pipy

Another way to view it, is that the West is waging a proxy war against Russia.

One might say that confrontation started with the West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime. Another might say that it started when the West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine and instead pushed for military options [1]. But these are technicalities.

There are two steps left before the possible direct military confrontation between the West and Russia. One step is the West officially sending troops to Ukraine, and another is Russia officially sending troops to Ukraine. Most probably, neither of them would be taken, but the situation is already dangerous enough.

Many say, that after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion, after many other actions of good will by USSR and then Russia, the West has been methodically showing us that it doesn't accept Russia as a peaceful partner.

By sanctioning Russia, by turning the blind eye on atrocities carried out by Kiev government, the West is waging the war against Russians, not only against Putin.

I do not know, how this crisis would end, but it is for sure going to set back our relations with the West for decades to come. And this is not all Putin's fault.

> Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation.

Before the Russian actions in Crimea, there was a popular uprising against coup government.

The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years. The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.

Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia, just after the coup government has started to pass one of it's first laws, the one that revoked the rights of the Russian-speaking regions to use Russian as second official language.

Personally, I don't like how Russia used it's military in Crimea and think that people of Crimea should have been allowed to fight for the independence themselves, possibly with some help. This was important technical issue and Russia has most probably got it wrong.

The situation is complicated by the fact that in reality there are different parts of Ukraine with completely different mindsets, preferences and interests.

But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around. This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.

P.S.

The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population". And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home [3] [4].

The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1]

Here are the qoutes:

Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс. [...] В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить.

Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".

So:

1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive.

2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it.

3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated.

In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc.

> The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.

So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words.

P.S.

I've actually used pyyaml parser. :)

Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2]

So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree.

In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1]

> This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement.

This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.

These have back-references to official sources that you try to ignore.

> 2. A single minute's check on Wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.

No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.

The same goes to your reference to Wikipedia page about Crimean referendum, in particular, the data about previous polling [1]. Previous polls were taken before the overthrowing of Yanukovich and before new Kiev Government has issued statement about revocation of Russian language law.

About Syria:

Here are the words of lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom from official UN press-conference, pinpointed to minutes and seconds: [2]

Congressman Alan Grayson on NYT: [3]

As about your links to HRW, first one [4] is about different attack, that was not used as a pretext to possible Western bombardments, so I would rather not discuss it to prevent "topic creep". The second one [5] is contradicted by the conclusions of UN investigators, because they report that rocket bust have had much smaller range: 2 km [6] instead of "3.8 to 9.8" reported by HRW article [5], which makes HRW narrative fall apart.

So, this means, that in Syria, just like with Iraq in 2003, the West has used at best dubious evidence as a political pretext for possible war. This, and previous history with accidents like the one in The Gulf of Tonkin [7], we have every right to be skeptical about western claims that are not supported by strong evidence.

> (I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)

Then how can you possibly have an informed opinion if you limit your sources of information to Western mainstream media?

> You are contradicted by Wikipedia.

No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones. February ones were made before overthrow of Yanukovich (Donetsk and Luhansk regions were one of the big electoral bases for Yanukovich), and March before the fight for federalization of Ukrainian State by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was completely ignored by Kiev Government.

And it is very important difference from the sociological point of view, because it was also after the Odessa Massacre and Ukrainian Forces attack on Mariupol. BTW, the author of the quote, sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author of The Guardian newspaper [1]. Is he not mainstream enough for you?

Which means that you've cross-checked one source and now erroneously claim that it is not credible.

> I have spent too much time on this. :-(

I can understand you. What is my point of view is that one should trust no single party or source of information to be credible and do research for oneself. And this is the only way to be free, as in Freedom.

> Any proofs against?

Food for thought:

"Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013" by Richard Lloyd, Former UN Weapons Inspector [2]

"Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything" (has number of first-party sources). [3]

"UN Investigator Undercuts NYT on Syria" by Robert Parry, former Newsweek and AP reporter [4]:

The lead author of the UN report on the Aug. 21 incident has contradicted the much-touted “vectoring” claims of a New York Times front-page story and Human Rights Watch, which has been pushing for a U.S. military intervention in Syria.

The UN inspectors have voiced uncertainty about who carried out the attack. At the press conference, Sellstrom admitted, “I don’t have information that would stand in court.” He also told Wall Street Journal writer Joe Lauria that both sides in the conflict had the “opportunity” and the “capability” to carry out chemical weapons attacks.

Etc. Wish you good luck!

There is no evidence that supports your argument about Russian military takeover of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. You are talking about something so significant that must have left some verifiable trace, right?

> (Karma 34 account.)

You don't provide a single footnote, and I actually provide sources to my claims.

I give you simple questions and you prefer to ignore them.

Yes, I rarely participate in internet discussions. Is appealing to my low karma your last and most powerful argument?

> Especially with satellite pictures, recorded conversations, etc.

So, let's bring these to the table?

Edit:

No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue.

I will quote the article for your convenience:

Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1]

The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2]

Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that:

"And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3]

>He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?

OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show.