Політичний аналітик Дмитро Потєхін вважає, що Мінські переговори, як і, власне, військовий конфлікт, нікому, крім Путіна, Кучми, Медведчука та їх оточення, не потрібні, а самі переговорники лише вдають захист інтересів України. На думку Потєхіна, основна функція делегації та Мінських переговорів взагалі – легітимізація Кучми та його компанії як рятівників та посередників.
“Це класична модель кришування, відома кожному підприємцю початку 90х – “Ви не будете нам платити і вам не потрібен наш захист, бо у вас нема проблем? Будуть!” Якби Україну представляли переговорники, а не “кришувальники”, то вони б не сідали за стіл переговорів й не намагались укласти угоду до встановлення миру. Бо кожен мінімально професійний дипломат знає, що переговори під час війни підштовхують сторони до використання зброї як аргументу для досягнення результату переговорів, що призводить до ескалації війни, а не її припинення”, – зазначив експерт у коментарі depo.ua.
Також Дмитро Потєхін впевнений, що Мінські домовленості не сприяють наближенню миру, радше навпаки – є “механізмом відтворення неосовкових корумпованих еліт в Україні та Росії”.
“Донецькі та московські терористи після переговорів у Мінську поводиться так само, як і до переговорів. Вони поводяться як звичайні терористи”, – підсумував він.
Dmytro Potekhin & Eugenia Kuznetsova
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. – George Orwell
Ukraine is trying to do what probably no other nation has done before – protect its territory from Russian occupation and simultaneously implement reforms. To succeed in transformation, Ukraine needs much more efforts and resources compared to its Central European neighbours. To properly tailor the reform efforts a deep understanding of the quality of the country’s current political leadership is needed.
After the violent events that culminated the initially peaceful demonstrations in Ukraine in late 2013 and first months of 2014, the annexation of Crimea and outbreak of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine in spring 2014, experts are still trying to find the answer whether violent events can be prevented in the country. Taking into account the experience of the peaceful revolution in 2004 that accomplished its aim of nonviolent and fair elections without any bloodshed, we attempt to understand the preconditions of the violent developments in 2013-2014. This research project looks into the role of the media in the coverage of the usurpation of power by the regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
The issue of usurpation is important for several reasons. The ability to recognize usurpation and oppose it non-violently helps not only to save lives, but improve governance. Disobedience among police and special forces increases the probability not only of successful removal of oppressive regimes (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2008), but also helps to consolidate freedom and successfully reform states (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005). Knowledge about the illegitimacy of the Ukrainian administration after the constitutional change would have helped to withdraw popular support and institutional cooperation, weaken and finally dissolve power (Sharp, 1993) of the Yanukovych regime non-violently.
Continue reading Usurpation of Power in Ukraine 2010-2014: The Role of the National Media
Liga News Agency made nice infographics of our survey on the methods Ukrainians say they want to use against the occupiers. Relative majority of 39,3% think that Donbas will be liberated when Ukraine will have tangible results in domestic reforms. 18,3% believe that Donbas will be liberated when the Donbas people itself will start resisting the occupiers “peacefully” and 11,3% think – when armed resistance will start in Donbas. Interesting is that less than 1% of Ukrainians believe that Ukraine is being liberating Donbas now. More figures (in Russian) can be found in the Liga News Agency publication.
Why the Crimea is blocked by the activists, not the official Kyiv? Why only Crimea, not Russia? Why the new Ukraine’s War Doctrine mentions “information war” and “special operations” against Ukraine, but no “war of Russia against Ukraine”? Why lots of Ukrainians are ready to fight the occupiers nonviolently, but there is also nothing about this way of vaging conflict in the documents and activities of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry?
More details of the survey on nonviolent resistance the Nonviolent Solutions Agency conducted in August-September 2015 in partnership with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and the Center of Strategic Studies.
Ukrainian politics is too corrupt; Recognition of the Yanukovych regime as usurpers would have helped Ukraine efficiently deal with the debt negotiations; the EU can learn how to deal with migrants and dictators from the US and the Orange Revolution. More details from Dmytro Potekhin in Ukrainian.
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?
Continue reading A Peace Activist’s War
If you want to learn how Donetsk concentration camps are organised, talk to the terrorists about nonviolent resistance and learn how to survive a terrorist prison – go to the occupied city without official journalist accreditation from the terrorists. Dmytro Potekhin did it in August 2014. Or just listen to Dmytro’s conversation with BBC World Service.
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.
Continue reading Ukrainian Struggle Explained: The Maidan Revolution, Resistance to Military Intervention and Citizens’ Organizing
There are still many optimists who consider Yanukovych to be just a corrupt paranoid, who can be controlled by the oligarchy who are interested in accessing EU markets. Actually, Yanukovych is seeking violence as a way of pay back, revenge for his 2004 failure. He is using the whole state apparatus for this. He will keep talking about dialogue, but there are no democratic institutions for a dialogue in Ukraine as he usurped power back in 2010.
Continue reading Eastern Gangstership
Dear , your recognition of the Usurper of Ukraine Yanukovich as the legitimate president of the country has not only helped to assure the police that it is following legitimate orders to beat peaceful protesters, but also provided the way for his deals with Moscow. Although it is Yanukovich and his regime who are mainly responsible for the usurpation of power in Ukraine and the violence against the peaceful protesters, I am sure you personally and the rest of the EU external and internal services have their responsibility for what is going on in Ukraine.
Read the whole letter >>