The separatist government in Crimea had declared, after voting for Kremlin rule, that the only legitimate force in the state were the Russians and the Ukrainian military must either join a new Crimean force under Russian control or “go back to their country Ukraine”.
Inside the hitherto inaccessible headquarters the commander, Major General Igor Vorunchenko, speaking to the Independent on Sunday, dismissed the demands. “I served in the old Soviet army and I know some of the Russian officers who are here now: I like some of them. But I have no intention of joining them, nor are we going to any other part of Ukraine from this part of Ukraine without orders from my superiors in Kiev.”
This is as disgusting as it is ironic. There are so many reasons why this referendum will be a charade and travesty I question the logic about having it in the first place. It's not like it will give any legitimacy to this whole issue.
This is as disgusting as it is ironic. There are so many reasons why this referendum will be a charade and travesty I question the logic about having it in the first place. It's not like it will give any legitimacy to this whole issue.
When I say "forensic", I mean more than simply looking at two bullet holes and concluding that they look similar. I mean actual testing. It seems this guy doesn't.
This is way more complex than it seems. Back in 2002 when the Washington shootings occurred the police didn't even discover the caliber or the type of the weapon discovered until they had the actual rifle. IIRC they thought it was a .22 caliber pistol, not a .223 rifle. These were among the top experts in the world, not a medical doctor who saw the bullets. I don't question his medical skills, but knowing one impacted bullet from another and being able to verify with a great degree of certainty is probably something he never did before.
Plus even if they were the same bullets, this would still only signify they were using the same type of weapons ... which again tells us next to nothing, unless they were some highly specific weapons that could be traced to one side or another. That doesn't seem to be the case, so the bullets are pretty much a dead end.
Yeh, you're probably right. It's a fairly desperate move though.
I also question his motives for taking Crimea in the first place. Not only he strongly aided all anti-Russian factions in Crimea and alienated a great deal of fence-sitters, he also took away roughly 5% of electorate that was strongly pro-Russian. A net loss of 2-3% of total national votes in a country as split as Ukraine is bound to be painful, and this is just the certain part. If he wanted to dominate Ukraine he would probably be better off by moving more Russians in it, not taking them away.
In this Putin's stance on Crimea is one or more of the following: an admission of defeat, a self-defeating purpose or a major blunder.
Yeh, you're probably right. It's a fairly desperate move though.
I also question his motives for taking Crimea in the first place. Not only he strongly aided all anti-Russian factions in Crimea and alienated a great deal of fence-sitters, he also took away roughly 5% of electorate that was strongly pro-Russian. A net loss of 2-3% of total national votes in a country as split as Ukraine is bound to be painful, and this is just the certain part. If he wanted to dominate Ukraine he would probably be better off by moving more Russians in it, not taking them away.
In this Putin's stance on Crimea is one or more of the following: an admission of defeat, a self-defeating purpose or a major blunder.
I actually agree with this assessment on all but one part.
My theory on it is that Russia is trying to start more crises like the Crimea crisis by having pro-Russians seize target parliaments buildings.
I think Russia understands fully well that they have lost territories west of the Dnieper River. The quest is will they achieve their aims west of Kiev. For now it seems that their plans are at least partially successful in cities like Donetsk and Kharkov.
If half the country leaves, then it severely casts doubt on the legitimacy of the current regime. That is Moscow's aim. A civil war would tremendously play in their favor.
I actually agree with this assessment on all but one part.
My theory on it is that Russia is trying to start more crises like the Crimea crisis by having pro-Russians seize target parliaments buildings.
I think Russia understands fully well that they have lost territories west of the Dnieper River. The quest is will they achieve their aims west of Kiev. For now it seems that their plans are at least partially successful in cities like Donetsk and Kharkov.
This can only end badly. Russia is not the only country ever that lost territory - Finland and Poland both lost territory to Russian/Soviet wars of aggression. China is another example.
If half the country leaves, then it severely casts doubt on the legitimacy of the current regime. That is Moscow's aim. A civil war would tremendously play in their favor.
Yeh, you're probably right. It's a fairly desperate move though.
I also question his motives for taking Crimea in the first place. Not only he strongly aided all anti-Russian factions in Crimea and alienated a great deal of fence-sitters, he also took away roughly 5% of electorate that was strongly pro-Russian. A net loss of 2-3% of total national votes in a country as split as Ukraine is bound to be painful, and this is just the certain part. If he wanted to dominate Ukraine he would probably be better off by moving more Russians in it, not taking them away.
In this Putin's stance on Crimea is one or more of the following: an admission of defeat, a self-defeating purpose or a major blunder.
The Ukrainian rebellion was, for the most part, an anti-Russian rebellion; a cold, hard slap in Putin's face. To make matters much worse, the Eastern counter-rebellion never materialized. Putin saw Crimea as an opportunity to re-position himself as a heroic liberator, but if you read the article I posted above, the population isn't cooperative. The international reaction has been, I suspect, quite different from what the Kremlin was hoping for; not to mention from their own propaganda outlet. It's too late to reverse field, so now it's down to a fake invitation, staged protests, failed bribe attempts, a puppet parliment and a fraudulent referendum.
The Ukrainian rebellion was, for the most part, an anti-Russian rebellion; a cold, hard slap in Putin's face. To make matters much worse, the Eastern counter-rebellion never materialized.
Could be, yes. It's why Russia is so adamantly against Ukrainian authorities.
Putin saw Crimea as an opportunity to re-position himself as a heroic liberator, but if you read the article I posted above, the population isn't cooperative. The international reaction has been, I suspect, quite different from what the Kremlin was hoping for; not to mention from their own propaganda outlet. It's too late to reverse field, so now it's down to a fake invitation, staged protests, failed bribe attempts, a puppet parliment and a fraudulent referendum.
If true the whole thing is a fiasco on the scale not seen in Russia since, ugh, Winter war part 1. It's very hard to tell if Putin is taking a bite from Ukraine and laughing in our faces or engaged in advanced and desperate damage control. The evidence points both ways. I think the latter is closer to the truth, but not by much.
From 9:08 and after in the famous 41-minute video. Note the helmet, bobbing as if getting a bead on something, apparent scope only visible, raised to the eye as shooting resumes. This is after the October Palace was evacuated, but just before the first unarmed "protesters" were sent in and then pinned down by multiple directions of fire and picked off, mainly from the hotel. Did this guy position himself to be one direction of fire they'd encounter?
Note: the October palace is the yellow-walled building Berkut + snipers were mostly seen at. They retreated under fire at about 12:22 by the big clock out front (which was running). Molotov cocktails, and mass fireworks concealing sporadic gunfire. See about 4-6:00. There's a photo of a solid hole punched in one of its columns (see Voronstov study), app. sniper round, from the hotel. Anyway, they marched south, to further positions closer to the seat of government.
A few minutes later (edits make it unclear), you can see the last three vacating the next front line up, to the left, at the far end of the metro station, and they are apparently chased out with more bullets, fired by a gut following them, as I think this video shows. After, the area was clear, except maybe for this guy with a rifle or any of his friends we didn't get a glimpse of. The first unarmed insurgents were then sent in.
It's said fire from ahead and to the left pinned them down just short of the station. This video resumes only after the first several have fallen, and the rest are sitting shielded from that fire. Here, the first visible, fatal shooting we can say must be from the hotel or so, and none of the forward points.
Whoever pulled off this shot was:
a) on that side of the shield, towards the hotel
b) a sadist with a sense of sick irony. Leave the kid alone until he picks up a shield, points it the "correct" way, then instantly show him the punch line of the sick joke.
Does the victim see the sniper and start to rise, meaning to run, just as he's hit? Medical delays ensured that he died, not instantly, but right there, before he got to tell us his side.
When I say "forensic", I mean more than simply looking at two bullet holes and concluding that they look similar. I mean actual testing. It seems this guy doesn't.
But let's say this guy is right, and the same shooters inflicted all the wounds, that still doesn't lend credibility to speculation of a third force. It might as well be friendly-fire incidents. We're talking about three cases, correct?
This is cleared up by now as well. The videos are often shown in a context they don't belong into. I quote myself from our wiki, talking with CL:
me said:
Yeah, this guy [sniper from the back] shoots to kill. There are more good analysis around by now. Did you see the German dubbed one I posted Monday (Russian/Ukrainian(?) original here)? This has also very interesting footage you will mostly understand without the narration. That makes it absolutely clear that our controversy captioned guys with yellow bands are not Right Sektor in disguise, but special forces like Petri was 100% sure. It has footage from the 19th where they guard the October Palace and on the 20th how they were attacked from the north-west, retreated with several injured/dead (best seen towards the end of the video) to the position were they famously are seen, and then shoot at the advancing guys with their shields - but they don't aim at the people, there are no hits, they just make them retreat (6:15 following). Those scenes also explain why the guys with their shields dare to advance in the first place, because up at the October Palace, their armed comrades take up the special forces. Video has also footage from inside the Hotel, from the entrance which was quite obviously controlled by the "people protectors", shows more guys with rifles (or are these "air guns"), etc. --CE (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep. The last part, the guys in the hotel - I don't know what kind of guns those are, but they're being urgently ordered into an elevator to get the things elevated. Then an angry man stops the filming. Worth a look. It's in the middle somewhere...
Two more analysis videos of the sniper massacre.
Ukraine Feb. 20 enhanced shooting 2
A rescuer is shot, but the guy with a rifle isn't.
Ukraine Feb. 20 enhanced shooting 3
These guys aren't hit from the National Bank or Yanukovych's guest house.
Here's a new twist for me, on the Fascists vs. Communists and alleged snipers angle: allegations that a Communist party official (functionary, whatever) from Lvov was badly beaten and tortured in Kiev (Mariinskyi Park) Aug 22, maybe into confessing he was a sniper. Says they threatened his and his wife and family's lives, and also robbed him.
The photo with that story looks just like the same guy rebels had AFP photograph that same day in Kiev, forced to his knees, crying or just terrified, dunno, at a shrine for a victim. Alleged sniper, forced to pay his respects. Extremely upsetting if true. The details for now are in or near a few links here on our ACLOS page.
Yep. The last part, the guys in the hotel - I don't know what kind of guns those are, but they're being urgently ordered into an elevator to get the things elevated. Then an angry man stops the filming. Worth a look. It's in the middle somewhere...
Two more analysis videos of the sniper massacre.
Ukraine Feb. 20 enhanced shooting 2
A rescuer is shot, but the guy with a rifle isn't.
Ukraine Feb. 20 enhanced shooting 3
These guys aren't hit from the National Bank or Yanukovych's guest house.
Here's a new twist for me, on the Fascists vs. Communists and alleged snipers angle: allegations that a Communist party official (functionary, whatever) from Lvov was badly beaten and tortured in Kiev (Mariinskyi Park) Aug 22, maybe into confessing he was a sniper. Says they threatened his and his wife and family's lives, and also robbed him.
The photo with that story looks just like the same guy rebels had AFP photograph that same day in Kiev, forced to his knees, crying or just terrified, dunno, at a shrine for a victim. Alleged sniper, forced to pay his respects. Extremely upsetting if true. The details for now are in or near a few links here on our ACLOS page.
Could be, yes. It's why Russia is so adamantly against Ukrainian authorities.
If true the whole thing is a fiasco on the scale not seen in Russia since, ugh, Winter war part 1. It's very hard to tell if Putin is taking a bite from Ukraine and laughing in our faces or engaged in advanced and desperate damage control. The evidence points both ways. I think the latter is closer to the truth, but not by much.
If true the whole thing is a fiasco on the scale not seen in Russia since, ugh, Winter war part 1. It's very hard to tell if Putin is taking a bite from Ukraine and laughing in our faces or engaged in advanced and desperate damage control. The evidence points both ways. I think the latter is closer to the truth, but not by much.
So far, the only certain victory is the ideological one. Many outsiders have interpreted the past three months as a Yugoslav-style ethno-cultural fight. It is nothing of the kind. This is a political struggle. Notwithstanding the bloodshed, the best parallel is with Prague’s Velvet Revolution of 1989. The emphasis there on changing society’s moral tone, and each person’s behavior, was likewise central to the protests that overthrew Mr. Yanukovych.
For Ukraine, as well as for Russia and much of the former U.S.S.R., the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was only a partial revolution. The U.S.S.R. vanished, but the old nomenklatura, and its venal, authoritarian style of governance remained. Mr. Putin is explicitly drawing on that heritage and fitfully trying to reshape it into a new state capitalist system that can compete and flourish globally. An alliance with Mr. Yanukovych’s Ukraine was an essential part of that plan.
That effort has now failed. Whatever Mr. Putin achieves in Ukraine, it will not be partnership with a Slavic younger brother enthusiastically joining in his neo-imperialist, neo-Soviet project.
Putin will probably keep the Crimea, but the price will be incredibly high.
No Western government is going to trust him again. Don't think the search for alternate sources of Natural gas and oil has not gone into overdrive.
Investors will think twice about putting money into Russia as long as Putin is head of state.
Russia will be increasingly isolated. Oh, the West will still do business with Russia, but at an arm's length and on much less favorable terms;like the dealt with the Soviet Union.
And all this does if the West does not adapt sanctions. iF they do the price will be still higher.
This is as disgusting as it is ironic. There are so many reasons why this referendum will be a charade and travesty I question the logic about having it in the first place. It's not like it will give any legitimacy to this whole issue.
Some of the leaders of the Tatar population in Crimea have called for boycotting the polls.
I can't decide where I stand on that - on one hand, why vote in polled that may be rigged; polls where none of the choices are good?
Then again, if a large part of the pro-Ukrainian population fails to vote, then the result will appear to be even more lopsided pro-Russian.
Boycotting elections always seems like a mistake made by people who are new to democracies. I mean, I wonder if Egypt's overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood would even have been needed at all if the secular liberal groups have not boycotted the elections that brought the Brotherhood to power.
As to legitimacy, I think Putin is mostly playing to his home-town crowd. His control of the media means more if he can give that media the right things to report. So long as the Russian public backs him, he's gold. The home-town crowd will be shown an election, they will be told it was free and fair, and that it strongly supported re-unification with Russia. Those who only get their news from Russia TV and news will not be told of any irregularities, they will not hear of Ukrainians and Tatars blocked from voting, they will not hear about voting by Russians who only arrived in Crimea in the past few weeks.
Putin is probably banking on Europe not wanting sanctions, and assuming Europe will continue to need Russian gas. He might be wrong about that gas, but only time will tell on that. If there are sanctions or drops in gas exports, he will put spin on that when the time comes. He does not need to worry about that now, he has time to prepare.
I actually agree with this assessment on all but one part.
My theory on it is that Russia is trying to start more crises like the Crimea crisis by having pro-Russians seize target parliaments buildings.
I think Russia understands fully well that they have lost territories west of the Dnieper River. The quest is will they achieve their aims west of Kiev. For now it seems that their plans are at least partially successful in cities like Donetsk and Kharkov.
If half the country leaves, then it severely casts doubt on the legitimacy of the current regime. That is Moscow's aim. A civil war would tremendously play in their favor.
I don't see it going to a civil war, at least not a full scale one. They might try to start more disruption in the East, but I doubt they (Russia) will be able to contain things nearly well as they have in Crimea. The Ukrainian government, as dysfunctional as it may be, it at least fully alert to the risk now and will proactively work to counter Russian ambition.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
