Editor’s Note: Russian media on Feb. 22 released the text of a letter allegedly sent by the ousted former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to U.S. President Donald Trump.
Yanukovych claimed that he had sent letters to Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview published on Feb. 22 by German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel.
In the letter, Yanukovych gives his own chronology of the events of the EuroMaidan Revolution and Russia’s subsequent war on Ukraine in the Donbas. He also sets out his view on how the situation in Ukraine can be resolved.
The text of the letter given below was translated from Russian and edited by Kyiv Post editors Euan MacDonald and Olga Rudenko. While Yanukovych’s account contains many false statements, errors and inaccuracies, these have not been noted or corrected in the text, which was edited only for style and readability. The format of the original Russian text, which can be found here, was also retained.
———-
His Excellency
Mr Donald Trump
President of the United States of America
Dear Mr. President,
(1)
With this letter, I express to you my respects. I congratulate you on officially taking office as President of the United States of America, and sincerely wish you success in this new high office.
(2)
I am writing you this letter in connection with the anniversary of the events in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, following which 46 million Ukrainians were plunged into chaos, lawlessness and poverty.
(3)
It is necessary to give an objective assessment – legal and political, both in Ukraine and internationally – to these events and the role that the United States representatives played in them.
The protests in Ukraine and participation of the representatives of the United States
(4)
In order to understand the causes of the current situation in Ukraine, it is necessary to analyze and evaluate the entire chronology of events that preceded it.
(5)
Since 2007, Ukraine and the European Union had been negotiating the conclusion of the Association Agreement (hereinafter – the “Association”). From the moment of my becoming President of Ukraine in 2010, I put a lot of effort into bringing Ukraine into closer partnership with the European Union. On March 30, 2012 the Association Agreement was initialed by both parties.
(6)
On Nov. 21, 2013 the Cabinet of Ministers ordered the suspension of the process of preparing for the signing of the Association Agreement.
(7)
Ukrainian officials stressed that Ukraine was not changing the strategic direction of its development towards European integration, and the main reason for the suspension of the signing process was the unequal nature of the Association, its discrepancy with the national interests of Ukraine, and the real threat of a deep economic and social crisis in Ukraine.
(8)
Time has shown that this decision was correct. After the new authorities signed the Association, the Ukrainian economy has been seriously affected.
(9)
But at that time, in November 2013, our decision immediately provoked a strong reaction from the Ukrainian opposition and representatives of the EU and the United States.
(10)
On November 21, 2013 in the center of Kyiv there began many months of protest, which rapidly became sharply anti-presidential and anti-government in nature.
(11)
In the period from Nov. 30 to Jan. 19, 2014 anti-government protests intensified and reached a peak. They were accompanied by the widespread seizure of administrative buildings and government agencies, vandalism, arson, the destruction of property and armed resistance to the authorities – in the course of the protests gas cylinders, steel rods, sticks, clubs, firecrackers, fireworks, and firebombs were used against them. In order to make it difficult to identify them, most of the protesters were equipped with masks or helmets.
(12)
Taking all possible attempts to resolve the conflict, the authorities adopted two laws on an amnesty for the participants of mass riots (Dec. 19, 2013 and Jan. 29, 2014) in exchange for promises to stop the riots.
(13)
However, even after such an unprecedented concessions from the government, opposition representatives stated that they “are not going to observe an amnesty law” and will continue to protest.
(14)
Despite the blatant disregard of the law on the part of the protesters, the official representatives of the United States continued to lend their support and strongly encourage the continuation of the anti-government rallies.
(15)
According to the information I received from representatives of the Security Service of Ukraine at the time, an informal headquarters was established at the U.S. Embassy to promote and coordinate the opposition’s actions.
(16)
For the duration of the anti-government demonstrations and riots in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, U.S. officials took no active measures, and did not comment on the inadmissibility of such actions on the part of the opposition.
(17)
U.S. officials actively intervened on the side of the protesters. On Dec. 6, 2013, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at a press conference in Tbilisi, Georgia, said, “… it is high time for Ukraine’s leadership to listen to the voice of their people and to resume the path to European integration and economic recovery … the Ukrainian people’s voice must be heard. They call for a European future… “.
(18)
On Dec. 11, 2013, Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt held a closed meeting with the protesters in the House of Trade Unions (which a few days earlier had been illegally seized by these protesters).
(19)
After that, Nuland and Pyatt arrived at Independence Square in Kyiv to actively support the protesters. On the square, Nuland said that “since the proclamation of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States has supported the Ukrainians in the promotion … of all that is necessary to achieve by Ukraine of its European goals. We have invested more than $5 billion to help Ukraine achieve these and other goals.”
(20)
On the same day, after a meeting with me, Nuland said that “after our conversation, President Yanukovych knows what he must do” and condemned the attempts to suppress the rioters, as an occurrence, in her opinion, was “absolutely unacceptable in a modern, democratic, European society and the state.”
(21)
Also on Dec. 11, 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry harshly denounced the countermeasures of law enforcers against the mass protests, with the following words: “The United States has expressed disgust at the decision of the Ukrainian authorities to meet the peaceful protest on Independence Square with special forces, bulldozers, and batons, instead of respecting democratic rights and human dignity.” Kerry assured the protesters in Ukraine of U.S. support. “When the church bells are heard amid the smoke on the streets of Kyiv, the United States stand with the Ukrainian people. They deserve better. ”
(22)
On his official website U.S. Republican Senator John McCain made an appeal to the Ukrainian authorities to renounce the use of force against peaceful demonstrators in Kyiv. He also called all members of the opposition “brave people” and, addressing them, he said that “they are not alone”, they have “a lot of friends around the world who stand in solidarity with them.” “We will closely monitor the struggle of Ukrainians for freedom and justice. We will demand an answer for all the crimes committed against Ukrainians, who are fighting peacefully for the fulfillment of their basic rights,” the senator said.
(23)
Encouraged by the support of the United States, the representatives of the opposition did not stop. Between Jan. 23–27, 2014, 11 regional state administration buildings were captured or besieged, blocking the work of government administrations in almost half of Ukraine’s regions.
(24)
On Feb. 7, 2014 audio of a telephone call between Nuland and Pyatt was released on the Internet, in which they openly discuss the future appointment of opposition representatives to public office in Ukraine and the distribution of roles among the opposition. During the discussion, Nuland said that “Klitschko should not be in government” that Yatsenyuk is “the right man.” Pyatt argues that Tiahnybok and his people will be the “problem.”
(25)
Realizing that the protests were fading away, opposition leaders have constantly aggravated the situation on the Maidan. In February, riots erupted with renewed force, and representatives of the United States reaffirmed that they were interfering in political issues in Ukraine.
(26)
On Feb. 18, 2014, the opposition organized a “peace offensive” at the Parliament of Ukraine, during which demonstrators attacked a police cordon, smashed and set fire to several cars and trucks that security forces had used to block the road, they broke into the building and burned tires, and threw stones and firebombs at police. The radicals set fire to the office of the Party of Regions, and one employee of the office was killed in this fire. In response, the security forces used tear gas and water cannons.
(27)
On the night of Feb. 18, protesters in Lviv region seized more than 1,170 firearms (nearly 1,000 pistols and more than 170 assault rifles, machine guns, and sniper rifles, and more than 18,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibers).
(28)
On Feb. 19, 2014, one of the organizers of the protests, Yuriy Lutsenko (now – the Prosecutor General of Ukraine) openly threatened the law enforcement agencies that firearms would be used against them.
(29)
I, on the other hand, said then that “I was advised to use the force to resolve the situation, but I support the path of negotiations and a peaceful solution to the conflict.” I called on opposition leaders to condemn the use of firearms by the radicals, and disassociate themselves from them, but my call was not heeded.
(30)
During my regular telephone conversations with (then-U.S. Vice President) Joe Biden, he consistently and persistently reminded me of the inadmissibility of the use of any force on these “peaceful” demonstrators, but a day before he had done nothing to stop the radicals carrying out their “peace offensive” and escalating the conflict.
(31)
On Feb. 20 on Instytutska Street in Kyiv, unidentified snipers started shooting, first at law enforcement officers, and then at the participants of the mass protests. On this day, six law enforcement officers and 47 protesters died from gunshot wounds.
(32)
In total, during the mass protests from November 2013 to February 2014, 23 law enforcement officers were killed and 932 personnel were injured, of whom 158 suffered gunshot wounds. On the side of the protesters, 106 people were killed.
(33)
During the period of confrontation, I held dozens of meetings with the opposition and Western politicians aimed at peacefully resolving the conflict. The main aim of these talks was to prevent civil war and bloodshed. By this time, Ukraine, politically, was split almost in half. About 50 percent of the population supported the Maidan protesters, and about the same number were against. I am well aware that the beginning of any violent suppression of the protests would have in effect meant the division of Ukraine and the beginning of a civil war.
(34)
With a view to an early end to violence and confrontation, on Feb. 21, 2014 in Kyiv, I, and representatives of the Ukrainian opposition (Vitali Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleh Tiahnybok), with the participation of representatives of the European Union (Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier , Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Radoslaw Sikorski, head of the continental Europe Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of France Eric Fournier), drew up and signed an agreement on the settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine (hereinafter – the “Agreement”).
(35)
This Agreement (for your convenience enclosed with this letter) provides for the removal of protesters and law enforcers from the confrontation line, refraining from the use of force, the surrender of illegal weapons seized by the protesters, and the liberation of administrative and public buildings. The Agreement also calls for amendments to be made to the Constitution and the holding of early presidential elections.
(36)
In addition, one particular paragraph of the Agreement provided for the need to investigate acts of violence under monitoring authorities, including the opposition and the Council of Europe.
(37)
I agreed to all the compromises that were proposed by the opposition and representatives of the European Union, including early presidential elections. Immediately after the signing of the Agreement, subject to agreement with the EU and the opposition, starting from 16:00 February 21, 2014, the authorities began to withdraw law enforcement officers to their regular bases.
(38)
However, the opposition leaders and protesters did not begin to implement the terms of this Agreement, without informing me about it. On the contrary, on the evening of Feb. 21, 2014, the leaders of armed groups of neo-Nazis made an appeal for the Agreement not to be honored, and for protesters to storm the buildings of the government.
(39)
While the motorcade of the president was traveling from the Presidential Administration to the president’s “Mezhyhiria” official residence, at about 7 p.m. automatic weapons were fired at the motorcade.
(40)
At around 11 p.m. on Feb. 21, 2014 an armed group led by a radical lawmaker from the opposition, Andriy Parubiy (now the chairman of the Parliament of Ukraine), seized the buildings of the central authorities: the Parliament, the Presidential Administration, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. At around 6 a.m. on Feb. 22, 2014 they captured my official residence at Novi Petrivtsi, near Kyiv.
(41)
The opposition and the protesters went on to further escalate the violence and continued the seizure of official buildings, which directly contradicted the terms of the Agreement and, ultimately, led to its breakdown.
The coup, and the reaction of US officials
(42)
At 5:10 p.m. on Feb. 22, 2014 the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Resolution of the Parliament of Ukraine “On the President of Ukraine’s removal from the execution of constitutional powers and the setting of early presidential elections in Ukraine” №757-VII (hereinafter – the “Resolution”), which stated that I allegedly removed myself from the execution of the duties of President of Ukraine. This is not true. All this time I was on the territory of Ukraine, until Feb. 24, 2014 and this was known to certain opposition leaders – the coup organizers.
(43)
This Resolution is unconstitutional, since the Constitution of Ukraine (articles 108, 109, 110, 111, 112) clearly sets out the reasons for the early termination of the powers of the President of Ukraine: resignation, impeachment, failure to perform the duties for health reasons, and death. I emphasize that this Resolution is not an impeachment, since it did not follow the required procedure, involving three votes of Parliament, and rulings by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, and most importantly – for the adoption of an impeachment resolution there must be 338 votes by lawmakers, while only 328 deputies voted for the Resolution.
(44)
Many deputies from the Party of Regions received direct threats from protesters before this vote, and some suffered physical violence (for example, there is evidence that on that day there were assaults on Nestor Shufrych, Yan Tabachnyk, and others).
(45)
From the evening of Feb. 21, 2014, after the capture of the buildings of the public authorities, the opposition leaders took full control of the country.
(46)
On Feb. 22, 2014 during my trip by helicopter from Kharkiv to Donetsk (the territory of Ukraine), a military air traffic controller contacted my pilot and ordered the helicopter to return to Kharkiv (as I then knew, a group of armed radicals was waiting for me at the airport in Kharkiv ready to apprehend or kill me). If the order was not obeyed the air controller promised to use military means to force the landing of helicopter. Asked by the pilot for the source of the order, the controller said, “from the head of the Parliament of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov” (at that moment the unconstitutional Resolution of the Parliament of Ukraine to dismiss me from office had not yet been adopted).
(47)
On the same day, on arriving at Donetsk airport, I was illegally stopped by employees of the Border Guard Service of Ukraine. When asked who had ordered them to stop the President of Ukraine, the commander of the border guards referred to the Head of the Border Service, Mykola Lytvyn.
(48)
On Feb. 23, 2014 the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Resolution “On the granting by Parliament to Oleksandr Turchynov of the duties of President of Ukraine” № 764-VII, which was also in gross violation of the Constitution of Ukraine.
(49)
On the same day, Pyatt met with Turchynov to discuss “the issue of restoring legitimate government in Ukraine.” At the meeting, Pyatt spoke, among other things, about “sympathy for the people of Ukraine” and “understanding, that there were many martyrs of the revolution.” And “the best way to honor their memory,” would be “to ensure the consolidation of democratic forces to form a new government.”
(50)
At the same time, despite his own statement about the need to “restore legitimate authority” and mentioning that there had been a “revolution,” he also said that “the United States reject any suggestion that a revolution occurred in Ukraine and that the legitimacy of the incident was allegedly questionable due to foreign support.”
(51)
Later, on March 4, 2014, U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Samantha Power said that “… it is Yanukovych that violated the terms of this Agreement, leaving Kyiv, and then Ukraine”, forgetting to mention the capture of all key public buildings by representatives of the opposition on the day of the signing of the Agreement .
(52)
The statement of Pyatt is overtly false, and that of Samantha Power – a manipulation. At the time of the seizure of power on Feb. 22, I, as the incumbent president, democratically elected by the people of Ukraine, was on the territory of Ukraine and had not been constitutionally removed from the execution of my duties. Due to the threat to my life, I was forced to leave Ukraine following the recognition of the illegal government by representatives of the U.S., i.e. on the Feb. 24, 2014. It is obvious that the U.S. intelligence services could not have been unaware of this.
(53)
I am deeply outraged by the biased interpretation of the events of those days that has been officially given by representatives of Western countries.
(54)
On March 17, 2014, the U.S. government, in support of the perpetrators of the coup d’etat in Ukraine, made a decision on the adoption of personal sanctions, including against me, thus depriving me of the opportunity to provide the international community with objective information about the illegal coup.
The military conflict in eastern Ukraine
(55)
The decision to leave Ukraine was hard for me, but the alternative to my leaving was to attempt to restore constitutional order by force. This would have entailed a full-scale civil war on the territory of Ukraine, such as happened in Syria, because, as I said earlier, society was divided almost in half. It would mean the beginning of a civil war, bloodshed and the killing of innocent victims. So I decided not to do this. My principle – having power is not worth a drop of blood being spilled. I had little hope that the radicals would stop, but still I thought that, after seizing power, they would rethink their radical approaches. Unfortunately, I am deeply mistaken – the neo-Nazis have only worsened the lawlessness and bloodshed in Ukraine.
(56)
As a result of the coup d’état, people came to power in Ukraine who were the direct organizers of the violence on the Maidan, including the mass shooting of protesters and police officers. They are, namely, Oleksandr Turchynov, Andriy Parubiy, Arsen Avakov, Yuriy Lutsenko … It is clear that they were absolutely uninterested in conducting an objective investigation into their crimes. They found that the best way to divert the attention of the public and the international community from investigating these crimes was to increase the violence in other regions of Ukraine.
(57)
Simultaneously with the unconstitutional removal of President of Ukraine from power on Feb. 22, 2014, the Parliament of Ukraine, in anticipation of possible protests against the coup, approved Decree №756-VII, in which it “strongly condemned separatism and any encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine, and ordered that “Ukraine’s Security Service was required to promptly investigate all activities that have signs of crimes against the national security of Ukraine” and “apply stringent and exhaustive measures to stop and prevent threats to national security.”
(58)
Thus, the putschists, who for several months, with the tacit consent of U.S. officials, themselves committed crimes against the national security of Ukraine, after the seizure of power took the decision to harshly suppress any acts by persons who disagreed with the results of the coup.
(59)
From March-April 2014 in the eastern regions of Ukraine there were protests against the coup, during which there was an announcement about the holding of a referendum on the establishment of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.
(60)
On April 9, 2014, Pyatt said that the United States condemned the actions of the protesters in eastern Ukraine and “denounced terrorist tactics that were used in Luhansk during the seizure of the building of the SBU (security service).”
(61)
I recall that in response to similar actions on the part of the opposition in January 2014, when almost half of Ukraine’s regional administrations, law enforcement buildings and arms depots were captured, there were no such condemnations from the United States.
(62)
On April 13, 2014, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine adopted a secret resolution “On urgent measures to overcome the terrorist threat and to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” the text of which has not been published in official publications.
(63)
On April 14, 2014, the press secretary of the White House Jane Carney confirmed there had been a trip by CIA Director John Brennan to Kyiv.
(64)
On the same day, on April 14 2014, Turchynov enacted NSDC decision №405 / 2014. This decision was the beginning of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation,” which was in fact the (start of the) civil war in Ukraine.
(65)
The only intention of the aggressive actions of the new authorities was the harsh, violent suppression of all citizens of Ukraine who did not agree with the mass protests and the anti-constitutional coup, and those who refused to recognize the legitimacy of the coup.
(66)
Ukrainian citizens from the Armed Forces of Ukraine have since used heavy weaponry, artillery, armored vehicles, and military aircraft against civilians in eastern Ukraine.
(67)
The chairman of the UN monitoring mission for human rights in Ukraine, Fiona Frazer, stated that as of Sept. 15, 2016, the number of victims of the conflict in Donbas exceeds 9,600 people, and that more than 22,400 have been injured. The number of internally displaced persons is about 1.5 million people, of which about 200,000 are children.
Out of the Crisis
(68)
I want to emphasize that all of the subsequent bloody events in Ukraine had as their primary source the violence that began on the Maidan. Before the mass shooting of people on the Maidan, there had been no bloodshed of such a scale in Ukraine.
(69)
The main question on the agenda now is how to stop the war in the east of Ukraine and to start rebuilding the war-ravaged Donbas.
(70)
Restoring peace and the rule of law in Ukraine is possible only on the basis of a fair and open investigation of the tragic events of 2013-2014, which gave impetus to the further escalation of the conflict, which in turn grew into a civil war in Ukraine.
(71)
In view of the foregoing, I ask you, Mr. President, to take actions aimed at protecting fundamental human rights in Ukraine, and restoring democracy and the rule of law, namely:
(72)
Bringing in international observers of the process of investigating the murders committed during the mass protests in Kyiv;
(73)
Requiring the Ukrainian authorities to allow international observers and representatives of the current Ukrainian opposition to monitor the investigation of crimes committed in Ukraine from 2014 to the present time;
(74)
Give an objective assessment of the legal and political actions of the representatives of the U.S. during the Ukrainian crisis;
(75)
Include in the Normandy format negotiations representatives of the protesting parties that represent the people of the Donbas;
(76)
If the current Ukrainian authorities fail to implement the Minsk agreement – to initiate a referendum on the status of the Donbas.
(77)
I am convinced that only constant political and legal pressure from the international community on the Ukrainian authorities will lead to the implementation of the Minsk agreements. This will help our country restore a peaceful life and bring our country out of deep political crisis.
(78)
For my part, I guarantee to provide all possible assistance in this investigation, as I have several times informed the current authorities in Ukraine. I have additional information and evidence that will establish the actual organizers of the mass murder on the Maidan. Given the reluctance of the current authorities to conduct an objective investigation, I am willing to give this information to independent international observers.
(79)
Mr. President,
(80)
The facts I have given are an objective reflection of the events occurring in Ukraine. They are easily verifiable and provable. It is essential that comprehensive measures are taken to end the war, which began as a result of ill-considered and irresponsible actions being taken by Ukrainian and foreign politicians.
