If this happened in the USA, every single protester (and innocent bystander) would be in jail or dead by now.
I heard they forced the retirement of head of the army who was refusing shooting on their own people and put the head of the navy in charge? Doesn't sound like it is going to end well.
Do you really say that in USA president could beat-out peaceful protest (yes, they started completely peaceful, I was there), and later say "it was done in order to install new-year tree"?
You need to tune into our RNC and DNC conventions every 4 years. These are the two political parties that vote themselves millions of taxpayer funded "security" spending for their conventions in congress.
Protesters are beaten and locked up almost immediately, huge "pens" are made to coral them like animals, and recently the new tactic is to make "safe zones" where people are not even allowed near the events anymore.
If there was even a hint of weapons being used, our police are heavily militarized now and would not hesitate to shoot someone even holding a smartphone if they thought they could get away with it. Virtually no police are prosecuted in any given year for shooting unarmed people in the USA, happens every week.
However what you have in the Ukraine is something I am jealous of, people actually care.
With the notable exception of 1968 Democratic National Convention[1] I'm having trouble finding any news coverage of multiple injuries at a RNC or DNC. Care to provide references?
I didn't mean to imply it was as bad as the Ukraine, but for such a "free country" they don't let people even protest anymore so it never can escalate. There are probably better examples like New Orleans that escape me right now.
Also, no-one is allowed near the conventions anymore. So much for freedom of speech unless you want to protest a poor woman going into a health center for an abortion, then be as close as you want.
You are confusing two points of mine, or I didn't explain properly.
In the US if it got to that level, everyone would be in jail or dead.
In the US they would never let it get to that level. Police would not just stand by a peaceful protest without permits. They sure as hell would never let people occupy a government building, even peacefully. They would insert people to make it violent and then start arresting people, at the first sign of weapons, you'd start seeing some massive escalation. If fires were being set on that level the national guard would come in fully armed.
So we are fortunate in that it has not escalated like the Ukraine. But if it did, make no mistake, the US would be giving other countries lessons in brutality.
Our police are completely militarized. They even have tanks now decommissioned from overseas wars. People just do not realize this, or they do not care. But what is really scary is you do not sit on that kind of weapons and not use them, it would be like giving a police officer a taser or gallons of pepper spray and being surprised when they constantly use it.
I don't quite have it, but I think there's an Internet Law in here somewhere.
For every political discussion, there is always a guy who A) drags the US into it, and B) tries to draw the conclusion that the US is actually worse than whatever is being discussed.
There are millions of guns in the US. Consider it a power keg if any of this events you see overseas ever happened here.
Hence the police know they better be even better armed than the civilians and shoot to kill first. This is why we have police officers that kill kids holding phones or game console controllers.
I cannot say the US is worse than elsewhere as is, I am saying it could be worse than elsewhere if the events you see elsewhere happened here. It would be a wasteland. We kind of got a mini-preview of that after New Orleans flooded, there was some seriously criminal police behavior.
My friends were eating at Mickey's Diner (in downtown St. Paul, MN) when the protests were broken up by police.
They heard the calls to disperse but wanted to finish eating, so they stayed a few minutes extra figuring that they weren't a part of the protests anyway so they'd be fine. A few minutes later they exited the restaurant and got the full treatment: tear-gassed, tackled, handcuffed, and taken to jail. They saw someone who was running away get hit in the head with a tear gas canister.
In all these sniper events, they are all too tricky.
Sniper shoots people, people enrage and kill police, snipers kills police, police defends and kills people.
Most of the times I am inclined that snipers are 3rd party working for the benefit of pushing around people/police/media.
Why do people on video wear non-military boots, yellow identification stripes, use outdated weapons and can't hold a gun right? I mean with left hand, there are no left-handed versions, especially so old, used rounds will hit user's face. And that "sniper" actually doesn't shoot at all. And leaves only _after_ everybody moved back, leaving him exposed. That's ridiculous.
Opposition doesn't have any kind of weapon or warriors at all! People are not with opposition, and opposition leaders lost their voice now, noone listens to them. People are too angry.
According to [Ukrainian Security Service head] Yakimenko, “over the last day more than 1,500 firearms and 100,000 rounds of ammunition have come into the hands of criminals.”
...
Meanwhile in Ivano-Frankovsk, rioters have seized 268 pistols, 2 rifles, 3 light machine guns, 92 grenades and 15,000 ammunition rounds, the deputy head of the Security Service, Vladimir Porodko, has said, adding that the police are searching for the stolen arms.
Sorry for being not clear enough. I'm not saying protestors don't have weapon. I'm just saying that we shouldn't call them "opposition". Opposition are bunch of politicians that want to do everything peaceful and were never radical. Protestors are separate from opposition.
Sure. Ukrainian Security Service hired criminals and led criminals out of jail, gave them weapons and so they went shooting at the protesters.
World news (i.e. US, UK and some other state sponsored news services) are still behind Yanukovich, so I wouldn't trust how they are spinning the events.
no, of course not, I mean, the government is just saying that the weapons have been stolen, so that when they 'massacre' the peaceful protestors, they can point the finger and say, 'but it wasn't us, weapons were stolen'. Seriously.... you watch too much CSI.
Thanks ukrainian laws, there is no need in Gandhi-way resistance. Opposition have ability to make referendum by collecting 3,000,000 signatures(not that much, Yanukovich had 11,000,000 during last elections). But that's no way for ukrainian opposition unfortunately. The way of UA opposition is illegal squatting of main square of the whole state and clashing with the police. The sad thing irrational and aggressive thinking being widely supported by media and internet users.
Civil disobedience is all about breaking the law without hurting people. In general it only takes place when large numbers of people have a problem with the law itself. If the state enforces the law by hurting people then public opinion will swing in favor of the people who are being hurt. This is the whole point. Arguing that the opposition was not peaceful because they broke the law without hurting people is obviously wrong and misses the point.
It happens in the US too. An 84 year old nun was just sentenced to 3y in prison yesterday in Tennessee for taking part in a peaceful protect against the US nuclear weapon program. Being put in prison isn't as dramatic as being shot by snipers, but it does represent harm and it does affect public opinion (to what extent, who knows).
You mean the 12m votes he got in the election that was deemed to be unfair by international observers? I'm not surprised people have no faith that the recall process will work.
http://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?r=3.4.2.4
Illegal means "should be stopped by legal power. AFAIK there's no doubts in previous elections results, so Yanukovich is legal power and had to stop illegal squatting(feel the difference with Russia/arabic countries where were serious doubts whether power is legl or not).
You are conflating "illegal" with "immoral", which is perhaps the most dangerous and most common political fallacy today.
Laws can be changed, sometimes arbitrarily or to serve corrupt interests. If your morality changes with the laws your politicians impose upon you then you are little more than a serf.
> Illegal means "should be stopped by legal power."
It means that perhaps it will be. I think beyond that you'll find there are varying opinions on whether it's a moral imperative to enforce the law all the time, or whether there should be a degree of discretion exercised in doing so.
Considering what has happened in the last 12 years of global conflict, and the type of truth that has been reveled after-the-fact, it's amazing how many ignorant and absolutely biased people this thread has, all proclaiming the same old "we must support the peace-loving freedom fighters" and "Putin is evil" cliché.
""Putin is evil" cliché" ? That's not a cliché at all.
If you're saying that Ukraine == Middle East then you could say that USSR == Middle East. That's not true at all.
Russia is crushing nearby countries. Georgia with South Ossetia in 2008. Moldova with Transnistria in 1992. Chechnya.
Now they are crushing Ukrainian people for not loving their pro-Russian president.
Ukraine is in dire straits, their main import is gas from russia, by way of pipelines, which are then collected and exported- they're basing their whole economy on this and it's failing... very soon there wouldn't even be a country.. so, they went to Europe and asked for aid.. Europe said "If you comply with our sanctions on becoming an EU associate (not member) then we'll give you 1billion euros."
which, on the scale of a country isn't a whole bunch of cash, and adhering to the sanctions would cost more than that in of itself.
Putin said "if you don't join the EU (as an associate, not member) then I'll give you 15 billion euros and 50% off the price of our Russias gas"
to me, that sounds like a better long term solution to get the Ukraine out of this problem, and, it sounded like that to the Ukraine government, so they signed the agreement with Putin, however, everyone has heard about the EU, and they're very hopeful they'd be able to join as a member.
the Ukraine people have this vision of free travel to other countries and it's clouding their judgment a lot.
quite a few things have been signed to admonish the protesters and protect them against legal troubles (at the EU request), but the requirement was that the protests cease.. they took the police aside, and issued a no fire order, but clear the square. They didn't even give the officers guns.
Now, people who seem to be there are causing damage and trouble, I'm not even sure they know why they're fighting now, it's certainly not for freedom or the future of their country (as a member of the EU), lets not forget that Turkey has been an EU Associate for 20 years now and seems no closer to being a member state.
So military intervention is not to be unexpected.
but you're mistaken if you think there is no logic involved in the governments actions.
I don't know about the Ukrainian opposition but Putin is pretty evil. And many people who live in countries that used to be a part of the eastern block understand very well why you do not want to find yourself in Kremlin's orbit.
Since when Putin has became an euphemism for Russia? Why don't everyone simply say 'Russians are evil'?
Because ~65% of Russians voted for Putin, and they did it three times. He is very popular. Not difficult to see why. Since he came to power their GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) almost doubled, law and order improved, corruption went down. And more Russians are being born than die, so the population decline is reversed.
For all his populism, Putin's economic policies have been very shrewd - Russia paid out its foreign debt and has currently some of the largest foreign currency reserves, and one of the lowest tax rates in the world.
As to the efforts to present Putin as some evil thug, throwing journalists to gulags etc. - this is just laughable. The best example are Pussy Riot. When the best anti-Putin propaganda can do is to call a punk-group who insults religious minorities a victim of political prosecution... Well, probably, Russians have to conclude that there are no real issues with freedom of speech in their country!
It's perfectly fine not to like Russians improving their life and enjoying a stronger country. But don't blame poor Putin for that. He is simply an elected official, it's just that Russians have been lucky to find a capable one.
What really troubles me about Putin is that he and his government is way ineffective. There are no brave people, only loyal. Their money are in the west banks, as are their safe retreats.
And what is much more troubling - almost every country with powerful ruling class is like that. As people say "паны дерутся, а у хлопцев чубы трещат" (=when those in power, the superiors, are in conflict, it is the common people, the subordinates, who suffer). And curse those Ukrainian officials who let it escalate to this.
Because contrary to popular opinion, Putin is not a dictator or supreme master of the Russia.
There are several power centers in Russia and Putin has to tread carefully with them. There are entire blocks of government that are not doing what they are supposed to do, and forcing them directly is not going to work without upsetting their cover up the food chain.
Just like you said, it is the same in every country with powerful ruling class.
People from Western Ukraine in Kiev and police are shooting at each other. How is that Putin's and Kremlin's fault?
You say you don't know Ukrainian opposition. They are from West of Ukraine. West of Ukraine is notorious for their hatred of Jews and Russians. Hating Jews is not fashionable these days, but there is an open season on Russians. People from West of Ukraine love killing Russians, they don't miss any opportunity, like conflict in Chechnya, where Ukrainians took an active part fighting alongside with Chechens against Russia. West of Ukraine considers East of Ukraine as (1) cattle, (2) slaves and (3) just like Russians but worse. To no surprise, West of Ukraine didn't hesitate to pick up arms and start shooting. They are very passionate bunch. Just watch what will happen when they win (and they will). Central Ukraine will be a blood bath where people will be shot dead for just speaking Russian.
You say you don't know Ukrainian opposition. They are from West of Ukraine.
I'm from Poland. I don't know about the current opposition, I'm aware of Ukrainian nationalists and their history[1]. But for the same reason I also fully sympathize with people who do not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. It's terrible.
Putin is a thug whose regime murders journalists and sends opposition politicians to gulags. As I said, pretty evil. And not hypothetically, perhaps in the future, once he takes over, but really, here and now[2].
Russian empire has always been like that. Behind. And holding back those who were unfortunate to be nearby, too.
what are you talking about there are plenty eastern uki, russian speaking ukis in the right sector, the nazi is group is very small and its effect is overblown, why is no one talking about the government sponsored thugs fighting together with the police? why dont you speak about the criminals from kharkov(where im from) donetsk, and other regions which beat and hurt innocent people? 100 people were killed today by snipers and you talk some stupid shit you hear on russian media. every region in ukraine is against yanukovich the only difference is the eastern ones are more repressed, in kharkov you cannot do anything, thugs are blatantly fighting with the riot police, please explain this to me.
I don't like Yanukovitch, he is a greedy asshole. Thugs from East are disgusting. Right Sector is alright, but they are being used and soon will become irrelevant and ousted by nationalists.
So what, are the protesters just a bunch of violence loving psychos who are out there for fun? In how many circumstances do citizens take to the streets when the government is doing something perfectly justified? I know of no such accounts in history.
Also, please justify Putin's actions. I'd love to hear why he is the good guy in all this.
I have a hard time imagining what the best-case is among the likely scenarios for Ukraine, moving forward. Stepdown of their president, and then business as usual? A full military coup (like Egypt)?
It's likely now that Ukraine will end up getting split into two countires. To Russia Ukraine is a safety buffer between it and the EU, it's a matter of national security. Russia simply won't let Ukraine go, not without imposing severe economic sanctions, so Ukraine will suffer the split from Russia far more than it suffers now. On the other end, EU won't likely accept Ukraine with such sanctions attached. They already have Germany paying for Greece, Spain and Italy. Getting another mouth to feed will be hard to impossible to justify, regardless of how noble the motives are.
It's a stalemate. The only way forward for Ukraine is to let Russia have its safety buffer. If they want to join EU, they will have to split.
Well, things are at a stalemate now. Yanukovych cannot step down. He will literally be murdered if he does. His only protection is being the president. On the other hand while he remains in power the people will be protesting.
I think a likely course will be a "least of all evils" scenario. Yanukovych will make concessions to the opposition leaders who will then try to mollify the crowds. The EU treaty will be put back on the table and things will be dragged out for the long haul.
What is happening actually in Ukraine is what you get when 2 super-powers choose a foreign country as a battlefield. The stakes are high, because who ever controls Ukraine has the biggest say in the Euro-Asia region over the other (Germany vs Russia). Ukraine could play a key-role in a new form of union that Russia wants to create with it's neighbors. If Ukraine joins then, they have the numbers to face on military, political and financial level both the USA and the EU. If not, it's just Russia basically, the others don't add much to the sum.
Ukraine's elites are split, but of course they are not the ones bleeding on the street. They have average Joe's for that. This country became independent in 1991 but never achieve real independence (much as my beloved Greece) from foreign interests and now they are slaughtering everything and everyone.
The liberal west is using Nazi groups (far-right wing skinheads) to physically attack the current establishment. So it's for democratic governments to use Nazis when they see fit. The government responds in a very Russian way and you get chaos.
Mind you, that Yanukovych was at least elected and the people do not trust the opposition's leader either (and how could they?).
None of this is for the good of Ukranian people, this is just foreign super-powers tearing a country apart, for their own sake. Everything else is for mass consumption.
Both sides are equally corrupted. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian population because they are caught up on a spiral from which I don't know how they could get off, without getting hurt.
ps. As for the 19BN deal, what are you proposing exactly? If you have 19 BN for every Ukranian (45M people) out there, I'm sure they will be eager to hear from you.
Although what you say is a perfectly valid argument, it's not even close to what is happening now.
For somebody who also lives in a country that is heavily influenced by Russia, it is clear that this is actually a peoples protest.
Put in simple words: There is no way for anybody to do any business with somebody outside Russia's circle. There is no way for anybody outside Russia's circle to tap into any of these countries. There isn't any visible progress and there aren't any kind of investments coming in.
> I think atmosx points very well written and neutral.
No. They are completely wrong or a complete fantasy. From things that are fantasy like "this is not good for ukrainians", or conspiracy-like talks about "big games by giants" bla-bla, to being wrong in facts like "west is using Nazis". Complete bullshit. It's not Nazis there, it's normal people from both, East and West.
p.s.: Russian medias are not biased, they are writing complete shit, from obviously underestimating number of protestors, to saying bullshit like "Ukrainian people protest against laws that forbid Nacism and Fashism". How biased you need to be to say bullshit like this?
- "big games by giants" - it was clearly stated by both sides that Ukraine is strategical point for geopolitics for west and east (you can easily found sources, Brzezinski as example), so no conspiracy here
- "It's not Nazis there" - it again easily verifiable that there are Nazis (just first West media from google [1]), you are trying to ignore the obvious here
- "Russian medias are not biased, they are writing complete shit" - I'm not familiar with all russian medias, only with some online news, and for them I can clearly state that they are writing not more shit that popular West media
Yes, Nazis are present there, sorry, you catched me on my words. What I was trying to say is that it's bullshit to say "west is using Nazis" (not sure what exactly is meant by "liberal west"). People who fight are not all nazis, not only nazis rebelled and bringing up nazis is irrelevant from my point of view.
I never stated that all the people involved are Nazis. No the presence of the Nazis is not irrelevant at all, it's the exactly the opposite: It's very relevant because it says a lot about the real goal of the opposition: Come to power no matter what.
I know that Arseniy Yatsenyuk is backed by USA interests and Vitali Klitschko by EU (German) interests. So it's a sort of a triangle, but these two for the time being are against the Russian backed current PM Yanukovych.
As for the "Liberal West". Theoretically the west (EU, UK & USA) are promoters of democracy, civil rights and so on. Both Klitschko and Yatsenyuk were in Berlin 24 hours before the massacre. So when Nazis with guns were attacking government buildings the two opposition leaders were embracing the move with specific remarks from "Square of Freedom". So there is clearly a link between the legal opposition and the extremist far-right (Nazi + other kind of) opposition. Of course, we don't know if in Berlin any decisions were taken, but then again you have to be a little bit naive to believe in this sort of coincidence.
In this and many others cases, the goals do NOT justify the means, because if the opposition uses (directly or indirectly) the Nazis today, no one says that they are not going to use them again tomorrow against their next enemy. It's simple as that.
The EU's stance is very descriptive: The first day they condemn the episodes (by the Nazi opposition), the next day announces sanctions against the current government!!! It's embarrassing: The EU wants the Ukranian government to stand down because they don't like it.
I'm not saying Putin is any better, but I expect the EU to be a lot better than Putin, China or Iran by supporting democratic values, not back-channeling and fueling war.
As for the Nazi being among the people, I see it like this: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. So it is natural to join forces for a shared goal. The people won't let Nazi take power.
And Ukraine is not a battlefield created by super-powers. Super powers only aligned with the sides after it erupted. And people don't give a shit about them anyway. It's the same argument as blaming Ukrainian opposition - protesters don't give a shit about opposition, opposition only uses protests to sneak their way into power.
People are just fed with corruption and criminals in power, all the political fighting is secondary here, despite Russian propaganda efforts to paint it otherwise.
> So it is natural to join forces for a shared goal.
That's like releasing a lion to eat your house neighbor because you had a quarrel. It's really THAT stupid. These are Nazis, they are not people with whom you can reason. Not to mention the message you are sending to others: I wanna come to power no matter what, I'll do whatever it takes (rape, kill, steal, etc) to stay there. So you're no better than the current ones, you might even be worse.
> And Ukraine is not a battlefield created by super-powers. Super powers only aligned with the sides after it erupted. And people don't give a shit about them anyway.
Do you know what are you even talking about? You think Klitschko and Yatsenyuk being in Berlin 24 hours before the mess, is just a coincidence. It might be, but I can't believe it. I'll go with the conspiracy that they got full support from Germany and USA and they decided that it was time to use guns. The fact that other forces, which are not controlled by the opposition weighted in, is irrelevant. I mean, THEY are the irrelevant part, not the other way around.
> People are just fed with corruption and criminals in power, all the political fighting is secondary here, despite Russian propaganda efforts to paint it otherwise.
And what exactly to propose for people to do: Overthrown the government not by elections but by force? This gave (actually already did happen) the excuse to USA, EU and Russia to weight in. We might even see an armed conflict there, as we saw in Syria.
The thing is that you can't fight fire with fire, because you'll get burned. Of course the largest part of the population - no in Ukraine, everywhere - can not see the big picture until it's too late. History repeats itself.
I feel for the people, I agree that both sides are equally corrupted but I don't think violence is the answer. It will only make things worst.
"Super powers only aligned with the sides after it erupted."
"...despite Russian propaganda efforts to paint it otherwise."
You seem to know a lot about geopolitics, strategy, and psychological warfare! Why would a player limit itself to only align with someone after the eruption of a given conflict? Why would it refrain from causing an opportunistic conflict in the first place? And why a superpower for that mater when the requirements for this kind of dirty games are (usually) low?
>None of this is for the good of Ukranian people, this is just foreign super-powers tearing a country apart, for their own sake.
learn the history and real situation in Ukraine today.
(A Russian here. Personally don't like "zapadencev", yet respect for brave fighting for their vision of their country even in the face of sharp shooters who were pretty active today shooting protesters down on Maidan like practice targets. As Litovians/Latvians/Estonians were saying 25+ years ago fighting similar fight - "For our and yours freedom")
As Litovians/Latvians/Estonians were saying 25+ years ago fighting similar fight - "For our and yours freedom"
It is not Litovnians etc who were saying that, but Russians who were dumb enough to support their fight for independence just to be locked up in ghetto after that.
> what you get when 2 super-powers choose a foreign country as a battlefield
- this is bullshit, because the driving force of the protests is disgust of the widespread corruption and rotting of the whole system. People are very tired of the general air of the lawless governing. EU does not act at all, as it seems to us, peaceful protesters. Though I agree that Russia can't be aside when a country is getting out of its sphere of influence.
> Ukraine's elites are split, but of course they are not the ones bleeding on the street.
- that is bullshit because protests have begun exactly with the average Joe's anger to Yanukovych decisions. The scale of protests was a great surprise to the opposition. Russians tend to greatly overestimate influence of elites on political process.
> The liberal west is using Nazi groups (far-right wing skinheads)
- this is bullshit, because Ukrainian nationalists are not Nazis and are not skinheads (who are widespread in Russia), Ukrainian nationalism is not based on ethnicity, it's based on idea of sovereign Ukrainian State living in peace with anyone who is not a threat to its existence and well-being. Yes, there are minor groups of real far right forces like S14, they are used heavily by Russian media to demonize Ukrainian nationalists, but they don't have any real influence.
> Yanukovych was at least elected
- Hitler also had been democratically elected, this does not justify any of his ensuing deeds.
> the people do not trust the opposition's leader
- it's true, we don't follow them blindly, they depend on Maidan much more than Maidan depends on them. We trust them as far as they express our will.
> None of this is for the good of Ukranian people
- me, as a Ukrainian, disagrees with you.
> Both sides are equally corrupted.
- this is a popular propaganda cliche to make people passive and to kill their will to change a corrupt leader. It is hard to imagine a person who can do more harm to Ukraine than Yanukovych did.
I live in Kiev and I am also very tired of explaining why these premises based on Russian propaganda, are not correct. Come to Maidan (it's easy if you live in Russia), see with your own eyes, then think again of all that bullshit.
This is people willing to die not be part of Russia and not to live in a kleptocracy. This is blood being spilled for freedom. It is terrible, but necessary if you do not want to live under the rulership of the most brutal.
Fuck the trade deal with EU. We are protesting against beating protestors, killing them, burning their cars, beating journalists, lying about not using weapons by police. Modern Ukraine never saw anything like this before.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the trade deal with the EU how the protests began? Because lots of people wanted the deal signed instead of aligning with Russia?
I know that now the protests are against the anti-protest laws and the beatings, but the EU deal was also a factor, and would probably be a factor again once the protests end.
Yes, I was there when protest began. President was telling that Ukraine is on path of joining EU for a long time, and in a last moment he turns 180 degrees. But then, Ukraine was kind of split to those supporting EU movement and those who don't. Kiev had no more than 1000 protestors then (imho).
Then there was a night when protested people got beaten by police, next morning goverment commented that "it was done to be able to install New-Year Tree!". That's when everything really started. It's not about EU now, really.
Also, a Ukrainian alpine skier and her coach quit the games in protest over the treatment of the protesters back in Kiev. An impressive sacrifice, when you think of the fact that all her life she's been training for this moment.
Why would any sane sniper shoot medics to death? What are they, instantly healing combatants to full hp? Even if snipers would be so evil, it's much more demanding for the enemy to have wounded people because it distracts and takes off resources.
Sniper tactics is completely different from shooting non-priority targets, it's usually enemy leaders, machinegunners, other snipers and so on. Medics are civilians and only provocators would choose them as targets.
I remember an interview in the early stages of the protest where the demonstrators were so proud of their non-violent and peacefully organized demonstration, showing how elderly people helped with logistics etc. How do they feel now?
They could still be proud. They are not the ones that started the violence. If someone attacks you, multiple times, with disproportionate force, and you somehow manage to survive and fight back, you can still be proud that you wanted peace and not violence.
According to your comment I guess you would like them to be ashamed that they were forced to defend and retreat instead of fighting back?
This recent event started when the protestors killed a bunch of retreating cops with bullets, firebombs, and other lethal means. And then took 50 of them hostage.
In 1 years time it will turn out that everything you have been told was a lie. Just like in the last 5-6 wars.
Story about opposition taking hostage dozens of police is all over the news (Russian news at least, I am not sure if it is reaching the English-speaking media yet).
These pictures are either of the Ukrainian police, not protesters, or show no indication of actually being in Ukraine. Also, Russian news is full of propaganda trying to show the protesters as the ones causing the violence. Anything from independent sources, such as Reuters or AP?
The same Berkut that captured, beated, took clothes and forced a man to dance naked in the snow, all while laughing and making fun of him. And left him bloody in the snow afterwards? In some other country that same Berkut would be prosecuted. I don't say I support violence without trial against them, but I can perfectly understand why would someone do it.
If this happened in the USA, every single protester (and innocent bystander) would be in jail or dead by now.
I heard they forced the retirement of head of the army who was refusing shooting on their own people and put the head of the navy in charge? Doesn't sound like it is going to end well.