever they are) on the other side. Now, speaking of their methods, I wonder how many people from the Maidan (the Kyiv uprising) were armed with AK-47 and similar weapons? How many of them stole weapons including grenades and such? How many of them actually used weapons for attacking purposes? How many of them took hostages to achieve their goals? That is all what those "eastern guys" have been doing.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How many of them took hostages to achieve their goals? That is all what those "eastern guys" have been doing.

Took hostages? I think respecting other users of the forum by reading their previous posts and keeping yourself up-to-date might not be a bad idea.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

For example one evening SBU made a statement that there are 60 hostages and a bomb in captured Lugansk administration building. Next day nearly ALL Ukrainian media checked the statement, and published that it was wrong. And that was all. It was an attempt of lie but it failed.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Took hostages? I think respecting other users of the forum by reading their previous posts and keeping yourself up-to-date might not be a bad idea.

Thanks Croc, of course I should've seen that post, and if I had, I would've certainly reformulated my question. I just hope there have not been other episodes like that, because I've actually heard of several incidents with taking hostages.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

...it's Ukrainians on one side, and "those people" (whoever they are) on the other side.

Eric, those people are actually locals, i.e. Ukrainian citizens. Even Ukrainian biased media doesn't go so far as to claim, that all (or even most) of them are Russians. Kiev just implies, that they are organized by some kind of Russian agents, spies, or whatever.

As for AKs - during Maidan 'uprising' military arsenals were robbed in Western Ukraine - in particular in Lviv (Feb 2014). Among stolen goodies there were 5000 AKs, about 2700 Makarovs, more than 100 machine guns, about 1500 grenades, etc. Some of it eventually spread over Ukraine (Viva la revolution!).
There also were loads of failed attempts, or at least they were reported as failed. So having some kind of weapon isn't a proof of external influence

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How many of them took hostages to achieve their goals? That is all what those "eastern guys" have been doing.

First, sorry, but this comment is rather ignorant. Please tone down your supriority a bit, ok?

Second, as Crocodile already pointed out, there were no hostages.
That's how local (Ukrainian) official media work. They print/post some nonsense, aimed at fuelling overall paranoia. Then after some time they admit that they were mistaken or "misinformed". But the harm is already done. Thousands of people've read it and it changed their attitude in a certain way.

Sometimes they even don't bother to mention their mistakes. There were hysterical articles as of Apr 8th claiming that "Russian tanks will invade Ukraine tonight" (meaning a full blown war at the border). Obviously, there were no tanks. But some people are still reffering to this imaginary tank battles as if they were real.

Frankly, it's ridiculous. It's like Ukrainian government and some "patriots" are living in an AU. They refuse to acknowledge what's happening under their noses (raising disquiet among local people in some regions due to wretched inner policy), at the same time getting fixated on something that have not really happened (or something could've happended, but of which there's no proof).

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Eric, those people are actually locals, i.e. Ukrainian citizens. Even Ukrainian biased media doesn't go so far as to claim, that all (or even most) of them are Russians. Kiev just implies, that they are organized by some kind of Russian agents, spies, or whatever.

I do believe most of those people have the Ukrainian citizenship. But they say it themselves, they don't want to be Ukrainians, they want to either live in their own republic, or be part of Russia. That is why I say they're opposite to the Ukrainians, i.e. people who want to keep integrity of Ukraine. Maybe I misunderstood something? Then tell me please what exactly. =)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I do believe most of those people have the Ukrainian citizenship. But they say it themselves, they don't want to be Ukrainians, they want to either live in their own republic, or be part of Russia. That is why I say they're opposite to the Ukrainians, i.e. people who want to keep integrity of Ukraine. Maybe I misunderstood something? Then tell me please what exactly. =)

People generally do not want to join Russia. Most of them support an idea of federal Ukraine, demanding more autonomy from Kiev. They also expect to be able to affect national policy a little more (right now regions have virtually no say in important decisions).

I'd say, Russian flags are more of a symbol of not supporting current government policy, since the government itself is viewed by many as illegimate. The same way American, EU and Georgian (!) flags on Maidan were, apparently, symbols of supporting western values, and not a sign of 'protesters' attempting to join Georgia.