We saw no Russian ‘green men’ in Slavyansk, says NYT reporters
Commentary
Two New York Times reporters spent a week in the besieged city of Slavyansk in eastern Ukraine, visiting separatist fighters at the frontlines, observing them fighting against attacking Ukrainian troops and interviewing them.
The report of their findings about the pro-Russian 12th Company of the People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic, published in the New York Times Saturday, should contribute to dispelling the disinformation from both sides in the ongoing conflict.
The first revealing observation of journalists C.J.Chivers and Noah Sneider was that there was no evidence of Russian “green men” among fighters of the 12th Company in Slavyansk, all being Ukrainians opposed to the new government in Kyiv.
The 12th company consisted of 119 members who ranged from 20s to 50s in age. Most with military background, having served in the military of the former Soviet Union and the Ukrainian army.
The commander of the group, Yuri, was a Ukrainian in his 50s who had served as commander of a Soviet special forces unit in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Several of his men claimed Ukrainian citizenship, identifying themselves as natives of central and southeastern cities.
After spending a week with the fighters, the journalists concluded: “There was no clear Russian link in the 12th Company’s arsenal.”
The men, who were armed with old weapons, claimed they obtained them from Ukrainian soldiers and from police buildings they seized.
The reporters wrote: “Much of their stock was identical to the weapons seen in the hands of Ukrainian soldiers…”
The reporters also attested to evidence of support for the fighters among the local population. Locals gave freely to the fighters, provided them with food and labor needed to build defenses. Yuri summed up the relationship between his fighters and the locals: “To the guys in Kyiv, we are separatists and terrorists. But to the people here, we are defenders and protectors.”
The question to ask at this point his: Have the New York Times reporters just refuted Western claims about Russian undercover agents directing pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine?
It might appear so, but as I shall point out, the reality could be much more complex than the simple view the reporters appear to portray.
How does one assess the evidence?
The first approach is historical because the situation in Ukraine has deep historical roots. Strong pro-Russian sentiments have existed in parts of eastern Ukraine with relatively large ethnic Russian population long before the current crisis. The takeover of government by Western Ukrainian nationalists in Kyiv and the rush by the West to legitimize what must have seemed ultranationalist mob rule to ethnic Russians, only served to further heighten the distrust.
Western Ukrainian nationalists have a long history of anti-Russian sentiments and neo-Nazi ideological leanings. Much of the sentiments are legitimately due to years of political domination by Moscow.
While the NYT report does not disprove the presence of Russian special forces in the eastern Ukraine, it helps to shed light on the perplexing question of identity of the majority of the militiamen in eastern Ukraine.
While one must keep in mind that local pro-Russian forces could have the means to manage things so the NYT reporters see only what they want them to see, the report provides convincing evidence against the tendency of Western sources to exaggerate the involvement of Russian agents while ignoring the evidence of a groundswell of support among the local population, at least in places such as Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.
On the other hand, Moscow’s narrative of the crisis which suggests that the rebellion is wholly homegrown is false. The agitation needed prodding and engineering from Moscow to take off. Note that many of the men in the 12th Company were former Soviet and Ukrainian soldiers.
But the Western claim that the eastern Ukrainian rebels are only proxies of Moscow flies in the face of reality and compels a critical reappraisal of US policy in Ukraine if only to avoid the same harsh judgment of history as handed down in Iraq.
The argument that the rebellion in the east is being “orchestrated from Moscow” is being deliberately confused with the implication that there is no local support for the separatist movement and that Russia somehow managed to transplant its forces and population into the east to stage manage protests and anti-Kyiv resistance.
This is not a realistic portrayal of the complexity that the report uncovers. The pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine could not have achieved their present level of effectiveness without local support.
Yuri’s remark about their relationship with the locals underscores the problem of perspective in assessing foreign conflicts while comfortably ensconced in your study room armchair thousands of miles away.
One must strive to rise above the constraints of parochial views to see what is really going on. Taking a pre-packaged “pro-Russian” or “pro-American” stance only serves to cloud judgment.
Yuri, for instance, has a background that makes him an authentic local and yet a convenient Kremlin proxy, as the NTY reporters remark.
A debate among the fighters over the future of the region reflects the complexity of opinions in eastern Ukraine and supports my argument in a previous analysis that while it is unlikely that a referendum would approve joining the Russian Federation, it would likely approve a greater measure of autonomy for eastern Ukraine.
The ongoing drive by both sides in the conflict to find a military solution to what is essentially a matter of historical and cultural split between west and east will result in avoidable internecine bloodshed.
The best way to settle the question of eastern Ukraine is through a referendum. Anything else would be imposing a foreign solution, and that would not be fair on Ukrainians.
But Kyiv could be wary of a referendum that could help legitimize the rebellion. The current offensive by Ukrainian troops is designed to create conditions that would make the May 11 referendum impossible to hold.
But one of the fighters, Dmitry, sums it up, the situation sanguinely, insisting that whatever happens Kyiv must allow a vote on the future of eastern Ukraine. He says, “Either a sea of blood and corpses, or a referendum. There is no third way.”