Causation of the Crimean Annexation
The Events That Lead to the Crimean Referendum on 16 March 2014 and Annexation by Russia on 18 March 2014
Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |
Reading time: educational 68 minutes (or 72 minutes with footnotes)
Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness[+] and spirit to the modes[+] of neutrality[*], decency, respectfulness, wisdom[*], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we[*] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. With this article we continue the “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment, carrying on providing answers to Why should Ukraine recognize Crimea as part of Russia?
![[+]](https://www.virtuology.biz/images/consciousness-scale.png){kind=link}
The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation took place as the result of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution with a violent overthrow of the democratically elected government by the NATO-backed neo-Nazis, which prompted Crimean people to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia (after 23 years of being governed or 60 years of being administered by Kyiv) through a democratic process of a referendum[+], exercising their right to self-determination that is enshrined in the UN Charter and additionally justified with Kosovo Independence precedent[+].
Here we explain why and how Ukraine lost Crimea in more detail with the emphasis on the fact backed by evidence that it was Crimean authorities and people who initiated that, not Russia — this distinction has not been made clear enough to the world by Kyiv and NATO propagandists who made every attempt to fool the public into believing that Crimean people were forced by Russia to vote to join Russia. They have no evidence to back up that claim while there is plenty of evidence to the contrary apart from the fact that a majority of Crimean residents are ethnic Russians.
In this essay, we cover the topics of:
Here is first a brief timeline:
*️⃣ In the years prior to 2013, NATO states (primarily the US, but also UK and EU) established various NGOs on the pretext of promoting democracy but mainly to encourage the locals to protest against the government that was unfavorable to the Western ruling elites keen to exploit and plunder the land. They recruited and trained the incompetent opposition leaders-wannabe-rulers to mobilize the masses to protest the Yanukovych government because Yanukovych withdrew the application to join NATO (in 2008, former President, US-puppet Yushchenko submitted an application) and halted the Association Agreement with the EU because it was unfavorable to Ukraine and only favorable to the EU. The working class did not trust the corrupt government when they warned about the West's intentions and rather trusted the Western predators and their scheming media campaigns and propaganda. Western officials recruited aggressive and unintelligent opposition members like former boxer Klitschko and neo-Nazis who otherwise never had a chance to win elections and therefore were easily bribed and manipulated by the Westerners.
*️⃣ 21 November 2013 – 23 February 2014 – US-backed (orchestrated and funded) Euromaidan anti-government protests took place with organized entertainment, food and tents, as well as US, UK, and EU high officials coming to stage to give pep talks to protesters throughout December, which later escalated into a revolution
Neo-Nazis who were trained by the US formed paramilitary and staged all kinds of provocations against riot polices, which often escalated into clashes with casualties. They illegally stormed the Presidential Administration building and the Cabinet building (1 December 2013), illegally occupied the Kyiv City Hall (1 December 2013 - 16 February 2014), and the parliament building, the president's administration quarters, the Cabinet building, and the Interior Ministry (since 21 February 2014)
*️⃣ 21 November 2013 – begin of the Euromaidan protests – a few hundred people (from NATO states-sponsored NGOs) gathered in Independence Square known as Maidan in Kyiv to protest against government for halting the process of Ukraine signing a formal Association Agreement with the EU. It was easy to mobilize large numbers of people to turn out and wave EU flags because they were naively looking to the EU for a way out of the hardship from the shock therapy of the 1990s, and the privatization/IMF austerity continued through the 2004 Orange Revolution years. The oblivious masses blamed the corrupt government for their hardship, which was in fact caused by the Western policies and bribes.
*️⃣ 29 November 2013 – the protests died out but a few hundred student remained overnight in the square, which is why police came to disperse them, which escalated into provocative students getting beat up. What a “coincidence”, foreign press was there to take photos at the exact moment the incident took place, eagerly looking for stories to enrage the public to return to protest, which worked as the press made sure to write the content that would trigger the masses
*️⃣ 28 January 2014 – Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov was coerced to resign[+] in a bid to defuse the political crisis caused by Euromaidan protesters
*️⃣ 18–23 February 2014 – the Ukrainian revolution took place from, which caused almost 2.000 overall casualties (121 deaths among both protesters and police).
*️⃣ 21 February 2014 – the Agreement[+] on the Settlement of the Political Crisis in Ukraine was signed on by then-President Yanukovych and the leaders of Ukraine's parliamentary opposition, with mediation from the European Union (the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France and Poland) and Russia. However, the far-right revolutionaries did not agree to it and violated the agreement as one of the Maidan revolution far-right leaders, self-declared Maidan shooter, neo-Nazi[+][+] ultranationalist paramilitary commander Volodymyr Parasyuk (who as a result of his contribution to the revolution became then a member of parliament until 2019), from the main Euromaidan stage declared[+][»][»][»] Maidan's ultimatum threatening and vowing to attack and drive Yanukovych away using weapons if he doesn't resign by 10 am next day. Neo-Nazi Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh backed1 this threat by stating what arms they would use to depose the president. The following morning Yanukovych flew to south-eastern Ukraine without resigning.
*️⃣ 23 February 2014 – Ukrainian President Yanukovych fled the country after the aggressive mob ousted him by threats to his life. The ousted Ukrainian President and Prime Minister considered the overthrow of government to be unconstitutional through an illegal coup and asked[+] Russia for military intervention.
*️⃣ 16 March 2014 – Crimea held a status referendum[+] with an 83.1% turnout and 96.8% voters chose to join the Russian Federation.
If you wish, look at the detailed timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on Wikipedia[+] but bear in mind that Wikipedia is heavily moderated and edited by American, NATO, and Ukrainian secret services as informational warfare.
Euromaidan protests and Maidan Revolution
21 November 2013 – 23 February 2014
Because the Ukrainian government kept postponing signing the exploitative European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement[+], among other reasons (unwillingness to join NATO and being a Russia's ally), the EU (the UK was then still part of the EU) and its ally the US covertly masterminded, orchestrated, and funded the anti-government protests that eventually escalated in a coup d’état although they framed it as a revolution (so-called color revolutions[+] are regime change operations involving CIA and other NATO organizations). We already provided plenty of evidence[*] for that, so no repeating here. The Ukrainian President declined to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement[+] (for economic assistance and other perks, such as free trade zone and visa-free travel to Europe for Ukrainian citizens but conditions were to release Tymoshenko from prison, transparency and accountability provisions) because he and the parliament members wanted to negotiate better terms, which didn't suit the EU officials who preferred the deal to be more favorable to them.
The EU officials only cared to protect their own interests and agenda (to ensure the integration of Ukraine wanting imports of its grain and natural gas, along with exports of its goods to Ukraine, and to counter rival Putin's Eurasian expansion plans - playing geopolitical games and trade wars against Russia), thus they didn't question whether the pro-EU riots, attacks, and killings of law enforcement, and forceful sizing of the City Hall, the parliament building, the president's administration quarters, the Cabinet building, and the Interior Ministry were legal or not, which is why, logically, the illegally-overthrown government officials sought intervention from Russia.
Even though the opposition leaders, protesters, and revolutionaries might have been right about their allegations of government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and violation of human rights in Ukraine, and even if they had the best intentions, they should have resolved their issues constitutionally and democratically, rather than by force, violence, and firearms, even if those were only used in self-defense.
The European Convention on Human Rights stipulates everyone’s right to liberty and security, as well as freedom of assembly and association, so protests in a form of a rally are not against the law but Euromaidan protests turned into riots with barricades, arson, roads blockages, storming the government buildings, the Kyiv City Hall occupation, destruction of public property (on 21 January 2014, the Kyiv City State Administration claimed that protests in Kyiv had so far caused the city more than 2 million US dollars’ worth of damage[+]), and resisting, insulting and attacking the riot police officers, which was all against the law and against human rights (policemen have human rights, too).
Even though initially most of the Kyiv residents protested peacefully, with time some aggressive, hostile, radical nationalists, far-right extremists, rebels, agitators, troublemakers, and provocateurs infiltrated into the ranks of the protesters, instigated fights, and provoked the use of force by the authorities. In protest types of situations, it is natural that not all protestors behave the same and often it happens that some less-intelligent, hate-filled protestors and hooligans, driven by anti-establishment sentiments, vent their anger differently than others. Therefore, it is irrational to claim that “all the events of the Revolution took place in a constitutional manner” when those who make such claims couldn't possibly witness all the events and all the actions of all 400.000–800.000 protesters at all times.
Such denial is a case of social projection[+] (assuming behaviors or attitudes of other protesters to be similar to one’s own) that corresponds to the pervasive cognitive bias known as the false-consensus effect[+] (seeing one’s own behavioral choices and judgments as common and appropriate to existing circumstances). This often tragic fallacy is known as "The Pollyanna Principle" or "The Projection Bias"[+], which refers to automatically (and falsely) assuming that everyone else in any given place, time, and circumstance had or has basically the same (positive) wishes, desires, interests, concerns, ethics, and moral code as "we" do, whereby practically if not theoretically denying both the reality of difference and the fellow human capacity to be or become malicious. (For example: 'I would never pull a gun and shoot a police officer unless I was convinced he was trying to murder me; therefore, when some of our protesters shot a police officer, they must have been in genuine fear for their life.')
Large protests are bound to give rise to the mob mentality and escalate into violence as there are always violent protesters among the peaceful ones, who use any opportunity to vent their anger aggressively. During riots, law enforcement never acts unprovoked. Violence breeds violence. Many angry and far-right protesters were deliberately provoking confrontations and rioting.
For instance, on 24 November 2013, protesters committed their first acts of aggression as they attacked the building of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the police officers guarding it. The next day, they also attacked the security service officers. A few days later, on 30 November, the protests were over and all the protesters vacated the Maidan Square except for a hundred students who were sleeping on the square despite being told to leave so that the Christmas tree could be placed there – it was the first time that the riot police used force against them as they disobeyed to leave. But this beating was ordered by the Ukrainian Police Chief of Staff Lyovochkin, who was a close associate to many US politicians. It is possible that the US officials encouraged him to order his policemen to use force so that this incident brings protesters back. Oddly, at this late hour, there were many journalists with cameras ready at the scene to film the incident and many young radicals ready to intervene to fight the riot police. It is clear that what started as a peaceful public protest was then hijacked by the US and ultranationalists and turned into a regime change operation.
The next day, on 1 December 2013, the enraged crowds emerged to protest against the police brutality of the current regime, not knowing that it was all staged exactly to bring them back to the streets. This is when multitudes of protesters, especially the mob of extremists and neo-Nazis, became frequently violent against riot police and constant clashes started to occur. They used bats, metal bars, and even bulldozers to attack police officers who were guarding governmental buildings preventing the protesters to seize those buildings. Very soon, it became obvious that these attacks were not just sudden but very well planned ahead and coordinated by CIA[+] who masterminded all so-called color revolutions[+].
The campaign was clearly an American creation, with a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing, using subtle patterns, similarities, and symbolism, as well as the sacrificial lamb plot – all employed there just like in Libya, Georgia, Moldova, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela, which reveals that the protesters from all those different countries had the same mastermind. The particular use of social media and field techniques of fighting and catchy sing-alongs were identical and revealed that they were trained and prepared for it all rather than acting spontaneously. The CIA's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which funds NGOs in countries the US targets for regime change, a huge number of American-funded NGOs (including the one from Soros), "TechCamp" held in the US Embassy in Kyiv, and CIA training paramilitaries of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi militias Right Sector secretly in Poland (as reported by the Polish NIE magazine[+]) were teaching them in the months ahead of the protests all about the techniques used during protests. And, for an obvious reason, at that time, US delegations with representatives and congressmen were frequently visiting Kyiv and supporting protesters rather than the government, intensifying the conflict rather than deescalating it – a clear “divide and rule” ploy. Having the backing of the US surely encouraged the protesters to keep on protesting ever more intensely.
US senators addressed the protesters on 15 December 2013, expressing American support for their cause. Is this appropriate? What right do US government officials have to meddle in foreign domestic affairs? Are foreign government officials allowed to incite the protesters in the US? If Russian senators and the ambassador would appear on a stage in Washington among the mass of anti-government protesters condemning police officers – would that be appropriate? Then, how appropriate was it for US Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy, US Congressman Devin Nunes, Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt2, and others to do that in Ukraine?
If the Russian embassy would fund the utilities for the protests, hand them donuts, and would receive the opposition leaders all the time during protests – would that be appropriate? Then, why was it appropriate for the US embassy to do all that? The US embassy was the headquarters of opposition leaders during the protests and revolution. They were not even hiding it and a leaked phone call[+] between Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt confirmed their orchestration of the whole regime change. The Ukrainian government was very well aware of it and asked the US not to meddle in their domestic affairs.
Let us all be reasonable and wary of double standards. Above all, let us not deny the US involvement in the regime change in Ukraine in 2014!
At the time, the Vice President of the US was Joe Biden, who was calling all the shots there just as he is doing now. The US neo-conservatives are very skilled at finding the hot buttons of the public and exploiting them to galvanize the masses against the current regime that is unwilling to obey the US, and they are also very skilled in using media as a propaganda machine to control the narrative to get the public on their side and do as told.
While Western propaganda tools such as mainstream media shouted from the rooftops about peaceful and justified anti-government Maidan protests as those served the Western interests, they omitted to mention or give equal coverage to the anti-Maidan pro-government protests who opposed them and the fact that unlike US high officials, Russian officials did not meddle like them, did not show up to give pep-talks to masses like American senators and others did, did not host protesters in the Russian embassy or consulate, did not orchestrate or fund the protests. Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
Yet, Western propagandists blamed Russian support for those pro-government protesters whom they ended up calling “separatists” and “terrorists”, whereas they praised Western support for the regime change operation! Anti-government riots in 2014 Ukraine were commended and advertised as moral (“revolution of dignity”[+]) and peaceful but riots in the US (January 6[+]), UK, France, and elsewhere in NATO countries were condemned as bad and violent[»]. Such double standards by the hypocritical Western ruling elites and their mouthpieces expose their fraudulent “rules-based order” in which only they make all the rules.
From the end of February 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-interim-government groups took place across the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, including Crimea. Local pro-Russian separatists took advantage of the situation and called for the protection of Russian forces while Crimeans organized a secession referendum[+] on 16 March and Donbas separatists occupied government buildings in their region for a short time. Due to the international disregard of the Russian ethnicity issues in Ukraine, the whole of eastern Ukraine felt alienated and decided it was their turn to follow the example of the Crimeans, taking matters into their own hands – literally.
As for anti-government protesters and their Western backers, the easiest was to blame and demonize the disobedient national leader with all sorts of character assassination techniques, which sit well with the poor and unintelligent crowds who were eager to blame any leader for their suffering. Ukrainian President Yanukovych was being unjustifiably vilified for being a Kremlin puppet, corrupt, and for ordering police to beat and kill protesters, which were all hot buttons for Ukrainians but all false allegations – Putin and he did not get along[+] and Yanukovych did nothing[+] to accommodate Putin, which punches the Kremlin puppet narrative; he was multibillionaire oligarch, so why would he need bribes, which punches the corruption narrative, and he did not order police to beat and kill protesters as evidenced by courts, which did not charge him for that. Like everyone else, he was no saint but his bad traits were highlighted and made bigger as they are just so that the masses would want a regime change, giving the US opportunity to install their puppet as the head of state.
Oddly, NATO propagandists like to throw “Kremlin puppet” a lot to suggest the person is bad for it but the fact that four Ukrainian presidents (Yushchenko, Turchynov, Poroshenko, and Zelensky) have been Washington puppets is never criticized and never meant to be bad – why is being a Washington puppet any better than being a Kremlin puppet? Why is it not condemned that a country from another continent is meddling in European affairs, orchestrating violent regime change operations, and installing its puppets as presidents of almost all European countries?! If there is anyone who by now does not realize that Zelensky is nothing but a Washington puppet, then such individuals need their heads examined. So, why is he not condemned for being a Washington puppet? His presidential campaign was also funded by an oligarch who was in exile in the US at that time. Usually, a candidate with the most funded campaign wins the election and the US had the funds to scheme a winning campaign, especially given that the poor Ukrainians looked up to the Americans, so whomever the US endorsed would be a sure winner.
When during Euromaidan protests, character assassination method was not sufficient to keep the masses protesting long enough, then the same masterminds of all these revolutions reach out for another measure to tilt the scales: taking advantage of public compassion in form of sacrificing someone significant to become a martyr who personified the essence of civil courage of the protesters intending to wreak havoc. In the Orange Revolution[*][+][+], that sacrificial lamb was the opposition leader, Yushchenko, whereas, in the Maidan Revolution, a martyr was needed every month to galvanize the public, so it was first those students beaten by riot police on 30 November, then a journalist and civic activist Tetiana Chornovol on 25 December, on 22 January it was the activist Sergei Nigoyan who was the first protester killed by shooting during the protest (in the Hrushevskoho Street riots, the culprit was never found), and lastly the victims of snipers on 20 February (shots came from the buildings controlled by the protestors paramilitary force, nevertheless Yanukovych was held responsible despite also the fact that he could not benefit from ordering such killings).
This formula always works as unsuspected masses rally behind the victims against the alleged perpetrators. The real perpetrators were never found and no evidence for persecuting the alleged perpetrators was ever found despite all the possibilities, which can only suggest one thing – the alleged perpetrators (such as Yanukovych and his team in both cases) are never guilty – otherwise, they would be easily found guilty. When in such high-profile cases, no culprit is found, we can be sure that a very skillful coverup organization is behind it, such as the CIA or SBU3. Most Ukrainians believe by now that murders of both Nigoyan and sniper victims were staged by provocateurs to escalate the conflict to facilitate the regime change.
After a couple of months of allowing the protests and obstructions of peace, as the police started removing the barricades to restore order for the municipal functioning, many protesters threw stones at them and created a wall of fire around them. Just as police brutality (torture, beatings, inhuman and degrading treatment, killings, detentions) was unacceptable, so was also the undignified violence of many protesters and revolutionaries.
There are countless reports of violence by protesters that had nothing to do with the defense, such as the Hrushevskoho Street riots[+] in response to anti-protest laws in Ukraine as protesters erected barricades to prevent the movement of government forces.
The police had been warning[+] that in case of non-compliance with the lawful demands, the law enforcers would undertake corresponding measures to free the City Hall from violators of the law but the protesters disrespected those warnings and fought against the police, so what was the law enforcement supposed to do? The law enforcers were asking the organizers and participants of protests to refrain from unlawful actions but they disobeyed, so what was the law enforcement supposed to do? They were there only to ensure public order and bring anarchy to an end.
This must be emphasized because there is much more emphasis on the crowd being the victims, although many crowd members initiated the conflict and the law officers and government were the victims of aggression, too. For the sake of being fair and all-embracing, we feel the need to even things out a bit, to ensure the balance of accountability and culpability, as in any conflict, certain responsibility lies on both sides, when observed objectively. The mainstream denialist narrative systematically downplays the wrongdoings of many protesters so as to legitimate the unconstitutional and immoral events that led to the undemocratic seizure of power by the opposition, which is why this narrative or propaganda needs to be stopped or at least revised.
Although some policemen had used excessive force at times, which was condemned as wrong even by President Yanukovych, nonetheless those who themselves had opted for the extreme measure of rioting, should know that extreme situations require extreme measures, and so have more understanding for the riot police force, especially if they had much understanding for those among themselves who used force, too. Policemen were also acting in self-defense apart from doing their job of confronting the lawbreakers.
Although history is always written by victors, it is wrong to go along with the victorious authorities that are distorting the true nature and legacy of historical turbulent events along with portraying themselves as more or less saintly heroes for future generations (as current generations know better) and their killed and died-of-heart–attack collaborators as Knights of the Order of the Heaven's Hundred Heroes. For instance, naming it a Revolution or Day of Dignity is unjustifiable aggrandizement of de facto undignifiedly antagonistic, hostile, and violent clashes that caused many deaths, harm, and an illegitimate change of government, as reminiscing all the incidents, in all honesty, it becomes quite clear that there was nothing truly dignifying (worthy of honor or respect) in the whole turbulent, rebellious revolt and its outcome – objectively assessing, this characterization or terminology is as contradictory and paradoxical as the oxymoronic term “holy war” (in some other instances).
So, rather than furthermore engaging in a blame game and judging the opponents, or turning to riots, it would be more dignifying or Christian to turn to God in prayer turn the other cheek, refrain from hostilities, admit collective responsibility, turn over a new leaf, be the light of the world[+], have a pure heart, love one’s enemies and each other. For those rioters who call themselves Christians, here is a reminder of some inspirational biblical quotes:
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” – Bible, Matt 5:9[+]
“…give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” – Bible, Romans 12:17–18[+]
“…seek the peace and prosperity of the city…” – Bible, Jeremiah 29:7[+]
Such a large protest or riot that lasted for months and even involved forcefully storming the Presidential Administration building and the Cabinet building as well as illegally seizing the City Hall for two-and-half months, after so many months of mayhem, it had to be somehow constrained by law enforcement and the rule of law had to be re-implemented (e.g., unblock the streets to restore traffic as well as prevent further anarchy, disorder, and instability), so when the mob resisted the police force (which was against the law) trying to restore order, this provoked clashes and the use of force.
This happens almost all the time in the EU[»][»][»][»][»][»][»][»][»][»][»] with large protests that are often fueled by anger, antagonism, hedonism, rivalry, blame, inconsiderateness, insulting, rage, and aggressiveness, furthermore ending up causing pain, injury, and death, therefore they should be utterly avoided (or even prohibited to avoid violence and deaths as well as anarchy, if they last too long). Unfortunately, the Euromaidan protests didn't have a peaceful, gracious leader such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Aung San Suu Kyi, who could be an inspiration for non-resistance, non-violence, and sheer benevolence, which is why their protests or mass demonstration are completely different.
The far-right[+] and other opposition leaders, who expected to benefit from the uprising (which they did), incited a riot by firing up the crowds and boosting their rebellious morale by using inflammatory speeches, exaggerating details, instigating disorder, and ideologically framing the protest with nationalist slogans, symbols, and songs, rather than calling for peaceful, honorable demeanor. What started as a peaceful protest turned into a witch-hunt and violent riot[+] whereby protesters even used a bulldozer and tractor apart from throwing bricks, rocks, sticks, flares, and Molotov cocktails at Internal Troops guards.
Peaceful people caught up in the heat of the moment didn't realize they were being used. They had been manipulated into believing they were "charging Maidan with freedom-loving energy" and making a righteous point by witch-hunting, jumping up and down under the xenophobic slogans, blocking streets, building barricades, setting fires, indiscriminately destroying and damaging public property[ꚛ] (buildings, windows, monuments, fences, etc.), engaging in vandalism and fights, skipping work, not allowing the municipal workers to perform their duties of street maintenance, occupying the City Hall, and breaking the law.
Social pressure is a powerful motivator or tool for ideological mobilization, and when everyone around was inflamed with fury, shouting opinions and slogans and demanding “change,” it was easy to be swept along with the crowd. It would be interesting to know how many of those protesters later had a possible change of heart and regretted some of their offensive, indecent and undignified actions when their passions cooled. Especially now many years later when they have finally acknowledged that nothing much has really changed for the better (or has pretty much gone from bad to worse) for them personally and that their arduous protesting and immense suffering were for nothing and what is more, it triggered the ongoing war that is causing even more deterioration and misery, tossing the nation into a hellish abyss that could even end in a catastrophic global cataclysm in the event of a nuclear war.
At first, the Maidan looked like a festival, but it all ended with mass killings. To this day, no one knows who is responsible for all the deaths, why no one has been punished, and why the authorities ordered to cut down the trees that proved that the shots were fired from the building where the deputies of the far-right ‘Svoboda’ party were positioned. Was the revolution worth it?
Despite the protests, revolution, and signing the disputed deal with the EU, Ukraine has remained the poorest country in Europe[+][+] throughout all the years before the war, the 2015 GDP growth rate of Ukraine was the worst of all 48 European states – Ukraine had no growth but decline, the poverty rate almost doubled from 2013 to 2016[+], inflation spiked[+] from zero in 2013 to 48% in 2015 (before the war in 2021, it was 9.36%) – all in all, the revolution turned out to bring decline, high inflation, poverty, corruption, and people have had it much worse than during Yanukovych presidency.
Throughout history, violent resistance movements[+] or riots never accomplished anything that could not be otherwise achieved by peaceful, democratic means. They might have been successful in bringing some change, such as a change of government, but the hoped-for transition and significant social change have not materialized (for instance, the Arab Spring failure[+]), with outcomes[+] baring subsequent political turmoil and even a complete societal collapse in some countries. Protests, anti-campaigns, and resistance are useless, as the universal law of non-resistance sees to it, while alternative political, civil, and creative (rather than destructive) approaches, methods, and tactics could have been so much more suitable, pacific, constructive, and fruitful.
In modern, civilized societies, people deal with all issues through mandatory democratic mechanisms[+] or procedures, which incorporate a range of diverse constitutional instruments, such as parliamentary votes, referendums, popular initiatives, petitions, plebiscites, and elections, among other legal frameworks, along with legal actions to be taken by the parliamentary representatives such as reforms, new laws or policies or legislature (instituting norms such as greater transparency and accountability, participation, decentralization, pluralism, egalitarianism, welfare, deregulation, sustainability, organizational and creative liberty, civil liberties, human rights and equality of opportunity), as well as activism and Civil Rights Movement, rather than through resistance movements and violence. In democratic societies, the majority rules rather than the minority or an unsatisfied, rowdy, violent mob. The Ukrainian majority voted for pro-Russian candidates in both the presidential and the parliamentary elections, let's not forget that. The displeased opposition in the capital Kyiv had no legal right to overthrow the elected government through protests or revolution but only through legal democratic elections.
However, under international law, as an ethnic minority and indigenous people, the members of the opposition should have had the right to internal self-determination – to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. But democratic systems don't allow it, which is why some minorities will always feel the tyranny of the majority[+]. Their choice was an association with the EU, which the majority of the time didn't vote for because the EU conditions and the ultimatum were not optimal for the whole of Ukraine. Yet, if they chose to live in a democracy, rather than protest, they should have respected the will of the majority and democratic “majority rule”.
The best solution in such a divisive society would be to form two states in the west and east, thereby each could have freely self-determined its status – western Ukraine could have joined the EU and eastern Ukraine could have joined Russia if they wanted to. This way no one would force any faction to live in oppression.
As neutral and objective peace activists, we are only asking for everything being equal and for everyone to be fair and to oblige to the Golden Rule[+] – the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated: Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated. So, Ukrainians should have not treated pro-Russian Ukrainians in ways that they would not like to be treated. According to the universal laws of causality and reciprocity, they reap what they sowed and got to be treated the same way back.
Unconstitutional Overthrow of the President
When it comes to the issue of the overthrow of President Yanukovych, let us point to Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that "The President of Ukraine may be removed from office ... by the majority of the constitutional composition of the ... Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime." There was no majority (three-quarters or 75% is mandatory) parliamentary vote and no procedure of impeachment4 [+] that could legally remove President Viktor Yanukovych from office before and after he was forced into exile and no treason or any other crime was ever proven in court against him at the time5, therefore, the overthrow of both President and government was unconstitutional and illegal.
On 22 February 2014, parliamentary voting officially removed Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine on the grounds that he “was unable to fulfill his duties and to hold early presidential elections on May 25”. In legal terms, these grounds are unconstitutional or illegal as according to the Ukrainian Constitution, apart from death and health reasons, a President could be removed only by the impeachment on the grounds of committing state treason or other crime, and he had to be convicted of it by Court and not by the members of the opposition! Moreover, according to Ukraine Constitution, removal required that at least three-quarters of parliament’s “constitutional membership” vote in favor of removal. Three-quarters or 75% were 338 votes that were needed to remove a president but only 328 members of parliament voted for removal, which was about 73% votes. From a legal point of view, also the vote to remove him failed, which means he was removed unconstitutionally. Find out more here[+][+][+].
Pro-Yanukovych deputies were beaten and threatened[+] so they either voted ‘correctly’ or did not attend the Rada session of impeachment; a process that did not even exist in Ukraine’s constitution.
As it transpired, Ukrainians violated their Constitution and international law, which means that then the new snap elections three months later (25 May 2014) were illegal and the successors were an illegitimate regime, nevertheless, the NATO states leaders recognized the regime as legitimate because it was its puppet regime.
The same day (22.2.2014), Yanukovych fled from the capital to the south of Ukraine, and two days later (24.2.2014) "in the atmosphere of extremist threats" he took exile in Russia, thanking Putin for "saving his life". Yanukovych didn't resign or abandon his post, so if he allegedly “withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner”, it was only because the opposition mob has forced him to do so as they unconstitutionally ousted him – under direct threats to his life and the lives of his loved ones, fearing for his life, he was forced to flee Ukraine and seek protection from Russia. As captured in a video[»][»][»], on 21 February 2014, one of the Euromaidan activists, military commander Volodymyr Parasyuk, from the main Euromaidan stage declared Maidan's ultimatum threatening and vowing to attack and drive Yanukovych away using weapons if he doesn't resign by 10 am next day. The following morning Yanukovych flew to south Ukraine without resigning. Let us not undermine the fact that his car was shot at and his residence was seized by a “self-defense” militia of protesters – is this “peaceful” and constitutional? Of course, not.
Also, on 23 February, parliament dismissed many Ministers and judges of the Supreme Council of Justice. Moreover, in the following months, eight Yanukovych administration officials, including a former member of the Ukrainian parliament, were killed (allegedly, all have committed suicide, which cannot be right and, according to Newsweek[+], suggests a foul play by Kyiv regime), along with a string of suspicious deaths[+] of other Yanukovych allies (ethnic Russian officials, journalists, activists, etc.), which all proves he was right to flee to save his life.
Unconstitutional, illegal overthrow of the President Viktor Yanukovych and forcing the Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to resign, both of whom were members of the Party of Regions, which was the party that the vast majority of Crimean people voted for, this meant that the new violent regime (packed with neo-Nazis and other anti-Russian politicians) removed the high-officials who represented them in the government. Under such dire circumstances in which Crimeans were not represented in the government and their rights were violated, they had every right to exercise their right to self-determination and secede from such hostile government. International community that was intimidated by NATO leaders, who backed the new undemocratically selected Kyiv regime, had no right to decide their fate.
To validify their illegal actions of forcing the President from office, the pro-Western protesters and the opposition leaders who formed a new government have been laying out a narrative portraying Yanukovych as a corrupt Russian puppet but presented no evidence[+] to support their claims – to this day there has been no definitive court verdict with concrete evidence of his guilt of corruption or misappropriating funds from Ukraine's treasury. Perhaps the allegators are right but it is curious why no one came up with any legal evidence for alleged corruption, cronyism, and nepotism – challenged in court[+][+], it turned out there was no legal basis for any such claims. If they were corrupt, this would mean that someone had to bribe him but there is no evidence of him taking any bribes whatsoever while there has been plenty of evidence that his accusers (who illegally took power from him) took bribes. Ukrainians let the fox guard the henhouse, so to speak.
The protesters opposed government corruption, the influence of oligarchs, the abuse of power, and the violation of human rights (such as police brutality) in Ukraine but the irony of all that is that after the Revolution and the change of government, nothing improved at all but even worsened as the opposition leaders who then took government posts were later almost all accused of or charged with corruption, many protesters themselves were corrupt as accepting bribes was common in all sectors, an oligarch (Poroshenko) was elected as President, and the violation of human rights in Ukraine increased drastically with countless Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity being mistreated and killed.
For instance, Yatsenyuk[+] who was selected (not elected) by the US officials as the new Prime Minister on 27.2.2014 had to resign two years later, facing allegations of inaction and corruption[+][+][+]; oligarch Poroshenko[+], the next elected president was involved in several corruption scandals[+][+][+][+], as well as one of the Maidan revolution leaders, Kyiv Mayor, former boxer, Vitali Klitschko[+].
What fueled the Euromaidan protests was the alleged corruption of the President and his officials but the irony or hypocrisy is that most people protesting were corrupt themselves, which meant that the corrupt people were condemning another corrupt person. That's a case of adulterers casting stones or “the pot calling the kettle black”, which is an English expression for a situation in which a person accuses someone of or criticizes someone for something that they themselves are guilty of. At the time, Ukraine was the most corrupt country in Europe[+] (according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index[+] and The Guardian[+]) and the third most corrupt in the whole world (in 2012 according to Ernst & Young survey).
The forms of corruption in Ukraine[+] vary, but besides kleptocracy and other political forms, there is bribery, lobbying, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement in all other aspects of society. The guilty are not only the ones who take bribes (politicians, public servants, mayors, policemen, vehicle inspectors, businesspersons, judges, lawyers, doctors, professors, journalists, etc.) but also those who give or offer them – in other words, almost all Ukrainians. Ukraine's judicial system was or still is notoriously corrupt.
One of the main opposition leaders during the 2014 protests and revolution, Yatsenyuk, who blamed the then President for corruption and who came to power promising to tackle corruption, was later himself accused of corruption, even though no concrete evidence has emerged just like with former President Yanukovych (as with sowing-and-reaping or karma principle and Matthew 7:2[+] – “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”) claiming to be a victim of a defamation campaign (something he himself did against the former president Yanukovych).
The average state prosecutor's wage is equivalent to €400 per month but they drive in shiny Porsches, BMWs, and Land Rovers. Absurdly, Tymoshenko run for office then to replace him but she was convicted of abuse of power and embezzlement (even if her arrest and conviction were ‘politically motivated’ or ‘arbitrary and unlawful’, this doesn't mean that she was not guilty of the charges[+] – trial had flaws, but the sentence is fully justified[+]) and the new elected President was Poroshenko, who served before as head of the parliamentary budget committee, where he was accused in 2004 of misplacing the equivalent of $8.9 million and in 2005 allegations were raised against him of corruption involving the privatizations of state-owned firms, which resulted in him being dismissed from office. In a culture where corruption was common all around, it was irrational and unfair to assign fault only to the President or a few government officials, when the whole nation should hold itself accountable. As much as the President was to blame, so are the majority of Ukrainians who were no better in that regard. This applies not only to corruption charges but everything else.
What fueled the protests, besides the alleged corruption of President Yanukovych and his officials, was also their alleged misappropriation of funds from Ukraine's treasury (in other words, stealing from the government) but the irony or hypocrisy is that most Ukrainians were themselves stealing from the government as shadow economy (tax evasion or participation in black market activity with cash transactions) had flourished long before he took office, which meant that the crooks were condemning another crook. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Once again, in a culture where it was common to rip the government off, it was irrational and unfair to assign fault only to the President or a few government officials, when the whole nation should hold itself accountable. As much as the President was to blame, so are the majority of Ukrainians who were no better in that regard.
Unfortunately, no one of the opposition leaders was as clever as Jesus to remind the crowds of his wise words: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him." Or "Let anyone among you who never accepted a bribe or ripped off the government be the first to overthrow the President." Instead, they led the nation astray to the edge of the abyss. As Yanukovych was virtually “crucified” for the sins that most Ukrainians also had committed (even if on a smaller scale), he did not have the aptitude to atone for collective sins. Because Yanukovych didn't surrender to the “cross” or to the potential impeachment procedure in order to take the whole responsibility (and defense) onto himself as the leader and so possibly save his adherents from suffering a similar fate, therefore his advocates were not spared and he is deemed as a coward by many (if not most) of his former supporters.
In his legal defense, Yanukovych could have exposed the national, collective, and cultural sins of which he or his clique alone was scapegoated at the time of the protests and so give the whole nation the chance to acknowledge their own same sins, repent, and forgive him so that they could also be forgiven by God and so cease to commit those sins of corruption and stealing from the government, even if only on a smaller scale. It never came to that, so the Ukrainians and their legislative representatives have been carrying on transgressing all the same and have kept on reaping what they sow, which will go on so long until a cathartic paradigm shift occurs – with the help of an extraordinary, virtufied trendsetter-slash-role model, a shining example to all, who has not transpired so far yet.
In the current social and political climate, in a country that is run by self-promoting personalities and driven by wheeling-and-dealing schemes, showmanship, conspiracies, and condemnations, such a virtue-driven, authentic (with a deep-rooted Slavic identity) person or community has still not been enabled to develop a platform where like-minded new social and political outside-of-box thinkers, trendsetters, trailblazers, or torch-bearers could join forces and build momentum to inspire and mobilize the masses to raise consciousness[+] so as to make a breakthrough into a higher plane of existence.
In an overwhelmingly masculine culture dominating the Ukrainian governing body of the past era, a potent wire-puller, who could shift the nation to balance and unity, needs to have stark feminine energy and be equally pro-West and pro-East at the same time (with a non-duality attitude) in order to unite the nation around the same benevolent inherent Slavic principles. Bear in mind, if both Ukraine and Russia would have had female presidents, there would be no war, as feminine women (as opposed to women acting like men) leaders never wage wars but solve issues with finesse rather than force. “The Necessity of a War” fallacy is almost always soaked in testosterone and machismo. Have a look around who could be that wise lady in Ukraine and then support her, as such a virtue-driven matriarch has not in her to engage in the self-promotion that is usually needed to successfully campaign for the presidency or crown or any other high post in government. If necessary, look beyond the borders for such an admirable sovereign because no unnatural boundaries or limitations should ever prevent a nation to find a true savior for a necessary paradigm shift to take place and fundamental transformation to occur.
Coming back to the issue of commonly shared corruptive and immoral traits, given that it would be hypocritical and unfair to condemn these shared cultural traits only in a select few (scapegoating), a question arises of what the real drive for persistent protesting was, even if the initial motive was just to have closer ties with the EU.
It might be simply the case of a collective or national or cultural psychological syndrome or process known as projecting[+][+] (conceptualized by Sigmund Freud), deflecting[+], gaslighting[+], or diversion[+] whereby the doers of it are known as gaslighters[+]. In this context, projection is the defensive process of diverting or displacing one’s flaws onto a different person (the President) – attributing one’s own unacceptable inclinations to another person.
Despite being absurd or bizarre, projecting is one of the most commonly-used defense or denial mechanisms using (on a conscious or unconscious level) a rationale such as I can't own up to my behavior, so I’m going to put it on you. To suppress thoughts of their undesirable traits, people have a general tendency to defensively project their specific or worst shortcomings and sins onto others as a means of denying that they have them. Thereby, one’s ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of oneself by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others – a corrupt person may project claims of corruption and immorality onto other people. Psychological projection[+][+] incorporates blame shifting and this abusive behavior and finger-pointing can manifest as bullying, shame dumping, public shaming, blame casting, scapegoating, and cancel culture. This kick-the-dog syndrome is a matter of aggressing against a substitute target.
Accusing others of one's own behavior (“the pot calling the kettle black”) is a classic gaslighter's act[+]. In most cases, projecting is done out of deep-seated guilt, shame, or self-hatred but also due to one’s twisted sense of reality. On some level, in their subconscious mind, gaslighters know they occasionally engage in some flawed behavior but are not willing to admit it to themselves or quit doing it, so they project their flaw(s) onto others to condemn these flaws this way rather than to condemn themselves. Most gaslighters are not aware that they are doing it, which is why this adverse practice unintentionally or unconsciously becomes their usual mannerism. Doing so, they can't bring themselves to repent and stop sinning but instead, judge others for it, which brings doom to them. This social aberration is warned against throughout many religious and philosophical scripts, including Bible (Matthew 7:1-5[+]) in Jesus’ parable[+] in his Sermon on the Mount[+]:
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
The moral of this parable is to avoid hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and censoriousness (public scolding or public shaming).
Another instance of this bizarreness in which somebody accuses someone else of a fault that the accuser shares is a proverbial idiom "The pot calling the kettle black".
Speaking of which, this singling out a person (Yanukovych) or group for blame and consequent negative treatment is an improper practice also known as scapegoating[+]. Scapegoating serves as a psychological relief for a group of people but, since it is immoral and destructive conduct, it can't possibly serve as a decent and constructive solution.
Deflection is another fallacy that refers to the act of blaming another person for your own mistakes or shortcomings rather than accepting the blame or criticism yourself. This type of defensiveness as a coping skill is commonly used to divert the focus or blame away from ourselves, which is also known as diversion.
We are pointing to all this not to discredit the claim of the alleged President's wrongdoing nor to condemn the protesters for their own similar behavior but only to question the rightfulness of forcefully and unconstitutionally overthrowing the president (rather than through an impeachment procedure or election).
Because if Ukrainians deem it correct to capriciously remove the President from his duty, then according to the same logic, they should also do so for all the other politicians, public servants, mayors, policemen, vehicle inspectors, businesspersons, judges, lawyers, doctors, professors, journalists, and all others who are corrupt or evade paying taxes through cash transactions (ripping off the government). Otherwise, it is a matter of scapegoating rather than justice.
In strikes and protests, projecting or blame shifting is used by inferiors toward their superiors, such as bosses and leaders, who are supposed to be role models. This is why the masses have projected their flaws of corruption and stealing from the government on President Yanukovych rather than condemning themselves or those among anti-government protesters who were guilty of the same “crimes”.
In the case of narcissistic personality disorder, which many leaders suffer from, narcissists feel they are totally okay and think that others are the ones who have a problem. This is called ego-syntonic behavior. It is very difficult to get a narcissistic gaslighter to get help through counseling because they think you have the problem, not them. Projecting behavior can get to the point where a gaslighter delusionally believes that they are being oppressed or ill-treated or victimized or threatened, when in fact the opposite is true. Many rulers in the history of mankind, who have been deemed as evil, were not evil at all but just suffering from the gaslighter personality disorder. They simply felt they had to do something about the huge threat and often is the attack the best defense.
If the opposition leaders of the time were really concerned about the public welfare or just power-hungry or gaslighters may be evident to all who care to think it through and consider what those ringleaders have done after they seized power, whether they did anything significant to improve the conditions in Ukraine, whether or not they have proven that they are worthier and more competent than those whom they forcefully overthrew at the cost of too many lives and provoking a war. A frustrated but most likely well-meaning opposition coalition took the chance to take advantage of public dissatisfaction for their own means, probably with good intentions (but let's not forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions).
It is certainly right to remove corrupted government officials from office but in civilized, democratic societies, this is done by legal means rather than by force, as everyone has a fundamental right to defend themselves in court. As Amnesty International commentated[+]: “To deny Yanukovych, his allies or other opposition members that same right – through imprisonment or death, or through lack of an effective investigation – would be the height of hypocrisy. It is also a betrayal of human rights, which must be protected for everyone, regardless of their political stripes.”
Even if the opposition were more righteous and less corrupt than the governing officials, it was illegal and unconstitutional to overthrow a president without any legal evidence and the impeachment procedure, or only because he suspended a pending EU association agreement, choosing instead to pursue a Russian $15 billion bailout and closer ties with Russia, even if that meant he abused his powers. If he abused his powers, according to the Ukrainian Constitution, there should have been a trial or the procedure of impeachment instead of violent protests and revolution. Yanukovych should have been given the right to legally defend himself in the court of justice but he was being denied his rights from the start. So, to be perfectly honest, even if the opposition had the best intentions and even if it was right and worthier than the elected government officials, the whole manner in which the Ukrainian Prime Minister, President, Ministers, and judges were removed from their office was unconstitutional and illegal, along with subsequent killings[+] of many of the pro-Russian former government officials, activists, and journalists. In democratic societies, if any government officials abuse their powers and are suspected to be corrupt or guilty of any crimes, then these matters are resolved in the court of justice, not by revolution, force, or killing.
In a series of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights[+] on the Maidan protests, Ukraine was found to be in breach of its obligation to investigate and prosecute human rights violations and was ordered to pay compensation to the victims. For some reason, such findings didn't negatively impact Ukraine’s international reputation.
The alleged illegally acquired assets have been taken away from the former President without any legal basis. In 2019, without being able to defend himself in court, Yanukovych was convicted on treason charges for his attempts to quash a 2014 pro-Western uprising but to this day there was no evidence and no verdict on anything that would give validity for his removal from office in February 2014, which means, there was no legal basis for revolution and for overthrowing him.
To be fair, if Yanukovych was being accused of promoting Russian interests, then many opposition leaders should have been accused of promoting EU interests.
Also, if President Yanukovych was rightly convicted for attempts to quash a 2014 pro-Western uprising, then by the same token, Presidents Poroshenko and Zelensky should also have been convicted for attempts to quash a pro-Russian uprising since 2014. Otherwise, it is a case of double standards. If fairness means anything to Ukrainians, the leaders of the opposition should have been convicted for their illegal occupation of the Kyiv City Hall (1 December 2013 - 16 February 2014) and the parliament building, the president's administration quarters, the Cabinet building, and the Interior Ministry (on 21 February 2014) and for unlawfully, undemocratically overthrowing the government, because if trying to restore order is seen as treason, then causing disorder should be even more so. Fair is fair.
And, if the President was somewhat responsible for police brutality and bloodshed (although he did not give any orders to use firearms, as that was not his authority[+] but of the police chief and head of Berkut, and the Ukrainian Constitution allowed police to use weapons during protests), then also the revolution's lead figures should be responsible for protesters’ violence and their killing of 18 police officers and wounding 200-300 other law enforcers. Also, the ringleaders were being criticized[+] for failing to warn and protect the protesters and for their plan lacking logic and coherence.
However, those opposition leaders had been given a reign instead of conviction. Logically, the victors would not convict themselves but divine justice took care of that, as one by one were removed from office, losing their political power, and being disgraced under criminal investigation – as with the sowing-and-reaping principle and Matthew 7:2[+] quote: “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
For instance, Yatsenyuk[+] who was selected (not elected) by the US officials as the new Prime Minister on 27.2.2014 had to resign two years later, facing allegations of inaction and corruption[+][+][+]; Turchynov[+] who was assigned as acting President of Ukraine after Yanukovych was replaced three months later when he became Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament only to be replaced circa five months later; oligarch Poroshenko[+], the next elected president, failed to successfully end the civil war and to stem corruption, was involved in several corruption scandals[+][+][+][+] and under his rule, there was a rapid decline in the overall quality of life, and as he did it to Yanukovych, he was accused of state treason and a Ukrainian court seized his property. Far-right politician Tyahnybok[+][»] failed to win needed votes in both presidential and parliamentary elections. Andriy Parubiy[+] was then appointed as Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine but had to resign a few months later. Right-wing military nationalist Yarosh[+] demanded to be appointed Vice Prime Minister for law enforcement matters, but his demand was rejected, also failed in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election but won and later lost a seat in the Parliament).
The Issue of the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement
What set the Euromaidan protests off was the changed decision by Ukrainian President Yanukovych to suspend signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement[+], which would have facilitated free trade zone, possibly (not certainly) eased travel restrictions to the EU, as well as provided some economic assistance, among other advantages but also disadvantages.
Yanukovych said he decided not to sign it when expected in November 2013 mostly because of the pressure from Russia but also because the deal would threaten the Ukrainian manufacturers and agricultural industry (the major industry in Ukraine). Although the deal had some advantages for Ukraine, overall, it was more disadvantageous, which is why Yanukovych kept pushing for improvements of the deal but the predatory, self-serving EU leaders wouldn’t make a compromise and rather made every effort to back a regime change operation to remove him from office and install their puppet instead.
What most people failed to understand was that Yanukovych didn't reject the deal but simply didn't want to consent to the EU’s bullying, to their insolent and patronizing ultimatum to choose between Europe and Russia and wanted to renegotiate the terms that were disadvantageous to Ukraine at that time. Making Ukraine choose the EU and turn its back on Russia would split the country in two as the country was deeply divided (evidenced by KIIS polls[+][+]) as to whether it should join Europe or remain close politically, economically, and culturally to Russia. An opinion poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in mid-November 2013[+] registered the geopolitical choice of Ukrainian citizens. A minority of Ukrainians – only 31% preferred the country to sign an agreement on the Association and Free Trade Area with the European Union and, becoming a member of the EU, having closed borders with Russia – with visas and customs. In other words, a majority (almost 70%) didn't want that.
Also, Putin gave Yanukovych and Ukraine an offer he could not refuse – a $15 billion bailout and billions in gas price reduction plus a tripartite arrangement whereby all three sides (Ukraine, Russia, and the EU) would benefit from it.
His and Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement was flatly rejected by EU and US officials. Therefore, instead of an inconsiderate outrage, the Ukrainian public should have thought about the whole matter more thoroughly, especially knowing that the President always showed his inclination toward the EU.
President Yanukovych was reluctant to sign the deal also for ‘reasons of national security’. The EU’s proposal included under-reported “security policy” provisions that would subordinate Ukraine to NATO.
Also, a major obstacle for Yanukovych to sign the deal with the EU was their requirement to release his arch-enemy and main political opponent Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, who was sentenced to seven years in prison for a series of criminal cases[+].
Tymoshenko is the leader of Fatherland (Batkivshchyna) party in parliament, was co-leader of US-backed protests known as the ‘Orange Revolution’ (2004-2005) protesting 2004 election results in which Yanukovych won them, former Prime Minister (2007-2010), and by now, 3-time presidential candidate, but to know what kind of person she is, how much she hates Yanukovych and all other ethnic Russians, it is enough just to hear her talking like a fascist in a leaked telephone conversation[+][+][+] on 8 March 2014 (she was in Berlin hospital at the time), where, apart from swearing like a fishwife and making outrageous threats to Russians rather than acting as a decent politician, she shows her murderous side (“I am ready to grab a machine gun and shoot that mother f***er in the head” – is this how decent politician or wannabe president should talk?) and hatred for Russian ethnic minorities (“It's about time we grab our guns and go kill those damned Russians together with their leader... I would’ve found a way to kill all those a*****es”). And to the question “What should we do now with 8 million Russians living in Ukraine? They are outcasts!”, Tymoshenko answered: “They must be killed with nuclear weapons.”[+][+][+] Did this kind of person deserve amnesty? Imagine if she then won a presidential election (she tried 3 times[+], including then in 2014 and 2019)!
In all fairness, what right had the EU to interfere in Ukrainian internal justice affairs concerning prisoners? Ukrainians were upset with Russia interfering in their affairs but why were they not upset with the EU doing the same?!
Another important question is, why was Mrs. Tymoshenko so important to the EU that they would not sign the deal without this demand being met? Tymoshenko herself stated[+] that her imprisonment should not stop the European Union from establishing closer ties with Ukraine. Why did the EU care if she was in prison or not? Could it be that Tymoshenko was the EU's puppet and therefore wanted her to win the next presidential elections? The Ukrainian European People's Party demanded the immediate release of Yulia Tymoshenko and other political prisoners and insisted that the association agreement between Ukraine and the European Union should not be signed and ratified until these demands were met but they never provided any evidence of her not being guilty of the charges, neither did the EU.
President Yanukovych also cited the need to improve Ukraine’s declining trade with Russia and other CIS countries6[+]. Problem was, Ukraine could not afford to sacrifice trade with Russia, which opposed the Ukrainian deal with the EU (to defend Eurasian markets, as a free trade deal between Ukraine and the EU would “squeeze out” Russian and other Eurasian goods). Russia was Ukraine's largest trading partner at the time. Ukraine's economy relied heavily on exports to Russia and its allies. More than 60 percent of its exports went to other former Soviet republics, mostly to Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Also, Yanukovych needed to maintain good relations with Moscow to secure a lower price for deliveries of costly Russian gas for the Ukrainian economy.
If Yanukovych would have signed the deal with the EU, Russia would have banned some of Ukraine's goods, applied trade sanctions against many Ukrainian goods, raise tariffs on Ukrainian imports, and interrupted gas supplies to Ukraine. This would have been disastrous for Ukraine's economy (which would then mean that Yanukovych would lose the next election), so for the President to accept the EU's ultimatum, the EU leaders should have offered compensation of sorts for those losses but they didn't.
Yanukovych estimated that Ukraine needed $160 billion over three years to make up for the trade Ukraine stood to lose with Russia and to help cushion the pain from reforms the EU was demanding. The EU refused to give such a sum and offered to lend Ukraine only 610 million euros ($804 million), which was highly insufficient (Putin offered much more – a Russian $15 billion bailout and billions in gas price reduction; also, the loss of earnings from exports[+] to Russia were around $12 billion a year until 2022 and since then over $15 billion – in 2013 export was $15,1 billion and in 2022 less than half a billion[+]). Besides, Ukraine would need at least 20bn euros a year to upgrade its economy to "European standards".
What's more, the Ukrainian market would inevitably be flooded with better quality goods from the West and Ukrainian goods would be forced out of the Ukrainian market.
And, let's not forget that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland (top 3 highest HDI scores[+] in 2022 and all three rank in the top 5 the happiest countries, according to the UN Ranking of Happiness[+]) refused to join the EU, and like with Switzerland, the major obstacle for Ukraine was that the agricultural industry would no longer be protected by import tariffs and quotas. Signing the agreement would lead to economic turmoil and political unrest. This is exactly what happened.
Almost a decade later after signing the disputed deal, all these concerns turned out to be well-founded, because despite conforming to the EU's terms, Ukraine has remained the poorest country in Europe[+][+] throughout all the years before 2022 and is losing over $50 billion/year due to signing the deal with the EU due to decreased export earnings, extra import costs, and lower transit fees[*].
Some might justify poverty with the costly civil war (armed conflict in Donbas 2014-2021[+]), which surely damaged the Ukrainian economy, but the main factor for the continuation of Ukrainian poverty (GDP decline[+] since 2013) has been the trade deficit[+] with the EU due to more import than export and the loss of export earnings from Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. The increased exports to the EU[+] haven't compensated for the losses of former exports to Russia[+] – $12 billion/year less in exports to Russia versus only less than a $5 billion gain/year in new trade balance with the EU (which is then more than $7 billion loss each year and comparing 2011 with 2021 the loss is even bigger – 11 billion per year just with Russia). Plus Ukraine is losing over $2,3 billion a year from export decrease to Kazakhstan[+] and Belarus[+] (that are in the Customs Union with Russia). As statistics show, the trade balance[+] with the EU according to the new trade deal hasn't been as near as good as with Russia and its Union – Ukraine gained less than $5 billion a year in trade balance with the EU when comparing the year 2013 with 2021. So, economically speaking, with the trade deal with the EU, Ukraine gained around $5 billion a year but lost around $14,3 billion/year, which would mean that Ukraine is losing almost $10 billion a year because they signed the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement (or because they chose EU over Russia).
And what's more, the prices for Ukrainian imports from Russia, especially gas, have increased significantly, which means that the loss is then higher than $10 billion a year, furthermore drowning the Ukrainian economy.
Since 2015, Ukraine buys Russian gas not from Russia but indirectly from traders in Western Europe, which is then much more expensive due to fees paid to traders and Russia increasing prices for the EU (as a penalty for sanctions imposed on Russia). This also means that Russian gas is presented in the statistics[+] as an import from the EU instead of Russia, which is why the decrease in imports from Russia is shown as decreasing significantly.
Not to mention the loss of a Russian $15 billion bailout[+] and a significant reduction of Russian gas price by about a third ($268 instead of $400 per 1,000 cubic meters), which Putin generously offered to Ukraine to ditch the EU Association Agreement in 2013.
Cut off from Russian markets, already in 2017, Ukraine's economy shrunk by 20%[+]! As Ukraine's Minister of Economic Development and Trade reported[+] in November 2017, Kyiv lost $15 billion after Russia closed its borders to consumer goods from Ukraine, which was is almost a fifth of the country's GDP. The gross domestic product of Ukraine was then $93 billion but before the Maidan revolution at the end of 2013, the Ukrainian economy produced $183 billion. The Association Agreement with the EU turned out to be a disaster for Ukrainian economy!
Logically, the clever EU leaders would never propose a trade deal that would cause a trade deficit for the EU, which means that if the EU should have a trade surplus with Ukraine, then Ukraine must have a trade deficit, so indeed, the ratio of mutual export and import – the trade balance[+] between Ukraine and the EU – has been in favor of the EU all these years, which is causing a greater overall trade deficit[+] in Ukraine and inflation[+]. On top of that, Ukraine has lost all the gains from exporting to Russia, plus Russia is charging them more for the imports – a total catastrophe for Ukraine! Even more so, knowing that countless Ukrainians protested and died for it in 2014 – they naively sacrificed themselves to be exploited by the EU (not to blame the clever EU, this is how capitalism works)! If protesters had only known what they were getting themselves into!
As the “Imports, exports and trade balance between the EU and Ukraine from 2011-2021” graph[+] shows, the trade deal turns out to be further in favor of the EU and damaging to Ukraine, as the growth of EU exports (Ukrainian imports) has been faster than the rate of EU imports (Ukrainian exports) growth, which proves that Yanukovych was right about refusing to sign the deal without adjusting it to better suit Ukrainian interests. And Putin was also right because Ukraine's trade balance was better before the 2005 Orange Revolution when Ukraine's main trade partner was Russia, not the EU.
As the statistics show, Ukraine's trade balance[+] started to plummet into deficit after the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004/2005 and hasn't recovered into surplus ever since, proving that the trade deal with the EU was not good for the Ukrainian economy.
Since the EU trade deal signed in 2014 that came into effect in 2017, the Ukrainian economy worsened because Ukrainian overall exports[+] and GDP[+] decreased compared to the years before signing the deal, and Ukraine ended up with an increase in trade deficit[+] with much more imports than exports until COVID-19 restrictions when imports dropped much more than exports.
In 2017, the country’s debt stood at $124 billion and only rose to $135 billion in 2021[+][+]. Ukraine received a $40 billion International Monetary Fund loan bailout (not from the EU but from IMF – UN's financial agency), which didn't work but, as part of the deal, privatized 342 state-owned enterprises; reduced public sector employment by 20%, along with salary and pension cuts, as well as health and unemployment benefits cuts; privatized health care and disinvested in public education, closing 60% of its universities[+].
If Russia had meddled in their domestic affairs to such an extent and pressured them to do all that and if it had like the West7 caused such a deepening economic downturn, Ukrainians would have been in an uproar but since the West did all that, then it was somehow okay – how smart is that?! The only reason Ukrainian leaders and media (both of whom influence the public) are not complaining about the US and EU is that they got corrupted by those countries, receiving huge bribes to keep it going. Just like many African leaders whose countries are very rich in natural resources but very poor due to being extremely exploited by US companies.
Until 2014, Russia provided a whopping $250 billion in subsidized loans to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, nonetheless, Russians were seen as villains whenever they interfered in Ukrainian politics but when the West provided much less and de facto made laws and rules in Ukraine, then this is perceived as not just acceptable but the West is admired for it. Go figure! This is clearly attributable to legislative bribery and corruption, as well as mind control.
One of the main benefits that protesters hoped for from the deal with the EU[+], which was worth taking to the streets, was an alleged visa-free travel but this was never part of the deal (just “steps towards visa-free movement of people”). However, with or without the Association Agreement, Ukrainians would easily get work visas if they wanted to work in the EU anyway (Labour Market Shortages In The European Union[+] – June 2013 report) especially in Germany, as Germany struggled at the time[+] and still struggles with the shortage of cheap labor and skilled workers (especially in sectors such as technology, catering, logistics, construction, education, and nursing), which is why immigrants are more than welcome to come and work. Even now with over a million[+] Ukrainian refugees (as well as over half a million[+] Syrian refugees plus half a million[+] other refugees) living and allowed to work in Germany, as of June 2023[+][+], Germany still lacks workers and needs about 400.000 skilled immigrants each year as its aging workforce shrinks. As developed nations became more economically dependent on immigrant workers, there was more political pressure for the EU to enter reciprocal relationships with other nations, particularly the poverty-stricken ones, like Ukraine. So, protesters were fighting for it in vain.
And not only that, they were protesting to serve the interests of the EU and the US. Plenty of evidence for that we provide throughout this peace initiative but let's mention another one in this context of Ukrainians protesting for the opportunity to work abroad rather than in their homeland. Amid the pandemic between 2020-2021, despite the shortage of medical staff in Ukrainian hospitals, over 60.000 Ukrainian doctors and other health workers left the country to serve foreign patients rather than their fellow countrymen in need of care – draw your own conclusions.
All in all, when we add up all the economic gains and losses of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, which protesters were fighting for and which caused so many people to die and led to the war with Russia, this Agreement turns out to be much more disadvantageous than beneficial, just as former Ukrainian President Yanukovych suspected and therefore was reluctant to sign under the offered terms and was requesting better terms.
And, as if all those disadvantages were not enough, disrespecting more than 8 million people who identified as ethnic Russians (17.3% of the population of Ukraine) and turning back on Ukrainian long-standing ally Russia incited political unrest of such a proportion that the cost of lives and destruction could never be justified with the gains from the EU deal. Everyone anticipated Russian backlash and conflict but they went through it anyway, rather than insisting on the tripartite arrangement between the EU, Ukraine, and Russia, which Putin and Yanukovych proposed and the EU declined unjustifiably.
It is safe to conclude that there would be no revolution, no Crimea's secession, no Donbas resistance movement, and no Russo-Ukrainian war if only the EU accepted a tripartite arrangement in 2013 rather than insisting on Ukraine choosing between the EU and Russia.
The EU is facing the consequences now with an energy and food crisis and increased (doubled[+]) inflation. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Turning to Russia instead of the EU would have its disadvantages too, as it would undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and give Russian oligarchs a free hand in Ukraine but it is hard to tell if that would be to Ukrainian disadvantage or advantage. What is not hard to tell due to hard core facts, giving Western, especially American billionaires a free hand in Ukraine is certainly to Ukrainian disadvantage, as we explained in the segment on Western invasion[*].
Turning to the EU undermines Ukrainian sovereignty, too, because the EU imposed its own rules, laws, and reforms, as well as backed those Ukrainian politicians to get elected in Parliament and as President, who promote the EU interest more than the Ukrainian interests. Conforming to the EU interests rather than Russian interests also gave the EU's moguls a free hand in Ukraine. The agreement obliges Ukraine to economic, judicial, and financial reforms to converge its policies and legislation to those of the European Union. Most likely, they are much better than the ones Ukraine had beforehand but if they adopted the Russian policies and legislation, maybe it would be even better for the economy.
To get evidence on how Ukraine would have much better off to stay in Russia's sphere of influence and a member of CIS[+], please see the detailed explanation in the Appendix about “Comparison of Russia's and The EU's Economies”[*]8 – there you may find out all the data on how Russia has been doing better than the EU at that time and ever since, and how the EU is exploiting Ukraine with the trade deal that is part of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, for which oblivious Ukrainians protested for three months and many died for it and as a greater consequence, hundreds of thousands are still dying in the ongoing conflict with Russia that was triggered by it. They foolishly fight to be part of the predatory West.
In that comparison, presenting official facts and statistics, there is evidence that the EU is exploiting Ukraine – imposing Ukraine to import more than export to the EU while also prohibiting Ukraine to trade freely with Russia. As already pointed out, Ukraine's economy or trade balance[+] had been doing better before choosing the EU as the main trade partner or before the Orange Revolution in 2004/2005 when Russia was Ukraine’s main trade partner because then the trade balance was in surplus whereas, with trading with the EU, it is in deficit.
In 2013 or 2014, when determining which of the two would be a better trade partner, Ukrainians should have compared the export/import projections (to determine which trade balance would be better for Ukraine) as well as the GDP per capita growth of the EU and Russia (to determine which of them is developing better). From 2000 (when Putin first took office) till 2013 Russia's GDP per capita[+] increased by 1100% whereas that of the EU[+] increased only by 87% during the same time. Obviously, Russia develops[+] at a much greater rate than the EU[+], as Russia's GDP per capita grows much more than that of the EU[+].
Also, among countries ranked by GDP[+], Russia has ranked much better than the EU.
Furthermore, for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in Russia[+][+][ꚛ][ꚛ] ranks as 4th best in the world, better than Germany[+][+][ꚛ] and all the other countries in Europe (not just the EU but also better than in Switzerland, the UK, etc.)[+].
All this suggests that Ukraine should have looked up more to Russia than the EU.
![[ꚛ]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2576fc61-3a12-4d1f-b471-e9eed31cda61_933x419.jpeg){kind=link}
Conclusion
To be fair, if Ukrainians condemn Russians and Ukrainian separatists for using their forces, then they should not have been the ones who did that in the first place, otherwise, their actions could be labeled as hypocrisy – Ukrainian ultra-nationalists were the first to use force to make political changes with the Euromaidan protests and revolution, and Russians did it after that in Crimea without killing anyone, as the timeline[+] of the conflict proves. Wherever there are extremists, separatists emerge.
In light of all these events, it is understandable and only natural that pro-Russian Crimeans didn't approve of such anti-Russian events and sought help and protection from Russia regarding their status in Ukraine. It is also understandable that Russians responded to help their folk, especially because of all other Ukrainian violations of the Ukrainian Constitution and agreements with Russia regarding Crimea's rights and Russian ethnic minority rights.
So, in our objective and neutral state of mind, using mere logic and the awareness of the universal laws of nature, it is clear that the resistance and force used by Kyiv opposition protesters during the 2014 revolution to overthrow the government and remove President Yanukovych was the cause of the Crimeans’ and Donbaseans' resistance and seeking help from Russian forces. This was simply a natural chain reaction. The perceived coup inflamed separatist movements in Crimea and Donbas.
If the Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine had not been forced out of office but removed in full compliance with the Constitution, Crimeans would not have felt threatened and probably would not have organized a referendum[+] to secede and rejoin Russia in March 2014. Also, if the Ukrainian revolutionaries haven't used resistance and force to overthrow the government, not only the secession of Crimea wouldn't have happened but the anti-Russian sentiments would not escalate into the current Russo-Ukrainian war or NATO-Russian war.
Russian contingency plans for the annexation of Crimea may have been conceived from the time of the USSR collapse but as long as the Crimean Russians were not discriminated against and Ukrainians held to their agreements, Russia made no interventions, especially at that time when the high governmental officials were Russian minority members, and when Ukraine was growingly financially dependent on Russia, and when cooperation between the two military-industrial complexes expanded. These circumstances prove that Russia would have not annexed Crimea if Ukrainian revolutionaries haven't used resistance and force to overthrow the legally elected government and expelled pro-Russian governmental high officials.
All that happened was in accordance with the law in nature known under the name of The Law of Non-Resistance. In other words, it was the resistance (of opposition leaders and protestors) that led to Ukrainians losing Crimea and to the war with Russia, because as regulated by the universal laws in nature, resistance is destructive rather than constructive. It would be constructive to wait one year for the 2015 elections or to start the procedure of President's impeachment so as to remove the allegedly corrupt President from office. This Law of Non-Resistance is sometimes referred to as the law of action and reaction, as well as a law of physics called Newton's third law of motion (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). As this law regulates it, whenever we resist something or someone, we are actually giving more power to it. As the renowned Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1875–1961) taught us, whatever we resist persists. Therefore, it is counterproductive to resist anything since by increasing our resistance, we automatically and naturally grow rival resistance and conflict, too. By resisting, we make the issue impossible to solve and only escalate it. When we are resisting or protesting something, we are directing negative energy to the adversary, which can't possibly be a force for positive change. Therefore, it is pointless and unintelligent to resist anything, because it will only further oppose us and we will not achieve anything constructive by it. This law is demonstrated in many Holy Scriptures, including Bible (Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:39), where Jesus proclaims: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” And Buddha said: “It is your resistance to what is, which causes your suffering.”
One example of the counter-productiveness of resistance was the brutal government crackdown on the initial Euromaidan protests, which galvanized protesters and encouraged more to join. Police resisted the protests and therefore protests increased.
The principle of non-resistance falls under the general philosophy of nonviolence. There is always an effective alternative to resistance. If you need more info on that, this law and most other universal laws in detail in are best explained in the Virtuology book[+].
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." – R. Buckminster Fuller
That said, resistance alone didn't cause this war. Another major cause was the conflict of images, which we will explain later, including how to resolve that conflict.
After the revolution, a new presidential election was held in May 2014 whereby the voter turnout was extremely low (less than half of the legitimate voters turned out to vote – the total number of voters was around 35.5 million and around 18 million people cast a ballot, but excluding the regions not under government control the turnout was 60%; according to Ukrainian laws, a snap election must have a voter turnout higher than 50%, which was not the case, therefore the results of this election should be deemed invalid) and pro-Russian voters were hindered to vote and run for the office. There might be some issues of constitutionality and legitimacy of the 2014 election, which the Western community disregarded because the results suited them, as a pro-EU government was instituted. Even if not illegal, there were morally unacceptable electorate manipulations, such as disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, disinformation, corruption, banning assault, harassment or libel.
For instance, in the pro-Russian Donbas region9, only 426 ballot stations were open for polling instead of all 2.430, disabling 80% of the Russophone10 Donbas population to cast a vote. This alone should have questioned the legitimacy of the elections. On top of that, as opposed to all previous elections, there were no well-known pro-Russian candidates in the elections as the established leaders were forced into exile or arrested on charges of leading a separatist movement (and after the elections cleared of charges in the absence of proof, which is telling of the real motive behind the arrestment). Also, the pro-Russian Party of Regions was the biggest party in Ukraine between 2006 and 2014. providing several Ukrainian Presidents and Prime Ministers but ahead of the 2014 elections, the party's symbol and activities were banned in many regions, thus they were illegally prevented to campaign in those regions. Some party members claimed to be victims of a political repression and persecution campaign organized by the new government, which resulted in the party being disintegrated over the next few years.
Also, many pro-Russian Ukrainians opposed what in their perception was the illegal overthrow of the government as well as the rescheduling of the election, considering the temporary successors an "illegitimate régime" as the rights of "all citizens" were not protected, which made them reluctant to participate in the elections.
Considering the extraordinary adverse circumstances, the autonomous Crimean territory was indeed legally entitled to argue for a change in its status and according to international precedent, that right was further confirmed. However, NATO authorities claim that it could not simply secede unilaterally, even if that wish was supported by the local population in a referendum but who are they to set such rules? Why should other foreign countries have more right than the oppressed ethnic minority to decide their fate?
Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we[*] recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment: Why should Ukraine give up Donbas or any region?
In his report “The Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine (Revised and Updated Version)”[+] on p.52, Ukrainian Canadian political scientist and political science professor at the Ottawa University (Canada) Ivan Katchanovski reported that Neo-Nazi Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh backed this threat:
“A similar statement was later issued from the Maidan stage by Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Right Sector, who said that he told the same Yanukovych personally when then President requested Yarosh to meet with him on February 20 after the massacre was mostly over. The Yarosh statement contained reference to arms that the Right Sector could use.”
Russophobic US ambassador in Ukraine from 2013-2016 and then in Greece till 2022, whose main appointment was to destroy the relationship of both countries with Russia
a procedure of impeachment had to be initiated by a majority vote in the Verkhovna Rada, then impeachment investigation should have been conducted by an investigatory commission and when done, a two-thirds vote was needed on whether to adopt the accusations to proceed for a review by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as well as the Supreme Court of Ukraine, after which a three-quarters vote in the Ukrainian Parliament was necessary to convict the president and remove him from office. Should this occur, the Chairperson of the Ukrainian Parliament had to serve as acting president until a new president can be elected – none of it was conducted either before or after he was ousted from office
no treason or any other crime was ever proven in court against Yanukovych - only later, in 2019, in a politically motivated, unfair trial, run by his enemies, he was convicted of treason but not related to anything before the uprising – for his attempts to suppress the 2014 pro-Western uprising, which he actually had the right to suppress, as the uprising was unconstitutional – what was he supposed to do? Allow the angry mob to overtake the government?
CIS countries = 9 countries - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan is an associate member like Ukraine used to be before it withdrew its membership in 2018. Georgia withdrew its membership in 2008.
coming soon
Donbas[+] is a coal mining region that was part of eastern Ukraine from 1922-2022 (now part of Russia) consisting of two Republics - Donetsk and Luhansk - where most residents have been Russians for centuries. In 2022, after Bolsheviks defeated the Ukrainian nationalists, Lenin gave that part of former Russian Empire with mostly ethnic Russian residents to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under condition that it remains part of the Soviet Union and under Moscow governance (Kyiv administration) but in 1991, Ukraine violated that agreement by breaking off from the Soviet Union and from Moscow, and since 2014, Ukrainians had been demolishing all Lenin's monuments, therefore they have no rights to claim the territories he conditionally granted them. Since Ukrainians hate Lenin and Stalin so much that they demonize them, then in the Russian view[+], it is only fair to give back all the land[ꚛ] that Lenin and Stalin allocated to Soviet Ukraine, without even asking the locals’ permission (the majority were Russians in Donbas).
![[ꚛ]](https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Cropped-Ukraine.png){kind=link}
people whose native language is Russian (people of Russian ethnicity)