Mardy (Entratas super Ucraina)

Will the internet forget russophobia?

Alberto Mardegan — Sun, 04 Jun 2023 07:41:02 GMT

I've often wondering what will happen when this horrific war in Europe will finally be over. I won't be discussing politics here, but what is mostly interesting to me is how (and if) all the companies who made high proclaims about not doing business with Russia will justify their getting back into the Russian market. They will probably count on the fact that the war will be long, and that people will forget what these companies' stance was. After all, the world has forget about all the companies who collaborated with the Nazi regime, so we can expect the same to happen with this war.

But I don't think that's right: if you made a mistake, you should be held accountable for it. You might be wondering what is the “mistake” I'm talking about: that's russophobia, indeed. To put it simply, and make a concrete example: if The Qt Company stops doing business with Russian companies and blocks its downloads page to Russian IP addresses because of the war, without being forced by the government to do so, but does not take similar measures against other countries who wage wars which have caused way more deaths and displacement of individuals, well, that's what I call “russophobia”. Of course, I'm aware that there's way more than that, and that the hatred for all what is Russian (including culture and sport competitions) is an even bigger issue, but in this blog post I'm especially focused on the IT world, so please forgive my semi-intentional narrow-mindness on this topic.

Now, I'm fully aware that we live in a mediatic bubble that directs our decisions in a way that is almost automatic, and I'm sure that most people working for companies who took russophobic decisions are not themselves russophobic at all (and I'm not dismissing the possibility that even the very same people who took these decisions might not be russophobic) and that these decisions were taken on impulse, because “everyone else is doing the same” and due to the media pressure that if you don't do that, you might get accused of supporting the “wrong” side of the war.

But that's not an excuse, especially for “smart” people like IT engineers (and I put the adjective between quotes for a reason), and especially after the initial heat has passed and when, after more than one year of war, we should have been exposed to different point of views and be able to evaluate the situation more rationally. It has been therefore especially stunning for me to learn that the Linux Kernel community, and hence The Linux Foundation, has recently given room to russophobic behaviours, refusing a patch coming from the Russian company Baikal (a CPU maker). For the record, the incriminated patch was not related to supporting hardware produced by this company (not that this would make the deed less serious, but at least one could have argued that there could be some spot of logic in it):

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
[...]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 01:42:24 +0300 Serge Semin wrote:
> From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>

We don't feel comfortable accepting patches from or relating 
to hardware produced by your organization.

Please withhold networking contributions until further notice.

(here the link to the original discussion). One week later, someone denounced this as a violation to the Code of Conduct committee (unfortunately the only link I could find to this is coming from a Russian IT forum, and any other references seem to have been removed from DuckDuckGo and Google), only to receive a reply that it was all fine.

To me this is not fine. The war will end, sooner or later, but it bothers me that we never learn from the past and repeat the same mistakes over and over. We apparently know a lot about propaganda, yet we fail to recognize it when it influences our own mind and actions. My humble contribution is the creation of a page where I list the companies who have taken russophobic actions, and, on the opposite side, companies (like Flickr and Zorin OS) who have stood out for positive messages and helpful actions. My hope is that some of the listed companies will find the courage to review their actions, and either correct their stance, or at least clarify their reasons. So, I hereby present

Denouncing russophobia

where you'll find some of the good and some of the bad companies. I'm sure I'm missing plenty of them: I just started recollecting my memories and searching online a couple of days ago. I created this as a GitHub project, because indeed I'm looking forward for contributions, to help me make the lists more complete. I need to stress that the fact that a company has announced the suspension of its business in Russia does not automatically make it russophobic: what we need to look at is the reason for that decision: companies like LEGO and Nintendo, for example, have suspended their operations citing logistic and financial reasons; no judgement involved.

Let me repeat it once more, just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: it's perfectly fine for businesses to take a stance on politics, and sometimes it might be even praiseworthy; but if a company is international, and does not apply the same reasoning to other armed conflicts, or seem to care only about certain human rights violations and not others, then it's a case of double standards which we need to be aware of, and make the company think twice about it. And that's also the reason why you won't find any Ukrainian company among the “bad” ones, because in their case the reaction is perfectly understandable and they can hardly be accused of adopting double standards (well, technically speaking, they are adopting double standards, but when you are so directly impacted I think it does not deserve a blame): if it's your house which burns, you should definitely scream about it, even if you previously have been silent about your neighbour house's burning.

I'm especially looking forward for more “good” companies, who have shown empathy towards the people affected by the war (and maybe even collected money to help them) while refraining from taking the judging role and forgetting about all the injustice and suffering that other wars have caused (including on that very same piece of land that suddenly appeared on all newspapers' front pages on February 24th, 2022). I hope that these companies can serve as an example of positive action, humanity, and love.

Un editoriale di Marco Travaglio

Alberto Mardegan — Wed, 01 Mar 2023 17:37:28 GMT

Nonostante io non legga più Il Fatto Quotidiano (per i motivi spiegati qui, che restano tuttora validi), continuo a imbattermi negli editoriali di Marco Travaglio, che spesso apprezzo. Oggi invece mi sono imbattuto nell'introduzione del suo nuovo libro “Scemi di guerra”, e ve ne riporto un estratto che ho trovato particolarmente incisivo.

Abbiamo abolito la storia. È vietato raccontare ciò che è accaduto in Ucraina prima del 24 febbraio 2022: gli otto anni di guerra civile in Donbass dopo il golpe bianco (anzi, nero) di Euromaidan nel 2014 e le migliaia di morti e feriti causati dai continui attacchi delle truppe di Kiev e delle milizie filo-naziste al seguito contro le popolazioni russofone e russofile che, col sostegno di Mosca, chiedevano l’indipendenza o almeno l’autonomia. Il tutto in barba ai due accordi di Minsk. La versione ufficiale, l’unica autorizzata, è che prima del 2022 non è successo niente: una mattina Putin s’è svegliato più pazzo del solito e ha invaso l’Ucraina. Se la gente scoprisse la verità, capirebbe che il mantra atlantista “Putin aggressore e Zelensky aggredito” vale solo dal 2022: prima, per otto anni, gli aggressori erano i governi di Kiev (l’ultimo, quello di Zelensky) e gli aggrediti i popoli del Donbass. Fra le vittime, c’è il giornalista italiano Andrea Rocchelli, ucciso dall’esercito ucraino… Abbiamo abolito la geografia. Proibito mostrare la cartina dell’allargamento della Nato a Est negli ultimi 25 anni (da 16 a 30 membri)… Eppure, che la Nato si sia allargata a Est, accerchiando e assediando la Russia, minacciandone la sicurezza con installazioni di missili nucleari sempre più vicine al confine, in barba alle promesse fatte a Gorbaciov nel 1990, fino all’ultima provocazione di annunciare l’imminente ingresso nell’Alleanza dei vicini di casa della Russia – Georgia e Ucraina – è un fatto storico indiscutibile…

L’altra cartina proibita è quella dei Paesi che non condannano o non sanzionano la Russia, o se ne restano neutrali: quasi tutta l’Asia, l’Africa e l’America Latina, cioè l’87% della popolazione mondiale. Ma al nostro piccolo mondo antico occidentale piace far credere che Putin è isolato e noi lo stiamo circondando. Sul fatto che Cina, India, Brasile e altri paesucoli stiano con lui o non stiano con noi, meglio sorvolare: altrimenti lo capiscono tutti che le sanzioni non funzionano… Solo abolendo la storia si può credere al presidente Sergio Mattarella quando ripete che “l’Ucraina è la prima guerra nel cuore dell’Europa nel dopoguerra”. E Belgrado bombardata anche dall’Italia nel 1999 dov’è, in Oceania? E chi era il vicepremier del governo D’Alema che bombardava Belgrado? Un certo Mattarella… Abbiamo abolito il rispetto per le altre culture. In una folle ondata di russofobia, abbiamo visto ostracizzare direttori d’orchestra, cantanti liriche, pianiste di fama mondiale, fotografi, atleti (anche paraolimpici), persino gatti e querce, soltanto perché russi. E poi censurare corsi su Dostoevskij, cancellare dai teatri i balletti di Cajkovskij, addirittura estromettere la delegazione russa dalle celebrazioni per la liberazione di Auschwitz. Come se il lager l’avessero liberato gli americani o gli ucraini e non l’Armata Rossa… i trombettieri della Nato propagandano la bufala dell’“euroatlantismo” e gli scemi di guerra se la bevono, senz’accorgersi che mai come oggi gli interessi dell’Europa sono opposti a quelli dell’America.

A peace plan for Ukraine

Alberto Mardegan — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:33:56 GMT

Among the peace plans proposed by various European and U.S. politicians, to be frank, I haven't read a single one which I would consider even remotely feasible. My impression is that such plans have been redacted more for a need to fool one's voters and present onself as a peace operator (whereas one factually supports sending of weapons and tightening of sanctions) than for a genuine peace effort, since every politician that had spent even just a few minutes to document oneself on the situation around Ukraine would perfectly know that these peace plans are not just unacceptable by the Russians, but plainly unpresentable.

A believable peace plan must first and foremost take into account the reasons that pushed Russia to invade Ukraine and, above all, those who push the Russian people to support the war. It's certainly legitimate, and even reasonable, to doubt the official reasons: on the contrary, it's very likely that the reasons who push Russia to continue this “special operation” are, at least in part, others, economical in nature and to the benefit of a few especially powerful individuals (arm producers above all). We can put our heart at rest, and accept the fact that we'll never get to know the real reasons; but, on the other hand, it's not even so important to know them, after all.

What we really need to know is the mood of the Russian population, and especially the reasons why president Putin's popularity has risen after the invasion of Ukraine. The mainstream information we get in the West is not helpful at all in this, because it's since 2014 that it omits reporting important facts about the war in Donbass. Well, nowadays the Russian people are constantly fed images of civilians dying in Donetsk and in other cities of the Donbass, right in the center of the cities, where there are no military targets. We can call it propaganda, sure, but the facts are real and are just an aggravated continuation of what has been happening for the past 8 years, all well documented by the OSCE mission and by the Office of the High Commissioner of the Human Rights of the United Nations¹.

Besides, the massive transfer of weapons and the episodes of discrimination against Russian artists, athletes, personalities of the culture and entertainment, sometimes against the very Russian language, these are all widely publicized by local mass media and get the Russians convinced that their country is fighting an existential war against a horde of fascists, and, militarily, against the whole of NATO.

If the West had really the will to restore peace it should work to destroy this representation of itself and disarm the Russian propaganda by removing the facts on which it's built. Specifically, I'm persuaded that many of the following points would be well received by the Western population and would demotivate the Russian people (including many of the soldiers stationed at the front) in fighting this fratricidal war:

Removal of every discrimination against Russian culture and its representatives and performers.
Promise that Ukraine won't be let into NATO or in other military alliances that would go beyond the commitment to reciprocal defense (that is, no to joint military drills or foreign bases in the territory of Ukraine, yes to a promise of military intervention in case of attack).
Pausing the shipment of weapons until Ukraine removes the title of hero of Ukraine to Stepan Bandera and other members of the nazist organisation UPA.
Pausing the shipment of weapons until Ukraine stops bombing civilian settlements devoid of military installations.

It should be noted that none of these points require collaboration or agreements between states (even joining NATO can only happen after the unanymous vote of all current members, as Turkey reminds us), so they all could be immediately implemented by any willing state. The bigger the number of Western countries pushing forward these policies, the more uncertainty will grow among the Russian population, and will ultimately transform into incomprehension and dissatisfaction, since this would destroy the ideological reasons that make the Russians support the conflict.

If we are to speak of a peace plan, agreed among NATO, Ukraine and Russia, then it could be developed along these lines:

Ukraine condemns the nazist ideology (therefore Bandera and friends), accepts to open an international commission of inquiry (including Russia as well) over the massacres of Maidan square and Odessa.
Ukraine grants the status of second official language to the Russian language, similarly to how Swedish language is treated in Finland².
Ukraine enacts laws to guarantee a limited autonomy to the 5 regions currently under Russian control (including Crimea) and amnesty for all those rebels that are not found guilty of war crimes (in other words, a sort of Minsk accords extended to all the occupied regions).
Ukraine promises not to host military forces or equipment from other countries in its territory, and to not participate in joint military drills, without the consent of the Russian federation. It can, however, join defensive military alliances.
Ukraine promises to never enact sanctions against Russia, nor to require visa from Russian citizens in order to cross its borders.
The Russian army withdraws and gets temporarily replaced by the army of a third country, not member of NATO, chosen by Ukraine.
New referendums, under the supervision of international observers (including Ukrainians and Russians) in the 5 contested regions. Times will be established by Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine commit to recognize and implement their results.
The peace mission introduced in point 6 gets wrapped up.

It's of fundamental importance understanding that territorial questions are only a secondary matter, and that what is most pressing for the Russian people is to have good relations with the neighbouring countries: not having to worry about coups, colour revolutions stirred up by the West or about other attempts to use Ukraine as a weapon against Russia. If, for example, there were a Russian region that desired to separate itself from the federation and join Belarus, I'm convinced that this could happen in a peaceful way without serious repercussions, since the relationships between the two countries are good and Belarus is not perceived as a threat. This was also the situation with Ukraine before 2014³, and it's the situation to which we should strive to return to.

See for example the report for the period May-August 2018, page 5, point 22. More reports can be found in this list. ↩
Note that Swedish in Finland is the native language for just 5% of the population, whereas in Ukraine Russian is the native language of about 30% of the population. ↩
Not exactly, since there had already been attempts at colour revolutions resulting in anti-Russian governments. But I hope you'll pass this oversimplification of mine here. ↩

The Media

Alberto Mardegan — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 20:29:28 GMT

Ah, the media. No words from me are necessary here: just read these two articles, then read their titles again, then wonder.

Just wow.

Employing a nazi sympathiser - RedHat under scrutiny

Alberto Mardegan — Mon, 06 May 2019 19:30:44 GMT

Update: According to some rumors, RedHat has swiftly acted and the protagonist of this story is no longer in their ranks. You still might want to read this post, though, as it was not much about facts, but opinions. :-) - 15.05.2019

Politics is hard, and when you mix politics with other, more mundane aspects of your daily life, the fight between political ideas, freedom of speech, and other principles reach such a complexity that finding clear-cut answers becomes quite hard.

Let's take for example the case, uncovered by the Ukrainian journalist Anatoly Shariy, of a RedHat employee who appears to be a Nazi sympathiser, openly posing doing the Nazi salute right in Berlin. It will be interesting to see how (and if) RedHat will react to this information; there are also other spaces to watch, given that the guy in question has been giving talks in several conferences and is a very active member of the Eclipse project.

Let's put aside the fact that in Germany exposing Nazi symbols is a crime, and let's suppose that the guy did the Nazi salute in some other place where that's not illegal; what would your reaction be, if you where the employer, or a conference organizer, or if you had some position of authority in the open source project that this guy is contributing to?

On a personal level, taking a distance from this fellow and cutting all ties would be a rather understandable step (unless, of course, you share his views); but on a professional/business level, would that be the appropriate decision? If your answer is positive, without hesitation, then this post is for you.

Showing a nice image

People have been fired or removed from their posts for much less than this, that is true. Two cases which come to mind are James Damore, fired from Google for advancing the idea that the low women representation in the IT industry might be due to some biological traits, and Brendan Eich, who ceded to pressure and resigned from its post of CEO of Mozilla after the news of his past donations to an anti-gay movement went public. I'm sure there are plenty of other similar cases out there, but these are the ones I happened to notice at the time. And I don't like how these cases ended.

While the two cases are extremely different from each other, the common denominator is that -- in my opinion -- the companies (or the person itself, in Eich's case) took a decision based exclusively at the perceived PR outcome, and not on a matter of principle. And what is worse, is that this way of handling disagreement is a great threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

The world is full of racists, misoginists, homophobes, antisemitics, and, in general, of people embracing ideologies which we despise. But I'm convinced that the only way to fight these ideologies is opening a personal, one to one, dialogue with the individual in question; getting to know their background, the reasons why they came to believe in such things, and trying to find a way -- ideally, by providing yourself as a virtuous example -- to instill a doubt into their convictions, and eventually to demolish them.

The firing of someone who has expressed some non-welcome ideas acts as a threat to everyone else sharing the same views, and will lead to the result that the problem will be swept under the carpet: fire one, and you'll never know about the other dozens.

The benefits a good fight

I can imagine some of you screaming in disagreement: “But if you don't get rid of them, the whole working environment becomes poisonous: employees will no longer feel at ease (not to mention customers!)”. True, but we can take other actions, other than just fire the employee: we can actually talk. First of all, we can get him to openly state his position. It's possible (and I think this nicely applies to Damore's case) that we misunderstood what he really meant, or maybe he didn't express himself properly, or (even better) he has already changed his mind. But if that's not the case, I believe there can be a good opportunity to actually improve the situation: get people to talk.

I'm probably being naive here, but if I were the employer I would ask all the employees to report, anonymously, whether they feel comfortable continuing working with this guy. Then, organize one to one (private) meetings between this person and all his colleagues, of at least five minutes in length, and maybe repeat the whole round of conversations one more time, a couple of weeks later. And finally, get once again everyone's anonymous feedback, and draw the conclusions.

The reason why I wrote that I'm naive is because I think we'd see a clear improvement in the answers, and we'd probably contributed, if not in freeing one person from a poisonous ideology, at least in instilling some doubt.

Back to reality

Even if they read my post, I'm quite positive that RedHat will fire this guy: being in the same open source community as Google and Mozilla, the push to react in a similar way as their peers is just too strong (and that's why I condemn how the previous cases have unfolded: they traced a road which has now become too hard to avoid).

(In the specific case I confess I woudn't regret it, and -- despite all what I've written above -- I believe that firing this employee would be the proper retribuition: not for being a nazi, but because this guy had a school teacher in Ukraine fired, after he publicly accused her of showing an old soviet song to her pupils; a song that was not even about communism, and which is not at all forbidden in Ukraine!)

Cammino quindi penso - 2019-03-12 - Al Bano, un pericolo pubblico

Alberto Mardegan — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:35:36 GMT

Il cantante Al Bano è entrato, suo malgrado, nella lista nera dei nemici dell'Ucraina.

Vedi l'intervista su Repubblica.

Il troll russo - Gli accordi di Minsk, questi sconosciuti

Alberto Mardegan — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 11:46:00 GMT

Facciamo un po' di chiarezza sugli accordi di Minsk per capire come, quando i politici accusano la Russia di non rispettarli, si stia facendo soltanto un operazione di propaganda anti-russa.

I link usati nel video:

Documento:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11408266/Minsk-agreement-on-Ukraine-crisis-text-in-full.html

Vittime civili:
http://blog.mardy.it/2018/04/lo-que-tu-non-audi-de-ucraina.html

Amnistia:
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/amnesty-law-applying-ukrainian-soldiers-donbas-comes-force-september-7.html

Villaggi occupati:
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukrainian-army-reported-advanced-near-occupied-horlivka.html
https://112.international/conflict-in-eastern-ukraine/osce-dissatisfied-with-ukrainian-army-promotion-in-gray-zone-in-donbas-26139.html
https://en.hromadske.ua/posts/inside-the-frontline-village-declared-ukrainian-twice

Lo que tu non audi de Ucraina

Alberto Mardegan — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:38:00 GMT

Le conflicto que initiava in Ucraina in 2014 non es multo visibile in le medios de information, perque — specialmente post le accordos de Minsk de februario 2015 — il se tracta de un conflicto congelate: le linea del fronte es quasi immutabile, in expectation que le duo factiones in guerra implementa le punctos definite in le documento de Minsk (a proposito, esque vos saperea dicer, qui debe facer que?). Infortunatemente, le facto que le conflicto es congelate non significa que on non combatte, e que le gente non mori: le soldatos de ambe factiones continua a sparar, con multe typos de armas differente, e le population civil continua a sufferer e morir.
Io crede que le majoritate de mi lectores jam sape isto. Lo que vos probabilemente non sape dicer, es si le victimas civil es distribuite equalmente in le areas del conflicto, o si il ha differentias inter le areas controllate per le rebelles philorusse e illos controllate per le governamento Ucrainian. In altere parolas, si le majoritate del victimas civil es causate per le rebelles o per le armea regular.
In absentia de tal information (al minus, io suppone que vos non ha iste information — si vos lo ha, per favor scribe in le commentos ubi vos lo trovava), il es natural supponer que, statisticamente, il ha un numero simile de victimas civil in ambe lateres del fronte. O forsan in vostre opinion il ha un faction que es plus culpabile del altere, a secunda de vostre prejudicios.

Pro obtener le numero exacte del victimas on debe leger le reportos del organisationes international, que es certemente plus credibile que reportos publicate per le factiones in guerra. Isto non significa que le organisationes international es impartial (le composition de iste organisationes vide generalmente un predominantia de membros occidental), ma nonobstante isto illos remane le sol fonte de datos que nos pote considerar credibile.
Le Consilio pro le Derectos Human del Nationes Unite publica proprie reportos cata tres menses, e in iste reportos il ha sempre un section dedicate al victimas civil, que contine numeros precise. Infortunatemente, durante le anno 2016 iste reportos omitteva de specificar le area de Ucraina in le qual le personas moriva; isto rende impossibile saper qual faction es responsabile del decessos.

Pro iste ration, io me armava de patientia e initiava un tediose labor de lectura del reportos del mission del OSCE in Ucraina, e pro cata uno de illos io extraheva le numeros del victimas civil (ferite e morite), classificate per causa del accidente (bombardamento, minas o alteres), e altere numeros que io trovava statisticamente interessante, como per exemplo le numero de casas que esseva lese per le bombardamentos. Io vos presenta hic un summario con le numeros que io trova plus interessante:

	Areas controlate per le governamento	Areas controlateper le rebelles
Mortes per bombardamento	5	23
Feritas per bombardamento	40	77
Casas bombardate	171	358

Le tabula complete que io compilava, e del qual io ha extrahite le tabula supra, es hic: Reportos OSCE 2016. Io anticipa alicun criticas; alora, vole ben permitter me de explicar como interpretar le tabula:

Cata linea del tabula corresponde a un die del anno 2016.
Pro cata linea, il ha un ligamine al reporto del OSCE de ille die; vole ben usar isto pro verificar si mi extraction de datos esseva correcte.
Multe numeros es discutibile: con le exception del numero del decessos, tote le altere numeros es subjecte a interpretation: per exemplo, esque on debe enumerar inter le feritos un persona qui ha subite solmente un lesion multo superficial? O esque on debe contar como casas lese ille casas cuje vetros in le fenestras se rumpeva solmente a causa de un ruito? Io ha cercate de usar mi bon senso, ma io admitte que on poterea haber interpretationes differente.
Io ha contate solmente le numeros de victimas civil: clarmente, anque inter le soldatos e le militantes il habeva multe victimas, ma (excusa me pro mi cynismo) io non crede que le occision de un soldato es un acto criminal.
In plure casos, le OSCE non reporta le numero exacte de casas lese, ma usa expressiones como "several" ("plure"); alora, in absentia de altere informationes, in iste casos io arbitrarimente contava duo casas.
Io vos presenta le tabula integral solmente pro amor de completessa; ma mi consilio es de ignorar le detalios e considerar solmente le numeros relative al mortos e feritos inter le population civil.
In le columna "Initiated shooting" io contava le vices quando OSCE indicava clarmente, sin possibilitates de equivocation, qual parte del conflicto initiava a sparar primo.
Si vos trova errores, scribe me in le commentos.

Io crede que iste numeros monstra como le distribution del victimas non es casual: le plus grande parte del victimas civil es causate per le bombardamentos que le governamento ucrainian opera contra le territorios del rebelles philorusse, e le proportion es tanto grande que illo non lassa le possibilitate de explicar lo como un fenomeno accidental. De facto, mesmo si vos non vole creder a mi numeros, vos pote trovar datos simile in le reportos del Officio per le Alte Commissario pro le Derectos Human del Nationes Unite (OHCHR). Io summarisa le datos que on trova in lor documentos:

Periodo	Victimas civil: total (e mortos)
Periodo	Areas controlate per le governamento	Areas controlateper le rebelles
16/11/2016 - 15/02/2017	13 (3)	40 (4)
16/02/2017 - 15/05/2017	incognite	incognite
16/05/2017 - 15/08/2017	27 (1)	62 (8)
16/08/2017 - 15/11/2017	2 (0)	18 (1)
16/11/2017 - 15/02/2018	12 (1)	35 (2)

Io ha contate solmente le victimas per bombardamentos, quando il habeva un tal differentiation: le motivo es que le responsabilitate in iste caso es plus obvie, durante que in le caso de victimas per minas o per armas de calibro minor il pote esser que in alicun casos le responsabilitate cade super le personas qui controla le territorio

Como vos pote vider, le grande parte del victimas se trova in le territorio occupate per le rebelles. Esque nos pote concluder que iste personas esseva colpate per le foco del armea ucrainian? Io crede que si: nonobstante le propaganda ucrainian, que recita que le rebelles philorusse bombarda le territorios controlate per lor mesme, le reportos del OSCE que io examinava describe un pictura multo clar: le bombardamentos que occurre in le territorio del independentistas proveni del areas governative, e vice versa (de facto, in un caso il ha evidentia que le governamento ucrainian bombardava Shchastya, que es sub su proprie controlo). E anque le reporto del OHCHR de Novembre 2017 - Februario 2018 dice clarmente (al paragrapho 19) que le bombardamentos que occurre in un latere del conflicto es causate per le fortias que occupa le altere latere del fronte.

Conclusion

Io non crede que le mundo es dividite inter personas sancte e personas cruel, e que le veritate es sempre blanc o nigre. Le scopo de iste articulo non es lo de monstrar vos que le rebelles philorusse es bon, durante que le soldatos fidel al governamento ucrainian es perverse: le guerra es sempre mal, perque victimas civil es inevitabile. Ma io crede que le numeros ha un signification que non pote esser ignorate, e que vos deberea inquadrar in le contexto del information que vos recipe. Esque iste datos esseva un surprisa, pro vos? Si le responsa es affirmative, vos deberea initiar a dubitar del qualitate del information que vos consuma. Quando on lege un nova que tracta de guerra o de un evento de chronica, on sempre lege un information partial; mi consilio es de leger sempre le versiones de ambe partes, e alora on ha le sperantia de vider un pictura plus complete. Il non es per accidente que, in un processo juridic, le judice sempre ascolta anque le version del imputato, mesmo si le evidentia contra ille appare pesantissime.

E pro tornar a iste triste guerra: si vos non es choccate per iste numeros, imagina si un situation simile occurreva in vostre pais. Face iste effortio de imagination: il ha un rebellion philorusse in un citate in le parte oriental de vostre pais: illes non plus accepta le governamento central, e demanda le independentia. Russia anque interveni, e secretemente adjuta le rebelles. Suppone que vostre governamento non es capabile de eliminar solmente le rebelles, perque illo dispone solmente de bombas imprecise; como reagirea vos, si vostre governamento bombardava le citate, e in iste guerra on habeva un proportion de victimas civil simile a illos que io ha reportate in iste articulo?
Esque vos poterea tolerar iste mortes, si in ille citate rebelle le percentual del personas qui supporta le rebellion es 80%? E 50%? O 5%? E quando vos ha respondite, le question successive es: qual es le percentual del personas del Donbass qui supporta le rebelles philorusse? E si vos respondeva que iste mortes non es tolerabile in vostre pais, perque vos (o le governamento de vostre pais) los tolera quando illos occurre in Ucraina?

Cammino quindi penso - 2017-11-18 - Ucraina, lo scoop sui cecchini del Maidan

Alberto Mardegan — Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:23:00 GMT

Cosa mi ha colpito del serizio di Matrix sull'Ucraina?

L'esclusivo servizio di matrix potete guardarlo integralmente qui.

Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Kotsaba at the EU parliament (28-2-2017)

Alberto Mardegan — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:06:00 GMT

English:

Ruslan Kotsaba spent more than one year in prison for refusing to fight pro-russian rebels in eastern Ukraine (article from The Guardian).

In this hearing at the European Parliament, he tells his views on the situation in Ukraine, telling facts that EU parliament members - misinformed by Western media - have never heard before.

Italiano:

Ruslan Kotsaba ha trascorso più di un anno in prigione per essersi rifiutato di combattere i ribelli filorussi nell'est dell'Ucraina (articolo dal The Guardian).

In questa udienza al parlamento europeo, esprime il suo punto di vista sulla situazione in Ucraina, rivelando verità che gli europarlamentari - disinformati dai mezzi di informazione occidantali - mai hanno sentito prima.