Donetsk People’s Council Set to Hold Referendum to Join Russia May 11

[dipsydoodle]

Last edited Mon Apr 7, 2014, 07:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: RIA Novosti

DONETSK, 7 April (RIA Novosti) - Donetsk region People’s Council established by local pro-federalization demonstrators on Monday declared its plans to create the republic of Donetsk and join Russia if people so vote during the referendum which is due to take place no later than May 11, RIA Novosti correspondent reported Monday.

"People's Republic of Donetsk is to be created within the administrative borders of Donetsk region. This decision shall enter into force immediately after the referendum," one of the leaders of Donetsk People's council said at a meeting in the building of regional administration Monday.

A group of protesters pushing for broader regional autonomy stormed government buildings in Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, according to local media reports.

Nearly 3,000 people reportedly took control of the national bank’s building in Lugansk. Demonstrators flooded the streets in the city, waving Russian flags and chanting “Russia! Russia!”

Read more: http://en.ria.ru/world/20140407/189086720/Donetsk-Peoples-Council-Set-to-Hold-Referendum-to-Join-Russia.html

---

Ukraine crisis: Protesters declare Donetsk 'republic'
BBC correspondents in Ukraine report that the separatists who proclaimed an independent republic were not local councillors. The protesters want to hold a referendum by 11 May. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26919928



Protests in eastern Ukraine aimed at bringing in Russian troops, warns PM.

(Reuters) - Protests in eastern Ukraine in which pro-Russian activists seized public buildings in three cities are part of a plan to destabilise Ukraine and bring in Russian troops, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said on Monday.

Saying Russian troops were within a 30 km (19 mile) zone from the Ukrainian border, Yatseniuk told a government meeting: "An anti-Ukrainian plan is being put into operation ... under which foreign troops will cross the border and seize the territory of the country.

"We will not allow this," he said.

Pro-Russian protesters in the east seized official buildings in three cities - Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk - on Sunday night, demanding that referendums be held on whether to join Russia.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/uk-ukraine-crisis-protesters-idUKBREA360A320140407

[hobbit709]

1. Here we go again.

[djean111]

2. Is it possible at all to leave Putin out of this (and any other individual) and see this as

a natural result of either IMF austerity and/or just looking for older ethnic solidarity?
In the same spirit of not blaming everything on Obama, is it possible to not ascribe superman qualities to Putin? Because both men will, sooner or later, be gone - but country boundaries have been changing ever since there were, well, countries. I do find it odd that all of a sudden all boundaries are set in stone.

I know there are issues about gas and oil involved.

[dipsydoodle]

3. The general division within Ukraine

is related to industrial output most of which is in the east.

For a variety of reasons that output does not a have market in the EU and may never do. Projected loss of income and jobs in the east are probably the driving force with now current issues.

Kiev should have seen this coming from the outset.

[djean111]

5. Thank you.

This whole thing has seemed to have more to do with economics and EU and/or IMF overreach and failings to me, and railing about evil Putin seems as silly as the 'Thanks, Obama" applied to every sparrow that falls idiocy. Yeah, Putin is taking advantage, of course, but not all people think submitting to the IMF and EU market forces is an honor.

[KoKo]

30. +1

[DetlefK]

6. Here we go again with austerity-blaming...

If only those corrupt, unstable countries had access to huge amounts of money, then everything would be fine.

And for the borders:
- What if the Indians decided that they want to form their own countries within the territory of the US?
- What if some wingnuts decide that their county now is a sovereign country and that it's legal to shoot blacks and gays?
- What if the north-eastern US-states, or California, decide to become a country on their own because it would be more profitable to no longer pay taxes to southern US-states?
- What if some billionaire buys a city on US-territory, declares it independent and turns it into a tax-haven?

[djean111]

8. What if, indeed.

"- What if some billionaire buys a city on US-territory, declares it independent and turns it into a tax-haven?"

This very thing has been proposed in Michigan, I believe, and I don't remember reading that it was deemed illegal. Corporate fascists with enough money seem to be able to do anything they want, everywhere.

Found this little list - what countries were created after WWI?

Countries Disappeared = Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, Bosnia, Serbia, Austria-Hungary, German Empire, Montenegro.

Countries Changed = Great Britain, Romania, Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Italy

Countries Created = Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Cyprus, Iran, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Albania, Ireland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland

Boundaries have always been shifting.
And who knows what will happen when global warming and onerous "trade agreements" take their toll?
Who got to decide that boundaries that did not even exist 100 years ago are now set in stone?

[KoKo]

31. It's probably coming......n/t

[Scootaloo]

27. Per your examples...

- What if the Indians decided that they want to form their own countries within the territory of the US?

Legally they already are. Well, specifically they are sovereign non-state territories under US protectorate.

- What if some wingnuts decide that their county now is a sovereign country and that it's legal to shoot blacks and gays?

Horrid, but also legal, with certain understandings - the county would have to enter negotiation with both state and federal government to cover the issue of territory and state and federal property within the county. There would also be the need for concent of the county's residents - you can't have like five guys making the decision (no matter what the history of Hawaii says)

- What if the north-eastern US-states, or California, decide to become a country on their own because it would be more profitable to no longer pay taxes to southern US-states?

Much the same as above. It's entirely possible, but as state territory is also national territory, and each state contains federal infrastructure and property, a unilateral declaration of independence would effectively be theft - which technically not illegal (really!) it would certainly complicate the new nation's relations. And again, this could only happen by decision of the people

- What if some billionaire buys a city on US-territory, declares it independent and turns it into a tax-haven?

Not actually possible. There's a difference between territory and property; property is owned by individuals, territory by polities. The only way to "buy a city" is to buy each individual plot of property from the legal owners - there's no one owner of a city. Further, owning hte property does not grant you any territorial sovereignty - again you need the consent of hte people, which takes us back to the question about hte county.

[KoKo]

33. Not beyond reason of possibility? n/t

[amandabeech]

40. Scootaloo, I suggest that you amend your discussion to include references to

the United States Civil War. Many experts believe that the Civil War ended any possibility of the ability of a state or states to secede. Undoubtedly, US readers have some understanding of the question, but there are many reading your post who are unfamiliar with that part of US history.

[Scootaloo]

42. Not true, actually

further underlined by current international law - A people's right to seek self-determination is inalienable. If some polity of the US wants to break away, well, there's nothing saying that they can't do so.

The tricky part is first and foremost, territory; The way the US is arranged means that state territory belongs to that state as wll as the United States. This is how the logic of a Texas congressman's vote having an impact on voters in Oregon works, after all. So a stat or other polity seeking independence would actually need to work out a treaty with the United states, to cede territory to the new state... and treaties being as they are, there's no guarantee that the new state will actually get everything they want.

There's also the issue of federal property, taxes, citizenship, water resources, tariffs and trade, all that sort of stuff that isn't at all "sexy" but is all required in the process

The secessions of 1860-1861 were, however, totally unilateral. There were no negotiations between the independent states and the United States, much less between the Confederacy and the United States. Federal property and US territory were simply seized and declared to be part of the seceding states. Furthermore, secession was undemocratic - even if referendums on the subject had been held (they were not - the declarations of secession were penned by what amounted to feudal lords) there's the problem that the vast majority of the people affected by secession had no ability to vote on it (women, slaves, and freedmen had no political rights, nor did the remaining Indians, and the white poor were so disenfranchised as to not be worth mention politically.)

[amandabeech]

44. No state has attempted secession since the Civil War.

There's a reason for that, aside from the fact that there is nothing in our Constitution to provide for the secession of a state, but a considerable discussion about how a territory does become a state.

Our Civil War president, Abraham Lincoln, ran for office twice and conducted a war not just to free slaves, but to establish the principle that no state could secede. No branch of the US government recognized the Confederate States of America nor any state government stating allegiance to the CSA.

The US government considered the governments of areas claimed by the CSA to be in rebellion and went in with its armed forces to crush the rebellion. And crush the rebellion, it did.

The US Civil War was a grisly as any other civil war. On a per capita basis, it remains the bloodiest war that the US has ever conducted. The US demanded unconditional surrender, and in order to achieve its aim, it absolutely leveled areas of the southern US. Anyone reading DU for very long must understand that the scars of that conflict have not completely healed 150 years later.

Scootaloo argues that international law trumps history so that now secession in the US would be civil and orderly. Who knows.

I think that it is more probable that the US would act in accordance with the precedents of its own history, and that any state declaring itself to have seceded would run a significant chance of being absolutely smashed militarily no matter what the international community had to say about it.

[Scootaloo]

45. You're misrepresenting both history and my statements

Scootaloo argues that international law trumps history so that now secession in the US would be civil and orderly. Who knows.

I'm saying that there are processes that could be followed for such a result, not making a preduction that such would be the case - especially given how most fans of the idea of secession seem to draw their ideas from the bullshittery of the Confederate secessions, which were, as I outlined, plainly illegal in pretty much every way - not because it's against the law to secede, but because there's a right way and a wrong way to do so, and they chose poorly.

[amandabeech]

46. There is no "right way" to do a secession under the US Constitution,

because the are no provisions for secession in the document. Lincoln was a very astute lawyer, and that was part of his brief.

Good night.

[Scootaloo]

47. It's a spurious argument

Fact is there's a LOT of legal issues that the constitution just doesn't cover. The constitution also doesn't prohibit secession of states - or other polities, for that matter. And the way this works is that if you are nor prohibited from doing something, you are permitted to do it. I struggle to imagine a society where laws are written to outline what you are permitted to do, rather than defining what you are not permitted to do.

That's Scalia logic - "The constitution doesn't say you have this right, so you don't have it!"

I'm simply describing to you how this works. Nations are not eternal entities set UN unbreakable stone. The US, no more than any other. The ability for a polity to become independent is an assumed right that is actually enshrined under international law.

It's how there's even a Ukraine in the first place, after all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. No; Putin asked for and got the OK to send troops into Ukraine (not just Crimea) over a month ago

President Vladimir Putin received permission from Russia’s upper house of parliament Saturday to send troops to Ukraine, responding to what he called a threat to Russian lives. The request was made and granted after what appeared to be a highly orchestrated series of assertions that were disputed by knowledgeable Ukrainians.
...
The Federation Council, or upper house, unanimously approved authorization of Russian troops in Ukraine, not limiting any deployment to the Crimean Peninsula. But Putin has not yet decided on any action regarding troops or a recall of the Russian ambassador to Washington, his spokesman said Saturday night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-parliament-approves-use-of-troops-in-crimea/2014/03/01/d1775f70-a151-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

Putin involved himself in this.

[KoKo]

34. As well he should have as a world power...n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. It's analogous to Bush getting Congress's OK to send troops into Iraq

Are you saying that world powers are OK to invade countries as long as the head of state and parliament agree on it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. For anyone familiar with the long history between Russia and Ukraine...

.....it is simply impossible to leave Putin and Russia out of the equation.

Completely impossible.

[djean111]

13. I am not saying leave Putin completely out - I am saying it looks like there is more to this

than just Putin's evil plan - I would vote to get away from Greece-like austerity, myself.

[Igel]

48. There are two sides.

From the people in Donetsk, it's simplistic to say it's all economic. It's certainly part economic, but the ethnic condescension towards Ukrainians is of long-standing and certainly plays a role. There's a reason they insist that Russian be the official language, that Yanukovich be restored, etc., etc. But Putin is not a big deal in their reasoning.

Note that the protesters in Donetsk weren't just calling for separation. They were also insisting that the Russians and the Ukrainians were "one people"--as well as insisting on Russian domination.


From the POV of Russia, it is Putin and his "One Russia" party to a large extent, because their ideology has managed to be inculcated in a large swath of the Russian population (sorry, I don't like "Russia United"--sounds like a soccer team and misses the ambuiguity--Russia is both a political unit and also an ethnicity-based territory). When one of the One Russia Duma members says that "Putin has a right" to send troops into Ukraine, he's not speaking metaphorically. Unlike *, who didn't view invading Iraq as a "right," many in Russia view Russian military intervention, economic strong-arming, and political control as their God-given right. You have a right to free speech; they have a right to intervention in Ukraine. They're the big brother to the little-brother Ukraine, they're the leaders.

[reformist2]

4. This vote will be as much a vote against the austerity crowd in Kiev as anything.

[another_liberal]

7. Allow me to clarify a point or two . . .

These people in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv are not the good, good, good pro-Western Ukrainians who exercised their right to protest against their government, so as to bring about needed changes in their society. They are instead the bad, bad, bad pro-Russian Ukrainians who are protesting against their government to bring about dangerous changes to their society, dangerous changes which might lead to the dissolution of the Ukrainian nation itself!

Like they say, "Can't tell the players without a score card."

(sarcasm, of course)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. The fact that they are labeled as "Pro-Russian Ukrainians" immediately lends pause.

At least to anyone who knows the history of Ukraine.

[another_liberal]

16. Really?

Many eastern Ukrainians are Russian, at least they are by ethnic descent, culture and language. Many others are no doubt pro-Russian out of economic and political necessity. Who would they support instead, surely not the fascists of Svoboda and Right Sector who seem to have such influence with the current "interim government?"

All of that, one might add, does not even begin to consider the fear of what IMF imposed austerity will do to the manufacturing industry in eastern Ukrainian cities like Kharkov and Donetsk. Why support staying with a central government which fully intends to make one an unemployed pauper?

[blackspade]

17. The difference is that the 'pro-western Ukrainians' aren't dismembering their country.

The 'pro-Russian Ukrainians' are. If they were protesting the current government in Kiev, fine, but they are not.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Exactly. nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

19. so the pro-Russian Ukrainians sees where Ukraine is heading

and want no part of it, makes sense to me if we look at it from a *personal* perspective rather then a country wide one.

Stay with the illegal government in Kiev who came to power via a coup and plans to force IMF loans and austerity on them(something that will harm a lot more people in the eastern then western parts of the Ukraine i believe since thats where the manufacturing and such is located)
OR
Split away from Ukraine and (re?)join Russia, which will increase salaries and pensions by double or more as well as drop retirement age by about 5 years(also unless I'm wrong most of their manufacturing is sold eastward rather then west due to somewhat lower quality compared to similar western goods so it makes economic sense for em)
*

I know that if i personally had been given the above choice I'd likely have voted for the doubling of salaries and pensions over austerity.

Addendum: And yes, that means that if Donetsk votes to split and then requests to join Russia i wouldn't object to it happening since its the will of the people.

[blackspade]

20. So if Occupy takes over governmnet buildings....

in New York and then declares a referendum to join Canada so that they have pensions, universal healthcare, mandatory holidays, etc that that would be fine with you?

That is the scenario that you are proposing. Essentially the dismembering of a country for the benefit of one ethnic group.
I assume that you will be backing a referendum by the Tartars to rejoin Ukraine?

This is the ultimate result of tribalism.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

21. Since i am Norwegian what you yanks do is mostly up to you

but if a majority of the people in the state of New York had made such a vote, then yes i would have supported it since it was obviously the will of the people of the state of New York.

Now the chances of it being successful would be rather slimmer then Donetsk if they succeed but c'est la vie.

[blackspade]

24. Nice dodge.

It's never the 'majority of the people.' It is the majority of the people who vote.
Declaring your organization as speaking for others and then having a referendum of your particular group is not democracy.
That is tribalism and domination.

And what does being a yank, Norwegian, or Ukrainian have to do with anything?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. if people chose to abstain from voting

then I have no sympathy for those who do, thats their choice.

though if you are referring to the rest of the Ukrainians not being able to vote on Donetsk seceding then i would argue its more a matter for the people of Donetsk then the surrounding areas.

If instead you are referring to only one small part of the people of Donetsk voting and preventing the rest(of the people of Donetsk) from doing so then obviously its not the will of the people

And me being a Norwegian was merely me noting that i was speaking with an outsiders view rather then a domestic one.

[blackspade]

28. We are all outsiders to the Ukraine.

Including the the Russians and their militias.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

29. You won't get an argument from me on that statement n/t

[Scootaloo]

43. Not the precise actions taken, no

But I've no problem with people demanding a referendum on such a subject.

I assume that you will be backing a referendum by the Tartars to rejoin Ukraine?

Yes. It's their right ot seek such a referendum just as it is the ureanian Russian's right.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. There's more to identity than just the pocket book.

People assuming that Eastern Ukrainians would naturally wish to be annexed by Russia because of the promise of benefits are highly overestimating the fact that many of these people still consider themselves Ukrainian, first and foremost.

This isn't Crimea where you had Russians shipped into the territory over the years and who still considered themselves ethnically Russian. In Eastern Ukraine, you have a majority of people considering themselves ethnically Ukrainian. Even if they speak Russian (note that many of them were brought up in the Soviet Union where speaking Ukrainian was highly discouraged and children were taught Russian, not Ukrainian).

People thinking that Ukrainians living in Eastern Ukraine are going to roll over for Russian annexation are going to be highly surprised.

Think about it though: Many people on this board, myself included, would love to have Canada's health care system. That doesn't mean however that I think US states should secede and join Canada.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

25. i'm not saying people will roll over or anything like that

All I'm saying is that i can understand WHY people might want to drop Ukraine like a hot potato and join Russia, and if a majority supports such a move then I won't be opposed to it.

And i fully agree that there is more to identity then a pocketbook but you'd be surprised(most likely not based on some of your posts I've read in the past, but figure of speech and all that :p ) at how much people are willing to put aside for a bit if they believe it will make things better/easier for themselves and their family.

Also as i commented in another post, if a US state had voted to secede and join Canada then i would have supported it if it was the will of the people(i would not put much faith in its success though if it succeeded and they tried)

[another_liberal]

32. It's good, good, good to give your whole country away . . .

To be sold off by a crowd of greedy international bankers, but it's bad, bad, bad to try and save your home city and region from them?

Now I understand completely!

(sigh)

[Igel]

49. Our bankers bad.

Their bankers good.

The problem with Ukraine is that it's been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia. It's economy was configured to be subservient to Russia's. It's been bought by natural-gas warfare and so indebted that it has a hard time breathing. And every time it acts up, it gets smacked down again, hard, for being uppity.

When it gets really uppity, it gets invaded, frozen, or otherwise blackmailed. In addition to the usual condescension and insults that the native population gets from imports and from Russia.

This makes US intervention in Latin America in the last 110 years seem downright kind and gentle. Otherwise we'd be talking about the proud State of Yucatan and its representation in the electoral college. And the US territory of Cuba.


Tell me, again, how bad the EU bankers are? Might it just be that you see your own enemy and figure that others can't be nearly as bad, because you really need your enemy to be horrendous?

[another_liberal]

51. A banker who offers you a reasonable deal, instead of Greek-style austerity . . .

The fact remains that a banker who offers you a reasonable deal, instead of Greek-style austerity and ever-increasing debt for generations to come, is quite a bit better in most peoples' eyes.

[blackspade]

53. That makes no sense.

Are you saying that International bankers are selling portions of the country to Poland or Germany?
The bankers, CIA, COBRA, or whatever other western boogeyman you care to throw out are not dismembering Ukraine.
That is not to say that the IMF isn't a front for the world's corporations and the 1% that own them.
Destroying the infrastructure of a country by removing parts of it is what the Russians are doing.

But hey, keep pushing that tribalism!

[another_liberal]

54. The "interim government" in Kiev . . .

Dial that back a little, my friend.

The way this kind of looting works is that the IMF demands the "interim government" in Kiev tighten its belt in order to qualify for periodic infusions of money (no, they won't get all 15 billion dollars in a lump sum) and those cost cutting measures will include shuttering unproductive businesses (such as nearly every factory in the country). Anything that can be sold from those closed businesses will be up for sale at discount prices, as will entire businesses if any Western concern wants to try and run them. In the latter case, reduced wages, pensions and such will, of course, be part of the deal for any workers who still want a paycheck. As to natural resources, such as mineral rights, those will be quickly snapped up for exploitation by Western multinationals, again at bargain basement prices. Are you starting to get the picture?

This is not fiction. Our "technocrat" president in Kiev has already publicly announced he will meet the IMF's austerity demands and that he intends to open up Ukraine to Western investment (read as looting by Vulture Capitalists).

[blackspade]

58. That is still a world away from dismembering

Ukraine.
And the Russians are doing exactly that.

[KoKo]

36. True...they are "Rebels/Dissidents...not up to any good!

alert

[Bosonic]

10. These Masked, Pro-Russian Gunman Are 'Playing Out The Crimean Scenario' In Eastern Ukraine

These Masked, Pro-Russian Gunman Are 'Playing Out The Crimean Scenario' In Eastern Ukraine

Much like the buildup to the annexation of Crimea, the identity of the armed men currently driving separatism in east Ukraine is unclear.

Reuters describes them as "armed men, believed to be pro-Russian protesters," although the men that seized government buildings in three eastern Ukrainian cities on Sunday did more than protest.

Pro-Russia activists who took over the regional government building in Donetsk are now calling for the establishment of the "Donetsk people's republic" via referendum by May 11.

Acting Ukrainian President Oleksander Turchinov said that the action in three cities of eastern Ukraine - Kharkiv, Donetsk and Luhansk - indicates the "second stage" of special operations by Russia aimed at breaking up Ukraine.

http://www.businessinsider.com/armed-masked-protesters-appear-in-east-ukraine-2014-4

Masked men seize government buildings in #Donetsk. When shops open Monday AM they will each purchase $30K of special forces weapons & gear.

https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/452871594973855745

The guy with the blue/white t-shirt showing has already been on EBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RUSSIAN-AIRBORNE-FORCES-STRIPED-T-SHIRT-TELNYASHKA-NEW-XS-S-M-L-XL-XXL-/271270050609

[djean111]

14. I wish they didn't look like police gearing up for protests in the United States.

[KoKo]

37. YEAH! Like "Business Insider" has no interests in this with Jamie Diamon writing the Script?

[dipsydoodle]

41. That's just the right tee shirt

to go with an old bicycle complete with strings of onions over the handles bars, a beret and, a charcoaled in moustache to be a French onion seller.

[Igel]

50. Back before the Crimean invasion I pointed out the Georgian scenario.

In the '20s Lenin had lost Georgia.

A puppet government was formed. It was recognized, but very embattled. Not what you'd call massively popular. So it requested assistance, inviting in the Red Army.

Rather like Afghanistan in '79 in some ways, but it led to annexation.

Much more like Abkhazia. And S. Ossetia. It worked then, because the West decided that it would do nothing to actually stop it. It works now, because the West wants to make clear that it will actually do nothing to stop it--apart from sanctions.

Took decades for sanctions against Iran to have much of an effect.

[freshwest]

52. I was going to ask about the $30K each purchase below the pic:

Masked men seize government buildings in #Donetsk. When shops open Monday AM they will each purchase $30K of special forces weapons & gear.

But the twitter feed it comes from is a spoof account. Still very funny, thanks.

We don't really know what is going on, but the other articles do appear to show an undercover op by Putin, Russia, et al.

This stuff is now routine, armed masked guys and no accountability. Not good for democracy.

I'm sure the Koch brothers and the Tea Party want to do the same thing here.

[blackspade]

15. The Russian land grab continues.

One correction to the OP. The Russians annexed Crimea before the referendum, not after.

[davidpdx]

22. History repeats itself

Which region will spontaneously join Russia next? Figure one a week, the entire Eastern Ukraine could be annexed by the end of June. Anyone who stated that Crimea was an isolated incident is a moron.

[freshwest]

38. This statement could be taken more than one way:

BBC correspondents in Ukraine report that the separatists who proclaimed an independent republic were not local councillors.

Perhaps this is just honest reporting. But it leads me to wonder, but then again I may be reaing too much into the repoert.

Is this BBC's way of saying the pro-Russian protests aren't legitimate? Do the local councillors support the government in KIev?

Do they represen a majority in Donetsk or a minority? Were these councillors sent there by the new government in Kiev, or were they elected by the people of Donetsk?

Or is the BBC saying the protestors were Russian nationals, not Ukrainian?

There are so many angles to this, and we don't know what is propaganda or fact. The demonstrations, then the call for a vote, however, is following what happened in Crimea.

[dipsydoodle]

39. Chances are

that "local councillors" were voted in locally before this debacle started last November and may as a result be regarded as being "Kiev's people"

Given the subsequent decision to not enter a trade agreement with Russia, Belarous and Kazakhstan the industrial region to the east of Ukraine would immediately have recognised the economic consequences of that - particularly the arms manufacturers there..............shit creek.

As such a break up of Ukraine was almost inevitable. Some seem to have figured out how to speed that up. I don't see it follows that the actual instigators are Russian plants.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Kyiv Post claims this has been canceled today

Their sources for that aren't clear:

Late on April 7, a small group of pro-Russian separatists proclaimed the Peoples’ Republic of Kharkiv, independent of the rule of the central Ukrainian government Kyiv. They announced they were going to hold a referendum on Kharkiv Oblast joining Russia and sought support from former President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian authorities.

Earlier this week, a group of separatists proclaimed the same in Donetsk Oblast, but the decision was promptly canceled on April 8.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/kharkiv-settles-down-while-pro-russian-separatists-still-hold-buildings-in-luhansk-donetsk-342517.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Ukraine crisis: Ukraine in bid to retake buildings

The Ukraine authorities say they have seized back control of the regional administration building in the eastern city of Kharkiv from pro-Russia separatists.

They say they hope buildings in Luhansk and Donetsk will be freed shortly as well.
...
Some 70 people were held without shots being fired, Ukraine's interior ministry said in a statement.

Mr Turchynov said those who seized the buildings would be treated as "terrorists and criminals" who would be prosecuted with the full force of the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26934190

[dipsydoodle]

57. At least we will know who they were.

Late last night Odessa was predicted to be next up for similar protests.

[Bosonic]

59. Ukraine authorities say separatists holding 60 hostages in Luhansk building

Ukraine authorities say separatists holding 60 hostages in Luhansk building

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine's state security service on Tuesday said that pro-Russian separatists have placed explosives in a building they seized in the eastern city of Luhansk and are using weapons to hold around 60 people against their will.

Pro-Russian separatists occupied the SBU building on Sunday evening in one of a series of attacks in the east of the country. At least nine people were injured when the separatists broke doors and windows throughout the building and raised the Russian flag.

"The anti-terror group of the security services of Ukraine (SBU) .. has established that the criminals have rigged the building with explosives ... and are holding around 60 people, threatening them with weapons and explosives," the SBU said in a statement.

"These actions are extremely dangerous and endanger the lives of people both inside and outside of the building," the statement said. "They are using terrorist measures."

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-authorities-separatists-holding-60-people-luhansk-building-154238988.html

[ozone_man]

60. activists deny charge

But the activists, who have controlled the region's state security headquarters since storming it on Sunday, denied both charges. They said they had no explosives, but had seized an armoury full of automatic rifles.