Дослідження уподобань щодо методів боротьби з окупантами здійснив Київський міжнародний інститут соціології з 31 серпня по 13 вересня 2015 року на замовлення Агенції ненасильницьких рішень та громадської організації «Центр стратегічних досліджень».
Детальний звіт буде опубліковано найближчим часом. Основні результати дослідження висвітлено в прес-релізі.
– Mr. Potekhin, last year you were held in captivity in Donetsk for 48 days and right now your case is being decided by European Court of Human Rights. Can you tell us who are you suing?
– I’m suing first of all Russia, of course, for the terrorist operation. This terrorist organisation is doing a terrorist operation in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and Ukraine – for the failure to provide rule of law on these territories.
– How did you come up with idea of suing Russia in the European Court Of Human Rights?
– It’s natural because Russia annexed the Crimea and Russia is helping the terrorists in Donetsk, and Russia itself is a terrorist organization basically. We still for some reasons call it ‘country’, for some reasons this organization has its diplomats in the UN Security Council, and here in Kyiv, but actually they are not diplomats, they are representing Russia, but they are representing not a country, they are now representing terrorist organization called Russia.
Продовжуючи тему про метафори, які описують російського президента ву ЗМІ, хотілось би згадати ще декілька слів, які у західних медіа останнім часом асоціюються із Путіним.
У той час, як нам ще із часів Майдану весь час бракує розуміння з боку західних сусідів, і ми кепкуємо над “глибокою занепокоєністю” західних політичних лідерів, світові медіа дозволяють собі формулювання, які ментально відносять нас у часи холодної війни.
Разом зі зростанням згадок Адольфа Гітлера в контексті російського лідера, досить популярно асоціювати Путіна із царем з іронічним відтінком:
Путін, цар шоу, повторює історію в Криму (The Australian)
Цар Путін посилає війська, щоб заснувати нову імперію (Sunday Times)
Цар, який змусив російського ведмедя знову загарчати (The Times)
Жадібний цар – погана передумова для демократії (The Sunday Independent)
Царське безумство Путіна (International New York Times)
METTA SPENCER: It’s great that you made it out okay. I was worried. Tell me about it.
DMYTRO POTEKHIN: One hour before I was to take a train back to Kyiv, I took a picture of a hotel where I had stayed several years ago. The rebels were there and one of them saw me. They arrested me on the assumption that I was a spy.
They handcuffed me and put a bag on my head, took me to the restaurant in the basement. For several hours they questioned me and threatened to beat me, but then they got interested in my stories and changed their behavior. They removed the bag from my head. I spent the night in one of the rooms of that empty hotel. In the morning they blindfolded and handcuffed me, and took me to another place were I was interrogated by several other people. Then they brought me to a former factory, where I spent 48 days.
SPENCER: How truthful were you about your own politics?
Abstract: The present research aims to analyse the metaphorical use of Hitler’s personality in the Russian context in contemporary mass media published in English. The brief analysis of the metaphor’s use was also conducted for media published in German and Spanish. The research encompasses 13 years, from May 1st 2001 to May 1st 2014. The first part of the research deals with the dynamics and frequency of the metaphor’s use, exposing the growing popularity of the Hitler metaphor in shaping the ideology of contemporary Russia in media discourse. The second part includes a critical metaphor analysis that involves 268 articles from The Times (UK), 176 articles from The Wall Street Journal (USA) and 265 articles from Die Welt (Germany) in the time range from May 1st 2001 to May 25th 2014. The analysis attempts to discover the underlying meanings of the Hitler metaphor and identify the purposes and ideologies conveyed by this particular metaphor. Download PDF >
On August 7, hours after arriving in rebel-controlled Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine Dmytro Potekhin, a civic activist from Kiev, wandered past the Liverpool Hotel, a boutique guest house – now apparently abandoned – where he once stayed with a girlfriend. He took out his camera. That was a big mistake.
A rebel with a machine gun emerged and demanded to see Mr Potekhin’s passport. Spotting Mr Potekhin’s Kiev registration stamp, the man grabbed him, pulled a bag over his head, and took him into the empty hotel where he was held overnight.
After a brief interrogation the next day, Mr Potekhin was taken to what locals call the “isolator” – the basement of an arts centre near downtown Donetsk that separatists have turned into a security base and, in effect, a dungeon.
So began 48 days of what seems scarcely imaginable in 21st-century Europe: forced labour, intimidation and humiliation, as hostage of the Russian-backed separatists who control Ukraine’s southeast corner.
An ICNC-moderated webinar discussion brought together four Ukrainian guests with backgrounds in academia, journalism, activism, and policy to talk about the political conflict in Ukraine. A number of false narratives have emerged that branded the Maidan Revolution as violent, driven by radicals and external powers. After the invasion of Crimea and its annexation to Russia some commentators suggested that the outcome of the referendum reflected the preferences of the majority of the Crimean population and the political change represented by the annexation of Crimea to Russia was in fact engineered peacefully, which contrasted with the supposedly violent nature of the Maidan Revolution that brought down the Yanukovych regime.