Ukraine Information and Analysis
August 3, 2014
Roger Annis
Aug 3, 2014: A seasoned reported at the New York Times has provided a fascinating interview about eastern Ukraine. She was one of the first reporters on the scene of the MH17 crash and provides very keen insights into the people of the region where the plane came down. The interview was given to Charlie Rose on July 29.
By contrast, a written Times report on Aug 1 is a study in war propaganda. I have published today on my website a comment on the two Times items. The text is below.
Further below is an extraordinary statement by rebel fighters in southeast Ukraine that was published in a Russian online journal some days ago. It has been translated and published in English by the left wing Borotba group/party in Ukraine (English language web page here).
The fighters’ statement gives a glimpse into the intense class struggle that is interwoven into the resistance struggle in southeast Ukraine against the brutal war of the Kyiv regime.
For those who read French, the intensity of the war is recorded in periodic, state-of-the-war reports from eastern Ukraine being published in a right-wing journal in France. The latest report is dated July 31 and has the ring of authenticity to me.
Yesterday, the Toronto Star published a Bloomberg news item that included this information: “In the city of Luhansk, one of the main population centres of the rebel-held areas, five civilians were killed and nine wounded in the past 24 hours, according to the local council. The city of more than 400,000 people is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe because it has no electricity, water supply or mobile phone coverage, according to its website.
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has rescinded his resignation notice of ten days ago. The resignation was a pressure tactic by the fanatical neo-conservative to win adoption in the Rada of a war tax of 1.5 per cent and win some privatizations of the energy supply system in the country. I’m not yet aware of the details of the privatizations; mainstream news is very sketchy.
Roger Annis
* * *
Two differing views in the New York Times on the war in eastern Ukraine
By Roger Annis, Aug 3, 2014
http://www.rogerannis.com/two-differing-views-in-the-new-york-times-on-the-war-in-eastern-ukraine/
Sabrina Tavernise is a reporter at the New York Times who has spent a lot of time in eastern Ukraine of late. She was with the first, small group of international reporters who arrived at the scene of the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 hours after it came down on July 17. she was a guest on the Charlie Rose program on PBS on July 29 and she provided a highly informative, 16-minute interview. The interview is here; it begins at the 22’ mark (warning: the interview is immediately preceded by an interview with Israel’s ambassador to the United States).
Tavernise brings her particular insights as well as her biases to the interview. She provides a fascinating insight into the people of eastern Ukraine who are resisting the murderous war being waged against them by the government in Kyiv.
Tavernise confirms that the self defense fighters in the region where the plane came down made no effort to stop international inspectors from reaching the crash during the time in which they controlled the site. Days after fighters turned the site over to the international inspection, blockage began on July 27 by the Ukraine army as it rampaged in the area, violating calls for a ceasefire. The blockage lasted for four days. No foreign journalist of which I am aware inquired into why access to the site was closed and what happened there during that time. As to the governments in Europe, North America and Australia that are supporting Kyiv’s war, well, it’s a fact that they did not ask questions or express outrage at the blockage.
Speaking about the rebel movement, Tavernise explains, “For the most part, they are indigenous people–coal miners, clerks, drivers of buses, just ordinary people living there who feel threatened by the Ukraine government bringing in tanks and planes to suppress their rebellion. For the most part, they are impoverished.
“For the most part, their pants are tied together with pieces of string [she gestures sympathetically]. They have one cow, they have one rifle. Many of them took pains to point out to us, to show us: ‘Look at my gun, look at when it was made’. And it would be 1945, 1952–very old pieces of equipment.”
She said there had been several “bombings” [artillery or aerial attacks] in the area by Kyiv forces prior to the crash, provoking “great hostility” to what is, as a result of attacks, now perceived to be a foreign government.
She was asked by Charlie Rose about the goals of the rebel movement, but her stated experience is with the rudimentary political base of the movement, not its leading cadre. So her answer is very partial. The program host quickly moves on to other matters, including speculative questions about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A contrasting and quite biased report from eastern Ukraine is provided by another journalist at the Times in a print report dated Aug. 1. Andrew Higgins reports from the city of Slavyansk, which was under siege and assault by the Kyiv government for two months beginning in May. The assault was spearheaded by barbaric shellings and fighter aircraft attacks on the city that eventually cut water, electricity and communications to the civilian population and caused much of it to flee.
Higgins doesn’t say a word about the bloody siege and assault by Kyiv. Instead, he is focused on convincing the reader of all the shortcomings and failings of the harsh and chaotic conditions under which the population sought to resist the military aggression.
An example of the subtle bias of the report is a quotation from the chief surgeon at the city’s Lenin Hospital. Arkady Glushenko says, “It was a horror, a total horror. Nobody wants a repeat of that.” But what is the “it” to which the surgeon is referring? Higgins sets it up to imply that the surgeon is referring to the chaotic rule of the rebels. But it seems rather evident that the surgeon is talking about Kyiv’s assault. We are left to guess at the exact truth.
Many of the quotations printed by Higgins are similarly vague and undefined. The aim, it is evident, is to marshall selected quotations to convince the reader that the self defense fighters are to blame for all the suffering and that local residents, indeed, hold them responsible.
Higgins inadvertently provides information in his article refuting his thesis of a population welcoming its liberators. He says the Ukraine army has “flooded” the city with soldiers and police, many of whom have little formal training. And he quotes rather ominously a Ukraine government police official as to the intentions of the new political rule that has been restored by Kyiv. He says, “We can’t just liberate these places by force of arms but need to change people’s thinking.”
The picture that emerges from Higgins’ account of Slavyansk during the Kyiv government assault is that of a city in chaos. Not surprising, considering the savagery of the attack. But the reader is told nothing of that attack, not a word. As to what it all means, who can trust the views of a journalist who says not a word of the brutal assault by Kyiv? He seems on a mission to discredit self-defense fighters as well as the local population who–surprise!–voice critical words about the self defense forces… now that they are living under an occupation by their conquerors.
* * *
Appeal of the common fighters to the heads of Donetsk Peoples Republic and Luhansk Peoples Republic
Below is a translation of an article from an online Russian publication. The original Russian is here. It dates from late July 2014.
Respected deputies, ministers and heads of Donetsk Peoples Republic, Luhansk Peoples Republic and Novorossia – Comrades!
We, ordinary militia volunteers turn to you with questions. Our questions circulate among our ranks because we do not want to spill blood or pay with our lives under the guise of patriotic slogans to simply produce another redistribution of property replacing the Ukrainian business elite with a new, already emerging DNR elite. We ordinary soldiers, yesterday’s workers and peasants, do not want to return home to be hired laborers in degrading conditions for new businessmen. But such trends are already visible.
Business owners are embedded in the new power structure. Many individuals representing the new government are dismissive and arrogant toward simple militia members, driving around in expensive cars, dressing in expensive suits, enjoying expensive weapons and telephones–in every way projecting a material and moral superiority but in reality demonstrating spiritual decay and betrayal of the interests of the people.
Meanwhile, we ordinary militia volunteers who came to defend our homeland, with the hope of building a new nation, a more just society, are in a complete information vacuum. This raises a lot of questions to which we receive no answers — not in the newspapers, on television, on the Internet, or from officers.
As a result, 90 per cent of the militia and civilians are disoriented, and the process of demoralization, degradation and frustration has begun, met with pseudo-patriotic appeals. I repeat, we are disoriented and cannot distinguish between who is “our own” and who is “foreign” in this war. Today we sit in the trenches, but should the enemy win, believe us, we have the courage and strength to ask these questions to your faces.
Here are some of our typical questions:
1. What would be the economic, political and social system of the future state of Novorossia and the DNR? If we reject the common, meaningless phrases, it turns out that we do not know anything about it.
2. Where is Pavel Gubarev?[2] Has he resigned (or been forced) from the political scene and relegated to a caretaker role?
3. What is the future form of ownership of major assets — our plants, factories, mines, agricultural land, transportation infrastructure, utilities? After all, this is what determines the level of livelihood, access to social benefits and social protection for citizens of the DNR.
There are a lot more questions: the resignation and flight of Denis Pushilin[3], acrimony and fights between some deputies and ministers, the long delayed announcement of a new ruling party able to absorb the political will and responsibility for what is happening, and our common future. There are many questions, but as the saying goes: “If you go with questions, prepare your response!”
We offer the following proposals:
1. As soon as possible, identify and address the people with the political, economic, and social interest in the creation of the DNR and Novorossia.
2. Impose a ban, without exception, on party membership and government leadership for individuals formerly in power.
3. Recreate and institute political commissars in all paramilitary structures and units with obligatory party membership and direct party submission and reporting.
4. Enact rules in the military ranks to prohibit and prevent hazing and the use of profanity against the civilian population.
5. Abandon costly contractual services of those who did not come to this struggle from the heart, but for big salaries. Distribute available funds equally among all members of the militia in order to ensure minimal support to their families. The army should be truly international!
P.S. If any of the above suppositions are incorrect, it is a consequence of the lack of information and lack of response to the key question: What we are fighting for?
Notes: (by Roger Annis)
[1] In Wikipedia: Novorossiya.
[2] Pavel Yurevich Gubarev was born 1983 in Sievierodonetsk, eastern Ukraine. He became the ‘People’s Governor’ of the Donetsk Region at a regional assembly held on March 3, 2014, after pro-autonomy forces seized the main administrative building in Donetsk city. An Associated Press article of July 9, 2014 reports on a press conference given by Gubarev in Donetsk. Here is an excerpt from the article:
At a news conference, Gubarev said: “We would like to receive help in the form of Russian forces. But we are realists and understand that’s impossible.”
Rebels in the Donetsk region and the adjacent Luhansk region have repeatedly called for Russia to send in “peacekeeping” troops as the fight against them intensifies. Russia has shown no inclination to do so, and officials have said that a peacekeeping mission could take place only with UN authorization.
Gubarev suggested that Russian tycoons are opposed to military action, fearing their businesses would be affected. Russia already has been hit with Western sanctions for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in March and for allegedly fomenting the unrest in eastern Ukraine, in which more than 400 people have reportedly been killed. Sending forces into Ukraine would almost certainly prompt even harsher sanctions.
“Their selfish interests are understandable,” Gubarev said.
[3] Denis Pushilin resigned as Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Donetsk Peoples Republic on July 19. A Russian-language report in Interfax Russia says he traveled to Moscow upon resigning.
Source