R Johansen
Hindustan Times
comments
Comments by "R Johansen" (@rjohansen9486) on "NATO To 'Betray' Ukraine Again; Security Guarantee For Kyiv Won't Be Ready Until... | Key Details" video.
3
1
1
1
1
internetresearchagency2238 Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Euromaidan in Ukraine in 2014. There was no coup, nor a western orchestrated protest in Ukraine.
The demonstrations which began in Kyiv in November 2013 – called "Maidan", or "Euromaidan" – were a result of the Ukrainian people's frustration with former President Yanukovych. The protesters' demands included constitutional reform, a stronger role for parliament, the formation of a government of national unity, an end to corruption, early presidential elections and an end to violence.
Ukraine's government changed its relations toward Russia after the latter illegally annexed Crimea, which is part of Ukraine, through a non-recognised referendum, announced on 27 February 2014, and held on gunpoint on 16 March 2014. The UN described it as not valid and stated that it could not serve as a basis for any change in the status of the peninsula. In its turn, the EU continues to strongly condemn this violation of international law and has responded by imposing restrictive measures against the Russian Federation.
The prehistory of the 2014 revolution includes the “Orange Revolution” of 2004-05, in which massive protests on the Maidan against an (actual) stolen election that handed Yanukovych the victory over pro-Western rival Viktor Yushchenko ended with Ukraine’s Supreme Court throwing out the results and with Yushchenko winning the re-vote. (During the campaign, Yanukovych had been explicitly backed by Putin and had flown to Moscow for several meetings with his patron; meanwhile, Yushchenko had nearly died from dioxin poisoning in an apparent assassination attempt.)
In 2010, an ostensibly new and improved Yanukovych, now advised by Paul Manafort—, later Donald Trump’s campaign chair and Russiagate star—prevailed over Yushchenko, whose popularity had been undercut by failed reforms and bickering with allies.
Yanukovych’s victory had been achieved by a clever rebranding as a modern liberal democratic leader who would ensure Ukraine’s integration into Europe while also preserving good relations with Russia. In particular, he promised to pursue a free trade agreement with the European Union, seen as putting Ukraine on the path to EU membership.
Vladimir Putin responded with what Jacobin’s Marcetic aptly calls “a one-man good-cop, bad-cop routine,” wielding both the carrot of a no-strings loan and the stick of punitive trade measures to strong-arm Yanukovych into backing out of the agreement. In November 2013, Yanukovych reneged on the deal, sparking massive protests dominated by the slogan, “Ukraine is Europe.”
“Europe” was not just about trade or job opportunities but, in the words of one activist featured in the book, “a question of values: the value of freedom of choice, the value of dignity.” Shore asserts that, despite the participation of Ukrainian nationalists, the “Euromaidan” was an extraordinary example of interethnic and interreligious cooperation between different groups brought together by common liberal values.
Yanukovych’s violent response to the Maidan demonstrations—sending brutal riot cops to disperse the protesters and ramming through a package of repressive legislation—only spurred on the protests.
By the time Yanukovych had signed a Europe-brokered deal with opposition leaders agreeing to give more power to the parliament and hold new elections later in the year, nearly a hundred Maidan protesters were dead at the hands of the Berkut riot police—48 of them in a half-hour-long massacre by snipers on February 20 (based on extensive video footage, by the Center for Human Rights Science at Carnegie Mellon University concluded that the victims were indeed shot by Berkut members.) —and many Maidan activists saw the deal as a betrayal. The crowd cheered nationalist speakers who demanded Yanukovych’s immediate removal and threatened violence. The parliament moved to impeach him, and on February 22 the beleaguered Yanukovych fled to Russia, where he has lived ever since. There is evidence that he had been preparing his flight and moving his property for days if not weeks before his departure.
Since Yanukovich ouster, Russian state sponsored media have frequently claimed that the Maidan Revolution was in fact a coup orchestrated by Western powers. The claim is that US had spent USD 5 billion to fund the uprising against Yanukovych. The real story is that V. Nuland said that US had invested more than 5 billion in Ukraine since their independence in 1991. To support democracy-building programs and institutions. To build health-care systems and a wide area of activities, including nuclear nonproliferation efforts. NOT to provoke the uprising in 2014, as the false Russian propaganda tells.
The GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, also carried out a disinformation campaign reframing Maidan as a coup perpretated by armed nationalists. GRU created fake personas made to look like ordinary Ukrainins on Facebook and Vkontakte. These accounts called demonstarters “fascist”, “westerners” and “Nazis”, and voiced fears of what perotesters would do to Pro-Russia citizens.
Other fake personas made physical threats against Yanukovych’s political allies and posted articles claiming that they lived in Klyiv and that what happened there was a violent coup.
To this day, Russian state media are still referring to the Maidan Revolution as a “Western backed coup”.
1
1
1
1
Why repeat the lie about Minsk??
The Minsk Agreements are/were a basis for political resolution of the conflict in Donbas. They have been violated by the Russian Federation on a regular basis. Point 10, for example, calls for the withdrawal of all foreign armed formations and military equipment from the two disputed regions, Donetsk and Luhansk: Ukraine says this refers to forces from Russia, but Moscow denies it has any forces there. (Later Putin admitted there were russian forces.)
Signing of the first documents in September 2014 followed direct incursion of the Russian regular troops in Donbas and intense hostilities near the city of Ilovaysk — the place of one of the most shameful crimes, committed by the Russian Army in Donbas.
At least 366 Ukrainian servicemen were killed and 429 were wounded there while leaving the city in the so-called “green corridor” under the guarantees of commanders of Russian troops. In violation of the Minsk Memorandum, Russian troops and Russia-backed illegal armed formations seized 8 pieces of land 1696 km² in area, which had to be on the Ukrainian government-controlled territory according to the line of contact, defined by the Memorandum.
Debaltseve is one of the most telling examples of how Russia violates the Minsk Agreements. Combined Russian-terrorist forces attacked and seized the city and the outskirts on 16–18 February 2015, immediately after the Minsk Package of measures, establishing the comprehensive ceasefire since 15 February, had been signed.
1
1
1
1
1