i don't think people are likely to revolt like this over nationality. states like to use things like language to control populations, but only the most malleable and brainwashed take this seriously in much of any way. they didn't really talk imf protests here; that strikes me as a more realistic reason for larger protests, should they happen. for right now, the coverage on rt makes it pretty blatantly obvious who is in charge, here. 99 times out of 100, a news report that describes a protest as having something to do with language or religion or "cultural identity" is statist propaganda; real people on the ground don't care about that nonsense and mostly don't even know what "cultural identity" even *means*.
you're also running into the same double standard that appeared in crimea, but in reverse. if we are to accept the existence of ukrainian self-defense units, why not crimean ones? if we are to accuse russian soldiers of posing, how can we deny reports of german soldiers in the west? and if we are to argue for western influence in the coup a few months ago, how can we be so naive as to deny russian influence in donetsk?
this isn't good guys v. bad guys. it's two equivalent ruling classes fighting over who gets to exploit the area.
so, of course it's the russians, legitimate concern about imf packages (and statist nonsense about language and religion that nobody actually cares about) aside.
but i wanted to say something about the demands. we've learned something from crimea, namely that the russians are moving to a lower level of transparency than they've had over the last few decades. so, we need to start thinking in cold war terms again (and fuck the useful idiots in the media that would have you think otherwise). an old tactic to eventually carry out an unpopular task is to show that there is no other option through exhaustion of seeming options. but, this itself seems like a stall.
i've stated here repeatedly that i see no reason to think russia wants to split the country. rather, i'd think nato would want to split the country - as the media narrative seems to imply. russia has successively exerted significant influence on kiev since independence. the clampdown on control was part of the reason that the parliament was stormed. even so, this isn't actually a revolution, it's just a shift in which ruling faction is ascendant. and it's entirely reversible with minimal effort. the russian goal is not partition, it's to retake control of kiev and pick up where it left off. yet, it needs a backup plan, and it needs to give it some time.
so, they've gone back to a tactic they used throughout the cold war - begin with a less unpopular position that is related to but not identical to the (unpopular) one they want, push it hard through media, watch it build support, demonstrate it's impossible and the only possible answer is the previously unpopular position, make arguments for compromise and hopefully eventually put in place the truly desired option. it's right out of machiavelli. and it's not just the russians that do this.
maybe future tactics won't be so obvious, but the key here is to stop taking the russians at face value. they've recently proved (or re-proved) that they're being sneaky and that their public statements are no more trustworthy than the ones coming from western states.
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have the right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.