I’d like to introduce Vladislav Ugolniy, a Russian nationalist in Donetsk and a founder of OPCB — a humanitarian aid and media project which I can’t for the life of me translate.
Thank you Rolo for these interviews with patriots from the Donbass. I surmised that they existed but have never encountered anything like them on any media channel in the West, whether mainstream or reinformation.
It pains me to learn about the poor treatment that the people in Donbass received from Russia, between the assassination or incarceration of patriotic leaders and the appointment of corrupt managers. What a choice between being butchered by the Ukrainian nazis and being robbed by Russian security services while the Ukrainian nazis shell you. It reminds me of the months before February revolution when ministers, officials, and merchants used the difficulties in supplying the cities with food and coal in order to push up prices and make some coin : the people were mere sheep to be fleeced. I believe that Putin and his ministers have made a serious political mistake in their poor treatment of the population in the Donbass.
In the presentation of Ugolniy, you mention that he is in favour of the reunification of the Slavlands under the Russkiy Mir. A worthy goal. However it all depends on what is intended for the populations living in the Russkiy Mir. Peoples were left to their own culture and law under the tsar and there were no questions on their loyalty. The Balts, the Finns, the Cossacks fought for the tsar. Even the German aristocracy and bourgeoisie in the Baltic region fought for the tsar and against the Reich in the First World War. It all changed under the communists with large population displacements and a heavy-handed Russification campaign. This and the communist absurdity created bitterness and resentment among the non-Russians. The Finns and Balts are frightened at the thought of coming again under the rule of Moscow. So are the Ukrainians. They all think they will be killed or sent to Siberia. Nothing Putin does will dispel this fear.
«what is intended for the populations living in the Russkiy Mir. Peoples were left to their own culture and law under the tsar and there were no questions on their loyalty. The Balts, the Finns, the Cossacks fought for the tsar. Even the German aristocracy and bourgeoisie in the Baltic region fought for the tsar and against the Reich in the First World War.»
That needs to be understood properly, because the usual ways of "tory" and "whig" teaching of history obfuscate the big picture, focusing on "personalities":
* The "ancien regime" (feudal system) was the political form of the mob protection racket: the knights were the enforcers, the earls the local territory lieutenants, the dukes the bosses of a regional mob, the king/tsar the "boss of all bosses".
* In the "ancien regime" loyalty was *personal*, from lower mob boss to higher mob boss, and wars were *dynastic*, that is between mob groups for control of territory: an earl rising against a duke to take over the regional territory, a duke fighting against another duke to take over their mob territory. Ethnicity still mattered, but less than personal loyalty to your mob boss.
* Accordingly dynastic wars were fought by small armies, usually mostly cavalry, gangs of enforcers from different allied mobs, and sometimes they did not touch civilians, except of course to loot them, because the civilians were the prize, the source of the "protection" racket money.
* This all changed with firearms and cannons, which created the horror of industrialized war, fought mostly by huge masses of infantry.
* In order to raise large infantry armies there was a need of a unified ideology for them to fight together, and nationalism was invented for that purpose, and replaced personal loyalty as the basis for army cohesion.
«It all changed under the communists with large population displacements and a heavy-handed Russification campaign. This and the communist absurdity created bitterness and resentment among the non-Russians.»
That is quite the opposite: the non-russian parts of the USSR were heavily subsidized and had disproportionate influence in the USSR, in part because of true belief in internationalism (much the same in the PRC BTW, where for example the Uyghurs have been multiplying like rabbits). Indeed a large part of the collapse of the USSR was due to the russian nationalists wanting to drop the cost of keeping sending subsidies to third-world places like the "stans" (but they made a big mistake: they should have never let Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan leave the RF, simply because of geostrategic reasons).
«The Finns and Balts are frightened at the thought of coming again under the rule of Moscow.»
The finns are a special case (contended between Sweden and Russia), and balts and the ruthenians and the poles are largely managed by their expat communities, which are the descendants of the lower nobility of the lithuanian-ruthenian-polish empire, that is "white" petty nobility, and remember the USSR period as one of "red" egalitarianism.
They know very well that instead of rule of Moscow they are instead going to be ruled by Washington (or Berlin on behalf of Washington), but they also reckon that "western" rule is elitist and would protect their return to power as "white" elite.
«So are the Ukrainians.»
As usual, those are the (mostly catholic) *ruthenians*, from the western Belarus and western Ukraine areas (which used to be polish-lithuanian before WW2). The (mostly orthodox) ukrainians or malorussians instead usually remember the peace and egalitarianism of the USSR with favour, because the USSR freed them from servitude to their overlords (often ruthenian).
“The population welcomed us warmly, regardless of how hard it was for them to provide food to soldiers; they always found some nice treats — some villagers boiled chicken, others boiled potatoes and cut lard (soldiers dubbed this kind of catering ‘a grandmother’s ration’). However, such attitudes were common only in the Eastern Ukraine.
As soon as we entered the Western Ukraine, that had passed to the Soviet Union from Poland in 1940, the attitude of the population was quite different — people hid from us in their houses, as they disliked and feared the Muscovites and Kastaps [a disparaging name for Russians in Ukraine – translators comment]. Besides that, those places were Bandera areas, where the nationalistic movement was quite strong.”
“I even found my family on the internet! I found my mother's 88 year old sister which meant I could go back to Ukraine as an insider not just a tourist. I really saw both halves of the country that way; westward-looking Kiev which is Catholic and very different from the east, which is a lot closer to the Soviet Union. A lot of people speak Russian in the east so in Ukraine there are two very disparate cultures in one country.”
That is a big problem with V. Putin's famous "one culture, one country" claim about Ukraine and Russia, it does not work so well north-west of Kiev.
You are only half-right about the USSR. The Russification was heavy in terms of language, culture and population replacement. In 1992, Latvia declared independence but Latvians were only half of the population there. Russians made up around one third of the population in Estonia and Lithuania. There are no more Finns in Viipuri/Vyborg. A third of Kazakhstan's population was Russian in 1990. In the USSR, everybody had to speak Russian and had been immersed in a form of Russian culture. This policy is a major break compared to tsarist Russia.
The cultural cut in Ukraine runs west of Kiev, but Kiev and the region it commands are special. They are the ruling city and will do their outmost to resist coming under Moscow's rule. Even though almost everyone in Kiev speaks Russian and shares nearly the same culture. It is in the same vein as Vienna, which has rejected being part of Germany and has remained independent.
I really doubt the influence of the former Polish, Lithuanian, or Ruthenian aristocracy. The real leaders in the west of Ukraine have come from the families of priests and archpriests.
«You are only half-right about the USSR. The Russification was heavy in terms of language, culture»
That russification happened is not the question, it whether it was a policy of the USSR and whether if so it was forced. Consider westernization first and americanization later: it has affected a lot of cultures, some of them fiercely independent, simply because of "follow the leader" or cargo-cultism, voluntarily: after the "Meji restoration" japanese nobles started to wear "western" dress and build "western" style houses, they did not just adopt "western" technology.
«and population replacement»
That was largely due to the USSR being a vast multinational area (and internal passports only limited population exchanges). The richer parts of the USSR got a lot of non-russian immigrants too, from the flood of those from every tiny tribes in the Caucasus and the stans to Moscow, to vietnamese "guest workers" in east Germany. Also the cases of the baltics are special because there have been a lot of waves of different ethnicities as they were contended between various german, nordic, finnish, slavic kingdoms.
«In the USSR, everybody had to speak Russian and had been immersed in a form of Russian culture. This policy is a major break compared to tsarist Russia.»
Was that a policy? Sometimes, as there were both periods of greater central push towards "standardization" (but rarely forced) and periods of greater push towards localization, because the CPSU policy was that what kept together the USSR was not a single "russian world" culture, but the CPSU itself.
Compare instead the spanish or japanese colonial empires: there castilianization or nipponification were both a policy and as a rule forced (often quite violently).
«The cultural cut in Ukraine runs west of Kiev, but Kiev and the region it commands are special. They are the ruling city and will do their outmost to resist coming under Moscow's rule. Even though almost everyone in Kiev speaks Russian and shares nearly the same culture.»
That is I think because they are largely oligarchic gangsters who like enjoying the benefits of formal sovereignty, like those of many tax heavens, to do their dirty deals.
«It is in the same vein as Vienna, which has rejected being part of Germany and has remained independent.»
That's a bit different: the austrians have been independent for many centuries, at the centre of a big empire rivaling the prussian one, and the two "german" empires even fought wars for territory. In case their current independence is mostly fictitious, as for all practical purposes, despite a different culture, they are an extension of Bavaria (more than Germany). I guess Austria was exactly the model that V. Putin had for Ukraine before the SMO.
«I really doubt the influence of the former Polish, Lithuanian, or Ruthenian aristocracy. The real leaders in the west of Ukraine have come from the families of priests and archpriests.»
From what I have read the high "szchlacta" was indeed largely eliminated, the nostalgics of empire are the descendants of the lower nobility and "gentry", among which I guess can well be the families of the powerful local priests (which however tended to be catholic/uniates rather than byzantines).
Well there goes my dream of the Russian government being the “good guys” and saving the world. It was a flimsy dream, I know, so no great loss, I guess?
As usual the news and interviews from the "pro-russian" side are not pretty much entirely made up as those from the USA-ruthenian side, but have a feel of authenticity and reliability, including like in this interview reports of the difficult situations with exploitative oligarchs/gangsters in the DNR/LNR. Thanks for this interview therefore.
«As May came, Russians were burned alive in Odessa and that angered us all.»
It was not the Odessa massacre that really started the rebellion, because that could be blamed on fascist terrorists. The real turning point was I think the Mariupol massacre, 9 May 2014, the day when the civil war started, because it was the first time that official "ukrainian" government troops and armored vehicles were used to mow down ukrainian civilians, a massacre that was celebrated by the USA government of B. H. Obama:
“With the open support of Washington and its European allies, the regime installed by Washington and Berlin in last February’s fascist-led putsch is now extending its reign of terror against all popular resistance in Ukraine. That is the significance of the events in the major eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol yesterday. After tanks, armored personnel carriers and heavily armed troops were unleashed on unarmed civilians in the city, the Kiev regime claimed to have killed some 20 people. The Obama administration immediately blamed the violent repression on “pro-Russian separatists.” This is the second time in a week that the Obama administration has defended the role of the Kiev government in the murder of anti-government demonstrators, having done so following the Odessa killings (see: “US defends role of Kiev regime and fascists in Odessa massacre”).
The violence bore all the hallmarks of a calculated provocation on the 69th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Soviet Red Army. [...] These admirers of Hitler and his Ukrainian collaborators are now serving, with Washington’s full support, as the regime’s shock troops against popular opposition centered in the industrialized east of the country as well as in Russian-speaking centers such as Odessa in the south. The same forces have been given free rein to attack anyone in the west of the country who dares to oppose the fascistic government in Kiev. Outraged accounts from residents of Mariupol, verified by journalists on the ground, make it clear that many of those targeted by the Ukrainian National Guard and associated fascist elements on Friday had been participating in a Victory Day rally commemorating the anniversary.”
The Mariupol massacre has been largely forgotten outside the DNR/LNR, in part because it is was an embarrassment to V. Putin. But I think that very few people in Donbas have forgotten it. If there is a side that I really sympathize with is not the russian side and never mind the fascist ruthenian side, but that of the people of Donbas, who only now are slowly emerging from 8 years of brutality, and I am not surprised that many of them yearn for the years of peace and prosperity that the USSR meant for them.
Honestly, I wouldn't risk being put on a list by donating money if that's what you mean.
We do our own fundraisers for people like Krieger. For individual militia units. Not sure you should get involved in that. It might be illegal or become illegal.
In some parts of Germany and other states people have been prosecuted for using the "Z", "V" symbols or the St. George ribbon. Even in "neutral" Moldova:
«the Republic of Moldova will ban symbols and attributes that promote acts of military aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These include the black and orange two-tone ribbon, known as "St. George's", as well as the letters "Z", "V".»
As our blogger says, "officially" the LNR/DNR are "terrorist organisations", so helping them is a big risk in the "Washington Consensus" area.
BTW if there is something that truly revolts me despite my cynicism is the widespread charitable activity to support the ukrainian government side, the side that started the war of aggression and ethnic cleansing against the Donbas, by the same people who at best completely ignored the massacres and brutality and immiseration of the people of the Donbas. All these numbers were ignored because nearly all the victims were not ruthenian fascists:
Thank you Rolo for these interviews with patriots from the Donbass. I surmised that they existed but have never encountered anything like them on any media channel in the West, whether mainstream or reinformation.
It pains me to learn about the poor treatment that the people in Donbass received from Russia, between the assassination or incarceration of patriotic leaders and the appointment of corrupt managers. What a choice between being butchered by the Ukrainian nazis and being robbed by Russian security services while the Ukrainian nazis shell you. It reminds me of the months before February revolution when ministers, officials, and merchants used the difficulties in supplying the cities with food and coal in order to push up prices and make some coin : the people were mere sheep to be fleeced. I believe that Putin and his ministers have made a serious political mistake in their poor treatment of the population in the Donbass.
In the presentation of Ugolniy, you mention that he is in favour of the reunification of the Slavlands under the Russkiy Mir. A worthy goal. However it all depends on what is intended for the populations living in the Russkiy Mir. Peoples were left to their own culture and law under the tsar and there were no questions on their loyalty. The Balts, the Finns, the Cossacks fought for the tsar. Even the German aristocracy and bourgeoisie in the Baltic region fought for the tsar and against the Reich in the First World War. It all changed under the communists with large population displacements and a heavy-handed Russification campaign. This and the communist absurdity created bitterness and resentment among the non-Russians. The Finns and Balts are frightened at the thought of coming again under the rule of Moscow. So are the Ukrainians. They all think they will be killed or sent to Siberia. Nothing Putin does will dispel this fear.
Very insightful comment. Thank you for sharing. It's hard to explain this to Russians though. The issue is too emotional to them. Still.
«what is intended for the populations living in the Russkiy Mir. Peoples were left to their own culture and law under the tsar and there were no questions on their loyalty. The Balts, the Finns, the Cossacks fought for the tsar. Even the German aristocracy and bourgeoisie in the Baltic region fought for the tsar and against the Reich in the First World War.»
That needs to be understood properly, because the usual ways of "tory" and "whig" teaching of history obfuscate the big picture, focusing on "personalities":
* The "ancien regime" (feudal system) was the political form of the mob protection racket: the knights were the enforcers, the earls the local territory lieutenants, the dukes the bosses of a regional mob, the king/tsar the "boss of all bosses".
* In the "ancien regime" loyalty was *personal*, from lower mob boss to higher mob boss, and wars were *dynastic*, that is between mob groups for control of territory: an earl rising against a duke to take over the regional territory, a duke fighting against another duke to take over their mob territory. Ethnicity still mattered, but less than personal loyalty to your mob boss.
* Accordingly dynastic wars were fought by small armies, usually mostly cavalry, gangs of enforcers from different allied mobs, and sometimes they did not touch civilians, except of course to loot them, because the civilians were the prize, the source of the "protection" racket money.
* This all changed with firearms and cannons, which created the horror of industrialized war, fought mostly by huge masses of infantry.
* In order to raise large infantry armies there was a need of a unified ideology for them to fight together, and nationalism was invented for that purpose, and replaced personal loyalty as the basis for army cohesion.
«It all changed under the communists with large population displacements and a heavy-handed Russification campaign. This and the communist absurdity created bitterness and resentment among the non-Russians.»
That is quite the opposite: the non-russian parts of the USSR were heavily subsidized and had disproportionate influence in the USSR, in part because of true belief in internationalism (much the same in the PRC BTW, where for example the Uyghurs have been multiplying like rabbits). Indeed a large part of the collapse of the USSR was due to the russian nationalists wanting to drop the cost of keeping sending subsidies to third-world places like the "stans" (but they made a big mistake: they should have never let Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan leave the RF, simply because of geostrategic reasons).
«The Finns and Balts are frightened at the thought of coming again under the rule of Moscow.»
The finns are a special case (contended between Sweden and Russia), and balts and the ruthenians and the poles are largely managed by their expat communities, which are the descendants of the lower nobility of the lithuanian-ruthenian-polish empire, that is "white" petty nobility, and remember the USSR period as one of "red" egalitarianism.
They know very well that instead of rule of Moscow they are instead going to be ruled by Washington (or Berlin on behalf of Washington), but they also reckon that "western" rule is elitist and would protect their return to power as "white" elite.
«So are the Ukrainians.»
As usual, those are the (mostly catholic) *ruthenians*, from the western Belarus and western Ukraine areas (which used to be polish-lithuanian before WW2). The (mostly orthodox) ukrainians or malorussians instead usually remember the peace and egalitarianism of the USSR with favour, because the USSR freed them from servitude to their overlords (often ruthenian).
http://ww2today.com/1-march-1944-the-red-army-marches-across-ukraine
“The population welcomed us warmly, regardless of how hard it was for them to provide food to soldiers; they always found some nice treats — some villagers boiled chicken, others boiled potatoes and cut lard (soldiers dubbed this kind of catering ‘a grandmother’s ration’). However, such attitudes were common only in the Eastern Ukraine.
As soon as we entered the Western Ukraine, that had passed to the Soviet Union from Poland in 1940, the attitude of the population was quite different — people hid from us in their houses, as they disliked and feared the Muscovites and Kastaps [a disparaging name for Russians in Ukraine – translators comment]. Besides that, those places were Bandera areas, where the nationalistic movement was quite strong.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2007/04/16/marina_lewycka_rony_robinson_feature.shtml
“I even found my family on the internet! I found my mother's 88 year old sister which meant I could go back to Ukraine as an insider not just a tourist. I really saw both halves of the country that way; westward-looking Kiev which is Catholic and very different from the east, which is a lot closer to the Soviet Union. A lot of people speak Russian in the east so in Ukraine there are two very disparate cultures in one country.”
That is a big problem with V. Putin's famous "one culture, one country" claim about Ukraine and Russia, it does not work so well north-west of Kiev.
You are only half-right about the USSR. The Russification was heavy in terms of language, culture and population replacement. In 1992, Latvia declared independence but Latvians were only half of the population there. Russians made up around one third of the population in Estonia and Lithuania. There are no more Finns in Viipuri/Vyborg. A third of Kazakhstan's population was Russian in 1990. In the USSR, everybody had to speak Russian and had been immersed in a form of Russian culture. This policy is a major break compared to tsarist Russia.
The cultural cut in Ukraine runs west of Kiev, but Kiev and the region it commands are special. They are the ruling city and will do their outmost to resist coming under Moscow's rule. Even though almost everyone in Kiev speaks Russian and shares nearly the same culture. It is in the same vein as Vienna, which has rejected being part of Germany and has remained independent.
I really doubt the influence of the former Polish, Lithuanian, or Ruthenian aristocracy. The real leaders in the west of Ukraine have come from the families of priests and archpriests.
«You are only half-right about the USSR. The Russification was heavy in terms of language, culture»
That russification happened is not the question, it whether it was a policy of the USSR and whether if so it was forced. Consider westernization first and americanization later: it has affected a lot of cultures, some of them fiercely independent, simply because of "follow the leader" or cargo-cultism, voluntarily: after the "Meji restoration" japanese nobles started to wear "western" dress and build "western" style houses, they did not just adopt "western" technology.
«and population replacement»
That was largely due to the USSR being a vast multinational area (and internal passports only limited population exchanges). The richer parts of the USSR got a lot of non-russian immigrants too, from the flood of those from every tiny tribes in the Caucasus and the stans to Moscow, to vietnamese "guest workers" in east Germany. Also the cases of the baltics are special because there have been a lot of waves of different ethnicities as they were contended between various german, nordic, finnish, slavic kingdoms.
«In the USSR, everybody had to speak Russian and had been immersed in a form of Russian culture. This policy is a major break compared to tsarist Russia.»
Was that a policy? Sometimes, as there were both periods of greater central push towards "standardization" (but rarely forced) and periods of greater push towards localization, because the CPSU policy was that what kept together the USSR was not a single "russian world" culture, but the CPSU itself.
Compare instead the spanish or japanese colonial empires: there castilianization or nipponification were both a policy and as a rule forced (often quite violently).
«The cultural cut in Ukraine runs west of Kiev, but Kiev and the region it commands are special. They are the ruling city and will do their outmost to resist coming under Moscow's rule. Even though almost everyone in Kiev speaks Russian and shares nearly the same culture.»
That is I think because they are largely oligarchic gangsters who like enjoying the benefits of formal sovereignty, like those of many tax heavens, to do their dirty deals.
«It is in the same vein as Vienna, which has rejected being part of Germany and has remained independent.»
That's a bit different: the austrians have been independent for many centuries, at the centre of a big empire rivaling the prussian one, and the two "german" empires even fought wars for territory. In case their current independence is mostly fictitious, as for all practical purposes, despite a different culture, they are an extension of Bavaria (more than Germany). I guess Austria was exactly the model that V. Putin had for Ukraine before the SMO.
«I really doubt the influence of the former Polish, Lithuanian, or Ruthenian aristocracy. The real leaders in the west of Ukraine have come from the families of priests and archpriests.»
From what I have read the high "szchlacta" was indeed largely eliminated, the nostalgics of empire are the descendants of the lower nobility and "gentry", among which I guess can well be the families of the powerful local priests (which however tended to be catholic/uniates rather than byzantines).
How prescient Karamzin was ! It turns out that in addition to being THE historian he created an ideology.
"The new ideology of the once liberal Karamzin was expressed very sharply in his
"Memorandum about the Old and the New Russia," which he
presented to Alexander I in 1811. The "Memorandum" was meant
as a warning to the emperor against the projected constitutional
and liberal reforms, and it began with a brief outline of Russian
history intended to prove that the fortunes, the very life of Russia
were inseparably connected with the institution of autocracy.
A criticism of all projects to limit the power of the sovereign
followed: such plans were found to be inadmissible both on
general grounds and especially in their application to Russia.
Next there was a defense of serfdom and of all the privileges of
the gentry, and an argument advocating a further strengthening
of the gentry, as well as of the Holy Synod. Karamzin's views
were summed up in the famous sentence which declared that
Russia needed fifty good provincial governors, and not reforms.
In another memorandum, "An Opinion of a Russian Citizen"
about Poland, Karamzin discussed the Polish problem in the same
conservative vein. Practically all component elements of subsequent
Russian nationalism can be found in Karamzin's writings.
A detail, especially interesting in connection with Slavophilism,
is that Karamzin took in his "Memorandum" a rather
negative view of Peter the Great"
Peter was the Stalin of his time.
Thank you so much Rolo, not having any idea really about what is going on, I appreciate the good information you bring. Keep it up, please.
Very insightful interview. Helpful in better understanding what is going on when you have the perspective of someone on the inside as a participant.
Well, if my version of fervent prayer counts for anything that's what it will be.
Well there goes my dream of the Russian government being the “good guys” and saving the world. It was a flimsy dream, I know, so no great loss, I guess?
This is one guy's opinion.
And I think we're moving in the right direction. 2 steps forward, one step back, but still.
As usual the news and interviews from the "pro-russian" side are not pretty much entirely made up as those from the USA-ruthenian side, but have a feel of authenticity and reliability, including like in this interview reports of the difficult situations with exploitative oligarchs/gangsters in the DNR/LNR. Thanks for this interview therefore.
«As May came, Russians were burned alive in Odessa and that angered us all.»
It was not the Odessa massacre that really started the rebellion, because that could be blamed on fascist terrorists. The real turning point was I think the Mariupol massacre, 9 May 2014, the day when the civil war started, because it was the first time that official "ukrainian" government troops and armored vehicles were used to mow down ukrainian civilians, a massacre that was celebrated by the USA government of B. H. Obama:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/10/ukra-m10.html
“With the open support of Washington and its European allies, the regime installed by Washington and Berlin in last February’s fascist-led putsch is now extending its reign of terror against all popular resistance in Ukraine. That is the significance of the events in the major eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol yesterday. After tanks, armored personnel carriers and heavily armed troops were unleashed on unarmed civilians in the city, the Kiev regime claimed to have killed some 20 people. The Obama administration immediately blamed the violent repression on “pro-Russian separatists.” This is the second time in a week that the Obama administration has defended the role of the Kiev government in the murder of anti-government demonstrators, having done so following the Odessa killings (see: “US defends role of Kiev regime and fascists in Odessa massacre”).
The violence bore all the hallmarks of a calculated provocation on the 69th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Soviet Red Army. [...] These admirers of Hitler and his Ukrainian collaborators are now serving, with Washington’s full support, as the regime’s shock troops against popular opposition centered in the industrialized east of the country as well as in Russian-speaking centers such as Odessa in the south. The same forces have been given free rein to attack anyone in the west of the country who dares to oppose the fascistic government in Kiev. Outraged accounts from residents of Mariupol, verified by journalists on the ground, make it clear that many of those targeted by the Ukrainian National Guard and associated fascist elements on Friday had been participating in a Victory Day rally commemorating the anniversary.”
The Mariupol massacre has been largely forgotten outside the DNR/LNR, in part because it is was an embarrassment to V. Putin. But I think that very few people in Donbas have forgotten it. If there is a side that I really sympathize with is not the russian side and never mind the fascist ruthenian side, but that of the people of Donbas, who only now are slowly emerging from 8 years of brutality, and I am not surprised that many of them yearn for the years of peace and prosperity that the USSR meant for them.
Is there anything we here in the US can do to help?
Honestly, I wouldn't risk being put on a list by donating money if that's what you mean.
We do our own fundraisers for people like Krieger. For individual militia units. Not sure you should get involved in that. It might be illegal or become illegal.
«It might be illegal or become illegal»
In some parts of Germany and other states people have been prosecuted for using the "Z", "V" symbols or the St. George ribbon. Even in "neutral" Moldova:
https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2022/04/14/7137822/
«the Republic of Moldova will ban symbols and attributes that promote acts of military aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These include the black and orange two-tone ribbon, known as "St. George's", as well as the letters "Z", "V".»
As our blogger says, "officially" the LNR/DNR are "terrorist organisations", so helping them is a big risk in the "Washington Consensus" area.
BTW if there is something that truly revolts me despite my cynicism is the widespread charitable activity to support the ukrainian government side, the side that started the war of aggression and ethnic cleansing against the Donbas, by the same people who at best completely ignored the massacres and brutality and immiseration of the people of the Donbas. All these numbers were ignored because nearly all the victims were not ruthenian fascists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
“3,393 civilians killed (349 in 2016–2021)
13,100–13,300 killed; 29,500–33,500 wounded overall
414,798 Ukrainians internally displaced; 925,500 fled abroad”
I'm in Southern Cali so am sure it wouldn't be well received here. My BF endures my Red Army Chorus records with good humor so there's that.