[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Voltian



Anekdotes die veel meer zeggen dan de anti-Russische "anekdotes" die we constant te horen en zien krijgen op de propaganda media.
Constant krijgen we anekdotes te horen en lezen in de media. En toevallig of niet ondersteunen ze bijna allemaal het westerse verhaal in deze. Anekdotes van stoute Russen, moedige Oekraïense vrouwen, van mevrouw Zelensky die in Vogue poseert, enzovoort.






Ik wil dat ook, dus ja zeker?






Omdat het regime in Oekraïne absoluut geen referenda wil. Ze wilden zelfs geen verkiezingen in Donbas onder leiding van de OVSE. Nochtans was dit voorzien in de Minsk vredesakkoorden.

Seven years have passed since the clashes in Odesa on 2 May 2014 — one of a number of mass assemblies marked with violence in 2014 — which claimed 48 lives (40 men, seven women and a boy). In contrast to the Maidan protests, in Odesa, the police were passive, even negligent, failing to ensure the security of assemblies and their participants. While there are many unanswered questions regarding those tragic events in Odesa, there are three things that are crystal clear: 1) both sides of the clashes were violent; 2) police failed to ensure security and 3) all victims deserve justice and those responsible for killings and deaths should be held accountable. Today, seven years on, we provide answers to seven questions about the events and the status of investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for the violent deaths.
After the end of the Maidan protests in Kyiv, Odesa anti-Maidan groups – critical of the newly established central Government – called for the federalization of Ukraine, while Maidan supporters opposed this.

The situation spiralled out of control as the police failed to respond effectively to violence from both sides, even though they had been warned in advance of the high possibility of violence.

The presence of ‘pro-unity’ groups was overpowering in numbers and forced the ‘pro-federalism’ groups to scatter: some sought refuge at the top of a shopping centre close to where the clashes were taking place, others ran to a camp they had set up at Kulykove Pole square. While a large group of ‘pro-unity’ supporters marched towards Kulykove Pole, openly demonstrating their aggressive attitude, the police failed to respond, neither restraining the aggressive crowd nor securing the square.

When they arrived, the ‘pro-unity’ individuals destroyed the camp and the ‘pro-federalism’ supporters barricaded themselves in the House of Trade Unions. Mission’s staff saw both sides throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and heard the sounds of gunshots coming from both sides, and then saw the House of Trade Unions on fire. Firefighters from the State Emergency Service (SES) responded with significant delay to numerous emergency calls made by eyewitnesses, including one of our colleagues. By the time they arrived, some forty-five minutes after the first call, forty-two people had lost their lives (34 men, 7 women and a boy). Some of those saved from the building were then heavily beaten by the crowd.
Only one person has been charged with murder. This member of a ‘pro-unity’ group is accused of firing a lethal shot that killed a member of the ‘pro-federalism’ groups during the clashes in the city centre. The alleged shooter was identified quickly and arrested on 18 May 2014, however the case has seen little progress, with multiple recusals of judges, disruption of hearings by the defendant’s supporters, and 18 months lost as the prosecution revised the charges. Over the last two years, systemic problems in the judiciary, including the lack of judges and underfunding of courts, as well as COVID-19-related restrictions, have further slowed the trial.
The police have not identified those responsible for the killings of the other five men during the clashes in the city centre. Instead of focusing on identifying the perpetrators of the murders, the police concentrated its efforts on investigating and prosecuting ‘pro-federalism’ supporters for their participation in clashes. The most notable criminal case, highlighting the partiality and bias of the investigation and prosecution, is the case against 19 alleged ‘pro-federalism’ supporters charged with participating in the unrest in the city centre.
Victims deserve justice. Crimes should be prosecuted and perpetrators should be brought to account regardless of their political opinions.

In relation to the 2 May 2014 violence, Ukraine is obliged – by the regional and international human rights treaties Ukraine is a party to – to identify, prosecute and bring to account those responsible for the deaths of 48 persons. The authorities must also ensure equal and effective access for all victims and their families to justice and adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered.

When authorities fail to investigate human rights violations, people are forced to seek justice through other avenues. In a series of recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights on the Maidan protests, Ukraine was found to be in breach of its obligation to investigate and prosecute human rights violations and was ordered to pay compensation to the victims. Such findings negatively impact Ukraine’s international reputation.

The prosecution of perpetrators and remedying harm also helps to prevent the recurrence of violations. Finally, the truth uncovered during criminal proceedings can serve as a strong basis for reconciliation efforts.
Our monitoring of the trials related to the 2 May 2014 cases has raised particular concerns regarding the criminal proceedings involving those who participated in the clashes.

The court itself found that the investigation in the case of 19 ‘pro-federalism’ supporters was biased. The authorities only investigated the misconduct of the ‘pro-federalists’ during the clashes and not the misconduct of ‘pro-unity’ supporters.

We have also observed a lack of security and safety for judges and other legal professionals threatened and attacked by ‘pro-unity’ supporters, attempting to influence their decisions or conduct in criminal cases related to the 2 May events. In order to ensure that the members of the ‘pro-federalism’ movement, tried for creating public disorder in the city centre, remained in detention, ‘pro-unity’ supporters attempted to force judges to take decisions to this end. For example, on 27 November 2015, after the trial court released five ‘pro-federalism’ defendants on bail. Following aggressive demands of the ‘pro-unity’ supporters, the prosecution appealed the judge’s decision to grant bail, although it was not provided by the legislation at that time. Three days later, some 50 men prevented the appeal court judge from leaving his office until he initiated the appeal proceedings, and police did nothing to unblock the judge’s room and simply watched what was happening. The same day, ‘pro-unity’ supporters also refused to allow the trial court judges, who had granted the defendants’ release on bail, to leave the courtroom until they signed resignation letters, which, however, they withdrew the next day. In the case of the ‘pro-unity’ supporter accused of killing a supporter of the ‘pro-federalism’ movement, other members of the ‘pro-unity’ movement violently disrupted hearings and verbally abused judges at hearings in order for the case against him to be dropped. The police again did not ensure security of the courtrooms or investigate the interference into justice.

Members of ‘pro-unity’ groups also threatened to kill a lawyer representing ‘pro-federalism’ supporters. Later, as a result of a clash outside the court with a mob of ‘pro-unity’ supporters, the lawyer sustained a fractured finger. Even though some of these incidents occurred in the presence of the police, were caught on camera or perpetrators were identified by victims or witnesses of the attacks, the respective investigations simply remained open without any tangible progress. Impunity for such attacks has understandably affected judges and lawyers’ sense of security, thereby jeopardizing their independence.

A broader sense of intimidation and impunity was also created by attacks against relatives. ‘Pro-unity’ groups attacked relatives of the victims of the fire at the House of Trade Unions during commemoration events in 2014-2016. The attacks, combined with the police’s failure to ensure security of the commemoration and to investigate such incidents, create an impression that ‘pro-federalism’ supporters are less protected than others in Odesa. The lack of a sense of security, of visible progress and of broad public demand for justice in these cases has led to victims’ relatives losing hope and interest in participating in the court hearings, which in many cases proved the only effective means to ensure some progress toward justice.
Trials fail to progress mainly due to a lack of political will.



Begrijp je nu waarom voorstanders van federalisme, laat staan voorstanders van referenda voor aansluiting bij Rusland, zich niet durven te roeren in het Oekraïne van vandaag de dag? De westerse media en politici laten uitschijnen dat Oekraïne een voorbeelddemocratie is. Als dit waar was geweest dan had Rusland niet moeten binnenvallen. Voor Maidan was er een beweging die meer autonomie wilde voor de pro-Russische gebieden, ook grote strekkingen van de partij van de regio's van Yanukovich wilde dit. Na Maidan namen ultra-nationalisten het over. Pleiten voor federalisme werd strafbaar en gevaarlijk.

https://ukraine.un.org/en/126054-7-y...esa-2-may-2014

(artikel van de VN, dus neutraal)




De Russen waren akkoord in Donbas met verkiezingen georganiseerd door de OVSE en de VN, het regime in Kiev niet.





Zie boven. Er zijn veel voorbeelden, en dit zijn geen anekdotes, dit is een analyse van hoe een moordpartij bewust ongestraft bleef en de slachtoffers vervolgd werden in plaats van de daders. Wat je in de westerse pers hoort en leest over Oekraïne, in 95% van de gevallen, is pure propaganda van het regime, en ook anekdotes waarvan niemand weet of ze waar zijn, in de trend van "Tatyana was zwanger toen de Russen het hospitaal bombardeerden en ze verloor haar kind" vergezeld van een vage foto van een vrouw met ietwat dikke buik en een bebloed doek rond haar hoofd. Wat ik vooral herinnerde van dat zogenaamd hospitaal in Mariupol is dat de dokters en patiënten allemaal Oekraïens spraken, terwijl slechts een heel kleine minderheid in Mariupol Oekraïens spreekt als eerste taal. Dus iets klopte niet...

Ja sorry, dit houdt geen steek en klopt gewoon niet...

Ge kunt niet tegelijk zeggen dat Rusland een onafhankelijk referendum wilt en goedpraten waarom Rusland nu deze schijnreferenda heeft georganiseerd.

De voorwaarden voor een vrije verkiezing moeten voldaan zijn. Het is Rusland die actief ervoor zorgt dat deze voorwaarden niet voldaan kunnen worden. tenminste moet er een staakt-het-vuren zijn, tenminste zijn er onafhankelijk waarnemers nodig. Rusland blokkeert dat allemaal en in de plaats organiseren ze zelf een referendum, goed wetende dat het zowel qua "wil van het volk" als qua aanvaarding door andere landen volstrekt waardeloos is.

tomm, ge zit vast in een loop waarbij je enerzijds goed weet dat die referenda waardeloos zijn, maar tegelijk de uitslag van die referenda wilt gebruiken om annexatie te rechtvaardigen.
Dat kan simpelweg niet tegelijk. Dit is cognitieve dissonantie van de ergste soort.

Ik dacht dat als ik langzaam die spreidstand in uw hoofd zichtbaar zou maken, voor jezelf, dat je het zelf wel zou zien. In de plaats hou je die spreidstand gewoon harde vol. Weet ge, doe maar, maar besef dat op een bepaald moment uw ligamenten gaan scheuren en dat het pijn gaat doen...