In early 1986, millions of citizens of the Philippines came out onto the streets in what became known as the “People Power” revolution.
They were protesting against regime violence and election fraud, or, in other words, demanding democracy. Nobody challenged the legitimacy of these events.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, millions of citizens of central Europe took to the streets across what was then a Soviet-dominated communist bloc of countries. What did those people want? They wanted political freedom, democracy, and an end to the corrupt rule that accompanied their subjugation to the Soviet Union. Today, nobody challenges the agency of the people of Poland, and Romania, and other now EU member states; as their actions were unquestionably historic.
Against overwhelming odds, against all-powerful regimes, and over many, many months, the people won, because their desires were for basic fundamental human rights. The freedom to elect the leaders of their countries, not have their leaders steal from them, and to live with dignity. Nobody can challenge either their goals or the historical record of how they moved towards them.
Of course, the Soviets applied as much pressure as they could to attempt to quell the uprisings of unruly citizens in their then client states, but, ultimately, the Soviet Union itself was facing collapse and there was insufficient strength to exert influence at the time, and insufficient ability afterwards, to attempt to rewrite history following the legendary changes across the region.
Yesterday, Oct. 12, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin spent some time answering questions at the VTB Capital Investment forum in Moscow. Of course, he was asked about events in Ukraine. He said:
“You just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine, but it was not us who brought about the state coup. Did we do that? No. Our American partners don’t hide the fact that they supported it to a great degree, they financed the radical opposition and pushed through a change of government by unconstitutional means, despite the fact that this could have been done completely differently. Former President Yanukovych signed off on all of their demands and was prepared to hold early elections, instead of this they helped facilitate a coup. Why?”
That wholly false narrative needs to be deconstructed.
In late 2013 and early 2014, millions of Ukrainian citizens took to the streets of their country. They did so in cities as far east as Kharkiv and Sumy, and even in Donetsk and in Odesa, not just on Kyiv’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti Square. They initially demanded that their country continue on the political path that had been stated by a succession of politicians for over a decade – the signing of an Association Agreement with the European Union. For the people of Ukraine, this represented a positive development, and it was a step towards more accountability, and less corruption, of their politicians.
What happened in Ukraine was not a “coup” although that is the term Putin, and the troll army directed to discredit Ukraine would like the world to use. What happened in Ukraine was a revolution, and just like the revolutions mentioned earlier, it was the agency of the local population that was the driving force. And the anger of the local population. As the revolution unfolded over a period of more than three months, anger against then President Yanukovych justifiably grew.
While the “official” starting date of the revolution was Nov. 21, 2013, and the widely credited catalyst was a Facebook post from Mustafa Nayem, then an investigative journalist, now a reformer sitting in Parliament, for many people the revolution really began on Dec. 1, 2013. Yanukovych had attempted to brutally shut down peaceful protests on Nov. 30, the videos of the beatings meted out on student protesters that night drove the revolution to a new level. As in the Philippines in 1986, people were now protesting, with good reason, against appalling regime violence. In fact, a million people turned out to show their anger at the actions of the Yanukovych regime. The million strong peaceful and legitimate Dec. 1 protest cannot be called a “coup” by any rational person.
The anger of the citizens of Ukraine was raised further with a second brutal attempt to quash then then peaceful protests on the night of Dec. 11, 2013. All night long people stood against the truncheon wielding thugs of the now disbanded “Berkut” riot police. Who, it must be said, were not responding to a riot in any way shape or form.
The anger of the citizens of Ukraine was further raised on Dec. 17, now a month (almost) into the revolution, when Putin and Yanukovych (maybe I give Yanukovych too much credit here?) cooked up a scheme to buy an end to the revolution, with the now infamous $15 billion credit (of which $3 billion was dispersed to and stolen by Yanukovych and co., and is now the subject of court proceedings in the United Kingdom. Despite the overwhelming sums involved, the Maidan stood, and the goals of the Maidan revolution remained as they had been.
After two months of legitimate and peaceful protest, now largely ignored by the world’s media, because nothing new was happening, just tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens on the street every single Sunday, no big deal; the anger of the citizens of Ukraine reached boiling point. On Jan. 16, 2014 Ukraine’s Parliament effectively attempted to create a dictatorship, limiting freedoms, legislating an end to protests of almost all forms. The Yanukovych regime was not going quietly, and was determined to hang on to power by any means possible. Their arrogance and contempt for the people means that even the blatantly illegal adoption of that legislation didn’t matter to them.
As in central Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the people of Ukraine were now fighting against political repression. In fact, they were fighting for their basic personal freedoms, and dignity. This is not what a “coup” looks like.
As for Putin’s allegation that the Americans “supported (the Maidan) to a great degree”… It is absurd to suggest that Victoria Nuland’s “cookies” (they weren’t cookies, it was bread she handed out) fed Maidan for three months – she was there for about half an hour. The fact of U.S. officials visiting the Maidan didn’t change a thing, other than maybe giving a bit of a moral boost to the protesters. The goals of the protesters had nothing to do with the United States, or the EU, at this point. It is a fact that many ambassadors from many countries went to the Maidan – this is unsurprising: supporting a fight against corruption, a fight for democracy and against tyranny is a no-brainer.
I have seen no evidence that the United States “financed radical opposition parties,” but then evidence is something that is a malleable concept for Putin; reject it if inconvenient, fabricate it where necessary is his approach to the inconveniences of evidence.
The United States did not “push through a change of government by unconstitutional means.” In fact, the United States was sitting on the sidelines, talking about what the hell might happen next (just as people in Moscow, Ottawa, London and so on were watching and having the exact same conversations.)
President Putin claims that “this could have been done differently” and “Yanukovych had signed off on all their demands and was prepared to hold early elections” but this is a further twisting of the truth. The negotiated settlement to reduce Yanukovych’s illegally obtained wide-ranging constitutional powers was reneged on by Yanukovych, leading to street clashes on Feb. 18, 2014. And the deal including early elections was negotiated on Feb. 21, the day after scores of people had been gunned down near the Maidan. After these events it is no surprise that the citizens of Ukraine could simply no longer accept that Yanukovych had any legitimate claim to the presidency.
Rewriting history also requires the witless assistance of “useful idiots” as well the morally void trolls based in Savushkina Street in St. Petersburg. One such idiot is the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens, who clings to a belief that Yanukovych fled Ukraine to escape what he describes as “the Kiev [sic] mob,” but what Mr. Hitchens fails to recognize is the superhuman feat of what the people of Ukraine had undergone over three months prior to the night when Yanukovych ran. It was a protest grounded in legitimate grievances, and in reality what Yanukovych fled was the fact that his power base had collapsed, as is well documented here – he wasn’t running from the people, he was running because he knew he no longer had the support of his own people.
At this point, most would agree, the revolution had ended. The din of the Maidan was fading and the fires stopped burning. This was the culmination of three months of popular resistance to a corrupt regime who exacted extraordinary violence against people protesting against their government’s illegal actions.
The Constitution of Ukraine, as far as I know, does not contain any provisions for specifically how citizens must act in the face of such extraordinary circumstances, but the constitution (point 5) does state that “the people are the bearers of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine” and the events that followed Yanukovych’s abdication of power, electing a new Speaker of Parliament, who took on the role of Acting President, and then electing a new government, were undertaken within the framework of the laws of the country.
No, Mr. Putin, there was no “coup” in Ukraine. The people stood up, for three months, they did this for their country, without outside direction or interference. Just like in the Philippines, just like in central Europe. The historical precedents and the facts of events in Ukraine make your “coup” claims bounce around in an echo chamber that may be of comfort to you and those around you, but your narrative will not survive, even with the audience you most need to convince, for long. Because it is a myth, and your tangle of lies is unraveling.
