Crimea. The Path to the Motherland. Afterword
A more detailed review of the documentary "Crimea. The Path to the Motherland".
Yesterday I watched it together with friends and acquaintances who took part in this process. Overall, people had positive impressions about the film, although certain moments were sacrificed for the benefit of tolerance, which was a pain to see.
1. Naturally, the film offers a review of the events, where certain moments were emphasized and other moments were deemphasized. On the one side this is motivated by the time limit of the film, it was hard to compress every interesting detail to fit it, on the other side this is motivated by secrecy considerations in those matters that were deemed necessary to be ignored.
2. The following moments remained uncovered or barely touched:
a) Who was the other party in the conversations of admiral Ilyin in the Sevastopol regional administration building, following the attempt to set the [Ukrainian] troops in Sevastopol to combat readiness? Was admiral Ilyin our man or he was simply negotiated with?
b) The questions of "Rubanovism" and the attempts to impede the takeover of power in Sevastopol remained effectively untouched.
c) The role of Kerch was completely missed, even though it was in Kerch where the Russian flag was raised for the first time in Crimea on February 22.
d) I would like to see more details about the SBU attempts to impede the capture of the government district in Simferopol. Also, I'd like to see more about the shooting incident in Dzhankoy.
e) With regards to the role of NATO in those events, they could cover the work of the radio-interception center near Alushta, which cooperated with the NATO ships in the Black Sea.
f) The questions of the behavior of the previous Ukrainian authorities, which pretty much withdrew from the events or even tried to throw monkey wrenches into the works, were barely touched.
g) Regarding the blissful picture with Tartars, the question of squatting remained effectively untouched. This question has been a constant reason for tensions on the peninsula, during the Ukrainian rule and after it.
h) Also they could show more details about the role of Chubarov and Dzhemilev in inciting ethnic hatred and their connections with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and also about their contacts with the leaders of NATO countries and Kolomoisky.
But this is just nitpicking. Clearly, a part of the operation is still secret and many details will be uncovered gradually, as their confidential status will be lifted and some of the participants of those events will start speaking.
Regarding the question of Donbass, at this time it is hardly possible to make a film of this kind about the start of the war in Donbass. The reason is that Crimea situation has played out, but the Donbass situation continues to develop and the majority of the mechanisms associated with Russia's participation remains secret. Will there be such a film about Donbass and what will it look like - it depends upon the process and the result of the ongoing warfare. Honestly, I'd really like to watch the film "Donbass. The Path to the Motherland", and this Motherland ain't Ukraine.
The video has english captions:
Click to viewHere are some Putin quotes from the film: http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/15/4505]
Original article: http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2091520.html (in Russian)
Yandex translation of the comments posted to the original Russian blog entry:
https://translate.yandex.com/translate?url=http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2091520.html%23comments&lang=ru-en