It doesn’t really matter exactly how many. Anything other than ZERO is unacceptable. You have no data to back up the claim you made. As usual, you threw something out that you made up so as to support the conclusion you had already come to.
She may well have been treated like shit, but the notion that she was treated like shit because she was Russian-speaking is laughable to anyone who knows Kiev. Pretty well everyone in Kiev speaks Russian, more than half the population there use Russian as their first language; it is the language of business, heard on the radio, etc.
Propaganda is coming fast & furious from both sides, so it’s hard to know who to believe – though I pretty much discard the US MSM off-hand. So I’ll stay my final judgement on this one if it’s OK by you – and even if it isn’t. 
That said, according to my reasoning, the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government is called a coup d’etat. An installed “interim” government that consists of mainly radical nationalists, right-wing extremists, anti-Semites and active neo-Nazis at the helm is called fascistic. Personnel in CIA, State Dept. and U.S. NGO’s who foment violent regime change in sovereign nations are called “infiltrators” and “instigators”. The very visible goal – going back to Clinton’s second term – to encircle Russia and China by the US-led West, control oil, natural gas and global distribution channels in central Asia is obviously part of the American geo-political strategy on the “Grand Chessboard”.
With little to no importance given by U.S. media to explaining these facts, some influent American conservatives and liberals have been induced with war fever. I just hope said fever doesn’t advance and/or spread into dizziness, confusion and hallucinations…as some are already showing.
To be continued.
BTW, Malthus, this quote does NOT agree with the video report she gave:
Can you square a fishy circle?
So, your answer is that the informant - on which, you may recall, the allegation ultimately rests - is a liar? 
Myself, I took it to mean that she had examined the bodies of dead protestors but not those of dead Security Forces. This is perfectly compatible with offering “help” to live Berkut.
But if you want to go with the theory that Olga is just a liar, be your guest. I think the rather more plausible theory is that the Estonian Minister is either lying, or simply misunderstood (though how one can misunderstand something so sensational is beyond me). How likely is it that this Doc, who is a leading figure in the protest movement herself, would have actually told the Estonian Minister that the snipers were hired by the protestors? If she believed that they were (and how in the world would she know?) and had a sudden attack of concience and confessed all to the Estonian minister, why is she denying all now? Strike you as at all reasonable?
Interesting effect of cognitive dissonance - when faced with proof that the allegation is false, the immediate reaction is to launch into a screed about fascists, anti-semites, and Western conspiracies.
Propaganda is coming fast & furious from both sides, so it’s hard to know who to believe – though I pretty much discard anything that challenges my preconceptions. It’s so much easier that way.
Disclaimer - the above is satirical snark and may or may not reflect my actual views.
What I find interesting is how you completely ignore the disconnect between her video interview and what she alleges in the Telegraph.
:::shrug:::
I guess the answer to my question is … “not”.
A referendum ratified by the local Parliament, a referendum; someone call USAID quickly, they need to throw a couple $billion somewhere to stop this nonsense.
You may guess all you’d like while continuing to ignore the obvious contradiction of Bogomolets’ responses in the video interview and what she said in The Telegraph – which I kindly spoon-fed you.
And to which he responded. You may not agree with that interpretation but the issue wasn’t ignored.
Crimea river… (and I cannot BELIEVE no one has hit that one yet…)
:smack:
Ouch.
Deleted double post
As noted by Gyrate, I did in fact answer. Did you miss it?
But, for the sake of interest, where does this alleged “contradiction” get you?
The only source for this story is (allegedly) the doctor. If the doctor is truthful, as I suspect, the story is bullshit.
What if you are right and the “contradiction” is a real blow to her credibility. I think your argument is silly, but as a thought experiment let’s all assume that she’s been caught in a crippling contradiction. What that does (assuming it is true), is undermine the credibilty of the sole source for the claim. You have just demonstrated that the doc is a liar!
This is truly the horns of a dilemma. Either the doc is truthful or she’s a liar - in either case the claim is dubious.
Evasive at best.
So conduct an investigation. Problem solved. Doesn’t seem the current usurpers have much interest in doing so.
ETA: Thus my earlier statement about withholding judgment.
Believe me they have, for a few days at least. Example:
https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1507196_10151915697517687_1752171148_n.jpg
According to the only information we have, the “usurpers” have in fact launched an investigation - again, I refer you to the statement by the Doc.
I imagine that they have a few other things on their mind right now, like having their country eaten alive by Russia while its economy tanks, so I’m not exactly expecting swift results.