BBC.. The untold story of the Ukraine Maidan massacre

[Ichingcarpenter]

It's early in the morning, 20 February, 2014. Kiev's Maidan square is divided - on one side the riot police, the protesters on the other.

This has been going on for more than two months now. But events are about to come to a head. By the end of the day, more than 50 people will be dead, many of them gunned down in the street by security forces.

The violence will lead to the downfall of Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Moscow will call 20 February an armed coup, and use it to justify the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

The protest leaders, some of whom now hold positions of power in the new Ukraine, insist full responsibility for the shootings lies with the security forces, acting on behalf of the previous government.

But one year on, some witnesses are beginning to paint a different picture.


Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
"I didn't shoot to kill"
"I was shooting downwards at their feet," says a man we will call Sergei, who tells me he took up position in the Kiev Conservatory, a music academy on the south-west corner of the square.

"Of course, I could have hit them in the arm or anywhere. But I didn't shoot to kill."

Sergei says he had been a regular protester on the Maidan for more than a month, and that his shots at police on the square and on the roof of an underground shopping mall, caused them to retreat.

There had been shooting two days earlier, on 18 February. The 19th, a Wednesday, had been quieter, but in the evening, Sergei says, he was put in contact with a man who offered him two guns: one a 12-gauge shotgun, the other a hunting rifle, a Saiga that fired high-velocity rounds.

He chose the latter, he says, and stashed it in the Post Office building, a few yards from the Conservatory. Both buildings were under the control of the protesters.


more

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

[jakeXT]

1. Somehow the BBC fails to tells us about Parubiy's past

Parubiy was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
http://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right

Andriy Parubiy, now deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, says his men found no gunmen in the Conservatory building.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Conservatives have managed over 20 years to turn BBC News to State control. Corporate control here.

[leveymg]

3. The use of snipers to provoke police massacres also a common thread in the Arab Spring

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Libyan and Syrian regime change operations. Ukraine "third force" snipers - they were also a factor in the violent turn taken in Libya and Syria starting in March 2011.

In all these cases, snipers were the spark that set off civil war. Snipers who fire on police and demonstrators prompted the use of deadly force in carefully constructed and primed escalations. These political bombs erupt into violent clashes and assaults on government buildings, also a common thread in civil wars that erupted in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Coups tend to follow the same scripted format and sequence of events. The same crooked editing and manipulation of images broadcast by one-sided global corporate media. We have witnessed the same scripted rhetoric and phony democratic symbolism in each of these three cases of regime change.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. 42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks with links

42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks with links

SNIP


(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and seethis, this and this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950?s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.


SNIP



(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify aviolent crackdown against protesters.

(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by amemo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers).

(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.


SNIP


(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.


Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/42-false-flag-attacks-governments-from-around-the-world-admit-they-do-it/#4gOv5lwYyUY2u02d.99


FOR YOUR REFERENCE

[polly7]

11. +1000. nt.

[pampango]

5. Wait. Thousands of peaceful protesters. One guy with a shotgun and a hunting rifle set off a police

massacre of protesters. And it is all a sophisticated 'regime change operation' using "Third Force snipers" like the guy with the shotgun.

Would we react the same way to a police massacre of 50 demonstrators in the US if one protester killed police officers? Or would we accuse the shooter of being a "Third Force sniper" and proclaim that the police violence was somehow justified and understandable in light of a "carefully constructed and primed political bomb erupting into violent clashes".

And the violent crackdown and use of lethal force on a large scale in Libya and Syria against protesters is understandable given the alleged presence of 'snipers' (who could not possibly be "agents provocateur&quot in an otherwise peaceful crowd? That would seem to give governments (usually autocratic, if not dictatorial ones) carte blanche to use massive lethal violence on protesters as long as they could claim to identify the presence on one sniper in their midst. Dictators around the world will rally around that pretext.

[leveymg]

6. It wasn't just "one guy with a shotgun and hunting rifle." As AP reported at the time:

Russia, Ukraine feud over sniper carnage
KIEV, Ukraine (AP) -- One of the biggest mysteries hanging over the protest mayhem that drove Ukraine's president from power: Who was behind the snipers who sowed death and terror in Kiev?

That riddle has become the latest flashpoint of feuding over Ukraine - with the nation's fledgling government and the Kremlin giving starkly different interpretations of events that could either undermine or bolster the legitimacy of the new rulers.

Ukrainian authorities are investigating the Feb. 18-20 bloodbath, and they have shifted their focus from ousted President Viktor Yanukovych's government to Vladimir Putin's Russia - pursuing the theory that the Kremlin was intent on sowing mayhem as a pretext for military incursion. Russia suggests that the snipers were organized by opposition leaders trying to whip up local and international outrage against the government.

The government's new health minister - a doctor who helped oversee medical treatment for casualties during the protests - told The Associated Press that the similarity of bullet wounds suffered by opposition victims and police indicates the shooters were trying to stoke tensions on both sides and spark even greater violence, with the goal of toppling Yanukovych.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UKRAINE_SNIPER_MYSTERY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-08-02-52-48

Note: Original AP story has been scrubbed, also posted here, http://news.yahoo.com/russia-ukraine-feud-over-sniper-carnage-203319580.html Here is more from that post:

This much is known: Snipers firing powerful rifles from rooftops and windows shot scores of people in the heart of Kiev. Some victims were opposition protesters, but many were civilian bystanders clearly not involved in the clashes. Among the dead were medics, as well as police officers. A majority of the more than 100 people who died in the violence were shot by snipers; hundreds were also injured by the gunfire and other street fighting.

On Tuesday, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov signaled that investigators may be turning their attention away from Ukrainian responsibility.

"I can say only one thing: the key factor in this uprising, that spilled blood in Kiev and that turned the country upside down and shocked it, was a third force," Avakov was quoted as saying by Interfax. "And this force was not Ukrainian."

The next day, Prosecutor General Oleh Makhntisky said officials have found sniper bullet casings on the National Bank building a few hundred yards up the hill from Maidan, the square that became the center and the symbol of the anti-government protests. He said investigators have confirmed snipers also fired from the Hotel Ukraine, directly on the square, and the House of Chimeras, an official residence next to the presidential administration building.

Deputy Interior Minister Mykola Velichkovych told AP that commanders of sniper units overseen by the Berkut police force and other Interior Ministry subdivisions have denied to investigators that they had given orders to shoot anyone.

Musiy, who spent more than two months organizing medical units on Maidan, said that on Feb. 20 roughly 40 civilians and protesters were brought with fatal bullet wounds to the makeshift hospital set up near the square. But he said medics also treated three police officers whose wounds were identical.

Forensic evidence, in particular the similarity of the bullet wounds, led him and others to conclude that snipers were targeting both sides of the standoff at Maidan — and that the shootings were intended to generate a wave of revulsion so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion.

Russia has used the uncertainty surrounding the bloodshed to discredit Ukraine's current government. During a news conference Tuesday, Putin addressed the issue in response to a reporter's question, suggesting that the snipers in fact "may have been provocateurs from opposition parties."

That theory gained currency a day later when a recording of a Feb. 26 private phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton was leaked and broadcast by the Russian government-controlled TV network, Russia Today. In the call, Paet said he had heard from protesters during a visit to Kiev that opponents of Yanukovych were behind the sniper attacks.

Paet said another physician who treated victims, Dr. Olha Bogomolets, told him that both police and protesters were killed by the same bullets — and "there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new (government) coalition."

[pampango]

7. Even if one accepts the pro-Yanukovich idea that the Berkut did not shoot demonstrators but

that it was "Third Force" snipers (not affiliated with the thousands of peaceful protesters), it begs the question of who that would be.

The article you quoted from indicated that medics treated 40 civilians who were dead and 3 policemen. The 'wounds were identical' which could mean that the Berkut shot them, just as easily as some mysterious "Third Force" snipers. It was not clear whether the wounds were from government-issue type weapons or hunting rifles or other lower powered weapons.

While evil snipers could certainly rile the crowd up against Yanukovich's government (since people would assume it was his forces that were doing the shooting) in whose interest would that be? It could be the local neo-Nazis doing what neo-Nazis do. It could be Western-supported forces shooting civilians to put more pressure on Yanukovich, although he was not going anywhere no what happened at the Maidan. Or it could be pro-Russian forces if Putin had given up on Yanukovich and thought a 'right-wing coup' and Crimea in Russia was the best scenario for the mess in Kiev.

[sabrina 1]

8. When did Putin 'give up on Yanukovich'? This massacre, whoever did it, seems to have wanted to

portray that it was Yanukovich's forces who were killing protesters, which would naturally lead to the overthrow of that government. It makes zero sense that that would have been in the interests of Russia.

Who was there ramping up support for the overthrow of the Yanukovich Govt when they could have just waited a few months for the election? Yanu had proposed having an earlier election to try to appease the protesters.

So yes, in whose interests would the overthrow of Yanukovich's govt be?

Let's see, he had turned down a loan from the IMF/World Bank.

Suddenly he was out of favor with those who are controlling the world's economies.

At one time of course, when he was considering it, he was IN favor with them.

It's not as if he suddenly was corrupt. Yet he had the support of those who support enslavement to the IMF/World Bank until he refused a loan that would devastate, as the IMF always do, both the sovereignty and economy of Ukr.

So we have some suspects, and some who can be eliminated due to the fact that keeping Yanu was in their favor..

[polly7]

9. Bingo! Well said. nt.

[pampango]

14. Yanukovich has been 'persona non grata' ever since he arrived in Russia. There are many reports that

Putin was angry with Yanukovich for how he handled events in Kiev. It is no surprise that little has been heard from Yanukovich throughout the months since he left Kiev. He could easily have been a spokesman for the 'legitimate' government in Ukraine, yet Putin has chosen to keep him far from any microphones.

Who was there ramping up support for the overthrow of the Yanukovich Govt when they could have just waited a few months for the election? Yanu had proposed having an earlier election to try to appease the protesters.

So yes, in whose interests would the overthrow of Yanukovich's govt be?

Yanukovich agreed to early elections one day and left the country the next day. He was not 'overthrown'. He still controlled the security forces and the military and had just agreed to remain in power until the early elections. He chose to leave the day after agreeing to stay in office.

[sabrina 1]

17. You don't seem to be familiar with this issue at all. .

Yanukovich turned down the IMF offer which would have resulted in the IMF having control over Ukr's economy.

Russia offered a much better loan, both for the country in terms of its sovereignty, AND in terms of its economy.

THAT is when ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE, the protests, the murders, the neo nazis etc etc and eventually the COUP toppling Yanukovich and ENDING the possibility of Ukr NOT becoming enslaved to the IMF.

If I were a detective looking for suspects here, I would look for who benefits. Qui Bono.

I don't think anyone has to be a great detective to answer that question.

The IMF/World Bank and the Globalists who own them, are definitely the WINNERS here.

Russia is the loser.

Had Yanukovich accepted the IMF loan, he would still be there, period.

[pampango]

20. You're saying that at the last minute Yanukovich decided that Russia had a better offer.

Yanukovich was due to sign the Association Agreement with the EU on November 29, 2013 at a summit in Vilnius. For months he had expressed support for doing just that. As late as November 21 he said, "an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist...We are walking along this path and are not changing direction".

5 days later (3 days before the summit) the Ukrainian government stated that Russia had asked it not to sign the agreement. The same day Putin said that Ukraine's EU deal was bad for Russia's security interests.

During the summit in Vilnius where the agreement was to be signed "President Yanukovych stated that Ukraine still wanted to sign the Association Agreement but that it needed substantial financial aid to compensate it for the threatened response from Russia".

Russia is the loser.

That would run counter to prevailing opinion that Putin has out-manuevered the West by annexing Crimea. In what way is Russia the loser?

Yanukovich ran in 2012 on a pro-EU integration platform. For months up until 5 days before the signing of the EU agreement, Yanukovich was still supporting the idea. Putin made a statement that it was not in Russia's interests and suddenly Yanukovich changed his mind. I imagine that most Ukrainians did not know what hit them.

Perhaps Russia did offer "a much better loan". It is unfortunate that they did not offer it sooner or, if they did, that Yanukovich did not accept it earlier and explain it to the Ukrainian people more effectively. The government had been on a path to sign the EU agreement for a year and a half, then changed its mind 5 days before the event.

At the very least it was not well handled by Yanukovich which may be why he is in Putin's dog house.

Had Yanukovich accepted the IMF loan, he would still be there, period.

If he had signed the EU agreement which he had been supporting since his campaign in 2012 and for which he professed his continuing support a week before the signing date, he would still be in office. If he had not decided to leave Kiev a day after he agreed to remain in office until elections no later than December, he would have been in office at least until the election and longer if he had won it.

[sabrina 1]

21. If the EU had treated Ukr better, not as a 'second class' country, had they been willing to

negotiate changes to the austere demands made on Ukr, especially since Yanukovich didn't want to be indebted to Russia, all of this might have been avoided.

He was in a very difficult situation. The choices he had were to go with the EU and become part of its membership, which it appears, would not happen unless Ukr met and jumped over various hurdles, which Yanukovich took as a sign of disrespect, or go with Russia, an equally difficult decision.

The IMF offer did not address the actual financial situation in Ukr as told by Yanukovich, again, in his view, a sign of disrespect to his country.

So yes, he did want to be a part of the EU right up to December of 2013. So who is to blame for his sudden change of mind? People can argue over that forever, the fact is, the EU failed to respect Ukr, in the view of their leader. When Russia offered a bailout without specific conditions, and without the IMF demands to extend the retirement age, to cut pensions etc, which is their MO, it was the best of two bad situations in his view.

He was driven from power, unless he wanted to stay and risk his life.

Simply put, and the situation was never simple, he had a choice between the EU/IMF or Russia.

So again, qui bono when the government was toppled?

It certainly wasn't Russia who lost their bid to undermine the Western powers as soon as the coup took place.

[pampango]

23. Who treated Ukraine as a 'second class' country? The EU or Russia which declared that the agreement

was not in its 'security interest' and asked Ukraine not to sign it, 3 days before the summit. Surprising how fast things fell apart after that. That is really treating a country with 'respect'.

the fact is, the EU failed to respect Ukr, in the view of their leader.

Given the massive demonstrations which started when Yanukovich suddenly reversed his long-standing commitment to the EU agreement, perhaps the people were not as concerned with 'respect' - which Ukraine was not getting from Russia either, for that matter - than they were with the policy they thought Yanukovich was implementing.

He was driven from power, unless he wanted to stay and risk his life.

He had full control of the military and the security forces. His life was not in danger from people who had managed to occupy one public square in a large city for several months. He simply decided to leave within 24 hours of signing the agreement to remain there and run the government until elections were held.

Whether that was a unilateral decision on his part or consistent with a larger plan we will probably not know for years. If he believed he would lose the election, he might have wanted to leave early so that his departure would not be causes by an election loss - hard to rally the troops around that - but by a 'coup' which could be used to accomplish other goals like the annexation of Crimea with its large Russian military base.

It certainly wasn't Russia who lost their bid to undermine the Western powers ...

Russia annexed part of Ukraine. I hardly call that a defeat for Russia.

[sabrina 1]

30. You neglected, once again to respect Ukraine as a country. The protests were in a small part

of Western Ukraine. Are you ignoring the fact that Easter Ukraine, where millions of people also are Ukrainians, were NOT part of those protests, that they had NOT been consulted.

On the contrary a huge part of the country was being ignored, disrespected and dismissed as if they did not belong there.

At the point, especially after the Coup Govt attacked their status as Ukrainians even further, and for NO REASON, by banning their language, they were terrified,

Stop pretending that it was NOT the actions of the Kiev Coup Govt that caused the Crimean people to vote to seek protection from that government, and that they were lucky to get out before the same coup government sent in the military to attack them.

Are Crimeans dying as a result of the Kiev Military? It was a wise decision on the part of the people of Crimea. Too bad other regions didn't get out of a country that made it clear they didn't want them right off the bat, and then sent in the military to attack them.

[pampango]

32. It is not a 'coup government' when the president agrees to stay in office then leaves the next day.

Stop pretending that it was NOT the actions of the Kiev Coup Govt that caused the Crimean people to vote to seek protection from that government

The leader of Crimea announced the intention of Crimea to secede, while he was in Moscow, the day before Yanukovich left before the 'coup government' even came to power.

It was a wise decision on the part of the people of Crimea.

It is different to hear a liberal come out in favor of big countries annexing parts of smaller neighboring countries.

[leveymg]

10. Without taking sides, the point is that unidentified "third party" snipers ignited all three

civil uprisings in Libya, Syria and then Ukraine. Each instance resulted in regime change or civil wars against regimes that have or had strong ties to Russia. Without assigning specific guilt, I am saying we need to look at the possibility of common authorship behind the tactic.

This is something well worth further inquiry, and this latest evidence in the OP adds to the weight of evidence.

[sabrina 1]

13. Yes, people have noted this tactic. Russia and China were dealing, economically with

all of those countries before the regime changes took place. Same thing with Iraq. See South America also.

And once the regime changes took place, the oil secured in Libya and Iraq for the Global Cartels, the countries were left devastated, see Libya right now, what happened to all the 'supporters of the Libyan people' I wonder?

Another thing to note is that as soon as Yanukovich refused the IMF loan, and instead accepted a loan with far less restrictions on Ukr and its economy from Russia, ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE.

[pampango]

15. I would agree with you that the presence of "third party" snipers, if true, is worth investigation.

Of course, giving dictators (in countries where they hold power like Libya and Syria) a 'no-questions-asked' excuse - "there were snipers among the demonstrators" - to use violence against protesters is a path that should be carefully tread down.

[leveymg]

16. That is why I said investigation not "free pass" for dictators

of which in each case, by the way, I am no fan. Investigation generally doesn't mean "no-questions-asked", but the same level of rigorous scrutiny also has to leveled on agencies of governments that meet our standards more closely.

If we can all agree to that -- to get past the knee-jerk right-wrong, black-white, good-versus-evil paradigm that takes over whenever these subject come up here -- then, we can start getting at the facts.

[CJCRANE]

18. Investigation is the opposite of "no questions asked".

It's amazing to me how much is taken on faith nowadays even here on DU.

It wasn't like that here in the Bush era.

[polly7]

12. +1000. nt.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. Berkut had violently cracked down on protesters months before the Feb. 20th sniper attacks.

Moreover, at the time of the Feb. 20th sniper attacks, Victor Yanukovych had already been packing up his belongings in preparation of leaving Kiev for at least one day.

The February 20th shootings was not the tipping point in the revolution. That apparently occurred long before that point.

[leveymg]

26. The sniping that led to mass shootings most definitely was a tipping point.

And, you most certainly haven't made your case that it was Berkut that did it. Feel free in your reply.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. If it was a tipping point, then why had Yanukovych already been packing for a day when it happened?

He had already made his decision to leave when those shootings took place. It was essentially a tragic footnote in the situation.

[leveymg]

28. You may be confusing variations in sequence with a rule of causation

I never said there was a rigid order or sequence of events that are a prerequisite to a coup or regime change. I merely observed that the events in Libya, Syria and Ukraine include the common element of "third-party" sniper attacks. The "tipping point" I referred to was how the situation is more widely perceived. Mass killings of civilians generally mark an escalation that attracts international attention and condemnation. The actual change in regime may come quickly or never occur, but it is an important event, regardless.

As for what actually motivated Yanukovych to leave for Moscow when he did, likely neither you nor I will ever know. Here's a paper on three major theories of the theory and practice of coup d'etat. I'd welcome your specific comments on how any of these apply to this topic: https://www.academia.edu/7926892/On_the_Theory_and_Practice_of_Organizing_and_Staging_a_Coup_D_Etat_A_Critical_Examination_of_Three_Seminal_Works

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. But the tipping point has to be before the regime change. That much is true.

And with Ukraine, the regime change can best be defined as having taken place in the early morning hours of February 22, 2014, when Victor Yanukovych's fleet of helicopters left his Kiev estate for good. The Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych later that afternoon based on dereliction of duty.

What makes this situation slightly unique is the fact that there was essentially a three day run up to the regime change where Yanukovych was preparing to leave but hadn't yet left. And this sniper incident occurred within that three day window. But from the evidence, it appears the die had already been cast at that point. I doubt he was going to suddenly stop having his valuable possessions packed and shipped away and decide to stick around after all.

As to Yanukovych's decision to leave, nothing had been confirmed. But I think it's easy to hypothesize that he made a calculated decision. He could stay and try to weather the storm. And perhaps like Assad, he might have survived. On the other hand, he may have been Ceausescu'ed, and that would be that. I think he knew he was quite a wealthy man with a lot of valuable assets--hence the three day long video of a huge host of luxury items being packed into moving vans. He could be a despised president with an uncertain future, or he could live out a very rich and comfortable live as a private citizen in a secure location. He chose the latter.

Interesting article that you posted. Not sure if it applies to Ukraine since the evidence doesn't suggest an actual coup in Ukraine, but an interesting read nonetheless.

[leveymg]

31. You're assuming regime change always ends with the flight of the head of state

Regime change is a process that doesn't really end until the new regime has consolidated power over the country's territory and sole legitimacy. In Ukraine, like the other states I mentioned, the situation after foreign intervention has deteriorated into civil war and has not stabilized. Thus, we can't say that regime change is complete in Ukraine.

In Syria, regime change is manifestly an incomplete process, and civil war is ongoing. Libya is far from stabilized, and the country has broken up into warring tribal regions with no effective central government. Unless there is stabilization of the new regime, and the old regime is completely out of the picture, regime change really hasn't occurred. Therefore, the departure date of the old regime (Jan. 22) really isn't so significant.

I agree that coup is probably not the best term for what has happened in Ukraine. The proper term for what has actually occurred after Yanukovych's departure is "dual sovereignty", where he announced the secession of Crimea and a civil war has broken out with foreign intervention in that breakaway region, and no real consolidation of control over the country in sight.

[elias49]

19. K&R

[riderinthestorm]

22. Very interesting. K&R! nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Interesting article which raises some questions. But it's crucial to keep things in greater context.

Regarding "Sergei"'s claims themselves, you first would have to assume he's telling the truth. And once you do that, you would have to ask yourself what his agenda was and who was he working for. As the article points out, he doesn't really divulge that info. I know some people would love to attribute the sniper shootings to the CIA. Others might want to attribute it to Russia. But honestly we can't attribute them affirmatively to either side for sure. There's been a lot of suspicion placed on the Ukrainian SBU (secret police) which at the time was under control of Yanukovych. Perhaps there was a COINTELPRO type situation here, but everything is speculative at this point.

But people get a little too fixated on the February 20th sniper incident as if it was the only incident where protesters died at Maidan, and since it took place just two days before Yanukovych fled, some people assume it was the tipping point. The facts reveal otherwise.

Berkut--the riot police under control of Yanukovych--had been aggressive towards protesters from nearly day one in Maidan, dating back to late November 2013 when protesters and bystanders were beaten with batons, stun grenades, tear gas, etc. These agresssive tactics continued through mid January 2014. On January 22, 2014 you had your first fatalities attributed to Berkut, with at least five people killed that day. Additional fatalities were reported in January and early February. On February 18-19 (before the sniper incident), 26 protesters were killed by Berkut.

Additionally, as the story points out, besides the sniper shootings on February 20, there were also at least a dozen protesters in ground clashes with Berkut. So even if you discount the sniper shootings, you have Yanukovych controlled riot police killing scores of people on February 20th and in the days leading up to it.

But the most notable thing of all: On February 20th, the day of the sniper shootings on Maidan, Victor Yanukovych had already spent one day packing up his belongings in preparations for leaving Kiev. Video evidence confirms this. So people who consider the February 20th sniper shootings the "tipping point" would in fact be incorrect, since at the time of the shootings Yanukovych had apparently already made up his mind that he was fleeing.

The February 20th sniper shootings on Maidan have long been considered one of the most puzzling incidents in the entire revolution. But it was far from being the key factor in the change in power.