My ')))' are just bad habit of putting smiles. 

On the 'Russian' question - yes, it is common that people say about themselves as 'Belarus', 'Ukraine', 'Moscow, 'Saint-Petersburg', 'Siberian' , 'Vologda', 'Tatar', Pomor', 'Cossack' etc. people. But we still Russians - that's not a nation. But more like a 'superethnos'.

On the 'Soviet' thing - people I know was calling themselves 'Russian' even during Soviet times. And people saying about themselves 'Soviet' today are just nostalgic or maybe just positioning themselves more clearly as 'anticapitalist' kind.

doublepost

Correct me if I am wrong, my information is from the news I have read and is not extensive.

1. Putin invaded Crimea. Sure, no violence, but you guys put thousands of Russian troops there, this is called invasion. True right?

After the invasion, the so called referendum happened. (Basically to cover up or to justify the invasion)

2. Putin is putting unrest in Eastern Ukraine?

Logical Reasoning:
Why are the rebels in Eastern Ukraine so heavily armed and trained?
Why are the rebels risking their own lives to attack Ukrainian soldiers? First of all, I doubt they hated their Ukrainian lives so much that they would risk their lives to overthrow the government? Second of all, if the answer to the previous question is: "yes, they hated their Ukrainian lives that much", then why did they not rebel much earlier?


So what's your conclusion by summing up all the answers?

1. Crimea. As I understand it wasn't any 'invasion'. Russia legally has a NAVY base in Sevastopol, Crimea, with up to 40 000 soldiers. During the incident it was around 25 000 Russian soldiers on Crimean territory, all according to the contract we had with Ukraine (up to 2017). 
Hystorycally Crimea was Russian. (In fact Ukraine as a state started only 1991, before that it was just a part of Russian Empire/USSR). Chruschev moved Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, but that was in the same country (USSR), and thats why nobody really cared about it then. After USSR collapsed drunk Yealtsin forget about Crimea when he signed papers. But they always was in a special autonomy mode.
I was in Crimea in start of 2000, and during my month there (I was in central agriculture parts and in Kertch) I heard Ukraine language only on TV. Everybody was speaking Russian and was Russian people inside. 

So when those crazy guys start doing what they do in Kiev, Crimean people just made a decision to finish this farce off. Of course, Russian navy base is also an important in Crimean question. As I know 'Crimean self-defence forces' was real and it was local residents.

2. Donetsk/Lugansk also was never Ukraine regions. It was given to 'Ukraine republic' by Lenin. But in Soviet times it was not important - since it was a single country and people mentalities was very much the same. 
After 1991 more and more power in Kiev was in the hands of people from west ukraine, people who hates Russians. And those people know, that in fact Donetsk and Lugansk is still Russian. (The same as I understand L'vov (former Krakov) feels itself Polish but not Russian/Ukraine. )
Russia didn't help 'rebels' in Eastern Ukraine, sadly. If it do - then the 'rebels' will be in Kiev now. Those people just defend their land from people from western Ukraine. If you'll look they not trying to get to central Ukraine, they just don't let maidan idiots on their territory. What would you do if your close neibourghs come to you with tanks and cannons and start shooting around villages and cities?
Weaponry was taken from local police/military. Some of it even was bought from Ukraine Army. On the training - you forgot, that in Russia/Ukraine we didn't have a contract army. More or less all the young man going thru some sort of military training (1 year in Russia now, 2 years - some years ago), so if necessary thay just need some days to remember what they learned before.

And if you'll look closely, its almost no real 'war', its mostly firing between groups of Nazi 'Right Sector' and 'Rebels'. 

So thats my view on the situation...

I don't think that they hated their lives. They just hate how some people illegaly overthrow government, and on top of that tried to manipulate some laws while using that free power.

And one more thing, they don't attack Ukranian soldiers, they defends against their agression.

P.S. If Russia didn't took control of Crimea. The situation there could be much worse then in Odessa.

Anyway, there is another topic for that conflict.

1. Russian military has been there since the 1770s, and has been put there by Suvorov, and never left the peninsula since then, not even during Nazi occupation, it has all legal rights to be there even now. Sure at certain point on a d-day some armed groups has moved to the places they have no legal right to be, but not without help of local authorities, police, military and milita who have been very cooperative and helped take control of the Crimea.

Nothing short of poetry :D

2. Well, if he does, there's no evidence to support the idea that Russia is involved in the conflict in any way. Diplomatic support, that's as much as I could word it.

More on this:

1) I'm not sure what training you're referring to? As far as I'm aware lack of training is severe problem for rebels, they even installed few training facilities for new recruits. I'd assume few 50+ years old Afghanistan vets are the best officers rebels could dream of, plus some volunteers from Russia and Ossetia that might have military experience. Strelkov, the de-facto commander near Slavyansk, has issued a note not so long time ago to the people of Donbass with plea to support them, especially those with military experience.

All arms they have have been either captured in Ukrainian security service and police buildings, or handed to them by Ukrainian military who refused to fight against them. 6 BMD's, NSV machine gun, 2 mortars, few ATGMs and unknown number of RPGs -- that's all they have aside from small arms. BMDs came from Ukrainian 95th VDV brigade, that partially have been disarmed by the locals, ATGMs most likely came from the Ukrainian military as well.

Well as I understand it, an interesting thing is that they actually held a referendum on whether to break up the USSR,
and it actually didn't pass in all except the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and Georgia and Armenia.
But regardless of that vote, the leaders of each republic had a secret meeting in some format not legally authorized,
and decided they would break it up anyways... Probably because it would be simpler for all of them to loot the public companies that way.
So that decision seems to have been technically illegal, but then again, that's how alot of shit happened in the USSR.
That decision was ultimately put into effect, and I don't think it's realistic or productive to try and revisit it now.
If those countries want to get back together in some modern format, that's OK, but it would be starting from current situation,
and would probably be more along the lines of the EU, although Belarus and "Novorussia" might be most likely to merge with Russia.

Probably is Soviet nostalgia or 'anticapitalist' sentiment, but couldn't it also be a reference to that 'superethnos' as well?
People might call it "Soviet" because that was it's most recent form, but it really went further back, to Russian Empire,
with USSR just re-enforcing it with modern mass education, etc...
That's just my take on it from meeting people from ex-USSR, yet called "Russian" in certain contexts (not conflicting with other specific identity etc)

Right, I've seen tons of pics of using just archaic guns from WWII or even before.  There's obviously a better armed contingent, and maybe those get shown more in Western media, but it seems to be a minority of the movement.  But like Mai said, there is also Ukrainian military and police forces joining the Resistance, who bring gear with them in most cases.  Ukraine had (has) a conscript army, so there is a relatively large # of people with basic military training, as well Soviet veterans with the USSR having a huge army.  The Kiev coup regime just announced they are prosecuting 17,000 police who "defected".   As well as similar number of Ukrainian military in Crimea, incluing the top commander of Navy... That's alot of people, who comprise major portions of the legitiamte Ukrainian government. Between defected mil units, police and local armories, weaons seized from Kiev forces (e.g. shoulder launched SAMs), and even a giant arms depot going back to WWII that is in the area, the # of weapons seen is more than legit.

Exactly.  Drakami is missing the point, the SE Resistance did not decide to overthrow the legitimate government, the Kiev coup regime decided to do that in an an illegal coup detat replacing the President (in a very centralized Presidential system of government), despite that they couldn't fulfill the Constitutional requirements.   Thus all their subsequent actions, including changing the Constitution, sacking judges and other government employees, creating armed militias (NatGuard, not to mention private militia) are all legally tainted, and the SE Resistance isn't inclined to ignore legal technicalities for fascists or people happy to cooperate with fascists.  The coup pretty much does create a legal vacuum, but the SE Resistance decided they weren't just going to be forced into the illegal junta's political project, and stood up for themself... Initially using pretty much identical tactics as "Maidan" forces had been using for months leading up to coup, and ultimately being forced to escalate when the junta started repressing them with full force, beyond what Yanukovych had done to Maidan protestors. 

Back then, the army had refused to get involved vs. Ukrainian civilians, which is exactly what they're supposed to do by the Constitution.  Now they're being used vs internal political dissidents (opposed to an illegal coup, no less).  Incidentally, the only situation they are supposed to use military force internally is supposed to require a declaration of state of emergency/martial law, and de facto that IS the situation, but the coup regime has neglected to actually declare that, because the law says that you can't run elections under a state of emergency... and the coup wants to give itself whatever fig leaf of legitimacy it can by running an election, so it breaks more laws in order to do that. 

But yeah, they didn't hate their life in Ukraine so much to rebel before, even though there certainly has been a strain of Ukrainian nationalism trying to socially engineer the whole country to conform to their political agenda, language and history, as well as things like NATO alignment (implying enemy status to Russia).  But when faced with an illegal coup including open fascists, that is allowing mass political repression and violence (particularly where they are strongest, outside the SE), any trust in the previous state of affairs continuing "business as usual" kind of goes out the window, along with any level of trust in "rule of law" when so many laws can be broken by fascists and nationalist seizing power.  Maidan managed to pull off a revolution in Kiev, great for them, but that doesn't mean eveybody has to go along with it, and other regions may well want to take the revolutionary situation in their own direction: That's what you get for overthrowing the Constitutional order.   To be clear, the junta changed the constitution (again, legally tainted by illegal replacement of President) so the different sides couldn't even agree on what is the currently legitimate Constitution. 

If there is to be some agreement, I think it would involve each sie being recognized as equvalently legitimate, and forging some new Constitutional order based on consensus between both sides, which would probably look something like Bosnia, given the level of distrust that has been engendered.  Otherwise, I don't see how Ukraine can continue in the same form.

I like the discussion, but can we discuss Ukraine affairs in Ukraine thread, guys, please??