The following are points:
Oksana Boyko barely addressed the issue of snipers. However, Yevhen Fedchenko later states that shooting protesters was/is designed to draw attention. Well in that case, if the "Russian side" was responsible for the shootings, as alleged by the Western media and politicians, the question would be why, since the Russians would not have wanted the West (Europe and the US in particular) to be given propaganda ammunition against them, those Russians. It makes no sense.
It's pretty clear that Western operatives were sniping at the protesters and that the West was then falsely claiming the snipers were Russian or pro-Russia. The snipers were shooting both sides: police and protesters/rioters/violent revolutionaries. We heard the phone conversation between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet.
Neither Russia nor the Ukrainian government at the time would have benefited at all by such shootings. Those seeking to overthrow the government would and did.
The Baltic and other European states that were once part of the USSR were not supposed to become members of NATO. In order to encourage the Soviet Union to allow the reunification of Germany, the West (the US) promised that NATO would not be expanded. The Soviet Union (Russian led) agreed. The US had blatantly lied and then reneged.
The US backed the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, which necessitated Russia rolling in to protect the ethnic Russians there.
The US had already broken the anti-ABM treaty and planned to install anti-missile systems right on Russia's border, something the US couldn't tolerate in Cuba by the Russians (who agreed to withdraw its missiles once the US carried through with a prior agreement to pull its missiles from Turkey).
Russia has backed Assad in Syria, and Russia has not agreed with the US-neocon line against the Iranians (which line the US has gradually toned way down). The US wants Russia to be severely weakened and to be opened wide for total economic and financial domination by the US.
In Ukraine, the Russian language was planned to be dumped, even though a large percentage of Ukrainians are Russian speakers first.
Crimea held a referendum. Russia did not "invade." It was already there and very welcome by the vast majority of citizens there in Crimea. Kosovo was allowed to leave Yugoslavia, which was broken up by the West. Why the hypocrisy?
Odessa's trade-unions building was savagely attacked, and people were burned alive by obvious Ukrainian-nationalist fascists.
Lies were spread about the Russians seeking autonomy from Kiev. The false anti-Semitism card was pulled out. False fliers were held up by Western operatives trying to portray the people seeking to establish Novorossiya as somehow being anti-Jew. The fliers were proven to be a fabrication.
Western Ukraine attacked the predominantly Russian-speaking far-Eastern Ukraine, not the other way around. It did send clearly fascist groups there, many of them.
The separatists withdrew from population centers. Nevertheless, Western troops still directly attacked civilian populations, bombing civilian targets: apartment houses, schools, etc.
Yet, Russia did not invade. It allowed any Russian citizens who wanted to, to go fight with the ethnic-Russian Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine. They beat back what they call the "Punitive Army."
The ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine fighting against a regime the members of which have referred to those Russians as lesser than human beings (and I'm putting it mildly) are not terrorists. To characterized them as terrorists is utterly ridiculous. It is total nonsense and show the one calling them such to be engaging in pure false propaganda deliberately to deceive those who don't know much about the region, its politics, and what has been happening on the ground and still is. That is not to say that as things have dragged on and the West has attacked the East and literally slaughtered many hundreds of civilians including many children, there haven't been people who would engage in terrorist acts. To characterize the whole people, to characterized them wholesale, as terrorists is asinine, no better than calling all ethnic Ukrainians fascists, which they clearly are not. The government in Kiev calls all the fighters for the East "the terrorists." It's a fact. I've heard them do it over and over and over.
Furthermore, the jetliner that was downed over Eastern Ukraine was apparently the object of a cover-up. An air-traffic controller in Western Ukraine went public with information indicating that the downing was something sought by the West. His story was quashed by the Western media. The Russians also released Russian military and intelligence data and imagery showing a fighter jet firing a missile at the jetliner. Oddly (or perhaps more so tellingly), the West remained silent on it.
Now there's this:
Published on Dec 23, 2014
Russia’s Investigative Committee is investigating a Russian newspaper report alleging that a Ukrainian military jet shot down Malaysian Airlines passenger plane MH17 over the rebel-held eastern part of the country last summer.
Here's a fuller version of the interview.
It's now being reported that the whistleblower has passed a lie-detector examination.
Other stories circulated in the West included that Vladimir Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. That story is based upon Putin statement that the demise of the USSR was a tragedy. However, Mr. Putin was speaking of the humanitarian catastrophe that resulted from the demise and the US rather than aiding the Russians, sending in the experts in shock-doctrine economics. Russia was sent instantly into a deep economic depression and then summarily raped by oligarchs buying nationalized enterprises for pennies on the dollar. Of course it was a tragedy, and Putin took the reins away from those hyper-greedy, selfish oligarchs and restored things at least to where there exists a welfare state, a safety net, pensions, etc.
To listen to the Western Ukrainians, you'd think that Ukraine has been some fixed thing for millennia. The fact is that Ukraine's borders have been moved all over the place many, many times. Not only that but Nikita Khrushchev, who was from Ukraine, gave Ukraine a higher degree of autonomy as a member state of the USSR. He didn't have to do that. From the looks of things, he probably shouldn't have. Ukraine was absolutely a part of Russia proper before that. I grew up with the understanding that "the Ukraine" was part of Russia and not just a part of the USSR. It was commonly understood. The West has been attempting to flush that down the memory hole. Russia was actually born in Kiev.
We hear how free everyone is in Western Ukraine. Why then was the Communist Party there outlawed after the coup? That's not freedom of thought. That's not democracy. There are Social Democrats. They believe in democracy. Where's the line drawn? Why is neoliberalism, which is bringing in severe austerity under IMF deals, the only acceptable position in Ukraine now?
If Ukraine's press is so free, why has RT been refused in Western Ukraine?
Also, election results in Ukraine do not reflect the percentage of fighters on the front line during the street revolution in Kiev. Nor do they reflect the number of ministerial positions granted to Svoboda and Right Sector, which number was disproportionately high. Nor do they reflect the fact that those groups, under the Western Ukrainian government, sent military groups to the East to fight against the Novorossiyans.
Russia isn't stupid. It knows that a highly active minority can have a very outsized impact leading to catastrophe. Nazi Germany is a case in point that is very important in Russian history, as the Russians lost some 20 million in WWII and there were many Nazis sympathizers in Ukraine and still are. I've seen their torchlight and daytime marches consisting of many thousands, which Yevhen Fedchenko would have you falsely believe don't apparently exist in such numbers in Western Ukraine.
We also heard Yulia Tymoshenko talking about nuking the Russians, and we heard the Prime Minister referring to the Russians as subhuman.
When a US State Department press spokesperson can't say that calling the Russians in Eastern Ukraine "subhuman" is wrong, the US looks pathetic to that part of the world that stands opposed to racism.
By the way, Yevhen Fedchenko has no credible source for the statement he attributed to Vladimir Putin threatening Petro Poroshenko with invading and taking over the whole of Ukraine.
Please see this very highly related, recent post (more points): "Crazy US 'Group Think' on Russia," by Robert Parry
Mr Poroshenko is the only alleged source for Mr Putin's latest threat, and there will be concerns he might be motivated to exaggerate in order to strengthen EU and Nato support for Ukraine.
The European Commission refused to confirm or deny whether Mr Barroso had held such a conversation with Mr Poroshenko.