I beg to differ. Sounds like an agitprop to me. She picked an easy target (Yuri Bojko) instead of a harder one (Ruslana) and went on a binge, moralizing about the sins f the past administrations. Most of the arguments are quite irrelevant to the events during the early days of the green men's creeping penetration of the Crimean territory.
On 3/24/14, [email protected] wrote:
> http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/sumar/533014d73d66e/
>
> A very interesting and revealing text. Victoria Siumar is Parubij's assistant.
> Instead of coming to the Maidan to explain "why we lost Crimea", she waits until the response becomes part of the political combat against (believe it or not) "resurgent" Yanukovism. Which confirms where the priority lies...
>
> Most of her points are very good and informative. They do explain a lot. I didn't realize that 50% of the Ukrainian military people there were actually "Crimeans"... In the context, it's actually something that they lasted as long as they did... (the ones who went over to Russia).
>
> But it does not excuse the earlier silence, and the ostentatious ignoring of the Maidan. If that doesn't change instantly, these plausible explanations could become the memoirs of emigres...
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 01 2014 - 00:59:03 EST