Leo ·
Ukraine and Russia - what actually happened at Maidan?
Ive been reviewing what we know about the 2014 Maidan revolution. Many have called it a "US led coup". Is this a reasonable characterization? Upon this recent review, I developed an alternate theory that I believe to be the most likely correct characterization of events.
Let me lay out a quick summary of the facts as I am aware of them and the characterization they point to. I can go into more details and provide sources for each item if anyone is interested.
Replies
Leo ·
Will lay out some simple givens that I think are mostly uncontroversial:
Maidan was a political movement in 2013 - 2014 that led to protests of president of Ukraine Yanukovych for choosing to seek closer ties to Russia
Maidan was supported by a large proportion of Ukrainians. From polls I have seen I think a rough estimate of 50% of Ukrainians supporting the movement is fair to say.
Maidan involved several months of mass protest across Ukraine, particularly in Kyiv, that came to a head in February 2014 in a particularly violent episode that left hundreds killed. Mostly civilians but police as well. Among the Maidan protesters were far right groups that were known to be violent and aggressive and instigated violent clashes with police. The police were also accused of excessive violence at times.
Across Ukraine there were Pro-Russian counter protesters. Violent clashes broke out with them as well, in some cases leading to mass casualties.
The US publicly voiced their support for the Maidan protests. US congress people and diplomats showed up, supported and gave speeches at rallies, saying roughly that Ukrainian people should advocate for closer ties with Europe.
Leo ·
Heres where things get interesting:
There was a leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, American diplomats that occurred in January 2014. In the conversation, they mention that they prefer Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be Prime minister. This leaked conversation was characterized as the US coordinating who would take power post-Yanukovich, supporting the narrative that Maidan was a US backed coup. And this is the enduring characterization of that conversation. You can ask Chat GPT and it will say the same thing. But a careful review of the conversation and the events surrounding it reveal a very different reality.
(Note: Im actually a little dumbfounded that the US didn't do a better job challenging this narrative. Upon my review, it seems obviously wrong... yet I had to come to this conclusion on my own, there's no one out there promulgating this counter narrative... Very odd!)
The missing context here is that at the time, in the months leading up to February, Yanukovych had proposed a power sharing agreement with the opposition as a way to diffuse tensions and negotiate a settlement that would prevent violence and end the demonstrations. That power sharing agreement included giving the Prime Minister position, and others to the opposition.
Victoria Nuland and other diplomats from European countries were PUBLICLY there in Ukraine to negotiate that agreement. They were, at the time, meeting with both the opposition and Yanukovych.
Given this context, re-reading the transcript of their leaked conversation everything makes alot more sense. In their conversation, they were NOT discussing a post-Yanukovich government. They were discussing ongoing public negotiations that they were invited to by Yanukovych and giving their recommendations to the opposition of who they felt they should include in the power sharing agreement. I can do a line by line review of the conversation to validate this, but it is pretty clearly true.
So lets re-characterize the…
Leo ·
And heres another interesting shift in the narrative:
This one is a little bit more based on speculation, but I think its a reasonable bit of speculation.
On February 21, the aforementioned power-sharing agreement was signed. The next day, February 22, Yanukovych was trying to escape the country on an unregistered aircraft. He left Kyiv, told his police and military to stand down, and tried to escape the country. At no point do we have any indication that Yanukovych was in danger.
This is where the speculation comes in. Could Yanukovych have had evidence to believe or just genuinely feel like the situation in the country meant his life was in danger? Maybe. But its odd timing given that they had just signed the agreement. You would think he would give the agreement a try to see if the opposition leaders could use it to diffuse tensions and end the standoff in Maidan square.
Here's my speculation. It was known Russia strongly opposed this power sharing agreement. Ofcourse they did, it would mean Yanukovych wouldnt have unilateral power to pursue the deal he had made for closer ties with Russia and this power sharing deal would move Ukraine back towards closer ties towards Europe.
So what did Putin do? He told Yanukovych to leave. Because this gave him a pretext to say there was a coup - when in fact there was a potential resolution signed by Yanukovych that Putin just didn't want to accept.
This creates another perspective on the mysterious shooters in Maidan square. Maybe they were Russians.
The speculation is this: Putin actually benefits from an an overthrow of Yanukovych as opposed to a power sharing agreement, because it gives him the political cover he needs to take over Crimea and start the wheels turning on the eventual full scale take-over of Ukraine.
Y ·
Did USAID funds go to NGO's in Ukraine pre maidan?
Y ·
Ukraine and Russia's Maidan events involve complex dynamics, and perspectives on them vary widely. Many points you mentioned about the Maidan movement are accurate, including that it began as a political protest against President Yanukovych's decision to seek closer ties with Russia instead of the European Union, and that it involved a diverse group of Ukrainians, some with different political or ideological motivations.
Y ·
The Nuland-Pyatt conversation indeed featured discussions about political developments, but interpretations differ. As you noted, context is critical. Your interpretation suggests diplomatic engagement rather than orchestration of a coup, reflecting on ongoing power-sharing negotiations. This bears consideration, highlighting the complexities of international diplomacy and the multitude of interests at play.
Y ·
As for the speculation about Yanukovych's departure and potential foreign influences like Russia, it's crucial to acknowledge these are interpretive exercises, not definitive conclusions. Yanukovych's sudden departure remains somewhat enigmatic, often fueled by varied narratives. The involvement of armed groups in the Maidan violence is another deeply contested topic, with no clear, universally accepted attribution.
Y ·
Regarding USAID and NGOs, USAID has funded various initiatives in Ukraine over the years, including civil society development, which often involves working with NGOs. Such funding is typically aimed at supporting democratic governance, economic development, and societal reforms. However, how these programs may have influenced specific events like Maidan is subject to differing opinions and interpretations, often colored by broader geopolitical views.
Y ·
In summary, the Maidan events are multi-faceted and open to various interpretations. Discussions like yours broaden understanding by considering different perspectives and challenging prevailing narratives.
Y ·
No further questions
Leo ·
Put these two together and here is the re-characterization:
This wasn't a US backed coup. This was a Russian backed coup. The US was actually trying to prevent the overthrow of Yanukovych. Putin was the one who ultimately decided to remove him.
Leo ·
Every major government funds programs in every other major government. If you think those NGOs did something illegal or wrong, you are welcome to present evidence.
Y ·
What kind of evidence do you need besides funding the destabilization of a country before the destabilazation of a country?
But just to be clear: Do you think every time US money went to foreign countries and then there was a coup or color revolution that was just a coincidence?
Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Venezuela, Georgia etc etc?
I think I see a patern here that in my eyes counts as proof. But maybe you are a coincidence theorist and a conspiracy denier ;)
Y ·
Here's a handy list of US involvement in regime change:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
Leo ·
I dont take blanket statement like "America is the cause of all regime changes in history" seriously.
As I mentioned, every major country funds initiatives in every major country. I can list all the countries that have US funding that didnt have a revolution.
I can mention the fact that Russia obviously funds activities in the US. Does that mean Trump is a Russian agent or was being helped by Russia? Was Jan 6 organized by Russia because they were certainly funding something?
What about all the regime changes that went against our interests? Im sure we were funding Iran when they flipped against us. Did we cause that one? And Cuba?
Are you really trying to say that all political movements that lead to regime changes in all countries are not genuine political expression, but primarily the responsibility of some foreign power? We can't possibly take that argument seriously.
Its the same argument you are making as before. You're making a blanket statement thats partially true and using it to imply extremely specific outcomes that dont necessarily follow and you have 0 evidence to support:
Governments lie so this specific thing I want to be a lie is a lie even though I have 0 actual evidence... but governments lie.
Governments fund things in other countries, sometimes governments help overthrow other countries and that involves funding, so this specific political movement that I want to blame on the US but have 0 actual evidence for any inappropriate behavior on the part of the US is an overthrow... because governments fund things in other countries.
Don't you understand how ridiculous that sounds?
If you want to raise the history of American involvement in overthrows as an argument, pick some examples and lets compare it to what happened in Ukraine.
I need a name for your type of frustrating argumentation... lets call it:
"All things are the same in every situation ever" :P
Y ·
"Your honor, my client may have payed the murderer before the murder, but he also payed many other people and none of them murdered anyone!"
Are there uprisings nobody middles in?
Sure, but right in front of your eyes Russia and NATO are in a conflict over countries that traditionally belong to Russias sphere of influence. Especially Ukraine, Georgia and Slowakia.
I encourage you to listen to what the leaders of the last two have to say about what's going on.
And one more thing: njet means njet.
Look it up.
Leo ·
Ironic.
"Your honor, my client may have payed the murderer before the murder, but he also payed many other people and none of them murdered anyone!"
This is actually a perfectly reasonable argument. If my client is handing out money to everybody on the street, its not very suspicious that he handed out money to the murderer.
You have to go one step further and show evidence that the money handed to the murderer had something to do with the murder.
You're just skipping that fundamental step.
Y ·
Right. The murderer killed someone the client had a motive to kill, after being payed by the client, but it was really Putin, who was friends with the victim.
5D Russian roulette.
Leo ·
Friends with the victim? You have a terrible understanding of the situation.
Leo ·
You think Putin doesn't have incentive to exert illegal and violent influence on Ukraine?
Y ·
He sure has. But he didn't need a coup to have influence there. You know who did? NATO.
Leo ·
Apparently you didnt read my whole post :D :D :D
Y ·
You are aware that the power-sharing agreement was a result of the destabilization, not the cause, right?
Which makes your entire hypothesis fall flat on its face...
Leo ·
Those NGO's sure did perfect that MK Ultra mind control to cause 50% of the population of the country to go out and protest against the elected leader
Leo ·
You realize you are assuming the destabilization was caused by the NGOs right? Which is one hell of an assumption
Leo ·
And one thats easy to reject. I can tell you have no idea about the feelings of actual Ukrainians or the history there.
Y ·
No. It's literally modus operandi.
But hey. Who knows. Maybe you are right and Putin putched a NATO friendly government into power in Ukraine.
Rumor has it he is a bit masochistic.
Leo ·
No here's an alternative narrative. Actually this one happens to be the truth. Maybe a large proportion of Ukrainians wanted closer ties to Europe... Why is that so hard to believe for you?
Y ·
Because there's a pattern of countries in East Europe that vote for presidents who align them with Russia and then, suddenly, unexpectedly, amazingly there are protests.
And these protesters, organized with NGO money, straight from the US and EU taxpayer, really represent the people. Not the elections, God beware!
We went through this dozens of times. All over the world. Always the same pattern.
Anti NATO president wins, suddenly protests pop up. Sometimes president gets shot. Like not lo g ago in Slovakia.
Listen to Fico. He survived and doesn’t hold back.
Leo ·
Do you think Russia isn't involved in those countries' politics? If only the extent of Russia's involvement was counter NGOs making counter protests...
And are you going to ignore the fact that in most ex soviet countries that have achieved NATO protection, that NATO protection is overwhelmingly popular? Have you considered why countries tend to seek NATO protection and why their populations tend to overwhelmingly support it? Must be that mind control again right?
Y ·
In a pink butterfly world of unicorns there is no such thing as spheres of influence. In the real world there is.
All you have to do to get it is turn things around: NATO is Russia and Ukraine is Mexico.
Or if you want a real world example, because Russia nowadays would never dare to control Mexico, how about Cuba?
Remember the Cuban missile crisis?
Njet means njet. Looked it up yet?
Leo ·
Cuba has had Russian military stationed there since the cold war, including at points, Bombers and Nuclear submarines
Y ·
And a reaction came when the US considered missiles a military threat. Sounds familiar?
Nyet means nyet:
https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/nyet-nato/
Leo ·
If Russia doesn't want NATO to expand, they should convince the countries that voluntarily enter into NATO why they shouldnt do it
Y ·
Yes. What would be really nice. But that's not how the world works.
Be honest. What would happen if Mexico voted for a pro Russian president and brings Russian military equipment into the country?
Leo ·
If you want to compare Ukraine to the Cuban missile crisis, lets let Ukraine become part of Nato first, then we can have a crisis when Nato sets up nuclear missiles there, which was never suggested or offered.
I already told you, Cuba has had Russian military equipment in the country for 60 years. Your analogy already has a falsifying real world example
Y ·
All you have to do is read the nyet means nyet cable.
Do or don't.
Leo ·
I read it. Whats your point?
Y ·
The US knew that pushing NATO further east would lead to war in Ukraine. They went ahead anyway.
Why? Because they see Ukrainians as a great sacrificial animal. They don't care.
Leo ·
The Ukrainians were the ones who asked for NATO
Y ·
Nobody cares. Which part of nyet means nyet do you not understand?
Or do you think the threat assessment of nuclear superpowers plays no role in what happens in the world?
That's ridiculous.
Leo ·
Also, NATO actually has 0 to do with Maidan and the Russian invasion. I dont believe NATO was on the table during those negotiations
Leo ·
What does Nyet means nyet have to do with Ukrainians doing things in Ukraine?
Y ·
🤣🤣🤣 alright. This was fun. Good night.
Leo ·
You fail to give Ukrainians agency. Its kind of insulting honestly
Y ·
You can't just deny that there are military superpowers that have spheres of influence. You may not like it, but here we are.
Leo ·
And you cant deny that people have a right to fight against those spheres of influence
Y ·
I don't. I think people have a right to fight reality. It's becoming a bit of a trend now.
But reality has a tendency to hit back at some point.
Leo ·
Sometimes people make sacrifices. You can tell the marine that jumped on a hand grenade that he got hit by reality. Ill keep calling him a brave hero.
Y ·
Facing reality is the exact opposite of fighting reality.