The development of the situation in Ukraine, especially in the southeast parts where practically civil war takes place, does not leave anyone ignorant. This war happened to be not in disquieted Africa, not in the Middle East, but in civilized Europe. At the same time, both the leading Western and the Russian media have their one-sided views. However, there is a thing that is difficult to doubt. In particular, we cannot blame Moscow alone for everything, without paying attention to the obvious violations of international and universal norms by Kiev. All this happens in sight of the American and the European human rights advocates who are trying to stay aside from the conflict. Therefore, I would like to express an alternative point of view and to look at the conflict from the other side.

First, as opposed to the USA and the EU, Russia has never shown right influence on the domestic policy in Ukraine. All statements about Moscow not letting Ukrainians speak their own language do not make any sense as the Ukrainian language is indicated in the Ukrainian Constitution as the official language and Russia has never spoken against it. The statement about half of the population of Ukraine, including prominent political figures, cannot speak Ukrainian and therefore, have to speak Russian, sounds funny. So the reasonable question comes into mind: how will the mentioned part communicate if Russian language is forbidden to use by the Kiev’s government? What language should the Ukrainians use? As a classic, A. Solzhenitsyn said: “It is impossible to build the Ukrainian culture by destroying the Russian one”. Imagine, what will happen if we forbid to speak English and French in all former colonies and allow them speaking only the languages of local aborigines who historically belong to the territory. We cannot use the political decision to destroy at once the historically existing way of life of the whole country.

Another statement about Russia not allowing Ukraine to develop on its own and not letting it go to Europe is also unreasonable. Nobody prohibits Kiev sign an agreement with the EU. However, in this case Russia will have to take certain measures to protect its market and revise the existing agreements, the same steps as any other country would take. Why such steps are considered as an attempt to force the Ukrainian government? As the Americans say, business is business. A similar situation concerning the gas resources: why does Russia have to follow the contract and provide Ukraine with great discounts when Ukraine violated the rules of the contract? This resulted in Russia’s loss of huge amounts of money that could have been used for the establishment of schools, hospitals and other social objects. The whole Ukrainian industry created in the USSR period is oriented on Russia, so the breaking of these rules, as the Ukrainian supporters of euro integration aims for, is the same as the bankruptcy of the whole country’s economy.

The USA and the EU, in their turn, had a great influence on the internal political situation in Ukraine, that is proved by the infamous telephone conversation between the assistant of the US secretary of state Victoria Nuland and the American ambassador in Ukraine Jeffrey Payette (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5n8UbJ8jsk), the Nulad’s visit to Kiev during the events on the Maydan, the visit of the Senator MacCain and his meeting with the Ukrainian Nationalists’ leaders, the participation of the American mercenaries in the Southeast. However, in 2012, the European Parliament expressed its concerns about the ‘increase of nationalistic attitude in Ukraine, that is supported by the Svoboda Party with its racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic views, which is against the fundamental principles of the EU’. (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1239823&t=e&l=en; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20929755; http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20824693)

We should pay special attention to the legitimacy of the Kiev’s use of the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘anti-terrorist operation’ in fighting against the political opposition on the Southeast of Ukraine. Therefore, during the presidential elections in Ukraine, the leader of the OSCE Joao Soares appealed to Kiev to avoid using the words ‘separatist’ and ‘terrorist’ and try to dialogue. (http://rian.com.ua/world_news/20140525/350572989.html). Remarkably, it was impossible to find any links to the interview with Joao Soares in the English-speaking segment of the Internet.

Though the referendums in the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions were not processed according to the Ukrainian law, it displayed a political will of more than 4 million people (10% of the population of Ukraine) who were not agree with the government’s policy and we should consider it. However, nobody wants and nobody tries to listen to these people. Marking the supporters of the federalization of Ukraine with a brand of ‘terrorists’, Kiev lost any opportunity to have a peaceful dialog with these people. Not a member of the Southeast movement was invited for the All-Ukrainian Round Table of National Unity, organized by the OSCE. Only the governors of the Southeast regions chosen by the government were invited as representatives of the opposition. The absence of the so-called National Governors and the leaders of the Southeast movement was explained by the fact that the Ukrainian government do not contact with ‘terrorists’.

Moreover, the active radical nationalistic organizations in Ukraine became a real menace to the population of the Donetsk, the Lugansk and some other regions with pro-Russian views. The inability of the law enforcement agencies to provide security to the local civilians led to the formation of the ‘people’s militia’ supported by the majority of the region’s population. (At the time, even the Western media agrees that the considerable part of the population of the indicated regions supports the members of the militia. (http://www.rferl.org/media/video/separatists-declare-luhansk-peoples-republic/25364894.html; http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html). Besides, they did not set up any separatist claims; they just wanted to put forward a question of the country’s federalization at the All-Ukrainian referendum. They did not conduct any terroristic acts and did not threaten the security of the country; they just wanted to have a fair dialogue. However, instead of this, Kiev decided to get rid of the people who did not support its policy. At the same time, even the Western media admit that the aviation and the artillery is widely used in the Eastern Ukraine killing not only military men, but also civilians: women and children. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1401733688; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfB5QAlb1FI). Is not it a violation of the human rights? Along with it, the West and Kiev does not seem to have any sympathy, they have only exculpatory and insulting statements about that these people were the ‘supporters of the terrorists, and therefore, they deserved to die’.

This is only a short list of the violations of the human rights and the universal norms that the new Kiev’s government committed and that the Western media and politicians chose not to notice applying the categories of the ‘cold war’.

Now ask yourself a question: are you ready to live in a country whose government tried to kill you? Too many people from the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions have suffered because of the so-called ‘anti-terrorist operation’. It does not matter who is right or wrong, this feeling of loss and anger will stay in people’s hearts for a very long time being a possible starting point for a new hot spot similar to the one in the Middle East. And it will not be Russia who will have to carry the burden of responsibility, as the West wants it to be.

The reason of all the events happening in the East is the denial of Kiev and the Western countries to listen to and understand the positions of the other sides in the Ukrainian crisis. Therefore, reading this article, please, try to look at the situation from an alternative point of view instead of blaming everything on Moscow, whose interests do not include having a hot spot near its borders. I have friends from both sides of the barricade and it is hard for me to follow the situation happening because of people’s reluctance to understand one another.