11 years since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war: propaganda, photos, memories

The beginning of 2014 was marked by tumultuous events that have been shaping the lives of Ukrainians for 11 years. The Russian Federation, taking advantage of the change of power in Ukraine as a result of the Revolution of Dignity, intensified separatist unrest in the south and east of the country. Under the guise of “people's revolutions” Russia managed to seize the Crimean peninsula and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In the rest of Ukraine, the separatist movement was stopped.
In Crimea and Donbas, the Kremlin pursued its occupation plans according to the same scenario.

‍

Pro-Russian rallies, seizure of power, pseudo-referendums: “little green men” in Crimea and ‘peaceful protesters’ in eastern Ukraine

February-March 2014 in Crimea and Donbas began with anti-Ukrainian protests with Russian slogans and symbols and the seizure of administrative buildings.
The propaganda media called these actions the “Russian Spring” that awoke in response to the coup d'état in Kyiv. They claimed that residents of eastern and southern Ukraine had declared the new government in the capital illegitimate. The nationalist forces grossly violated the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens, including the right to life, freedom of thought and speech, and the right to speak their native (Russian) language.

‍

‍

On the night of February 27, 2014, Russian military units entered the Crimean peninsula. They took turns seizing and disarming Ukrainian border checkpoints and military units. After the seizure of power, a puppet regime was appointed in Crimea.

At first, the Kremlin denied the presence of its army on the territory of Ukraine. This was facilitated by the legal presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, which was extended by then-President Yanukovych in exchange for discounts on Russian gas. This circumstance played an important role in the annexation of Crimea.

Russian military units without insignia on their uniforms - the so-called “little green men” or, as the Russians themselves called them, “polite people” - entered the peninsula. The propagandists tried to create a positive image of the Russian military, who had been “long awaited in Crimea.”

‍

‍

“I reached the middle of the square with my hands up. I turned around and saw something incredible, a picture that will be etched in my memory forever. I saw the Russian tricolor! A huge canvas of my country flying. For me, it was a delight. The most secret desire I had been cherishing for the last 25 years. At that moment I realized everything. The stranger's Ryazan accent, the green uniform, and why the Cossacks were released to their homes.“ (”Lenta.ru").

UNIAN reports that in an attempt to hide the aggression under uniforms without insignia, the Russians did not even try to hide military equipment. The fact that the equipment belongs to the Russian army is evidenced by the analysis of weapons based on photo and video materials. In addition, the Russians used warplanes that flew into Crimea from Russia to seize military facilities.

‍

‍

The propaganda message “Crimea has seceded from Ukraine” was intended to misinform and hide the reality. In fact, Crimea was annexed, and this special operation was prepared in advance, even before Yanukovych fled. Later, Putin himself repeatedly admitted this. On the occasion of the annexation of Crimea, Russia introduced the Russian Defense Ministry's medal “For the Return of Crimea,” dated February 20, 2014. Crimea was only the beginning of the aggression against Ukraine. All these years, Russia has been actively militarizing the peninsula, preparing for a full-scale invasion.

Ukrainian and international journalists covered the events in Crimea in the spring of 2014. Emine Ziyatdinova, a documentary photographer of Crimean Tatar origin, saw the annexation of Crimea with her own eyes: “We went there: we went to Belbek. We were in this military unit before it surrendered. We went to Sevastopol, we went to Perevalne, and also Bakhchisarai - to all the military bases that were surrounded,” says Emine, adding that events were developing too quickly: ”All the world's famous media were working in Crimea at that time: CNN, Al Jazeera, photojournalists from other media. It was very strange, because everyone understood from the very beginning that it was the Russian military, that it was Russian aggression, that Russia had crossed our state border, that they were annexing, that we were on the verge of war.”

In the Donbas, aggressive clashes between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian activists continued until May. Russian agents, whom the propaganda calls “peaceful protesters” and “people of Donbas,” with the participation of Russian citizens, seized administrative buildings with the use of weapons.

‍

‍

Donetsk-based photographer Serhiy Vahanov, who documented the occupation of his hometown, confirms the presence of visitors: “Serhiy emphasizes that there were a lot of foreigners in Donetsk. He recalls that it was very easy to distinguish them from the locals: “They would ask where the toilets were. They did not know the city at all.
They were going to capture the regional police, but stopped at the city police. It was the same with the prosecutors' offices. I'm not saying that there were no Donetsk residents there, but there were indeed many newcomers.”

Pro-Russian forces held the first pseudo-referendum in Crimea. The propaganda tried to create a picture that holding a referendum in Crimea was the desire of the people, that “everything that happened in 2014 in Crimea happened primarily due to the incredible cohesion of the Crimeans.” (“Lenta.ru”).

‍

‍

“Yuriy Pershykov, Feodosia, journalist: We went to the referendum en masse, we had been dreaming about it all our lives. Of course, we, as pro-Russian activists, then attracted all possible resources to convince Crimeans to support unity. That is, the organization that had been established over the years worked. For example, we filmed reports on the disarmament of military units and showed them on local television. This had a great impact in the public consciousness.“ (”Lenta.ru").

On March 16, 2014, Kremlin agents held a referendum on the status of the peninsula without international observers, amidst the suppression of freedom of speech.

‍

‍

“Yuriy Pershikov, Feodosia, journalist: Russia has demonstrated its political determination. All other things being equal, Crimea could have remained independent, but the political will was shown.“ (”Lenta.ru").

It should be noted that Yuriy Pershikov, quoted by the propaganda outlet, is a former member of the Party of Regions, a member of the traitors' register “Chesno Movement”. He was the head of an information special operation against Ukraine.

According to the occupiers, voter turnout in Crimea was over 83%. However, the leader of the Crimean Tatars Mustafa Dzhemilev claimed that the results and turnout were falsified. The consequence of this referendum for Crimea was its accession to the Russian Federation two days after the vote.

‍

‍

In April, similar “on the knee” referendums were held in Donetsk and Luhansk, resulting in the creation of the pseudo-republics of the DPR and LPR. In May, the collaborators held referendums on the status of the region. At that time, dual power and chaos reigned in the region.

In the Kremlin's view, the Ukrainian government had to recognize the will of its people and reach an agreement with them. However, even the international community did not recognize the results of the pseudo-referendums, which were held without respect for the principles and norms of international law. And the issue of changing borders, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, is decided exclusively by an all-Ukrainian referendum.

‍

Narratives of the Russian Spring: Euromaidan nationalists and Tatar radical extremists‍

The separatist actions of pro-Russian forces were accompanied by a flood of fake news and disinformation.
“Lenta.ru quoted propagandists from paramilitary organizations and local collaborators on the peninsula as saying that a referendum was being prepared in Crimea as early as the fall of 2013.

According to them, Crimeans did not want to join the EU, but instead planned to strengthen ties with Russia. They say that in the early 2000s, they held rallies in favor of Crimea being part of Russia and organized the first military field training camps.
Further, propagandists claim that there were almost no pro-Russian political forces in Crimea, as they were repressed. Pro-Russian rallies were dispersed, activists were persecuted, especially during the time of Viktor Yanukovych. Allegedly, his government was pro-Russian only in words, but in reality, “systematic work was being done to destroy any pro-Russian thought.” So the events on Euromaidan made it clear that it was time to act.

‍

‍

While Ukrainians in the east were being intimidated by Maidan nationalists, the Crimean self-proclaimed authorities spoke of the threat posed by extremist groups. They are “trying to infiltrate Crimea in order to aggravate the situation, escalate it and illegally seize power” (Lenta.ru).

‍

‍

“The aggressive guys (at Euromaidan - ed.) were ready to literally kill those who disagreed. It was already an outright war. It became clear that either Viktor Yanukovych would stop chewing the fat and take control of the situation, or there would be trouble.
We started preparing for the worst. We realized that without local coordination we would not be able to survive.“ (”Lenta.ru").

At the same time, propaganda spread fake claims that separatism in Ukraine was being prepared by the western regions due to Yanukovych's decision to abandon the European course.

‍

‍

“In those days, for the first time, there was a statement about preparations for separatism. But not from our side, but from the western regions. One of the deputies said that if the president did not go for European integration, the western regions would have the right to secede. This is about the question of who started the disintegration of statehood in the first place.“ (”Lenta.ru").

The propaganda media is trying to convince that Islamist radical groups led by the Mejlis were running amok on the peninsula “during the Ukrainianization”. Allegedly, the Mejlis had influence on local authorities, collaborated with Ukrainian nationalists and the West, and used Crimean Tatars for its own political purposes. According to the propagandists, Crimean Tatars were ordinary racketeers who first seized municipal land and then Orthodox churches.

‍

‍

“In fact, polite people not only prevented a deep interethnic and internal political armed conflict in Crimea, but also saved the Crimean Tatars, who were then shamelessly put under attack by the Mejlis.“ (”Lenta.ru").

‍

‍

To defend themselves against radicals and “Ukrnazis,” local Cossacks and Berkut officers who fled to the peninsula after the Revolution of Dignity created self-defense units, ostensibly to maintain order.

‍

‍

“This was a response to the arbitrariness of radical Tatar organizations that demanded to include their representatives in the state authorities in order to persuade Crimea to support Euromaidan.“ (”Lenta.ru").

In reality, the Kremlin authorities threatened and intimidated civilians, persecuted and imprisoned Ukrainian activists, and even killed Crimean Tatars.
The Ukrainian Association of Professional Photographers published the memoirs of Crimean Tatar photographer Emine Ziyatdinova, who documented the criminal events in Crimea: “I had a very clear understanding of the threat,” Emine begins to recall the events of spring 2014, ”This, of course, is connected with the history of the Crimean Tatars. There was a lot of fear and anxiety because there was talk that Crimean Tatars would be deported from Crimea again. The Crimean Tatars did not support any leaders of the occupation regime at all, neither Aksyonov nor Konstantinov.”

‍

‍

The Kremlin accused Ukrainians of starting the armed aggression, saying that “nationalists imported from western Ukraine” attacked first. However, at all peaceful rallies in Crimea and Donetsk region, armed pro-Russian mercenaries, with the tacit support of local security forces, attacked Ukrainian activists. Thus, on March 13, a civic activist, Dmytro Chernyavsky, was killed during a protest in Donetsk. He was only 22 years old.

Photographer Serhiy Vahanov recalls with regret how his native Donetsk resisted, but there was no support from local security forces: “At the time, I didn't have a feeling that we would lose Donetsk for 10 years,” says Serhiy. ”From the very beginning, my friends and I expected our security forces to somehow restore order. Unfortunately, the security forces turned out to be weaklings. There were a lot of traitors. It was a hybrid attack that no one was prepared for. Neither the local authorities nor the authorities in Kyiv. They gradually captured the city, the region. It felt like a snake was strangling you, but gradually. It wasn't like this - once and for all! At first, they held rallies on weekends. Then they began to seize the police, prosecutors, the SBU and military units. There was no resistance from the security forces. That was the worst part. For quite a long time there was a period when there were barricades around the seized Donetsk administration, they copied the Maidan.”

‍

Narratives of the “Russian Spring”: “primordially Russian” lands and the division of Ukrainians into ‘ours’ and ”others”

Propaganda promoted narratives about “native Russian” lands that were returning home, and of their own free will.

‍

‍

The guests of the propaganda media outlet Lenta.ru take turns telling about the difficult and poor life in the “period of Ukrainization” before Euromaidan on the Crimean peninsula. They say that Crimea was in decline and ruin before 2014. There were no roads or electricity, and people lived below the poverty line.

In fact, Ukraine was given Crimea, which was destroyed by war and totalitarianism, in 1954. It was Ukraine that saved the peninsula from decline, rebuilt its infrastructure, and turned it into a well-known health resort. The immigrants from Russian regions who took the place of deported Crimean Tatars were unable to restore the economy on the peninsula.

The propaganda also convinces that eastern Ukraine is also an integral part of the “Russian world.” They say that “residents of Donbas, the most industrialized and pro-Russian region of the country, have not found a compromise with the new government, which has set a course for rapprochement with the EU, the establishment of Ukrainian identity and the rejection of everything that connected with Russia and the common Soviet past.”

‍

‍

“People in Donbas are Russian by their mentality.“ (”Lenta.ru").

A resident of Avdiivka, who was the organizer of the pseudo-referendum in Donetsk, gave Lenta.ru a lengthy interview with a bunch of narratives typical of Russian propaganda. In particular, she complained that the government was trying to reduce Russian influence. She said that the atmosphere of Ukrainization in Donbas at the time was “under the sun of Russophobia.”

‍

‍

“They brought alternative textbooks of Ukrainian history from Canada, armor-piercing journalism about the Holodomor, how Ukraine was oppressed, how poets and writers, poor, unhappy Ukrainians, were persecuted. And all of this was done by Russia. This was how it was presented. There was no alternative.“ (”Lenta.ru").
She also stated that “no one spoke Ukrainian in Donetsk at that time, not even in Surzhik, it was something folkloric, like an embroidered shirt or a wreath.” (“Lenta.ru”).

‍

‍

The truth is that the history of Luhansk and Donetsk regions is closely linked to Europe. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Europeans built industrial and civilian infrastructure in the region. Until 1924, Donetsk was called Yuzivka in honor of its founder, British industrialist John James Hughes.

The Kremlin propaganda forced the population of Donbas to forget the history of their region, and tried to dishonor and erase the rest. It is worth noting that the Ukrainian-speaking Donetsk and Luhansk regions resisted the Bolshevik occupation, but even then the Russians managed to conquer Ukraine. During the Soviet era, the population of the Donetsk region was actively Russified and replaced by Russians. Soviet rule led to the decline of industry in the region, not its prosperity. “Ukraïner, in its article “How Russia Russified the East of Ukraine,” refutes Russian myths about the Ukrainian east.

Propaganda artificially separated Donbas from Ukraine, dividing Ukrainians who spoke Russian and Ukrainian. This helped to promote the narrative of an internal Ukrainian conflict.

A resident of Avdiivka tells Lenta.ru that they were afraid to “follow the path of Crimea” because the capital's authorities outlawed the locals and threatened them with reprisals.

‍

‍

“In Ukraine, we were called separatists, titushky, terrorists.“ (”Lenta.ru").
There has always been antagonism between the regions, directed in both directions, a local resident argued, so people hoped that they would repeat the path of Crimea.

‍

‍

“The central and western regions perceived the southeast as a not very educated part of the country.”
“It was a strategy of dehumanizing people in Donbas, they were not just not perceived as their own, they were perceived as strangers, and sometimes not even as people: “terrorists”, ‘dogs’, ‘katsaps’, ‘cotton wool’, ‘vatniks’. These are still decent words.“ (”Lenta.ru").

According to the same resident of Avdiivka, on April 12, Ukraine shelled Sloviansk, and after these events, Donbas could not return to Ukraine under any circumstances. She claims, “Donbass residents hoped that Russia would not abandon them, would not give them to Ukraine.”

‍

‍

“At the time, we thought that Russia would intervene and it would all end quickly. This is the 21st century, and people are being shelled, how is that possible! And then it went on: one death, another...
But in Sloviansk and Krasnyi Lyman, people came out everywhere, were not afraid, and voted. Even though Sloviansk was already being shelled.”

“Lenta.ru reports that at the time, Moscow rejected official Kyiv's accusations of financing the separatists, supplying them with weapons, and deploying troops across uncontrolled sections of the state border. The Kremlin authorities claimed that only volunteers from Russia were fighting on the side of the rebels. The hostile publication writes that after the declaration of the republics, combat units were formed from local residents. Allegedly, it was they who wanted to seize a number of settlements (Bakhmut, Kramatorsk, Krasny Liman, Druzhkivka), and they were supported by local security forces.

The truth is that Russia imposed war on Ukraine.
On April 13, 2014, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine launched a large-scale anti-terrorist operation to liberate Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Mariupol, which had been captured by militants in April.

The online publication MediaSapiens cites evidence that this was not an armed conflict within Ukraine, but rather Russia's war against Ukraine: “The assault on the first Ukrainian city, Sloviansk, was led by a Russian officer, Igor Girkin, who has admitted to it himself. His quotes confirm that if it were not for Russia, there would have been no war, everything would have ended the same way as in other 'republics': “If our unit hadn't crossed the border, it would have ended up like in Kharkiv, like in Odesa. There would have been several dozen people killed, burned, arrested. And that would have been the end of it. Instead, our unit actually started the flywheel of the war, which is still going on.”

The propaganda claims that Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk will not return to Ukraine because no one is waiting for them there. They say that Ukrainian politicians do not understand how people in Donbas feel, because Donbas belonged to them only formally, they never felt that these were their people. Therefore, they were never going to return them.

‍

‍

“Speaking from the point of view of Ukrainian politics, Ukraine does not need either Crimea or Donbas, because these are several million voters who vote for values that are alien to you.” (Lenta.ru).

“MediaSapiens explains where this narrative came from: “Unfortunately, it was the political struggle that created the cracks that Russia later exploited. {...}The real division of the state was organized by Viktor Yanukovych's political technologists in 2004. The Party of Regions decided to divide Ukrainians into “friends” and “foes” in order to mobilize the electorate: to motivate “friends” to come and vote so that “foes” would not win. {...} Ten years of such political games could not but deepen the “cracks” between the regions of Ukraine: linguistic, historical, geopolitical. But - and this is critically important - there were no strong separatist sentiments in Donbas.”

‍

‍

Moreover, pro-Ukrainian rallies were held in eastern Ukraine in the spring of 2014 to stop the “Russian Spring.” The largest peaceful rally under the slogan “10,000 brave for 45 million united”, which outnumbered paid Russian rallies, took place on March 5, 2014 in Donetsk. This date is the Day of Civil Resistance of Donbas to Russian Occupation.

Only in the first year after the annexation of Crimea, approximately 35 thousand citizens of the peninsula were forced to leave their homes, and millions of Russian-speaking people became refugees.

For the photo-documentary filmmaker Emine Ziyatdinova, as well as for many Ukrainians, the Russian-Ukrainian war began in 2014.
The documentary photographer admits to the Ukrainian Association of Professional Photographers that she felt pain and powerlessness as she watched the events of that spring: “It was as if I was left alone with Russian aggression, and everyone was watching it live. It was very difficult for me to emotionally experience that March 2014.”