Dateline: Ukraine

[MrSecond]

News from Lugansk

The adequate perception of reality, and also understanding of occurring processes helps to draw the correct conclusions, and, probably, to do successful forecasts.

Let's look what is going on in Ukraine now.

While the world community, excited by propaganda of Department of State, seeks for little green men in Donbass, and measures the length of beard of militant called Babay, the protest moving in Southeast consolidates.

Today in Lugansk the locals seized the building of State Regional Administration (SRA). In the morning protesters gathered near the building of SBU, that was captured on April 6 by the "Army of South-East". Then the column approximately of 3 thousand people started slowly moving towards the Lugansk SRA. Nobody tried to stop them. When the people came to the buiding of SRA, they've founded out there was no a single official there, all doors were closed, and about 150 policemen were inside. The doors were broken, the crowd penetrated into the building. Policemen did not resist, after a while they left the building peacefully. Policemen were from central Ukraine, the city of Vinnitsa. Protesters removed the Ukrainian flag from the building's roof, instead they put flags of Russia and Lugansk oblast. People cried "Russia!" and "Donbass!"

Watch the seizer of Lugansk regional state administration here:

Then part of protesters left for the Lugansk TV center to demand to switch on Russian TV channels.
In the evening there was a report the representatives of "Donetsk People's Republic" came to Lugansk to discuss the unification of Lugansk and Donetks at one "people's republic".
source in Russian

Reportedly, the police department of Lugansk oblast is now surrounded by crowd of locals. Here the video:

The "president" Turchinov demands to dismiss the heads of police in Lugansk and Donetsk.

[Mihais]

Do you think there are not already Russian military units operating within Eastern Ukraine?

Sir,the Russian main effort is their IW.It works on the premise of their military invincibility.Taking out Cossacks or Spetsnaz doesn't do the job,because they have plausible deniability of sorts.However,if AFV's go up in flames live on CNN or BBC and Russian troops raise their hands,the whole IW campaign goes down.

From before the flight of Yanukovich I thought the Russian army is just another 14th Army in the Transnistrian war.There,Mother Russia sent Cossacks,convicts,volunteers,regular troops in plain clothes etc... to act as the opressed people.The Moldovan fascists were about to become independent and the danger was they were going to unite with the Romanian fascists.Unlike Ukraine,(so far) the Moldovan fascists fought and nearly won(despite the bunch of apparatchiks in Chisinau working for the other side).When things turned crappy for their proteges,the Russians moved in officially with heavy weaponry and checked the Moldovans.So far,the people in Transnistria still yearn to join Mother Russia,but the g'damned fascists surrounding them won't let them.For ethnic Romanians still there is the tough life the fascists deserve.
No problem,Mother Russia is carving a path to its heroic sons.

So,in our part of the world,we've already seen this movie and the likely consequences.Yaawn!

[Mihais]

I have a question to all.
Why is the Russian point of view on these events so irritating for the western public?

Let's take it easy.You said the 3 Baltic republics were liberated in 1940 and joined freely the USSR.There were lands liberated that year,but only those 3 were liberated as a whole.You said nationalists were ruling them.Ok.

For the 3 Baltic nations,as well as for Poles,Ukrainians in the West and Romanians,Soviet liberation from ''nationalism'' meant the absolute low point in their history and a very real danger they would be gone from the face of the Earth.
Besides the hundreds of thousands executed,there were other hundreds of thousands deported,of which only a few returned home.It also meant a complete reversal of everything that was good,moral and useful.It meant a complete reversal of natural order.The scum rose to the top and become ''comrades''.For those,it was a liberation.Liberation to rob,kill,abuse power and make a mess.
For the remaining ones,came starvation.You know,the sort you have almost nothing to eat.

Then came the war,fortunately.After that,another liberation.

The thing that makes me wonder is not why people raise eyebrows when Russians adopt Soviet vocabulary and get ideas of ''union'' or ''liberation''.Is why only a handful of Russians adopt the legacy of the White Army?The Red legacy meant for your nation more destruction than the rest of Europe suffered in both world wars.

[MrSecond]

Mihais, I thought the "Moldovan fascists" are independent. Or Moldova is not independent?

[MrSecond]

New fight in the center of Kiev today

Fight for relics of Maidan

As the description of video says, the group of Ukrainian nationalists wanted to go through Maidan to take away the "relics" of Maidan. I have no idea what are these "relics". But self-defense of Maidan stopped them.

What a nice and peaceful European city. I like it more and more...

[Minskaya]

Let's look what is going on in Ukraine now.

Luhansk is being "peacefully liberated"...

[Parihaka]

You took that train trip? If not is it still on the list?

Hell yes, while I see Putin as paranoid with delusions of grandeur I don't think him mad, nor do I believe Russia is going to suddenly turn into a lawless state. Looking forward to it.

[Parihaka]

Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas.

He's not Jupiter, he's not angry, and he is not wrong.

[andrew]

The thing that makes me wonder is not why people raise eyebrows when Russians adopt Soviet vocabulary and get ideas of ''union'' or ''liberation''.Is why only a handful of Russians adopt the legacy of the White Army?The Red legacy meant for your nation more destruction than the rest of Europe suffered in both world wars.

You can find the answer in your own comment.
For your people those events were the absolute low point in their history.
For my people they were the highest.

[Firestorm]

More convenient if one is provided, don't you think? Still, to your point, Russia does make up provocations. The granddaddy of all of them is demanding Ukraine do nothing about the take over of its gov't buildings in the east by pro-Russian groups. The absurdity of it is mind boggling.

Didn't the west ask the Yanukovich govt. to go easy on the Maidan protesters who also did that and more?

An op-ed in RT expanding on that thread...

I'm confused, can anyone help me?

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found at Neil Clark.

I'm confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not 'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.

Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.

Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of 'democracy', McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who said, “You just don't invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.

Have I misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media 'experts' that the Crimea referendum wasn't valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I've just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our 'way of life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless 'War on Terror' against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.

When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Then there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.

Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO's concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

[Parihaka]

Didn't the west ask the Yanukovich govt. to go easy on the Maidan protesters who also did that and more?

An op-ed in RT expanding on that thread...

I'm confused, can anyone help me?

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not 'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.

It's really not that tricky, though I'm not surprised the journalist is confused. In truth, he answers himself

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not 'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.

Who is currently using force, and who isn't?

[Firestorm]

It's really not that tricky, though I'm not surprised the journalist is confused. In truth, he answers himself

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force

Who is currently using force, and who isn't?

Force was being used by both sides in both cases. We all saw the pics in January, just as we are seeing them now.

The Russians didn't like the "protesters" in January, and the West doesn't like the "protesters" now.

[Parihaka]

Force was being used by both sides in both cases. We all saw the pics in January, just as we are seeing them now.

The Russians didn't like the "protesters" in January, and the West doesn't like the "protesters" now.

Yup. In February over 100 protesters were killed, and 13 Police.

Thus far, how many pro-Russian protesters have been killed? 3? 5? 10?

So is it the Russians, or Ukrainians who are doing the killing?

[TopHatter]

You can find the answer in your own comment.
For your people those events were the absolute low point in their history.
For my people they were the highest.

Well, except for the poor bastards that got hauled off to Kolyma.

But then I guess the lucky ones were simply executed at Lefortovo or the nearest idyllic Polish forest.

[JAD_333]

Didn't the west ask the Yanukovich govt. to go easy on the Maidan protesters who also did that and more?

An op-ed in RT expanding on that thread...

I'm confused, can anyone help me?

Firestorm:

Yeah, he's confused alright. He writes: "The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings."

He's wrong on two counts. First, the US never issued any warnings, and second it did not condone crowd violence. The US ambassador laid out the US position after government security forces attacked peaceful protestors: "Nuland met with President Viktor Yanukovich in Kiev, where thousands of protesters have been occupying Independence Square. "I made it absolutely clear to him that what happened last night, what has been happening in security terms here is absolutely impermissible in a European state, in a democratic state," she told reporters after the meeting." Inside Ukraine's Euromaidan protest, fueled by political conscience - and pork fat - NBC News

The author seeks to create a false equivalence where there is no equivalence at all. The US message to Yanokovych was not backed up by a US army sitting nearby. The protestors themselves were mostly nationalists demanding new leadership for Ukraine. They were not out to dismember the country. On the other hand, pro-Russian separatists, after occupying public buildings, proclaimed a new independent region and demanded to be made apart of Russia. When Ukraine understandably wanted to act to counter this threat to its sovereignty, Russia literally warns Ukraine not to act lest its 40,000-strong force just across the border be forced to cross over to protect Russian speakers.

You be the judge: Are these two positions the same?