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

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.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

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.

Oh right! I didn't understand that at all (about the Russian flag).

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

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.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

By that logic why it was necessary to overthrow Yanukovich who was legitimate unlike the current goverment? Just wait less than a year until elections.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

Really? So the fact that it's temporary should negate the fact that it came to power as a result of an unconstitutional take-over?

The main problem, though, is that, while it is temporary, it's hell bent on making as many important and permanent decisions on as many controversial topics as possible - like signing Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (and in haste too, there were articles about Ukrainian side 'being disappointed' that some parts they hoped to see there were absent, but that they had to sign it anyway, because otherwise they'd 'lose face' (what??)), or discussing changing the constiution.

These decisions should be made, but not in haste, and not by politicians, who were not chosen by all of the people of Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

That is technically correct. However, there's another side to it - the temp government has no authority to make long-term decisions, just to maintain some order and drag time until the new elected government would have the full authority. The present Ukrainian temporary government had exceeded their authority by signing a bunch of historic documents, so their actions should be tried in Ukrainian court with the intention of the subsequent cancellation of the signatures as illegitimate. And the power-greedy individuals who totally forgot they are only there temporary to fill in the gap should be prosecuted by Ukrainian law.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is technically correct. However, there's another side to it - the temp government has no authority to make long-term decisions, just to maintain some order and drag time until the new elected government would have the full authority. The present Ukrainian temporary government had exceeded their authority by signing a bunch of historic documents, so their actions should be tried in Ukrainian court with the intention of the subsequent cancellation of the signatures as illegitimate. And the power-greedy individuals who totally forgot they are only there temporary to fill in the gap should be prosecuted by Ukrainian law.

The thing is, they do have to deal with the situation in the east. And if keeping such a situation under control and stabilizing it takes signing any documents, even if they have long-term consequences, they just have to go on and sign them. Otherwise, the integrity and sovereignty of the entire country might be at stake, and that is the first thing to avoid. They may do some little harm to avoid much bigger harm.