BY UGO AKPAN, Contributing Editor
Ukraine is an emotional issue. It is a humanitarian crisis. Between Russia and Ukraine, it is a case of Goliath and David. Large-hearted as we are, some Nigerians were so angry that they wanted to join the Ukrainian forces and defend their country against Russian aggression.
But they got a shock. They were required to pay $1, 000 for ‘visa fees’ to go on a dangerous mission they may not return. Then the Nigerian government stepped in and stopped it. Had they succeeded in going to Ukraine, Nigerian volunteers may have been further shocked by the Ukrainian Army that substantially contains neo-Nazis, a white supremacists group that discriminates against blacks.
African refugees fleeing Ukraine were initially discriminated against at some European borders until. The whites were allowed to enter receiving countries while blacks were denied entrance until there was international outrage.
Against this background, Ugo Akpan, our contributing Editor, well versed in international politics and policies, did this background story to enable Africans understand the energies in the conflict:
On 24 February 2022, the Russian Federation launched a multipronged military offensive into Ukraine. According to South Front[1], an independent website that tracks and analyses conflicts in a number of countries including Israel, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan; Russian forces struck Ukrainian military and command infrastructure across the country including military installations near Mariupol, Berdyansk, Kharkov, Zaporojie, and Dnepr, in eastern Ukraine; Sumy and Chernigov in the north; and hitting military formations in the south including the key naval and army formations in the cities of Nikolaev, Kherson and Odessa.
Other long range precision strikes in the early days of the military operation hit Ukrainian military operation centres near the capital Kiev, including the 72nd Center for Information and Psychological Operations of the Special Operations Forces; and in Zhytomyr, Ivano-Frankovsk and Lutsk in western Ukraine. These strikes were followed by ground invasions from the south and north-east into areas controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Russian Federation forces from Crimea and defence forces of the breakaway republics of Lugansk and Donetsk joined the military operations engaging Ukrainian regiments in the northeast and south.
Figure 1: Opening offensive of the Russian – Ukraine Conflict (Source: South Front)
The 24-hour cable news cycle have gone into overdrive since this escalation in hostilities and in Europe, there has been an expansion in censorship as most western countries have banned Russia Today (“RT”) and Sputnik from broadcasting on cable and TV, and US social media tech giants (YouTube, Twitter, etc.) have banned these media channels on their platforms in Europe and North America.
Thus, only one side of the narrative is currently being fed to western audiences. By extension, since Nigerian news channels mainly relay feeds from the major cable news networks (e.g., CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC World Service, DW, France24, etc.), the main narrative in the Nigerian media space is also one-sided. Therefore, it was not surprising to see reports in Nigerian media about Nigerians who are willing to travel to Ukraine to fight Russian forces and are being asked to pay a fee to do so. I’m sure that following the issue of blatant discrimination against Nigerian students in Ukraine and at the border between Poland and Ukraine, this enthusiasm by Nigerians to go and fight for a third country has somewhat tempered. Nevertheless, it is worrying that Nigerians are not properly informed about the stories so much so that they would be willing to put their lives on the line under a false sense of chivalric assistance for oppressed belligerents in a conflict.
To be fair, numerous foreign volunteers have flocked to Ukraine to help fight the Russian “aggressors” and defend democratic values. But this is proving to be a dangerous undertaking as, having warned foreign fighters not to insert themselves into this conflict, Moscow launched a pinpoint strike on the Yavorovsky military training ground of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the village of Starichi, in the Lviv region of western Ukraine near the border with Poland. 180 foreign militants were reportedly killed in this strike.
So what is the antecedent of this conflict, which is actually an eight-year conflict and by no means started on 24 February (that was an escalation of hostilities)? For this, we have to go back to events of 2013 and 2014, and the Euromaidan coup (or “colour revolution” as it is referred to in the western press).
Anatomy of an eight-year-long conflict
The political and ethnic divisions in Ukraine go back centuries, from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, and unto the Soviet Union. It is a pluri-national state with a Galician ethnic Ukrainian majority, and minorities of Russian, Hungarian, Moldavian, and Romanian speakers. When Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev carved out Crimea from the Russia and incorporated it into the Ukraine (Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783). At this time, questions of ethnicity were held in check under the Soviet policy of protection of minorities and because Soviet citizenship was supra-ethnic.
In February 1990, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, multiple Western leaders, including President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, give both written and spoken assurances to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO does not plan to expand “one inch eastward”[2].
Ukraine subsequently declared itself an independent republic and left the Soviet Union taking Crimea with it. Following this departure, the question of ethnicity emerged as a barrier to full participation in society for all Ukrainians[3].
In January 1991 the Crimean government held a referendum asking if Crimea should declare its independence from Ukraine, reform itself as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (as it had been prior to 1945) and re-join the USSR. The vote passed with 94% support, and Crimea declared independence from Ukraine. The Ukrainian parliament (the Rada) would at first recognise this independence (passing the “Law on Restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic as part of USSR”) and then subsequently reverse the decision and declare Crimea a part of Ukraine once again (historical debate remains over the legality of this decision).
In 1992, the Crimean parliament again declared itself independent as “The Republic of Crimea”, drafting its own constitution and a plan for a referendum on secession from Ukraine. The Rada refused to acknowledge the declaration and forced the cancellation of the referendum. As a compromise, Crimea is granted special status as an “Autonomous Republic”, and given control over its own budget and other devolved powers, as long as they add a line to their constitution designating Crimea a part of Ukraine. Another referendum was held in 1994 asking the following questions:
- Do you support a return to the May 1992 constitution that didn’t guarantee Crimea was part of Ukraine?
- Do you support establishing that all Crimean citizens were entitled to dual citizenship with Russia?
- Are you for conceding the force of laws to the edicts of the president of the Republic of Crimea on questions that are temporarily not regulated by legislation of the Republic of Crimea?
The percentage of affirmative votes for each of the three referendum questions was greater than 77%, with the dual citizenship question gaining 82.8% of the votes showing strong affinity with Russia. However, the Ukrainian government declared the referendum illegal and refused to recognise the results of the second referendum.
In 1995, the Ukrainian government abolished the post of President of Crimea, cut the powers of their parliament and proceeded to govern from Kiev by decree.
In 1997, The Charter on a Distinctive Partnership is signed by representatives of both NATO and Ukraine. This document is a long-term agreement that Ukraine will move gradually into cooperation with NATO and eventually become a member[4]. This is in direct violation of the assurances given above[5].
In 1999, NATO admits Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary into the alliance, beginning the eastward expansion of NATO in breach of the 1991 assurances to Gorbachev.
In 2002, NATO published the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan[6], re-affirming its commitment to “closer ties” with Ukraine, and outlining a long- term plan for “reforms” in Ukraine that will make it suitable for “full Euro-Atlantic integration”.
In 2004, following the first colour revolution in Ukraine which overturned the victory of Viktor Yanukovych in the Presidential election (the “Orange Revolution”) leaders of Eastern Ukrainian oblasts – including Crimea – raise the issue of increased autonomy and even secession from the country. A conference of politicians from the Donbas region call for a referendum on federalization, but are ignored[7].
In 2006, a US Navy stop at the Crimean port of Feodosiya leads to mass protests on the peninsula and a peaceful blockade of the port. Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, a US propaganda media outlet, reported that the Party of Regions, led by former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, has said in a statement that the disembarking of the U.S. naval ship in Feodosiya was an example of “brutal contempt” for the constitution manifested by the government[8]. This was indicative of the substantial opposition to NATO in the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine.
In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the Munich Security Conference with a speech that was instantly interpreted as the harshest-ever manifesto since the Cold War era. Expressing his concerns about NATO’s expansion, Putin says that “NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust”[9]. After that speech, NATO would go on to admit two other countries in 2009 in complete disregard for the security concerns raised by Russia. 15 years later, Mr Putin’s speech appears quite prescient[10].
Figure 2: NATO’s Eastward Expansion (Source: Economist)
Figure 3: With the admission of Ukraine into NATO, Russia would have a well-armed belligerent military alliance at its Eastern and Southern borders (Source: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
In 2008, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Ogryzko signed the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership at a ceremony at the Department of State on December 19[11]. A copy of the document can be found in the US State Department archive, and Section II of the Charter indicates that “Deepening Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions is a mutual priority” and that the US and Ukraine plan “to undertake a program of enhanced security cooperation intended to increase Ukrainian capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO membership”.
In the wake of the Russian conflict with Georgia, and on the back of increased calls for Ukraine to join NATO, the BBC sent a reporter to Crimea and published an article which indicates strong pro-Russian feelings on the peninsula, the key part Sevastopol has played in Russia’s history, and warnings from Crimeans that “The Ukrainian nationalists in Kiev are trying to push us Russians out of here” said a group leader, local MP Gennady Basov[12].
From 2009 to 2011 a series of polls conducted by the United Nations Development Program in Crimea on the question of Russian reunification returned strong positive responses of 65-70%.
A 2010 poll by the Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies found 64% of Crimeans favoured secession from Ukraine to re-join Russia, and 55% favoured increased autonomy from Kiev[13].
In February 2010, following a run-off election between Yulia Tymoshenko and opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych (leader of Ukraine’s Party of Regions), Mr Yanukovych wins the presidential election once again and is named Ukraine’s fourth President. The vote is largely along regional lines and Yanukovych, the former governor of Donetsk, the region of his birth, wins office with a huge percentage of the vote from the ethnically Russian east Ukraine[14]. This distribution of the electoral votes would be important in understanding the subsequent events of 2014.
Figure 4: Second Round winners by district. (Source: Wikipedia)
Although Yulia Tymoshenko challenged the results of the 2010 elections and the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine suspended the results announced by the Central Electoral Commission, she subsequently withdrew her challenge five days before the inauguration of Yanukovych.
Shortly after his inauguration, Yanukovych made his first foreign visit as head of state to Brussels where he declared that “European integration is a key priority”[15]. Mr Yanukovych would visit Russia four days later, signalling an attempt to reemphasize Ukraine’s neutrality between Russia and the west. The BBC noted that “Ukraine’s foreign policy is no longer a simple question of East or West”[16].
However, in May 2010, Yanukovych agreed to extend Russia’s lease on the Black Sea naval base in Crimea until at least 2042. In return, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia would offer Ukraine a discount on its gas bills slashing the price Kiev pays for 1,000 cubic metres of Siberian gas by $100 from its current rate of $330, with a further 30% discount if the price falls[17]. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that the lease of the naval base would bring in at least $90 million a year in lease rent, the extension was met with consternation and rebuke in the Western press, with one online EU newspaper saying that the “new President has prolonged the stay of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea until 2042, which cancels any chances of joining Nato for the next 30 years and also puts in doubt the country’s EU membership prospects for decades to come”[18].
Luke Harding, foreign correspondent of the Guardian and one of the major purveyors of the anti-Russia “Russiagate” hysteria during the Trump presidency, wrote in The Guardian at the time that this “deal is the most concrete sign yet that Ukraine is now back under Russia’s influence following Yanukovych’s victory in February’s presidential elections” [19].
It should be noted that all of this consternation about ties to Russia and rejection of NATO integration was in opposition to the prevailing sentiment of the citizens of Ukraine, which polling indicated had an overwhelmingly positive view of Russia – with more than nine out of 10 (93%) saying they had a good attitude towards Russia. At the same time over half (51%) rejected membership of NATO and only 28% being in favour of joining NATO[20].
In June 2010, Ukraine’s parliament voted through a new bill barring the country from joining any military bloc. The BBC noted that the “law, submitted by President Viktor Yanukovych, cements Ukraine’s status as a military non-aligned country – though it will co-operate with NATO”[21].
In 2012, Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions secured victory in the parliamentary elections, increasing its number of seats and seeing its biggest rival, Arseniy Yatsenyuk‘s Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) party lose 55 seats. The elections marked the first time Ukraine elected a far-right MP to its parliament, with Oleh Tyahnybok’s Svoboda party winning 37 seats and over 10% of the vote (entirely from the ethnically Ukrainian west of the country). At the time, some press reports highlighted the growing disaffection in the west of Ukriane with “the government’s handling of affairs, its love of the Russian language, its closeness to Moscow, its growing distance from Brussels, and its general distaste – in their view – for European ways”.
In 2013, a poll done by Gallup, a US-based polling research agency, found that 82% of Crimeans speak only Russian at home, and further six percent speak Russian and one other language. Only two percent report speaking only Ukrainian. This would later contradict the western press narrative of a Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea against its will.
In November 2013, a wave of pro-EU protests, known as Euromaidan, erupted in response to President Yanukovych’s decision to suspend negotiations on a political association and free trade agreement with the EU. Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko said that the Ukrainian government would suspend the negotiations for signing the Association Agreement with the EU, until a solution for the drop in industrial production due to the breaking of economic relations with CIS countries is compensated by the European market, otherwise Ukraine’s economy would sustain “serious damage”[22].
A poll run by the pro-EU/NATO Kyiv Post found an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union[23].
Yanukovych attended the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 28 November, where he was to sign the Association Agreement but does not sign the agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia, and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely. President Yanukovych still maintains a willingness to continue negotiations and tells European leaders that his country first needs a substantial financial aid package to offset punitive financial measures levelled against it by Russia[24]. However, the EU rejected this request insisting on deep and painful reforms by Ukraine prior any financing[25]. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”[26]. Despite this, the western press cover this as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia” [27].
Protests intensify at Maidan Square with opposition politicians saying that Yanukovych is committing treason and calling for a re-run of the Presidential election[28]. The next elections were only 18 months away. On 29 November the protesters make their first official demands including the immediate resignation of President Yanukovych.
In December thousands of protesters chanting “revolution” storm metal barriers erected by riot police with protesters throwing Molotov cocktails.
Figure 5: Protests at Euromaidan turn violent, the first indication that this crisis is a controlled “colour revolution”
The first signs of a colour revolution were now apparent. Like the first colour revolution in 2004, arrayed across the battlefield were two forces: Russia and the West. In a press conference, far-right MP Oleh Tyahnybok of the neo-Nazi party, Svoboda, officially called the protests a “revolution”, and asks law enforcement officers and members of the military to defect to their side. Writing in the New Republic, Julia Ioffe, a prominent American anti-Putin journalist and so called “Russian expert”, praises the Maidan protesters, citing specifically the throwing of Molotovs at police. Later that week, Protesters topple a statue of Lenin, and an effigy of Gadaffi’s severed head is carried around the Maidan square to chants of “Yanukovych the game is over!” [29]. The following week protests persist and then the US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt visit the protests and talk to opposition leaders. They are photographed shaking hands and distributing cookies[30]. Meanwhile, US Senator John McCain, travels to Kiev where he gives a speech and pledges to use everything in US Congressional power to support the cause of the protesters. He is photographed shaking hands with Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda party. UK’s Channel 4 news reports that Senator McCain met with “Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party”, the far-right group at the “heart of Ukraine’s protests” [31].
Figure 6: Senator John McCain with far-right leader Oleh Tyahnybok
This is a flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of another country, and another evidence of US political meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine.
| The US has had a long history of interference in the internal affairs of other countries with the objective of furthering US geopolitical goals. This interference has sometimes been overt with US military forces invading another country to either install or prop up a puppet government. The Vietnam conflict, various Haitian occupation, Panama invasion, the destruction of Libya, the destruction of Iraq, and so forth are examples of this sort of political intervention. However more often, the US has used covert action to effect regime change in target countries. Jacobo Árbenz of Guatemala, Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran, and Salvador Allende of Chile all fell victims to the US violent and illegal overthrows. Historian and journalist Vijay Prashad’s 2020 book Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations, gives a detailed and appalling account of how the United States of America has snuffed out the lives of those who oppose Washington’s “strategic interest”, and in the process shattered the hopes and development of billions of people in Latin America, Asia, Africa and even in Europe. Of course, Vijay is not the first to have reported on the atrocities of the US empire. There has been a long line of authentic investigative journalists such as Seymour Hersh and John Pilger, and more recently, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange (currently languishing in a maximum security prison in London as an enemy of the state, while he awaits extradition to the United States in a case that drives the last nail in the coffin of the charade of press freedom in the West) who have journaled the violence and lawlessness of the US empire as it attempted to impose its unipolar worldview on the rest of the world, and to exercise full spectrum dominance across the globe (e.g., as outlined here in a 1997 US military document) in what has been called the American century or, more paradoxically, “Pax Americana”. |
| Following the fallout from the 1975 Church Committee (US Senate) and Pike Committee (US House of Reps) investigations into the criminal activities of the CIA, an internal restructuring of the US’ manipulation and covert action machinery was undertaken, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was established in 1983 as an appendage to the US covert regime change apparatus. In addition, such other US government agencies as USAID have been incorporated into the network of US influence and meddling operations. Despite its benign appearance and claim of being an independent non-governmental organisation “supporting freedom around the world”, the NED is fully funded by the US Congress, making it subject to US government control (a classic trick in the Washington game of Orwellian double speak) and it helps undermine governments which are independent of Washington. The New York Times reported in March 1997 that the NED was created to do “what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades, spends $30 million a year to support things like political parties, labor unions, dissident movements and the news media in dozens of countries”. Allen Weinstein, the director of the research study that led to creation of the NED in the 1980s, remarked in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
The NED has funded a large number of Civil Society Organisations and NGOs in target countries where it wishes to conduct influence operations and regime change against target countries. It has done so along with large American private foundations, such as the Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, and the “Big 3” (Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie) among others. These foundations, while doing legitimate social impact work at home in America and around the world, also serve to advance US “strategic interests” which often times include regime change interventions. In Ukraine, the NED, USAID, Open Society Foundations, and Omidyar Network played a role in the events leading up to and immediately following the 2014 Euromaidan regime change coup. The 2016 documentary film produced by Oliver Stone and directed by Igor Lopatonok, provides a detailed look at the role of these US “soft power” actors. A comparative review of US covert regime change strategies can be found here[32]. |
In 2014, as protests intensify in Kiev, Ukraine becomes increasingly unstable.
At a meeting of the US Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Melia admits that the US State Department has spent $5 billion “assisting Ukraine”. This includes $180 million on “development programs” for “judges, members of parliament [and] political parties”[33]. The Ukrainian parliament passes “Anti-Protest Laws” which contain strict crackdowns on protest activity including the removal of parliamentary immunity from MPs promoting violence. Despite these, clashes between riot police and protesters escalate. Coordination between groups of protesters who are resorting to violence becomes more evident and many of these groups are far-right groups such as Svoboda and Pravyi sektor (Right Sector) and are seen wearing Nazi insignia.
President Yanukovych reaches out to opposition leaders, offering them a power-sharing agreement that would install Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister and Vitaliy Klitschko (former professional boxer, turned opposition leader) as his deputy. The opposition refuses the offer. In a gesture of compromise, the parliament repeals nine of the ten protest laws, passing a new law granting amnesty to all those involved in the protests, providing they cease occupying government buildings. The opposition refuses these terms.
On 27 January, local officials in Simferopol and Sevastopol propose Crimea become a federal state, and prepare legal groundwork “to use its right to self-determination and to exit Ukraine’s legal space in the event of a state coup, or seizure of power by force”. An open letter from the Sevastopol city council sent the next day, calls on President Yanukovych to outlaw the “extremist group” Svoboda, and invites the people of the city to form “People’s Squads” as described under Ukrainian law, and defend the border of Crimea. “It is impossible to allow specially trained and armed militants of the “Right Sector” and other pro-fascist and extremist organizations to penetrate our city and dictate their terms. We will provide reliable defense of Sevastopol. Extremism, lawlessness, banditry will not pass in the hero city”.
7 February, a recorded phone call of Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt is leaked to the press. The call has come to be dubbed the “f**k the EU” call. In the conversation, dated January 28th, Nuland and Pyatt discuss at length the structure of the Ukrainian cabinet once Yanukovych is gone. This is still 25 days before Yanukovych was removed from power; again another strong indication of the manipulation and meddling of the USA in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The EU-leaning Kyiv Post publish a poll indicating more Ukrainians opposed the Maidan protests than supported them.
On 14 February, Yahoo News reports “Ukraine’s autonomous Crimea region leans towards Moscow “. The article notes that the Crimean parliament amended the constitution to describe Russia as a “guarantor of Crimea’s safety”, and that elected officials have asked Russia for help if the Maidan protesters should attempt to move into Crimea. US Cold War propaganda media outlet, Radio Free Europe, reports a rise in “pro-Russian separatism in Crimea as Ukraine’s crisis unfolds”.
On 16 February, in yet another attempt at compromise, the government releases all prisoners arrested during the protests, this time the opposition responds, lifting their 3-month long occupation of Kiev City Hall. On 19 February, President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace.
On 20 February, Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed. (A leaked phone call, released in March 2014, between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet reveals information suggesting the snipers were opposition provocateurs killing people from “both sides”.)
Despite the bloodshed, negotiations continue, resulting in the “Agreement on settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine”, signed by all parties plus the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland. The agreement required the creation of a temporary “National Unity Government”, to be replaced following new Presidential Elections by the end of 2014. It also called for a full investigation into the shootings on the Maidan the previous day. Yanukovych pledged that the government would not declare a state of emergency or call in the military and would pull all police back from the site of the protests, in return for protesters surrendering all public buildings and illegal weapons.
Leaders of the militant protesters – including Dmitryo Yarosh of the neo-Nazi Right Sector – reject the agreement and threaten to storm the Parliament and Presidential Residence if Yanukoyvch does not resign immediately.
On the same day, Crimean MP and Speaker of Parliament tells an international meeting in Moscow that Crimea “may secede from Ukraine, if the country splits”.
On 22 February, rather than abiding by the terms of the agreement, once the police pull back the protesters storm government buildings and seize control of Kiev. Yanukovych flees Kiev for the city of Kharkiv in north-eastern Ukraine. He leaves by helicopter, and subsequently his escorting cars going separately to Kharkiv come under gunfire. Yanukovych indicates that Ukrainian Intelligence “had information that there were special mercenaries whose objective was not to capture the president, but to kill”.
Meanwhile, within hours of the storming of the city, the Ukrainian parliament votes to strip Yanukovych of his office by 328 votes to 0, with 121 MPs absent from the vote, thus falling short of the 75% vote constitutionally required to impeach the President.
On 23 February, one of the first bills passed by the new government repeals the law making Russian an official state language. Far-right leaders Oleh Tyahnybok and Dimitri Yarosh propose going further and banning both the Party of the Regions and the Ukrainian Communist Party, both traditionally political parties representing Eastern Ukraine, including Crimea. The same day, thousands of Crimeans attend a protest in Sevastopol, chanting about re-uniting with Russia. The Guardian reports that when the head of the city’s administration said that secession of Crimea could not be permitted he was booed off the stage. Russian officials refrain from publicly stating their support for Crimean separatism, but Kremlin aide Sergei Glazyev describes the Ukraine situation as “schizophrenic” and says that Russia would support greater federalism[34].
On 24 February, Parliament removes 1/3 of the judges on Ukraine’s Constitutional Court from office and issues an arrest warrant for President Yanukovych.
From eastern Ukraine, Yanukovych requests permission from President Putin to enter Russia. Permission is granted, and he is assisted to cross into Russian territory. The illegal coup terminating the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych is complete.
On 26 February, Crimean parliament meets in a special session to discuss the crisis and situation in Kiev. Thousands rally outside the building as the meeting is taking place, chanting “Russia! Russia! Russia!” and “Crimea Rise Up!”. The Parliamentary speaker emerges from the session to address the crowd, saying: “I share your alarm and worry over Crimea’s fate…We will fight for our autonomous republic to the end…Today Kiev doesn’t want to solve our problems, therefore we must unite and act decisively. The people of Crimea have enough strength. Neo-Nazism will not work in Crimea. We will not betray Crimea”.
On 27 February, Arseniy Yatsenyuk is sworn in as Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister, a post he would hold onto following elections in May 2014. Vitaly Klitschko is relegated to the lower office of Mayor of Kiev, and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the right-wing Svoboda party, resumed his office as an MP.
Ukraine’s new government takes shape exactly as suggested by Victoria Nuland in the leaked phone call of January 28th, providing further evidence of US covert manipulation. Meanwhile, NATO tells the press that “We decided that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, of course, provided the country so wishes and provided the country fulfills the necessary criteria”[35].
In the early hours of 28 February, men in fatigues bearing no insignia take control of every airport, seaport, train station and border crossing on the Crimean Peninsula. They also secure all government buildings in Simferopol. These men are later revealed to be Russian troops from the bases at Sevastopol. Kiev and their NATO backers call the troops’ presence an invasion, but Russia defends their deployment, claiming the troops are there at the invitation of both the local Crimean authorities and Viktor Yanukovych, whom they still recognise as the legitimate President of Ukraine. The Russians also claim that their naval lease agreement allowed up to 25,000 troops.
With the peninsula effectively cut off from mainland Ukraine, a second special session of autonomous Crimean Parliament is held, during which they vote to terminate the current government and choose a new Prime Minister. They also established plans for an independence referendum to be held in May 2014.
On 11 March, the Crimean parliament, along with the Sevastopol city council, issue a decree declaring Crimea independent. The new Autonomous Republic of Crimea brings forward the planned referendum from May to 16 March, changing the question from one of independence to a choice between re-joining Russia or re-joining Ukraine.
On 12 March, the Crimean government formally invite members from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to observe the referendum and make sure it’s fair. The OSCE describes the vote as “illegal” and refuses to attend. The referendum goes ahead on 16 March with the Crimean authorities claiming to have invited 190 independent observers from 23 different countries, including the majority of the nations of the EU. The results are massively in favour of joining Russia, 97% vs 3% against, on an estimated turnout of 83%[36].
On 21 March, President Vladimir Putin of Russia officially signs the law recognising Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. Street parties are held in Sevastopol and Simferopol, and all across Russia. (Polls taken in 2014 and 2015 confirm approval of the referendum result.)
On the same date, the Kiev regime signs the controversial European Union Association Agreement into law.
In April 2014, claiming they are owed money, the Kiev regime closes the dam on North Crimea Canal, reducing the flow of fresh water to the peninsula. This is likely a war crime under international law.
In May 2014, clashes in the Black Sea city of Odessa, leave 42 people dead, most of them pro-Russian activists. Most die when they are trapped in a burning building which is set on fire by neo-Nazi groups. Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk declare independence after conducting referendums. Ukraine elects Petro Poroshenko as president in an election not held in much of the east. Fighting intensifies in the Donbas region between Ukrainian armed forces and the militias of the two breakaway republics.
In October 2014, following the 2014 parliamentary elections, the 5-party coalition government officially makes joining NATO a “national priority”.
From late 2014 to 2015, Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany sign two separate cease-fire agreements between the breakaway republics, Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and Lugansk Peoples Republic (LPR), on the one hand, and Kiev. These agreements are known as the Minsk Accords.
The first Minsk Agreement was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the pro-Russia separatist leaders in September 2014. Ukraine and the separatists agreed to an immediate 12-point ceasefire deal including withdrawal of heavy weapons and prisoner exchanges. But the agreement failed to stop the fighting, with frequent violations by both sides. Five months later, after Ukraine lost territory to pro-Russia separatists, Minsk II was signed. Representatives of Russia and Ukraine, mediated by France and Germany, signed a 13-point agreement on 12 February 2015, including the withdrawal of troops and heavy weapons, and the reintegration of LPR and DPR as autonomous regions. The second agreement also quickly broke down, with the OSCE reporting around 200 weekly violations between 2016 and 2020 and more than 1,000 since 2021, according to Novaya Gazeta[37].
With the failure to implement the Minsk II agreement, President Poroshenko continues to drive an Ukrainian nationalist agenda around the slogan armiia, mova, vira (‘military, language, faith’), which became reality with the end to military cooperation with Russia (2014), the enacting of legislation which made Ukrainian ‘the only official state language’ and restricted the use of Russian and other minority languages (2019), and the Ukrainian church breaking ties with the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (2018)[38].
Meanwhile, following loss of territory to the defense forces of the DPR and LPR, Kiev turns to neo-Nazi and right-wing ultranationalist forces to stop the separatists’ advance. These neo-Nazi forces are formally incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard, the first country to do so since the dark days of World War 2. These are the forces that the US led NATO alliance provide with training and weaponry.
Reports that these neo-Nazi forces are operating out of the control of the Kiev regime are repeatedly claimed by the Donbas separatists. There are also reports of war crimes and atrocities by these neo-Nazi forces, which the OSCE monitoring teams attempt to document. Nevertheless, by 2020, the UN has documented more than 14,000 deaths in the Donbas fighting with over 80% of those being suffered by the breakaway republics.
President Zelensky, campaigns on a promise to end the hostilities in the Donbas and even uses the Russian language during his campaigns. He wins 73% of the vote, but subsequently backpedals on his promises once in power. Media repression intensifies under Zelensky as he bans opposition TV stations in 2021. His primary backer, Ukrainian oligarch, Igor Kolomoisky, is also the funder of the neo-Nazi group, Azov Battalion[39].
Some analysts have suggested that Zelensky has been hamstrung by the neo-Nazi forces that are integrated into the security establishment in Ukraine. Western media have tended to downplay these claims since the escalation of tensions between Russia and Ukraine, dismissing such assessments as “Russian propaganda”. But is it really? The Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University notes that the Azov Battalion[40], which was founded in 2014 by Andriy Biletsky and promotes “Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism”, is integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard. The group recruits far-right and neo-Nazi foreign fighters from the U.S. and Europe as well as maintaining extensive transnational ties with other far-right organizations. Its estimated size in 2019 was 22,500 followers (20,000 National Corps members, 1500 Azov Regiment, 1000 National Militia). The U.S. Congress passed a bill in 2018 banning arms sales to the Azov Battalion due to its link to neo-Nazis. Right-wing terrorists around the world have been linked to the Azov Battalion. In December 2019, some Ukrainian neo-Nazis including Azov Battalion members were seen at separatist riots on the streets of Hong Kong, causing panic among local citizens, Hong Kong media reported. In March 2019, 51 people were killed at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in a mass shooting by Australian Brenton Tarrant. Tarrant, who displayed a symbol used by Azov Battalion during the attacks, claimed in his manifesto that he had travelled to Ukraine, according to an article published on the website of the Atlantic Council, a NATO=funded think-tank, in February 2020[41]. US media in September 2019 reported an attempted terrorist attack by an American soldier who tried to bomb a major American news network. The soldier Jarrett William Smith, arrested by the FBI, said that he “planned to travel to Ukraine to fight with violent far-right group Azov Battalion,” ABC News reported that month[42].
Figure 7: Far-right party activists carry torches during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine, January 1, 2018, behind a banner showing Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. (AP/Efrem Lukatsky)
Western media is of course now back-peddling on their previous coverage of these neo-Nazi groups as it is no longer convenient for the manufacture of consent to vilify Russia which is acting significantly because of legitimate national security concerns. The collective west have attempted to impose a media blackout on the Russian perspective of the conflict and have engaged in revisionism worthy of Orwellian “1984” historical denialism. It is indeed fantastic to hear Ross Atkins of the BBC engage in such denialism here[43], when the same BBC has covered the neo-Nazi problem here[44] and here[45], and The Guardian has covered far-right training of Ukrainian children here[46], while Time has covered it here[47]? Of course, the BBC has always been and remains to this day, a tool of British, and by extension, US-led western imperialism, it therefore, serves as the very propaganda channel that the west so often levels at the Russians.
The Nazi ideology of racial superiority should be familiar to most people given the terror this ideology has unleashed upon the world for centuries and especially in the first half of the 20th Century. Why would Nigerians be choosing to fight alongside such bedfellows? While Western Europe has been struggling with the stain of murderous racism and fascism on its history, and while it appears to be backsliding into the dark days of the 1930s driven by its continued unquenchable desire to subjugate and bend Russia to its will, while at the same time being egged on and manipulated by the US hegemon, which quite explicitly views a strong Russia as a threat to its global dominance (see Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard); it is unclear what African nations have to gain by taking sides in this conflict, much less volunteering to die side-by-side with Nazi-glorifying nations. This may not be a harsh assessment.
However, this is not excusing the needless loss of life that is ongoing. Nigerians are neither offering to lay down their lives for their fellow countrymen suffering the scourge of fundamentalist terror in the North East, nor rallying to the cause of the unfortunate people of Yemen who have been under a seven-year brutal bombing campaign by the Saudi Arabia-UAE-US-U.K. coalition[48], which has given rise to the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century.
While people are free to choose who to support, it appears that it is a lack of detailed background to the current conflict in Eastern Europe that has allowed the western and allied mainstream media to manufacture a one-sided perspective on the war. The hope is that people will choose to properly inform themselves and that all wars are ended speedily.
- Ugo Akpan, Contributing editor, writes in from U.S
[1] South Front: https://southfront.org/category/all-articles/products/military-report/ukraine-military-report/
[2] Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. – National Security Archive: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
[3] In These Days of Great Tension, Peace Is a Priority: The Ninth Newsletter (2022). – Tricontinental Institute
[4] Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Ukraine: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25457.htm
[5] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[6] NATO-Ukraine Action Plan: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm
[7] Timeline: The Crimean Referendum. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/03/08/timeline-the-crimean-referendum/
[8] Ukraine: U.S. Navy Stopover Sparks Anti-NATO Protests: https://www.rferl.org/a/1068836.html
[9] Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy. – Kremlin: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034
[10] Putin’s Munich Speech 15 years later: What prophecies have come true? – TASS: https://tass.com/politics/1401215?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
[11] United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership: https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/113366.htm
[12] Russian gunboat diplomacy in Crimea? – BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7622520.stm
[13] Timeline: The Crimean Referendum. – Off-Guradian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/03/08/timeline-the-crimean-referendum/
[14] 2010 Ukrainian presidential election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
[15] Ukraine seeks better ties with EU, Yanukovych says. – BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8543283.stm
[16] Ukraine seeks better ties with EU, Yanukovych says. – BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8543283.stm
[17] Ukraine extends lease for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. – Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/ukraine-black-sea-fleet-russia
[18] The end of Ukraine’s EU integration? – euobserver (Opinion article by Volodymyr Yermolenko): https://euobserver.com/opinion/30016
[19] See also Wikileaks, The Global Intelligence Files, for more coverage on the reaction to the approval of the Crimean Base extension: “UKRAINE/RUSSIA – Ukriane Rada ratifies Russia Fleet accord -Ukraine parliament fight, smoke bomb thrown: AFP”.
[20] Ukraine Says ’No’ to NATO. – Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/
[21] Ukraine’s parliament votes to abandon Nato ambitions. – BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626
[22] Ukraine to resume preparing agreement with EU when compensation for production drop found – Boiko. – Interfax: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/176144.html
[23] Poll: Ukrainian public split over EU, Customs Union options. – Kyiv Post: https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/poll-ukrainian-public-split-over-eu-customs-union-options-332470.html
[24] Ukraine ‘still wants to sign EU deal’. – Aljazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/11/29/ukraine-still-wants-to-sign-eu-deal/
[25] Ukraine ‘still wants to sign EU deal’. – Aljazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/11/29/ukraine-still-wants-to-sign-eu-deal/
[26] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[27] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[28] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[29] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[30] Top U.S. official visits protesters in Kiev as Obama admin. ups pressure on Ukraine president Yanukovich. – CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-victoria-nuland-wades-into-ukraine-turmoil-over-yanukovich/
[31] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[32] GT Investigates: US wages global color revolutions to topple govts for the sake of American control. – Global Times: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml
[33] Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”. – Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/
[34] Ukraine crisis fuels secession calls in pro-Russian south. – Guardian: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/ukraine-crisis-secession-russian-crimea
[35] Door to NATO remains open for Ukraine. – Euronews: http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/26/door-to-nato-remains-open-for-ukraine/
[36] Crimea Votes to Secede From Ukraine as Russian Troops Keep Watch. – New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/europe/crimea-ukraine-secession-vote-referendum.html
[37] Explainer: What Are the Minsk Agreements? – Moscow Times: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/11/explainer-what-are-the-minsk-agreements-a76327
[38] In These Days of Great Tension, Peace Is a Priority: The Ninth Newsletter (2022). – Tricontinental: https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/ukraine/
[39] How Zelensky’s administration moves to dismantle press freedom in Ukraine. – DW: https://kyivindependent.com/national/how-zelensky-administration-moves-to-dismantle-press-freedom-in-ukraine/
[40] Azov Battalion. Stanford CISAC: https://stanford.app.box.com/s/7ocm1tlvp2uydbki04qiuph4oa5j8tg9
[41] Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization. – Atlantic Council: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-azov-should-not-be-designated-a-foreign-terrorist-organization/
[42] GT investigates: Evidence suggests US may have supported neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. – Global Times: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1254217.shtml
[43] BBC Whitewashes NEO-NAZ|S in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEejPPAfK0A
[44] Ukraine: On patrol with the far-right National Militia – BBC Newsnight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6b4ao8gAQ
[45] Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine: NEWSNIGHT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY
[46] Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBXmbkwiSw
[47] Inside A White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy910FG46C4
[48] British and US government’s have not only provided arms and weapons training to Saudi and UAE defence forces, they have also provided logistics and targeting assistance in the Yemen war. See Revealed: UK troops ‘secretly operating in Yemen’: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-07-06-revealed-uk-troops-secretly-operating-in-yemen/ . Also see Can we stop Britain enabling the bloodbath in Yemen?: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/can-we-stop-britain-enabling-bloodbath-yemen
