Donbass-Cowboy-2.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DONBASS COWBOY A WAR JOURNAL by Russell “Texas” Bentley Memoirs of a Un-Civil War Editors: P. Nash, Sara Meger All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the author. Copywrite © 2018 Contents Introduction V A Prelude to War IX Chapter 1: From Dallas to Donetsk 1 Chapter 2: The Red Cat, the Dragon and the SBU 9 Chapter 3: There is no Water in Yasynuvata 15 Chapter 4: The Serpent and the Crown 21 Chapter 5: The Battle of Troishka 35 Chapter 6: The Chapter of the Windmills 43 Chapter 7: The Big Banana Breakdown 59 Chapter 8: Cachigarka 67 Chapter 9: The Bait at Blesna 77 Chapter 10: The Spartak Express 95 Chapter 11: The Legend of XAH 99 Chapter 12: The Wrath of XAH 105 Epilogue 115 Introduction Towards the end of 2013 I witnessed a country begin to tear itself apart. Just another war, with all the usual trademarks. However, this conflict had a twist which drew my attention. At the centre of the burgeoning Ukrainian violence, were openly fascist nationalistic groups who viewed Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator responsible for the Volhynia Massacre, (among many others) as their hero. It seemed the scourge of neo-Nazism was again rising in Europe. At first Western media covered events with their usual bias. Articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, Die Welt, the Guardian and countless media outlets, scrutinized the riots from various angles, some alleged overly forceful crackdowns by security services, while a few others criticized radical elements among the protesters. Finally, the Euromaidan demonstrations reached their peak with the ousting of President Yanukovych. With the help of neo-Nazis in the uprising. And then, as counter-protests began in Crimea and southeast Ukraine, the paradigm shifted. Changes were subtle at first. What may have once been written with some degree of integrity about the dangers of a reactionary uprising, increasingly slanted towards supporting an interim government which went far beyond its predecessor in terms of banning political parties, corruption to the point of outright looting, and worst of all, the use of force against its own people. v Donbass Cowboy I watched with increasing disbelief the alteration of language used by journalists, at least those reporters permitted to remain in the country or who had not been murdered. Ethnic Russians became “Moscals”. Anti-coup protesters became “terrorists” . Reintegration became ‘annexation’. It was a deliberately slow, inimical manipulation, straight from the pages of Orwell’s 1984. Yet this embryonic civil war had another important distinction. It was one of the first where almost everyone involved had a mobile device able to take images and movies of what occurred, and post them as it was happening. In an attempt to retain a neutral perspective on events I subscribed to foreign news sites, started trawling through Ukrainian and Russian YouTube and VKontakte channels. What I witnessed was shocking. It wasn’t the scenes of neo-Nazi thugs beating up the managers of TV stations, or Ukrainian politicians being assaulted and thrown into dumpsters. Not the footage of civilians having body parts blown off, their last moment of life fading as passers-by tried to help... nor even the horrors of the burned and raped corpses from the Odessa Trade Union massacre. Sadly I have seen such abhorrent things before. No. What really appalled me was that Western mainstream media was not showing both sides of events. Initially there would be a footnote or final paragraph at the bottom of a page, relating that such a thing might have happened – but it was lost amid increasing diatribes against Russia. It was no longer the battle of outraged citizens struggling to retain their language or protecting themselves against pillaging Bandera fanatics. It was blatant one sided reporting, towing the official line of the new Ukrainian government. At one time, it was the role of journalists to challenge power. Now I was witnessing not just lies by omission. It was barefaced propaganda. Intentional and outright lies. I first noted Russell Bentley in 2015 when he started giving interviews. I thought nothing much about him other than some wry humor that he was an American fighting for the Separatists’ side whilst another American had been filmed fighting for the Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups. Russell however, was ‘luckier’. Despite his age he survived front line posting and attempts to undermine his dissenting opinions. As time passed I viewed the man as a typical Texan. At times abrasively outspoken, but steadfast and passionate about his convictions. He earned respect by traveling to the war zone and challenging mainstream media in a way many others dared not. When the BBC eventually lowered itself to write a hit piece against Russell in July 2017, it became apparent that things had gone too far. Even rebels have the right to voice an opinion. This book lacks the sensationalism which afflicts other war memoirs. Instead it is a blunt account showing the Ukrainian Civil War from the perspective of an over- seas volunteer who could barely communicate with those he was fighting for, but still forged friendship with his fellow soldiers. Russell ‘Texas’ Bentley makes no bones about his experiences, and as such, this account is a valuable insight into the Donbass resistance during its first year of conflict. P. Nash vi Prelude to War On the morning of the 20th November 2013, a brave man stepped up to the podium of the Ukrainian Rada during the plenary meeting of parliament. As he spoke a chant began amongst radical ministers in the back benches, in an attempt to deter the speaker – Oleh Tsariov, MP for the Party of Regions. Tsariov claimed that the United States Embassy in Kiev was in violation of the UN Declaration on the ‘Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States’. He requested a police investigation concerning information that the Americans were training Ukrainian extremist elements in régime change techniques, which included information warfare and mass protest methods used previously in Libya, Egypt and Syria. According to his sources, over three hundred Ukrainian citizens had passed through ‘TechCamp’ training, the last session having been held at the US Embassy the previous week. Drowned out by the unceasing chant of his political opponents, Tsariov failed to raise any concern among his fellow Ukrainian ministers. The very next day on November 21st 2013, civil protests erupted when President Yanukovych announced he would not sign an economic integration deal with the EU. Soon after and into December, organized groups of protesters occupied Kiev City Hall and Independence Square, the so-called “Maidan”. Such unrest would, at first glance, seem normal in a country so riven by corruption that it qualified as a kleptocracy... if not for an editorial written by Carl Gershman, the President for the National Endowment for Democracy, printed in the Washington Post on September 26th two months earlier. In it he asserted that “Ukraine is the ix Donbass Cowboy biggest prize” and “opportunities are considerable, and there are important ways Washington could help”. Ominous words in an article which was squarely aimed at Russian foreign policy, openly encouraging Russians to oust Putin at the next election. Caught between either joining the ostensibly dynamic European Union, albeit as a subordinate partner – or facing the imposition of tariffs on all trade with the member countries of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) Free Trade Zone Agreement, President Yanukovych vacillated. Ukraine could ill afford to pay increased duties on goods it exported to its largest market, yet the Ukrainian people wanted the chance for economic migration EU citizenship offered, as it had for Poland, the Baltic States and others. The Euromaidan protests continued to grow, mostly common folk showing solidarity against corruption in the ruling government. However several highly organized militant groups soon emerged, notable for their nationalistic ideology and WWII Nazi related iconography. The same gangs who would later form the Azov, Aidar, Right Sector and Tornado guard battalions, and others. More worrisome were the visits of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland on the 11th of December, who notoriously passed out sandwiches to both protesters and police in the Maidan; soon followed by US Senator John McCain four days later, himself mounting a stage and stating that Ukraine’s destiny lay with Europe – while standing next to opposition leaders including the head of the neo-nazi Svoboda party. The message of United States support could not have been clearer. Far from defusing the situation, civil disorder continued into 2014. Escalating assaults by protesters against the Berkut (Ukrainian riot police) forced the Rada to pass a new law on the 16th January restricting the right to publicly demonstrate. This raised tensions still further. With the eyes of international media now firmly focused on the protests, Yanukovych was chastised by the very European governments he had initially negotiated an association agreement with. Led by one of the militant groups called ‘Right Sector’ the situation exploded – with stones, fireworks and Molotov cocktails being thrown at the unarmed Berkut police, who vainly attempted to contain the rising violence. To pacify the rioters, Yanukovych offered senior political posts to his political opposition. In response his own Prime Minister and cabinet resigned, followed by parliament annulling the new anti-protest laws and offering amnesty to previously arrested protesters, under the condition that occupied government buildings were returned. Thus the Ukrainian President’s attempt to defuse the situation only weakened his position still further.