The UN exposes Ukrainian myths in Russia

The UN report on Ukraine: experts did not find evidence of a large -scale violation of the rights of the Russian -speaking population of Ukraine, but indicated a campaign of total misinformation, which is conducted by Russian information funds in the program "Today in America" we are talking about the conclusions of the UN report and what can be fraught with a distorted idea of the reality, which is implemented in the minds of Russians by the Russian media, with Chris Walker , an employee of the American National Fund Support for democracy, Vladimir Shlyapentokh , professor at the University of Michigan, and Boris Kuznetsov , a Russian lawyer who received a refuge in the United States several years ago.

Your browser does not support HTML5

Today in America: UN report on Ukraine

On April 15, the Office of the Supreme Representative of the UN Human Rights published a report “Report on a situation of human rights in Ukraine”, prepared by a group of experts of the organization, headed by the assistant Secretary General of the UN Ivan Shimonovich. This is an attempt by the first, in hot pursuit, an independent investigation of the evaluation of events that have occurred in Ukraine in recent months. The UN group worked with a variety of sources in Ukraine, and its chapter managed to visit Crimea after the referendum and collect the testimony of eyewitnesses and participants in the events on the spot.

On the eve of the appearance of the report, some information funds picked up the information widespread by the RIA Novosti agency, from which it followed that the UN accuses Russia of harnessing the results of the Crimean referendum. The Russian news service referred to the publication of quotes from the preliminary version of the report in the respectable American magazine Foreign Policy. In fact, the report does not have direct accusations of

Russian information funds are convicted of disinformation of the Russian audience

Russia's involvement in Crimean events. Direct accusations were abandoned by UN experts only against Russian information funds, they are convicted of misinformation of the Russian audience.

The almost thirty -page report provides data on human rights violations throughout Ukraine since November last year, that is, from the beginning of protests on the Kiev Maidan. This is how the UN representatives evaluate their reasons:

"Violations of human rights in Ukraine are one of the deep causes of protests from November 2013 to February 2014. Among these violations are corruption and widespread economic inequality, lack of accountability from security structures and weakness of the legal system."

But what experts write about the evolution of events on the Maidan:

“The first case of excessive force against the demonstrators was recorded on November 30, 2013, when 290 employees of the Berkut law enforcement organization dispersed demonstrators on the Maidan. Violence continued on December 2, and then also on December 10 and 11.
The clashes resumed on January 19, three after after after new laws were adopted in Ukraine on the procedure for conducting demonstrations. Demonstrators, many of whom represented the Right Sector group, attacked state institutions, threw stones and Molotov cocktails at police officers. In response, the police used firearms and watercolches. Five demonstrators were killed.
Evables of human rights violations were committed from the authorities during the protests themselves. In total, more than 120 people died. There were reports of torture and cruelty to the detainees.

Responsibility for most cases of the use of torture, beating and inhumane handling with demonstrators rests with Berkut employees. So, for example, one of the demonstrators divided the Donag and forced, not moving, standing in the snow while one of the police officers shot this scene on a video camera. "

This is how what is happening in Eastern Ukraine is evaluated:

"In the eastern regions of Ukraine, where a significant number of ethnic Russians live, a tense situation continues to persist by the fact that ethnic Russians believe that their interests are not sufficiently represented in the Central Ukrainian Government.

There were also reports of cases of attack on ethnic Russians, but such incidents cannot be considered systematic and widespread

There were also reports of cases of attack on ethnic Russians, but such incidents cannot be considered systematic and widespread. In addition, there were repeated statements that the participants in protests and clashes between the warring groups arrived at the territory of Ukraine from the Russian Federation. "

The UN Commission rejected the assertion that the Russian -speaking population of Crimea was persecuted by the Ukrainian authorities, but it noted numerous violations of the rights of Crimeans during the preparation and conduct of a referendum:

"According to preliminary conclusions based on public information and messages of civil society, in connection with the referendum, which was conducted on March 16 in Crimea, there is reason for concern about human rights violations. In particular, we are talking about limiting the media. According to some reports, voters had limited access to the Crimea

Ivan Simonovich (in the center) meets representatives of the Ukrainian community of Crimea on March 21, 2014

Information during the week preceding the referendum.

According to some reports, in Crimea there were cases of abduction of people and their illegal detention by unknown armed groups, as well as cases of violence against demonstrators. According to the information provided by civil society activists, seven people went missing. Some of them were later released, but there is reason to believe that during the detention they were subjected to torture and bullying. Some of them were detained in the Simferopol military enlistment office.
The presence in Crimea of the so -called self -defense groups, which, as many people believe, were Russian military in the form without insignia, did not lead to the creation of an atmosphere in which voters could freely express their will. According to reports, the armed persons selected documents from some citizens and subjected them to the search. "

Yuri Zhigalkin: So, UN experts did not introduce any sensations and revelations. They, to the extent of opportunities, collected data on violation of human rights in Ukraine, proposed their recommendations and called on the new authorities of the country as soon as possible to implement them.

What seems to be the most important in this document and the work of the UN Commission Chris Walker , an American human rights specialist, an employee of the American National Fund for Support for Democracy?

Chris Walker: This report confirms the rightness of those who insisted that what was happening in Crimea is not the result of the natural development of events. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that this document reproduces a comprehensive picture of a systematic violation of human rights, violation of the right to freedom of speech, the right to participate in free elections to

Direct parallels are very curious between the methods used in the Crimea and the methods used in the political process in the Russian Federation

Peninsula. Direct parallels are very curious between the methods used in the Crimea and the methods used in the political process in the Russian Federation. That is what, I think, that causes special discontent of the Russian authorities. Take at least intimidation of activists who acted with an alternative program, opposed the exit from Ukraine or almost complete control over the means of information or total political censorship established in the territory after its capture by Russia.

Yuri Zhigalkin: But, at least, officially, as I understand it, Moscow was outraged by the fact that the UN experts firmly rejected its version of the rough persecution of Russian -speaking citizens in the Crimea and Ukraine. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs fell upon the commission with the accusations that the picture presented by experts, one -toe?

Chris Walker: Experts carefully evaluated the available data and did not find signs of organized persecution or large -scale violation of the rights of the Russian -speaking population of Ukraine. This is indeed a key withdrawal of the UN commission, because there were many statements that in Ukraine there is a systematic clamp of certain ethnic groups, violation of their civil rights and freedoms. This report concludes that this is not true. Moreover, UN experts draw attention to a serious problem of manipulating information by means of information in order to create a given idea of what is happening, they raise, in fact, the question of violating the right of people to access information. By the way, more and more attention is attracted to this problem in connection with the events in the east of Ukraine. That is, we see that with the help of the Russian press, a permissible idea of the situation of the Russian -speaking population of Ukraine has been created about what is happening in the country, and this is a very serious problem.

Yuri Zhigalkin: Nevertheless, an extremely negative assessment attracts attention in this report on how human rights are respected in Ukraine. For example, experts conclude that many -month protests on the Maidan were largely a reaction to violation by the Ukrainian authorities of civil rights of citizens?

Chris Walker: It is clear that this was the case for a long time. As in other countries in the former Soviet space, law enforcement agencies are used as a political pressure tool, and there are too many opportunities for manipulating the judicial and law enforcement agencies at the disposal of the executive branch. The new authorities made it clear that they intend to seriously take up this problem. It is difficult to say what from this they can say, because it is an incredibly difficult task. Firstly, because the country has become even more corrupt during the reign of Yanukovych, and secondly, due to the fact that the existence of the country itself was in jeopardy. Nevertheless, the creation of a genuine legal state, I hope, will become a priority for the authorities in a short -term or at least medium term.

Yuri Zhigalkin: It is clear that this report in many ways looks like a kind of indictment against Russia, despite the fact that there are no direct assessments of the action of Moscow, which is why it took it so. If we take into account the recent shares of the UN General Assembly, the Council of Europe, now we see a report on the Human Rights Commission-is it that Russia is turning into a rogue country?

Chris Walker: I would not characterize the attitude towards Russia in such concepts. But everyone, I think, became clear that Moscow has plans for the reconstruction of Europe. These plans, frankly, look arrogant, unimaginable from the point of view of the Western resident. At the same time, Moscow acted so quickly that European and American observers and political establishment, in my opinion, still did not recover, they react very slowly to what happened. Now they are in the process of finding an answer to the actions of Russia. And all these shares of leading international institutions should be considered in this context. Whether Russia will become an object of real isolation, it is impossible to say so far. But the answer, whose witness we became, is largely unprecedented.

Yuri Zhigalkin: What seemed to my interlocutors, Vladimir Shlyapentokh, professor at the University of Michigan and Boris Kuznetsov, a lawyer who defended the Crimeans who were accused of inciting interethnic growth in this report.

Vladimir Shlyapentokh: This report clearly shows that the degree of distortion of reality in the Russian media and especially in the famous programs of Dmitry Kiselev was huge. It is possible that world public opinion recorded an unusually large level of lies in Russian media, a level that has not been observed since the 1930s in Russia.

Yuri Zhigalkin: Boris Kuznetsov, how do you evaluate these conclusions? It doesn’t cause you, let’s say, at least some surprise, the fact that UN experts actually justified the current Ukrainian authorities for all, if possible, to the points of Russian accusations? For example, they did not find in the actions of the “Right Sector”, roughly speaking, signs of crimes against Russian -speaking Ukrainians, which he was accused of in Moscow.

Boris Kuznetsov: No, it is not surprising. The fact is that in 1996, at the request of Alexander Lebed, who was at that time the secretary of the Security Council, and about Dmitry Rogozin, when he headed the Russian community congress at that time, I represented the interests of the Russian community of Sevastopol - it was 1996, I also represented the newspaper of the Black Sea Fleet. The lawsuit was to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, which wanted to liquidate the community, raised the question of the liquidation of the community and the closure of the newspaper.

Yuri Zhigalkin: What did your clients blame?

Boris Kuznetsov: They accused of inciting interethnic hatred. There was a huge claim with a list of a number of publications in the newspaper, there were excerpts from public speaking, meetings, where the Russian community of Sevastopol was talking about a violation of the rights of the Russian -speaking population in this case, Sevastopol.

Yuri Zhigalkin: Well, how difficult was your task of a lawyer of people accused of inciting interethnic growth?

Boris Kuznetsov: The matter was not particularly difficult, because because of this claim the ears of the Ukrainian KGB, security services stuck out. And they, in Ukraine, that in Russia they were never seriously engaged in legal work. And there were no special problems. Subsequently, there were simply no cases of the persecution of the judicial, extrajudicial - in Ukraine.

Yuri Zhigalkin: That is, then did you have the feeling that the judicial system in Crimea worked and the rights of the Russian -speaking population could be defended?

Boris Kuznetsov: It worked, but it was the Ukrainian court, and the judge was a Ukrainian by nationality.

Yuri Zhigalkin: The story is wonderful, even somehow it is not believed in harsh words regarding Ukrainian justice, its engaging, and fussiness to the authorities, abandoned in the UN report?

Boris Kuznetsov: The thing is what - we are talking about a violation of not only the rights of the Russian -speaking population of Ukraine, it is generally about the whole of Ukraine, including violation of the rights of the Ukrainian population. Because what happened on the Maidan, - all of Ukraine stood against the clique of Yanukovych.

Yuri Zhigalkin: Professor Shlyapentoch, one of the features of the UN report, she is constantly striking when the conversation is about the observance of human rights in Ukraine, is as follows: parallels with what is happening in Russia is very obvious.

Vladimir Shlyapentokh: One of the reasons why the Kremlin with such frenzy opposed the Maidan and all the processes that take place in Ukraine, that it was a direct call for Russian citizens to look at the level of corruption in their country and think about whether it is possible to do something similar in Moscow. The idea of this, of course, could not but bring Putin and all those surrounding him into the fury of Putin. Therefore, Putin could not allow a positive development of events on the Maidan, could not allow Ukraine to turn into a legal prosperous state. What, however, he did not want to admit in Georgia.

Yuri Zhigalkin: But given the well -known, so to speak, political one -love of Russians, apathy, does Putin have a reason to fear a Ukrainian example? What does your sociologist tell you?

Vladimir Shlyapentokh: Of course, there is no doubt about that. But this is an old story, Russian kings were always terribly afraid of the revolution in Europe and in this saw a terrible danger. And note that Putin and the Kremlin are very calm

Putin and the Kremlin are very calm about what is happening to the Russians in Uzbekistan, in Turkmenistan

To what is happening in Uzbekistan, in Turkmenistan. For example, Turkmenistan is especially interesting in this regard, the Russians were in the real way. They turned to the Kremlin calling them to help them. They were forbidden to have Russian passports, they literally mocked them in Turkmenistan. But the Turkmen regime suited Putin, he was not an example for Russia. The same thing in Uzbekistan, the same in Kazakhstan, and, of course, the Lukashenkovsky regime. But as soon as democratic processes began in one of the former Soviet republics, these democratic processes were immediately declared the result of the activities of the West, the United States, and so on, the Kremlin’s all the wrath of the Kremlin was immediately sent against these republics, in particular, against Georgia and Ukraine.

Boris Kuznetsov: The professor is absolutely right that this is an example for Russian citizens, that in the end it is possible to influence this power through an non -violent public movement, which was originally the Maidan. The Maidan was supported not only by the Western regions of Ukraine, but the whole of Ukraine.

Юрий Жигалкин: Господа, вы сошлись во мнении, что одна из важных мотивировок Владимира Путина состоит в том, чтобы нейтрализовать в России опасный для российских властей пример Майдана. Если это так, то Владимир Путин преуспел, согласно выводам экспертов ООН. Они уделяют особое место в своем отчете о нарушениях прав человека на Украине практике российских средств информации. Вот что они пишут:

"С обострением ситуации в Крыму на Украине начались ограничения на свободный доступ к информации. Одновременно с этим наблюдался значительный рост пропаганды со стороны российского телевидения. В частности, назначенный недавно на должность заместителя генерального директора Гостелерадио России Дмитрий Киселев охарактеризовал Украину как страну, где власть захватили фашисты. Искажая ситуацию на Украине, Киселев заявил, что русские в этой стране оказались перед угрозой физической расправы. Таким образом Киселев пытался оправдать то, что он назвал возвращением Крыма России. 6 марта трансляция украинских телевизионных каналов, в частности Первого национального канала, Пятого канала, канала Интер, в Крыму была приостановлена. Одновременно с этим Украина заблокировала трансляцию в Киеве российских телеканалов".

Юрий Жигалкин: Давайте отвлечемся от критики ООН в адрес украинских властей, отключивших центральные российские телеканалы и лишивших жителей Украины информационного многообразия, и попытаемся оценить, что сумели сделать российские власти. Ведь они не только, скорее всего, дискредитировали демократический порыв украинцев в глазах россиян, но и смогли поместить свою страну в информационный изолятор. Многие в США, да и на Западе изумлены тем, как можно происходящее на Украине воспринимать так, как воспринимают в России, как можно почти единодушно приветствовать агрессивное поведение собственной страны. What's happening?

Владимир Шляпентох: Это нечто невероятное. С помощью медиа в стране создан патриотический угар, создана патриотическая эйфория, которая требует от Путина дальнейших шагов. И вместе с тем эта эйфория обеспечила Путину невиданно высокий рейтинг в стране, просто невиданный. И Путин осознал: так можно с некоторым риском сказать, что в его руках имеется абсолютно надежный инструмент поддерживать свой высокий престиж в стране, даже если начнутся экономические трудности, если он будет двигаться в этом направлении. И вот тут, конечно, мы входим в зону неопределенности. Этот угар сам по себе становится независимым фактором, который может толкнуть Путина на весьма опасные действия.

Юрий Жигалкин: Борис Кузнецов, по-вашему, нет ли опасности того, что сам Владимир Путин станет жертвой этой пропаганды, поверит в информационную реальность, созданную российскими средствами информации?

Борис Кузнецов: Дело в том, что его на самом деле поддерживает большинство населения России. Поэтому этот миф он для себя не выдумал. Но дело в том, что поддержка стала результатом той информационной войны, которую Путин проводит против всего населения Российской Федерации.

Юрий Жигалкин: Профессор Шляпентох, у вас нет ощущения, что Владимир Путин становится жертвой этой виртуальной реальности? Ведь трудно представить, что здравомыслящий лидер большого важного государства начнет угрожать соседу военным вторжением?

Владимир Шляпентох: Вопрос, который живо обсуждался в 1950-60-е годы: а верил ли товарищ Сталин в то, что он видел в фильме "Кубанские казаки"? В случае Путина что здесь важно? Путин выяснил, что российское население чрезвычайно чувствительно к патриотическому угару, что российское население, несмотря на 20-летнюю жизнь в открытом обществе, готово верить правительственному телевидению на сто процентов. Это, наверняка, было открытие для Путина. Потому что можно было полагать, что после двадцати лет такой

... можно было полагать, что после 20 лет такой свободной информационной жизни российское население будет более критично и не поверит Дмитрию Киселеву в той степени, в которой оно это сделало

свободной информационной жизни российское население будет более критично и не поверит Дмитрию Киселеву в той степени, в которой оно это сделало. Вот Путин сделал для себя это открытие, это он открыл для себя замечательный инструмент. И это открытие действительно может его толкать на дальнейшие шаги. Это, наверное, самый опасный момент в мировой истории после Карибского кризиса, ибо непонятно, где границы, которые Путин не перейдет для сохранения своей власти.

Юрий Жигалкин: Борис Кузнецов, Администрация Барака Обамы, громко заявив о готовности прибегнуть к болезненным санкциям, ограничилась пока минимумом и, кажется, сумела дискредитировать санкции в глазах многих россиян, которые не верят в решимость Запада защитить Украину. Как вы считаете, должен ли Вашингтон прибегнуть к санкциям, воспользоваться ими, чтобы привести в чувство российские власти, да и тех в России, кто приветствует расчленение Украины?

Борис Кузнецов: Я считаю, что нужны серьезные реальные санкции, конечно же, нужны. Потому что другим путем Путина не остановить. Другое дело, что есть другая опасность для России – превращение ее в Северную Корею во главе с Путиным, такая опасность тоже существует. И ничего хорошего в этом случае Западу от России не придется вообще, особенно страна, которая обладает баллистическими ракетами и ядерными боеголовками.

Юрий Жигалкин: Профессор, ваша точка зрения?

Владимир Шляпентох: Я должен согласиться полностью с Борисом, он прав. Есть разные возможные исходы. С одной стороны серьезные санкции абсолютно необходимы. Путин разрушил мировой порядок, который существовал. Последствия нарушения этого международного порядка огромны. Он открыл дорогу к конфликтам во всех частях мира. Мир потерял ощущение стабильности. Идея суверенности государства ослабела как никогда. Поэтому, конечно, Америка должна выполнить свою роль. Но с другой стороны, Борис абсолютно прав, Путин готов на северокорейский путь, он готов, лишь бы был во главе. Если Северная Корея может держаться 50 лет, то почему Россия не может держаться, усилив репрессивные элементы режима, а пока репрессии очень слабые физически. Тут стоит действительно дилемма.

Юрий Жигалкин: Гигантская и неразрешимая для Запада дилемма?

Владимир Шляпентох: Абсолютно, на уровне Карибского кризиса. Это не вызывает у меня никаких сомнений, и я здесь с Борисом абсолютно согласен.

Юрий Жигалкин: Ваше ощущение, может ли реакция Запада определить или повлиять на планы Путина относительно Украины, ведь многие аналитики считают, что в отсутствии очень тяжелых для России санкций он будет двигаться дальше?

Владимир Шляпентох: С моей точки зрения, в огромной степени. И сегодня, между прочим, в этих ответах на вопросы он как бы дал в каком-то смысле задний ход. Я также слышал на днях интервью Лаврова на ток-шоу Владимира Соловьева, Лавров был очень осторожен, очень вдумчив, очень настроен на какие-то компромиссные действия. Является ли это приманкой – это сказать трудно. Но во всяком случае западные политические деятели должны сильно размышлять о том, какую им линию избрать с Россией на будущее. Это дело не в Крыме и даже не в Украине.

Юрий Жигалкин: Борис Кузнецов, у вас тоже есть ощущение, что Путин сильно оглядывается на США и Европу?

Борис Кузнецов: Судя по тому, что произошло в Швейцарии, вот эти четырехсторонние переговоры, с одной стороны, это говорит о том, что Путин по существу, сев за стол переговоров, точнее, усадив Лаврова за стол переговоров, по сути дела признает легитимность ныне действующего кабинета украинского. Особенно уповать на это не нужно, но тем не менее, так или иначе, Россия в лице Лаврова дала гарантии, что силы применяться на Украине не будут. Это, конечно, действует на Путина.