The situation in Ukraine is complex and messy. The people who are trying to hold onto a simple good guys vs bad guys narrative are required to discard large chunks of reality regardless of who they choose as the bad guys. For people who are making an attempt to understand the reality the task is complex and difficult. Ukraine is a country with a long history of fairly contentious political conflict. The present problems did not come about just recently. One of the most vexing questions is who are the armed men who have occupied public buildings in Eastern Ukrainian cities?
The New York Times has just published a long article by two journalist who spent a week in the eastern city of Slovyansk in an attempt to understand who the people that are variously described as rebels, separatists, terrorists actually are and what it is that they hope to achieve. The article is written in a thoughtful and nuanced manner that inclines me to take it seriously.
Behind the Masks in Ukraine, Many Faces of Rebellion
It begins with a description of a man known only as Yuri who is the leader of a local militia group.
His is one of the faces behind the shadowy paramilitary takeover. But even with his mask off, much about his aims, motivations and connections remains murky, illustrating why this expanding conflict is still so complex.
But his rebel stature has a particular root: He is also a former Soviet special forces commander who served in Afghanistan, a background that could make him both authentically local and a capable Kremlin proxy.
In this war, clouded by competing claims on both sides, one persistent mystery has been the identity and affiliations of the militiamen, who have pressed the confrontation between Russia and the West into its latest bitter phase.
While I am excerpting a few quotes from the article, one really needs to read the entire piece to get a grasp of the complexities of the situation on the ground situation.
Further complicating the picture, while the fighters share a passionate distrust of Ukraine’s government and the Western powers that support it, they disagree among themselves about their ultimate goals. They argue about whether Ukraine should redistribute power via greater federalization or whether the region should be annexed by Russia, and they harbor different views about which side might claim Kiev, the capital, and even about where the border of a divided Ukraine might lie.
The general thrust of the article is that at least this particular group are not active members of the Russian military, though many of them have prior military experience. Their arms do not appear to be current Russian military equipment. One thing that seems to unite them is an opposition to the present interim government in Kiev and the western oriented protesters who brought it to power.
This article is a glimpse into one spot. If it is an accurate picture of the situation in Slovyansk, can that be generalized to the other cities in the area? The New York Times is certainly not a Russian propaganda organ.
One of the difficulties in trying to analyse the events in Eastern Ukraine is the question of whether they represent a direct extension of what has happened in Crimea. There is no real question about Russian involvement and intentions there. Russian military personnel were active participants and Russia has formally annexed the territory. It is an obvious question to ask if Eastern Ukraine is their next target. Large numbers of Russian troops are massed just across the border. Russian government statements make repeated references to a responsibility to protect the rights of ethnic Russian minorities in Ukraine.
However, it does appear that the rebel activity is more complex with a more mixed agenda than just a Russian front operation. I do think that this article is worth reading and thinking about. I submit for your consideration.