When military conflicts take place there are always also conflicts of opinion regarding the facts. As the saying goes, ‘The first casualty of war is the truth’. This has never been more true than in this conflict, one that has been fought not only in Ukraine but across the entire media space and very much including across the internet and social media. The advantage of having multiple platforms through which to access hearts and minds has been taken full advantage of and, due to the nature of this medium, many unverified and uninvestigated claims have been made. However, certain facts can be ascertained and stated plainly and without contradiction.
THE EVENTS ON MAIDAN SQUARE WERE CRUCIAL
Whatever can be said about what took place on Maidan Square in Ukraine’s capital from the end of 2013 into the early months of 2014 one fact can be stated without fear of contradiction. They did not represent anything approaching a democratic process.
Whether you agree with the outcome of the events on the square or do not, the clear fact stated above should be self-evident. Whether you believe what happened was justifiable or not, this fact remains. The historical record will show that both the elections of the then Ukrainian president and that of the then government passed the various tests the electoral assessor teams set for them and pronounced the results as valid.
What were the reasons for the Maidan protests?
Ukraine sought loans in 2013 to maintain the nation in good financial standing. The president at that time, Yanukoych was negotiating with both the Russian Federation and the European Union for future assistance to ensure this goal. He was primarily negotiating with EU officials whereby Ukraine would formalise an associate status with the union. These negotiations were ongoing while Russia offered its own financial assistance and, according to reports, suggested Ukraine could take advantage of both their offer AND that of the EU.
Those who gathered in Maidan Square were clearly suspicious that Yanukovych and the government of Ukraine would ultimately reject the proposals of the EU and instead continue its long-term reliance on Russia. They, being almost exclusively residents of western Ukraine and by numerous election results as an almost uniform bloc antipathetic to the parties in power, wished to push for an ever closer and increasingly enhanced connection to the European Union.
While Yanukovych deliberated over a decision that would inevitably have major implications for Ukraine the impatience and suspicions of the protestors mounted.
Why did the protesters on Maidan Square become violent?
As the early months of 2014 wore on a change occurred on the square. The initial largely peaceful protests morphed into arguably the most violent ever seen in Europe, at least in modern times. Why did this transformation of events occur?
One reason for this change is the claimed harsh response of a particular elite grouping of the Ukrainian security forces known as the ‘Berkut’. It appears according to certain accounts seen that some protestors were beaten in unjustifiable attacks. These have not been well documented and have remained on an assertion basis only. However, the likelihood of these attacks having occurred and having heightened tensions, leading to violent attacks upon the security services in general cannot be discounted.
The second reason for this change is more obvious and clearly visible. It is clear that the protest on Maidan Square became known to a large grouping, predominantly of young men, who had a history of extreme nationalism. The mythologies that these young men adhered to took many forms, however, the influence upon them that had most effect was quite obviously and visibly that of the activities of certain Ukrainian organisations who had struggled for Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union during World War Two.
Those that the new influx to the Maidan Square protests looked to for inspiration were several although the chief among them was a man by the name of Stepan Bandera. Although Bandera did not hold any permanent alliance he, and many others from western Ukraine did at one point at least align themselves with the Nazis and battalions of Ukrainians were inducted into the Nazi military at that time. Russia and Russian-speakers were then and remained through the generations the hated enemy of the most extreme of Ukrainian nationalists.
The protest on Maidan Square thus descended into open riot.
How did the events on Maidan Square end?
The entire many-month-long protest that descended into open riot on Maidan Square ended with a mass shooting event where a great many protesters/rioters were killed by shooting from an upper storey of a hotel overlooking the square. Initially it was claimed that the then Ukrainian president and government were responsible for this by ordering its security forces to perpetrate it. However, the official enquiry has discounted this and instead indicated in its deliberations that another group entirely were responsible. The most likely group appears to be a small team of Georgians, one at least of whom has confessed in a detailed account to have been brought to the square for this purpose.
In any event, on the perpetration of this major atrocity, events occurred in quick succession soon after while the protest/riot continued unabated. The president, Yanukovych, in fear of life according to reports, fled and the government fell after what appears to have been an unconstitutional vote against it.
What followed the end of the events on Maidan Square?
The new government was sworn in on 27 February 2014.
Certain figures emerged to take control of governmental affairs in the absence of the previous president and the fall of the previous government. Chief among these was Arseniy Yatsenyuk who had been recommended for the post of prime minister in a leaked phone call between then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland and then U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Subsequently, several members of the most radical party in Ukraine led by Oleh Tyahnybok (Formerly Social-National Party of Ukraine) ‘Svoboda’ gained prominent governmental positions.
Nuland Pyatt Leaked Call: Washington Planning the Coup and the New Government in Kiev -"Fuck the EU".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh49F2ao4-Y
There follows some information regarding Tyahnybok’s ‘Svoboda’ party:
'Its ideology was based on OUN (Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists) politician Yaroslav Stetsko's Two revolutions.
On 21 September 1993 its "people's formations" came to the Verkhovna Rada building dressed all in black to differentiate themselves from woodland camouflaged UNA-UNSO activists.[3]
In the second half of 1990s the party also recruited skinheads and football hooligans.
A mirror image of the Wolfsangel, or Wolf's Hook, was chosen as the party emblem in 1991.’ (Wikipedia)
The Wolfsangel:
‘The Ƶ-symbol was adopted by the Nazi Party, and was used by various German Wehrmacht and SS units such as the Waffen-SS Division Das Reich and the Waffen-SS Division Landstorm Nederland. The Anti-Defamation League, and others, list the Ƶ-symbol as a hate and neo-Nazi symbol.’ (Wikipedia)
How did the Russian-speaking people of eastern Ukraine react to the events above?
It will be well known by now that the political and national affiliations of the two geographical regions of Ukraine, east and west are generally in total opposition. The vast majority in western Ukraine are ethnic Ukrainians who are Ukrainian-speaking and have historically looked west. Those in eastern Ukraine generally speak Russian and look eastward toward Russia historically. The general impulse of Ukrainian nationalists has been to emphasise the Ukrainian language and to minimise the importance of the Russian language. This has been especially true since the events on Maidan Square.
The Russian-speaking majority in both Crimea and the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine did not react well to the events seen on Maidan Square. Symbology denoting allegiance to concepts associated with the Nazis of World War Two did not escape notice. The clear implication of the events on the square clearly indicated that their ability to elect the president and government of the choice was at risk. (Images depicting electoral results for Ukraine show a very clear dividing line of loyalties between east and west.) A decision was clearly made that due to the events seen on the square an insurrection of their own was called for. This largely bloodless insurrection involved large groups taking over government offices across the Donbass region.
Ostensibly those leading the group who had responded to the recent events in Ukraine’s capital through this local insurrection asked for a degree of autonomy within Ukraine that it was hoped would safeguard and guarantee their language and generally pro-Russian culture and historical heritage.
What was the response of the authorities in the Ukrainian capital to these events?
Various claims were immediately made regarding those who had reacted as described above. No attempt was made, as far as can be ascertained, to create a dialogue with those involved. Instead they were immediately designated as terrorists assisted, it was stated, by elements of the Russian military.
On the 15th of April 2022 the following fateful decision to use military force was enacted;
‘In accordance with the Ukrainian law on fighting the terrorism Ukraine's acting President Olexander Turchynov announced the start of "anti-terrorist operation" (Ukrainian: Антитерористична операція, abbreviation: ATO) against pro-Russian separatists. An armoured column sent by Ukraine established a checkpoint 40 km from Sloviansk.’ (Wikipedia)
From this point on a military confrontation was inevitable and so it transpired. With the new authorities in the Ukrainian capital designating those who had taken part in the revolt as terrorists assisted by Russian forces there proved no basis for anything approaching a basis for negotiations. The subsequent shelling of the villages, towns and cities of the Donbass region along with the growing military resistance against them has resulted in excess of 15,000 deaths, the great majority being the deaths among the civilian population.
Hopefully the detailing of the events above will provide greater insight into the origins of the conflict which continues to this day in Ukraine. Hopefully it also serves to dispose of the oft repeated implication that the conflict only began on the 24th of February 2022. Russia’s intervention at that time, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated, is Russia’s attempt to end the military conflict begun in 2014 by the Ukrainian authorities and their armed forces.
No comments:
Post a Comment