Russia now recognises passports from DNR and LNR (EN/NL)

When talking about Donbass only seldom does one hear how people’s lives are affected by that the countries they live in are not recognised. The recent recognition by Russia of passports and other documents published in Donbass looks like at a step forward for many living in the area. This article searches to describe some of the effects of the recent decision by the Russian Federation (RF). The article further attempts to describe the geo-political context in which RF has made her decision.

Voor Tekst in Nederlands, zie onder.

Look at a map anywhere in the world, and one would see that the territories of Donbass are part of Ukraine. However, Ukraine has little to say what is happening in the territories controlled by the DNR and LNR: these are de-facto independent countries, with its own police, own government and own documents. But these documents are handed out by a country no other country in the world recognises. The recent signing of a presidential decree by Russian president Putin changes this situation, at least in Russia.

Before the decree many people in the DLNR* were dependent on to their Ukrainian passports. Without them it is impossible to travel abroad to, say Russia. If one does not possess a Ukrainian passport because one might have lost it in the course of the war, one cannot leave the country. The dependency on a Ukrainian passport is even bigger when one realises that many people chose not to travel domestically when going to the Ukrainian controlled territory. Evgenia van Amerongen, a manager working at a bus company, explains the difficulties:

 “One needs to make the crossing via the line of separation (between Donbass and Ukraine – SB), the crossing goes via checkpoint of DNR/LNR and Ukraine. All these posts are located in ‘hot areas’. For example Zaitsevo, Marinka, Stantisija Luganskaya.”

Because a large number of people want to avoid risking their lives they chose to travel via Russia and hence need a Ukrainian travel document. This situation changes now the Russian Federation has decided to recognise passports from the Donbass, even letting residents from the Donbass travel without the need of a visa.

“If a child is born in the LNR, how does one receive a birth certificate?” Van Amerongen adds continuing on documents which are not recognised. “The parents need to go to Ukraine and provide a document from the hospital where the child was born. But the hospitals are in the LNR and Ukraine does not recognise these documents. Hence, there is a child, but it does not exist juridically.”  There are similar situations when someone dies: a Ukrainian citizen that dies in Donbass, might judicially live forever. Though the Presidential decree does not change anything about the situation in Ukraine, it does help to deal with associated legal issues in the Russian Federation.

A similar situation exists for students. Just two weeks ago students studying in Lugansk or Donetsk were never assured whether the degree for which they are learning would ever be worth something. Only recently the ministry of education of the RF temporarily recognized diplomas from the DLNR*. This previous measure still puts students in limbo whether their diplomas would recognized the next year. “Before certificates of education were recognized by Russian universities, due to a decree of the Ministry of education.” Sana Samoylenko, a student at the University of Lugansk explains. “the decree was be signed for a year, so every next year the Ministry of education would extend it.” The new decree removes this doubt. Samoylenko: “Now students are assured that their certificates of education will be accepted, without fear that the previous decree of Ministry of education does not extend.

Next to educational papers, vehicle registration papers are also accepted from the DLNR.

Geopolitical context

It goes without a doubt that Russia’s decision to recognise documents from the DLNR will not be welcomed in the west. Indeed, Ukrainian President Poroshenko has gone so far as to say that the decision ‘is proof for Russia’s occupation of the Donbass.‘

Though, the presidential decree by no means is a recognition of the DNR and LNR. (The decree refers to them as ‘territories of the separated regions of the Donetsk and Lugansk Oblats of Ukraine: «территории отдельных районов Донецкой и Луганской областей Украины») But, nonetheless, the Russian Federation will have understood that the decision should have counted on little sympathy and understanding from the western world.

The decision comes days after a tweet written by Donald Trump on Wednesday. In this tweet Trump states that Crimea was taken by Russia from Ukraine.


The tweet follows a statement made by US press secretary Sean Spicer a day earlier. According to Spicer “President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to deescalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea.”

Russian Federation’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Maria Zakharova answered these statements by saying on Wednesday that “We do not return our territories. Crimea is a territory of the Russian Federation. – That’s all.”

Later die week, on Saturday, Putin would sign the above mentioned decree, recognizing all associated documents upon signing the decree. The following Monday Dmitri Peskov, spokesperson of the Russian President would explain the signing as a humanitarian gesture. Pointing to regular blockades of the rebel-controlled areas by Ukraine.

The timing of the measure seems to indicate that the measure is intended (amongst others) as a signal to the Trump administration that RF will not give back Crimea, nor will it cease its help towards the Donbass. Rather, quite the contrary, Russia might even intensifies its bonds with Donbass when Washington questions Moscow’s territorial claims.

But whatever underlying motives, and whatever opinions diplomats might have on Russia’s recent decision, for those living in Donbass Russia’s recognition of DLNR papers will somewhat ease their lives.

*DLNR : Abbreviation for Donetsk and Lugansk People’s republics.

Rusland erkent nu paspoorten uit de DNR en de LNR

Wanneer er wordt gesproken over Donbass wordt er maar zelden genoemd hoe mensen hun levens worden beïnvloed doordat hun land niet is erkent. De recente erkenning van Rusland van paspoorten en andere documenten uit Donbass lijkt een stap voorwaarts te zijn voor velen die in het gebied wonen. Dit artikel hoopt een aantal effecten te beschrijven van de recente beslissing van de Russische Federatie (RF).  Ver hoopt dit artikel een geo-politieke achtergrond te geven waarin de RF haar beslissing heeft genomen.

Kijk naar een kaart op een willekeurige plaats in de wereld en je ziet dat Donbass een onderdeel is van Oekraïne. Echter, Oekraïne heeft maar weinig invloed in de gebieden die gecontroleerd worden door de DNR en LNR: het zijn in feite onafhankelijke landen met haar eigen politie, overheid en haar eigen documenten. Maar deze documenten zijn uitgegeven door een land dat geen enkel ander land in de wereld erkent. Het recente ondertekenen van een presidentiele verordening van de Russische president Putin veranderd deze situatie, althans in Rusland.

Voor de verordening waren veel mensen in de DLNR* afhankelijk van hun Oekraïnse paspoorten. Zonder deze paspoorten was het onmogelijk om naar het buitenland te reizen, naar Rusland bijvoorbeeld. Als men niet beschikte over een Oekraïens paspoort omdat men het tijdens de burgeroorlog kwijt was geraakt, kon men de DLNR niet uit. De afhankelijkheid van een Oekraïens paspoorts is zelfs nog groter als men bedenkt dat veel mensen er voor kiezen niet intern gaan het door Oekraïne gecontroleerd territorium te reizen. Evgenia van Amerongen, een manager die werkt voor een busbedrijf, legt de moeilijkheden uit:

“Men moet de oversteek maken via de scheidingslijn (tussen Donbass en Oekraïne – SB), de oversteekt verloopt via een controle post van de DNR/LNR en Oekraïne. Al deze controle posten bevinden zich en ‘instabiele gebieden.’ Bijvoorbeeld Zaitsevo, Marinka, Stantisija Luganskaya.”

Omdat een grote hoeveelheid mensen hun leven niet willen riskeren, kiezen ze ervoor te reizen via Rusland en dus hebben ze een Oekraïens reisdocument nodig. De situatie is veranderd nu de Russische Federatie besloten heeft paspoorten uit Donbas te erkennen, inwoners uit Donbas kunnen zelfs reizen zonder visum.

“Als een kind is geboren in de LNR, hoe kan men dan een geboorteakte krijgen?”, voegt Van Amerongen, sprekende over de niet erkende documenten, toe. “De ouders moeten naar Oekraïne en daar documenten laten zien van het ziekenhuis waar het kind is geboren. Maar de ziekenhuizen bevinden zich in de LNR en Oekraïne erkent deze documenten niets. Dus, er bestaat een kind, maar juridisch bestaat het niet.” Een soortgelijke situatie bestaat als iemand komt te overlijden: een Oekraïense burger die sterft in Donbass, kan juridisch voor altijd blijven doorleven. Hoewel de presidentiele verordening niets veranderd aan de situatie in Oekraïne, helpt het wel om te gaan met de geassocieerde juridische zaken in de Russische Federatie.

Een soort gelijke situatie bestaat onder studenten. Slechts twee week geleden waren studenten die studeerden in Lugansk of Donetsk er nooit van verzekerd of de graad waarvoor zij leerden ooit iets waard zou zijn. Slechte recentelijk heeft het ministerie van onderwijs van de RF tijdelijk diploma’s uit de DLNR erkent. Maar deze maatregel gaf studenten nog geen duidelijkheid of de diploma’s ook het volgende jaar nog erkent zouden zijn. “Voorheen waren onderwijs certificaten erkent door Russische Universiteiten, dmv een verordening van het ministerie van onderwijs.” Legt Sana Samoylenko uit, een student aan de Universiteit van Lugansk. “De verordening was ondertekent voor een jaar, dus ieder komend jaar zou het ministerie van onderwijs het moeten vernieuwen.” De nieuwe verordening haalt deze twijfel weg. Samoylenko: “Nu zijn studenten ervan verzekerd dat hun certificaten worden geaccepteerd, zonder de angst dat de vorige verordening van het ministerie van onderwijs niet zou worden voortgezet.”

Naast onderwijs certificaten, worden voertuig registratie uit de DLNR nu ook geaccepteerd in Rusland.

Geopolitieke Context

Het behoeft geen betoog dat Rusland heft beslissing om documenten uit de DLNR niet welkom worden geheten in het westen. De Oekraïense president Poroshenko heeft zich al uitgelaten dat de beslissing van Rusland “bewijs is van Rusland haar bezetting van de Donbass.”

Hoewel de presidentiele verordening geen erkenning is van de DNR of de LNR. (De verordening refereert naar hun als ‘het territorium van de afgescheiden regio’s van de Donetsk en Lugansk oblasts van Oekraïne.) Toch, moet de RF hebben begrepen op maar weinig sympathie kon rekenen vanuit de westerse wereld.

De beslissing voor erkenning komt slechts dagen naar een tweet die geschreven is door Donald Trump of woensdag. In deze tweet schrijft Trump dat de Krim door Rusland is afgepakt van Oekraïne.

De tweet volgt een verklaring die eerder die dag is gemaakt door Sean Spicer. Volgens Spicer: “President Trump heeft het heel duidelijk gemaakt dat hij verwacht dat de Russische overheid het geweld in Oekraïne de-escaleert en de Krim terug geeft.”

De woordvoerder van het Russisch ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Maria Zakharova, beantwoorde deze verklaring door op woensdag te zeggen dat “We geven ons territorium niet terug. Krim is een territorium van de Russische Federatie. – Dat is alles.”

Later in die week, op zaterdag, ondertekende Poetin de eerder genoemde verordening die alle geassocieerde documenten erkent zodra de verordening is ondertekend. De daarop volgende maandag heeft Dmitri Peskov, woordvoerder van de Russische President, de verordening uitgelegd als een humanitair gebaar. Wijzende op de reguliere blokkades van het door rebellen gecontroleerd gebied in Oekraïne.

De timing van de maatregel lijkt te wijzen dat de maatregel o.a. bedoeld is om een signaal te geven naar de Trump administratie dat de RF de Krim niet zal terug geven, noch zal het haar hulp naar Donbas stoppen. Daarvoor in de plaats het tegenovergestelde, Rusland intensifieert haar banden met Donbas toen Washinton Moscow territoriale grenzen in twijfel stelde.

Wat de onderliggende motieven ook mogen zijn, en wat de diplomaten ook mogen vinden van Rusland haar recente beslissing, voor degenen die leven in Donbas, zal Rusland haar erkenning van DLNR documenten, hun levens iets makkelijker maken.

*DLNR : Een afkorting voor de Volksrepublieken Donetsk en Lugansk.


Thoughts on Fake News

It has always been a mystery to me, how one has even been able to write the beastly propaganda during the First World War. How could a person believe that devils were fighting on the opposite side? How could a war break out seen as so senseless today, while seen as so justified back then?

Even more incredible to me was the thought that such a thing would ever happen again, at least, here in the free west. The west, that values freedom of expression so highly. – But that changed today.

Facebook has banned today, the channel RT, from posting justifying its action with the fight against ‘Fake News’. Even though the decision has no been reversed, it is a frightening discovery. The perception is such, that news coming from Russia is seen as untrue, is meant to disrupt, to paralyse, instead that it is seen as a conflicting yet parallel look at the world.

So much work I have done in order to understand better a country which is fear by so many, to understand her language, her culture and politics. But unfortunately, it seems that all this work has proved itself in vain; even willing to understand and talk the language no longer seem to be innocent affairs and would bear witness that I am a ‘Kremlin-propagandist.’

The fear that is housed within me for war, not only with Russia and the west, but worldwide, is stepping more and more firmly into reality. I dream of peace, but doing so I feel increasingly as a child, that is incapable of understanding the world.


Dutch Below


Het is voor mij altijd onbegrijpelijk geweest hoe men ooit de beestachtige propaganda heeft kunnen schrijven ten tijde van de eerste wereld oorlog. Hoe kan een mens geloven dat er duivels e.d. strijden voor de tegenovergestelde zijde? Hoe kan een oorlog uitbreken om niets en deze zo breed zijn uitgemeten en gerechtvaardigd zijn

Nog ongelofelijker was voor mij, dat zoiets ooit weer zou gebeuren, althans, hier in het vrije westen. Het westen dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting zo hoog koestert. Dat is verandert, vandaag.

Facebook heeft vandaag de zender RT verboden te posten onder het mom van het gevecht tegen ‘Fake News’ (vals nieuws). Hoewel inmiddels de beslissing is terug gedraaid, is dit een schikbarende ontwikkeling. De perceptie is zo, dat nieuws komende uit Rusland onjuist is, bedoeld is te verstoren, te verlammen, in plaats het te zien als een conflicterende doch parallelle kijk op de wereld.

Zo veel werk heb ik de afgelopen jaren verzet om een land beter te begrijpen dat zo velen vrezen, om de taal te leren, haar gebruiken en politiek. Maar laas, lijkt al dit werk nu vergeefs; zelfs willen begrijpen en de taal spreken blijken geen onschuldige zaken meer te zijn en zouden getuigen dat ik een ‘kremlin-propagandist’ ben.

De angst die ik al jaren heb voor oorlog, niet alleen tussen Rusland en het westen, maar wereldwijd, treed steeds fermer de werkelijkheid binnen. Ik droom van vrede, maar voel mij dan steeds meer als kind dat de wereld niet begrijpt.

Maria Zakharova’s statement on us being held

Translation of Maria Zakharova’s remarks about our detention:

Nederlands beneden / Dutch below.

Translation : Anastasia Karkdijk

“Another subject. A large number of comments on the arrest of the Dutch journalists at Schiphol airport on 7 January appeared in Russian mass media sources. As you know they were returning home from their trip to the crash site of the MH17 airplane (Boeing that belonged to Malaysian Airlines and crashed in 2014). The journalists were preparing the materials for a documentary about the catastrophe, and we got a request to comment on this. What can I say? We’ve really seen the news reports where it was said that the journalists have collected the parts of the crashed plane and body parts of the supposed victims of the crash. As it emerged, all the above mentioned parts are still located at the crash site and is not being examined by the collaborative investigation team under the direction of the Public Prosecution Service of the Netherlands. What does “as it emerged” mean? We have known it from the very beginning. Though more than two years from the moment of the catastrophe we’ve been constantly repeating that the extremely important parts of the crashed plane have not been removed from the site for the future examination by the investigation team. Now it is being brought to light by the journalists, including the journalists of the country that took the lead in the investigation. But it is of concern that this information will not reach the general public in the Netherlands, in Europe because we are afraid that these materials might be censored. But I really hope that this will not happen. I would like to continue and say that the extreme anxiety of the official Hague concerning the evidence of the inconsistency of work performed by the investigation team can be traced more and more in this episode. The signs are becoming clear that they fear that their work will be seen as not effective enough, and now the Dutch party is ready to put the handcuffs on their own journalists who are only trying to unravel the truth performing their professional duty. What about the freedom of speech?” (13-01-17)
BE AWARE! The translation has been done as good as possible according to the ability of the translated. Translation is not completely on point, especially the pieces between the []




Vertaling van de verklaring van Maria Zakharova naar aanleiding van onze aanhouding.

Vertaling van de verklaring van Maria Zakharova naar aanleiding van onze aanhouding.

“Nog een thema. Op Russische massamedia werd bericht gegeven over het vasthouden op 7 januari op vliegveld Schiphol in Nederland van twee journalisten. Zoals u weet zijn zij naar hun vaderland terug gekeerd nadat zij de crash-site hebben bezocht van het neergestorte verkeersvliegtuig van de Maleisische luchtvaartmaatschappij, de Boeing. Zij hebben materiaal verzameld over het maken van een documentaire over deze tragedie. Wij hebben hier verzoeken over ontvangen hierover commentaar te geven.

Ik kan zeggen dat wij inderdaad hebben gezien dat deze journalisten zijn vastgehouden en dat de correspondenten enkele elementen hebben verzameld van het vliegtuig. En eveneens een deel van het lichaam wat behoorde tot een van de slachtoffers van de catastrofe. Het blijkt dat dit alles zich nog steeds bevindt op de plek van de tragedie en dat het niet onderzocht is door onderzoeksgroepen waarmee het OM in Nederland mee samenwerkt.

Wat betekend dat ‘het bleek dat’. Voor ons was het direct duidelijk, vrij gesproken, vanaf het moment van de tragedie tot, meer dan twee jaar later, praten we over fragmenten, erg belangrijke fragmenten, die niet zijn gezien door de onderzoeksgroepen. Nu blijkt het, inclusief voor journalisten van het land dat het hoofddeel van het onderzoek op zich heeft genomen. Maar er is de angst dat deze informatie niet zal worden gebruikt in Nederland en Europa, omdat … wij een grote angst hebben dat dit materiaal gecensureerd kán worden. Deze angst bestaat. We hopen dat dit niet zal gebeuren.

In de huidige episode is een nervositeit van Den Haag te zien naar ieder willekeurig bewijs (het aantal daarvan neemt steeds toe) van het onvermogen van het onderzoek. (het idee is dat ze dat niet goed hebben gedaan) Daarom is de angst wel terecht dat hun handeling inderdaad niet volledig effectief kan blijken. (dat ze het onderzoek niet volledig gedaan hebben.) Nederland is nu bereid zijn eigen journalisten tegen te houden die hebben geprobeerd de waarheid te vinden volgens hun professionele plicht. (Ze heeft dat zeg maar met handboeien beschreven, maar de betekenis is dat ze jullie proberen tegen te houden). Maar hoe zit het dan met de (vrijheid van) meningsuiting?.

In de huidige episode is een nervositeit van Den Haag te zien naar ieder willekeurig bewijs (het aantal daarvan neemt steeds toe) van het onvermogen van het onderzoek. (het idee is dat ze dat niet goed hebben gedaan) Daarom is de angst wel terecht dat hun handeling inderdaad niet volledig effectief kan blijken. (dat ze het onderzoek niet volledig gedaan hebben.) Nederland is nu bereid zijn eigen journalisten tegen te houden die hebben geprobeerd de waarheid te vinden volgens hun professionele plicht. (Ze heeft dat zeg maar met handboeien beschreven, maar de betekenis is dat ze ons proberen tegen te houden – noot van de vertaalster). Maar hoe zit het dan met de (vrijheid van) meningsuiting?” (13-01-17)
LET OP! Vertaling naar vermogen zo goed mogelijk gedaan, maar helemaal scherp is het niet. Vooral delen tussen []



On the Confiscation of our Material

On Saturday, while arriving on Schiphol, we, Michel Spekkers and Stefan Beck were held by Dutch police and interrogated. During the interrogation, not only material of the MH17 was taken from us, also our laptops, telephones, SD-cards and camera’s. We lost all material shot in Donbass, including material recorded with anonymous sources. In this article we present an overview what happened, both before and after that day.

For Michel Spekkers’ account please visit:

Collecting the material from MH17

Our stay in Donbass mostly focussed on showing how people in the region experienced the conflict, their attitude towards Ukraine, Russia, Donbass. It was only on the last day of our stay that Michel Spekkers went to the MH17 crash-site together with local journalists. What he found there was shocking; it seemed as if the whole region was never thoroughly searched as pieces of the plane could still be found everywhere.

Moreover, not only was the material found in fields, where it might have been incidently overlooked by previous searches, it was also found still lying around in a shed formerly used for wreckage storage. However, this material was never collected. More so, even some material which might very well be human was abandoned by previous investigations.

vladislav-zelenyj© Vladislav Zelenyj:

Above: Shed where part of the MH17 material was discovered.

The tragic reality seems to be that the pieces lying in the area would be left there to weather away. Hence, any evidence about what happened to flight MH17 still present in the area would never be collected. Hence, Michel Spekkers has decided to film the location of all material, record them on GPS and some of it he has taken back to The Netherlands for investigation, something that, unfortunately, would never have happened without doing so.

Initial reactions from the Dutch Prosecuting service in public channels

The Dutch Prosecuting Service (OM), a party responsible for the investigation into the MH17, initial responded with the following comment in Omroep Brabant (A Dutch local news channel):

“Dat daar nu nog steeds van alles gevonden wordt, is logisch”, aldus een woordvoerder van het Landelijk Parket van het Openbaar Ministerie. “Het toestel kwam in een groot gebied terecht, waar het nu nog steeds onrustig en onveilig is. Dat maakt het bergen erg lastig.”

(From: )


“That there are still pieces being found over there, is logical.” Says a prokesperson of the Dutch Prosecuting Service. “The plane came down over a large area, where is is still unquiet and unsafe. This complicates retrieving the wreckage.”

We deem this statement as incorrect. First of all, during our stay in Donbass, we experienced the whole situation as rather quiet. Indeed, it might have been different in the past and there is still fighting going on near the front, but in cities there is very little going on. Locals told is that it has been a year since Donetsk itself was shelled and one should know that the MH17 crash-site is even father away from the front than Donetsk is. Also, there were no hostilities at all while Spekkers visited the crash-site.

The second statement, that pieces came down over a large area and there, for almost impossible to collect them all, does indeed make sense. However, pieces were also found in sheds, where the material was already collected and never retrieved. Amongst them were possible human remains.

Initial contact with authorities

It was never made a secret that material of the MH17 was taken with us. Indeed, it was even posted on twitter. Authorities therefore contacted Michel Spekkers and asked him to hand it over in either the Dutch embassy in Moscow or at Schiphol Airport. During the contact the police made clear they needed the material for investigation. More so,  they claimed that the handover would be voluntarily. Being such, there should also be a possibility to refuse. We have told authorities that we agreed on a rendezvous.

Arriving in Schiphol and Interogation.

Because of a disagreement about carrying a possible human remain, it was decided that Beck would leave the plane without Spekkers. Noticing Michel might be arrested Beck started filming the gate. However Beck never has seen Spekkers come out of the gate.

At the baggage retrieval, Beck noticed that the rucksack of Spekkers was incorrectly checked-in under his name by ground staff in Moscow. This is despite that his own suitecase, which was too heavy, was paid by him and we have the receipt to prove. Judging that his own luggage was not check in under his own name, he took out Michel his rucksack. A call by Michel, who was waiting under the supervision of the authorities, urged Beck to hand it over to Michel. But, before this could be done Beck was already stopped by police and brought to the interrogation room.


Receipt for paying for excess weight of Beck’s suitecase. Payment is made by Stefan Beck

The people interrogating Beck identified themselves as police. Eventhough, they showed a police card which supposedly showed their family names and initials, the interrogator was very much worried that his face might have been caught on camera. Also, the name used by the interrogator to introduce himself, Bert, did not correspond with the initials on the police pass. The interrogator also claimed to be married while not wearing a wedding-ring.

Both Spekkers and Beck were asked to unpack their bags and show all content they were carrying with them. During the conversation it was incorrectly said to Beck that Spekkers has agreed to voluntarily hand over the material. Beck knew, that, despite Spekkers was not against this, he also had not yet agreed on this.

Why did authorities took material from us?

During the interrogation, it was claimed that this material was needed for the MH17 investigation. Not before arriving was there ever any question about handing this material over. Nor was it ever asked to hand the video or photo material voluntarily. It was taken from Beck without any question whatsoever.


List of confiscated items of Stefan Beck

Of all material collected (see the above list) even Stefan Beck his Nokia 2630 was taken from him. Because, as was claimed, it might contain picture or recordings of the conversation or images of the crashsite.

Despite publicly announcing that MH17 material was taken with us, and that we were detained even before leaving customs, some media still claim that we were smuggling the material.

Anonymous Sources

We again want to stress that we fear for the safety of the people who we interviewed. The vast majority of our material was not about MH17, but about how people toughed about the area. Amongst the interviews, were people that did not want to have their faces shown and that might be identified via our material. By voice, photo’s or recordings.

The perception that these people are at risk, is generally not shared in the west. Therefore we would like to draw attention to the following. The photographer which travelled with Spekkers to the MH17 site, Vladislav Zelenyj, himself is a good example of this: because of his work in Donbass, he has been labelled a terrorist and pictures of him (including his passport!) are displayed at a website that categorized Journalist which are perceived as pro-DNR. The website can be found here:

We are very much afraid that a similar fate await some of the people which we interviewed.


Screenshot of Mirotvorets’ page about Vladislav Zelenyj, a photo journalist traveling with Spekkers to the MH17 crash-site.




Dutch Authorities confiscate MH17 material of journalists

All of the material collected by Michel Spekkers and me about the #MH17 crash in Donbass (Lugansk, and Donetsk) and other material, for example street interviews, has been confiscated by the police upon arrival to the Netherlands. The material includes images of annominous sources.
Also, material has been confiscate of the MH17 itself. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM) claims that it itself could not collect this material because the region where the plane has crashed is too dangerous. However, during our stay in the area we noticed that this was not the case.

Another claim of the OM is that it is impossible to collect all the material of the wreckage because it has been spread over such a large area. It should therefore be impossible to fin dit all. This is a valid claim, however the OM also neglects to collect material which is collected in warehouses.

The incorrect reasoning of the OM and the confiscation of the material (including image material), gives rise to doubt about the auditability and reliability of the investigation.


De afgelopen twee week ben ik samen met Michel Spekkers naar Donetsk en Lugansk gerezen. We zijn daar tegen veel dingen aangelopen die ons verrast hebben. Een van die dingen zou de MH17 worden.

English below

Hoewel ik op de ‘MH17-dag’ niet mee ben geweest, heb ik veel respect voor Michel Spekkers voor het meenemen voor brokstukken van de MH17. Er ligt daar materiaal wat nooit is opgehaald, niet alleen verstopt, maar ook openlijk in loodsen. Op een ander punt kloppen de beweringen van het OM ook niet: het OM beweert dat de regio waar de brokstukken liggen te onrustig is. Tijdens mijn verblijf in de regio heb ik daar niets van gemerkt. Beweringen dat het onderzoek daar niet gevoerd kan worden omdat het onveilig zou zijn, zijn, in ieder geval op dit moment, onwaar. Dat er door het OM anders wordt beweerd geeft mij zorgen over de objectiviteit van het onderzoek.

Ook de vermoedelijke menselijke resten zijn gevonden nabij een loods.(Preciese locatie is te zien op ingenomen beelden.)  Ik wil benadrukken dat deze resten daar weg zouden kwijnen indien ze niet zouden zijn meegenomen. Ik heb er zodoende begrip voor dat ze meegenomen zijn, echter sta ik er niet achter.

Ik wil ook benadrukken dat ik op de dag dat Michel Spekkers op de rampplek was, ik in Donetsk ben gebleven voor een aantal interviews met bewoners over hun perceptie van het conflict. Pas toen Michel later die avond in ons hotel aankwam heb ik begrepen dat hij de tas had meegenomen, pas in Rostovna-Donu (Rusland) heb ik begrepen dat hij de menselijke resten ook mee had.

Nogmaals, ik wil benadrukken dat ik begrip heb voor Michel Spekkers: er is sprake van zware nalatigheid dat deze brokstukken en resten nooit geborgen zijn terwijl ze in een zo voor de hand liggende plaats lagen. Het excuus dat het OM gebruikt, namelijk dat het onrustig en onveilig is, is onjuist, wat des te meer vragen over het onderzoek opwerpt. De realiteit is de volgende: zonder dat dat Spekkers deze stukken had meegenomen, waren ze vergaan in een loods in Donbass.


The last two weeks I have been traveling with Michel Spekkers to Donetsk and Lugansk. We have been surprised by a lot of things we have seen there. One of those would be the MH17.

Even though I wasn’t traveling with Michel on the ‘MH17-day, I much respect Spekkers for taking part of the wreckage of the MH17 with him. In the crash site there is material that has never been collected, not only hidden material, but also material which is lying openly in sheds. Other points claimed by Dutch Prosecution are also incorrect: the prosecution claims that the area in which the wreckage is to dangerous to do research. However, during my stay in the region I have not noticed this. Claims that the area could not be investigated closer because it would be too dangerous are, at least at the moment, untrue. That the prosecution claims otherwise, gives me reason to doubt their objectivity.

Also the possible human remains were found near the same shed. (exact location is seen in confiscated material.) I want to emphasize that these remains would weather away if they would not have been collected. I therefore understand that they have been collected, however I do not support it.

I also want to emphasize that the day Michel Spekkers was at the scene, I was in Donetsk to do several interviews with inhabitants about their perception of the conflict. Only when Michel later that night arrived, I understood that he had taken the bag with him.  In Rostov-na-Dony (Russia) I learned that he had collected remains that might have been human.

Again, I want to underline that I respect Michel Spekkers: this is a case of sever neglect because wreckage and remains have never been collected while, lying on such obvious places. The excuse used by the prosecution, that it is not quiet and dangerous in the area, is incorrect. This gives rise to questions about the research. The reality appears to be such: without Spekkers, these pieces would have never been collected and would have weathered away in a shed in Donbass.

Happy New Year From Donetsk

Images were filmed yesterday evening just prior to the start of the New Year. Despite the war, people welcomed the new year very joyfully. And I so respect them for doing so, despite all their troubles.

For me, I wish everyone happiness. And, even despite that this blog mostly focuses on war, I wish for peace. That this might be the last year one will need to write about this horrible subject.

Наступающим! С Новым Годом!

Political Note: The New Year starts the same time as the New Year starts, this in contrast to other places of the (former – choose whether to omit yourself) Ukrainian territory.

Reporting from Donetsk – Day 1: The Taxi Drive to the DNR.

Crossed the border to the Donetsk Peoples Republic today. After a few months of intense planning, today independent journalist Michel Spekkers and me have crossed the border to the DNR . We are planning to cover the stories of people living here for the next two weeks.

With a smile on his face, our taxi driver explained to us the financial situation with which many people living in Donetsk were confronted with. ‘Before the war started many people of course had taken out loans. But after the war started many banks closed.’ A smile appeared on his face when he said ‘I wanted to pay back my debts, but couldnSo one day the bank called me and said that we had to pay back our dept. I explained we couldn’t, the bank in turn told us they would send someone to my place if I would not pay. I gave my address in Donetsk and said they were welcome at my house.’ After having been given the address, the employee was quiet for a while, reconsidered and said they would not send someone after all.

The above situation is very exemplary of the situation many people in Donetsk are in. People here constantly fall between two stools. The rules of one country do not fully apply to them, but they are affected by them.

On the world alone

Another such situation are the issues with passports. In principle, the citizens of the Donetsk Peoples Republic are on the same level as stateless people: no country in the world (Russia included) recognizes the DNR and LNR as countries. Hence no one in the world recognizes their passports. To travel abroad people are forced to use their Ukrainian passports handed out to them before the war started in Donbass. For a whole new generation of people that did not own a Ukrainian passport before the war and that do not own Ukrainian passports, it has become impossible to travel abroad for their passports are not accepted anywhere.

‘In the Soviet Union it was easy to travel’, a woman we were traveling with told us, ‘There were no border controls and we could travel wherever we liked.’ She stressed that they ‘did not see ourselves as Russians, Ukrainians or whatever we were all part of one big country, the Soviet Union.’ This image persists to this day for she stressed her relatives lived everywhere, in Ukraine in Russia, Belarus, showing how important it is to be able to travel abroad.


Broken families

One of the people traveling with us, was a man that visited his family living in Donetsk for the first time in several years. Due to the situation in the region it was very difficult visiting his family. It shows that was many people tend to forget; war is not only about people dying, it is also about ties to friends and family that are forcefully severed.

But already during this taxi ride, the first stories of people having been killed came to us as well. The woman traveling with us to the DNR told us that one of her brothers died due to the lack of medical help. “The only thing doctors could do is to extend his life, not save it” and hence she was forced to bury her brother.

Later she’d show us pictures of her grandchildren, asking us “How could anyone bomb these children?”. She went on to explain that many schools in Donetsk have pictures hanging in their schools of the students that have died in the conflict.

Divided by languages

Even on this first day of our trip, already some of the underlying problems that led to the conflict became apparent. Even before the Maidan many schools enforced a, what one of our fellow passengers called, ‘Ukrainization.’ Students in high school were forced to follow all their courses in the Ukrainian language, even before the Maidan broke out. “Even physics and mathematics for example”, I asked, ‘Yes, she added, physics mathematics, etc.’ This made it almost impossible for students from Russian families to study. Often there were not even sufficient dictionaries available to translate from.


Arriving in the DNR

After a long journey towards and an equally long wait at the border crossing (very busy because of the New Yeareventually managed to cross the border and enter the DNR. We were greeted by snow, gentle traffic and eventually Donetsk itself. A lot more things have been discussed during the trip and deserve mentioning, but more about that soon.

Alarm Bells ring over Russian propaganda

Education, awareness, and funding journalism are to counter Russian propaganda, so say the Members of European Parliament in a resolution adopted on Wednesday. The Foreign Affairs Committee stresses that countering propaganda with propaganda is counterproductive.

“We are not to use any Russian material for our research!”, a Russian friend recently complained to me. Recently she started a study at a European University. For any of the research she was to do, it was forbidden to use any Russian sources (even academic books), for they were deemed to be unreliable, biased, etc. The student was shocked, not so much because of the prohibition to use Russian material, but way more by the reasoning that all information coming out of Russia was deemed to be propaganda.

The resolution adopted on Wednesday uses a similar reasoning. Though the ideas forwarded in the resolution are not new, the strong condemnation by an important political body in Europe is. This article will be the first of many to focus on information warfare. We will kick of the series by this recent development in Europe concerning Information Warfare.

Alarm Bells ring over Russian propaganda

With a vote of 304 for, 179 voting against and 208 members abstaining, the European parliament adopted a resolution which strongly condemns, amongst others, Russia for making anti-EU propaganda. According to the foreign affairs committee press statement, Russia “seeks to distort the truth, provoke doubt, divide the EU and its North American partners, paralyse the decision-making process, discredit the EU institutions and incite fear and uncertainty among EU citizens.”

The press-statement continues to say that:

MEPs warn that the Kremlin has stepped up its propaganda against EU since annexing Crimea and waging hybrid war in the Donbass. They note that ”the Russian government is employing a wide range of tools and instruments, such as think tanks […], multilingual TV stations (e.g. Russia Today), pseudo-news agencies and multimedia services (e.g. Sputnik) […], social media and internet trolls, to challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood.”

What is striking in the above quote is the sharp tone of the statement; not only does it mention the country at which the measure is taken against. It even explicitly mentions the names of TV stations and multimedia services to be tools of Russian propaganda. The latter is striking, for the European Union officially steps down from the concept that all news-channels should be seen as news channels, rather the MEP convict some channels to be propaganda.

To take the example of Russia today. Indeed it can be argued that the channel voices a Russian oriented view of the world. The channel has a stronger view on US and EU foreign and internal policy, than do domestic news channels. Nevertheless, the channel gives a platform to alternative views which is voiced rather timidly in Europe itself.

A very strong example of this is the attention RT has spent on covering the revelations made by Wikileaks and Eduard Snowden. Where western channels often focussed on the allegations on the legitimacy of spreading this information made by senior public officials, Russian today delved more into the content of the material released by these whistle-blowers.

Indeed, spending much time on publishing the information can be deemed as to “provoke doubt, divide the EU and its North American partners, paralyse the decision-making process, discredit the EU institutions and incite fear and uncertainty among EU citizens.” It can just as well be seen as a different point of view on actual affairs which is just as legitimate as RT’s European and US peers.

Counterpropaganda and free world

The resolution proposes the following measures to counter the influence of what is seen as Russian propaganda by the following ways.

“To counteract anti-EU campaigns, MEPs suggest investing in awareness raising, education, online and local media, investigative journalism and information literacy, which would empower citizens to analyse media content critically.  It is equally important to adapt communication to specific regions, including access to information in local languages, says the text.

Hence, the MEP urge for the more effectively pushing of their message to the public. The measures all have been spinned to put a positive vibe to them: ‘education’, ‘awareness’, ‘information literacy’ and investing in online, local and investigative journalism. Indeed, it is a form of communication with which the European Union tries to gain supporters for her ideology by playing the public opinion. Which is by way also the definition used to define propaganda on the Dutch Wikipedia page.

Even more starteling is the philosophy behind the measure; western democracies typically hold the freedom of speech and press to be fundamental importance for the functioning of their democracy: only an informed public can make an adequate decision in elections. However, the philosophy of the resolution is different; because Europe is being paralyzed, distorted and destabilized, it needs to act. Though the committee has not gone as far as to bad certain information channels it does see them as a threat and not like another perspective in public debate. Though one might agree with the former or the latter perspective, the resolutions signals an important ideological shift in European parliament.

The war in our living rooms

When discussing the First World War, one cannot but wonder how the biased reporting of those days came to be. Nevertheless, we see a similar pattern unfolding today. Examples are many fold The resolution passed by the European Parliament is one example, the recent closing of the RT’s bank account in Britain is another. But also the trails facing people like Julian Assange and Eduard Snowden further support this pattern. Nevertheless, this is not just a western phenomenon, similar policy can be seen all across the world. We are living in a world where information is increasingly being used to influence minds not only at home, but also abroad. We are also living in a world in which it is becoming more accepted to condemn other information as incredible and, even more worrying, to counter the spread of this information. In view of the current power balance in the world and subsequent tensions, it is to be expected that this trend will intensify.

In future articles in the series ‘The War on Informationwe will look at by what means informational warfare is being fought, What the role is of informational warfare in regular warfare and many other aspects.

A small update for loyal readers: I am currently planning my most ambitious journey of my life. And of course, I will be covering the journey here. Though little can be said about it at this stage, but it takes up a lot of time and I cannot spend the amount of time writing articles as I would like to. This is not expected to change until the middle of January.

A Viable Kurdistan

With Ankara’s invasion of Northern Syria and the recent threatening remarks against Syrian President Assad, it might well have provoked just that I tried to avoid: a viable Kurdistan.

In the wake of the recent Turkish coup attempt, Turkey quickly launched a military intervention into Northern Syria. Officially the intervention was aimed to reduce the amount of terrorist attacks in Turkey made by ISIS and Kurdish rebel groups. The creating of a buffer zone in the North of Syria would supposedly deny access to Turkey of ISIS linked groups.

However, unofficially the goal of the Turkish intervention is just as well, to prevent the Kurd in North eastern Syria and North-Western Syria to link their territories. By seizing the land in between of these two Kurdish-controlled areas, such linking of the two parts of Kurdish controlled territory would be rendered impossible by the Turkey-oriented forces. This objective became especially clear when the US called on the Kurdish rebels to retreat over the Euphrates river such to give full control of the area to Turkey.

The Kurdish troops have, however, not been standing still of their own. After initial setbacks in the north-western Kurdish controlled areas of northern Syria, the Kurdish troops were able to halt the advance of the Turkish forces. Furthermore, both troops in the North eastern as the north western Kurdish controlled parts of Syria, have hastened their advance to link up in the area of Al-bab.


Turkey’s intervention int eh North of Syria. The invasion of Turkish forces near the Kurdish controlled areas in the North of Syria indicate how strongly the offensive is aimed at the Kurds.
Picture via: Global Research

Both Turkish as Kurdish forces are now hurling forward in order to get control of the city of Al-bab. For the Kurds, the capture of the city would signal an important step in linking the two parts of Kurdistan. If, however, Al-Bab falls into Turkish hands a strong blow would be dealt to the unification of two Kurdish controlled parts of Syria.

The Syrian government initially responded rather mildly to the Turkish intervention. Even though it condemned the invasion, a military response was rather passive. Not surprisingly, since the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has its hands full with the fight against ISIS and other rebel troops as it is. However, the situation might force Syria to change its stance towards Turkey.

Recent remarks made by Erdogan that Turkish troops will advance to the north of Syria such to include Aleppo and even that Aleppo (and Mosul) belong to Turkey, promise little good for Syria. A confrontation between the SAA and the Turkish army therefore seems eminent.

But such a confrontation is to be avoided by the SAA because of two reasons. Firstly, despite that the SAA has made significant advances recently across Syria, its position is still rather weak. Furthermore, a direct confrontation between the Syrian and the Turkish army might be used to justify an intervention of western states.

However, the SAA seems to have a trump card up their sleeves in the form of the Kurdish troops in Northern Syria. If both parts of Kurdish controlled area were to link up, a buffer would be created between the Syrian and the Turkish army. Such a move would allow the Syrian army to avoid a confrontation between the Turks and the Syrians prevention politically difficult diplomatic situations and save military resources for deployment elsewhere.


Situation in Northern Syria as of December 1 2016. Both pro-Turey forces as the Kurds and SAA are seen hurrying towards Al-bab. Image via Southfront

Syria has currently even gone so far as to launch a joint SAA-Kurdish offensive from the north-western part of Syria, to link the Kurds their compatriots to the east. This situation would be a game changer for the Kurds, for the first time a major power would be interested in the existence of a Kurdish state.

Hence, The Turkish operation Euphrates Shield might very well lead to exactly that it tried to prevent: a viable Kurdistan in the North of Syria.