Date: November 17, 2024
Author: Jean-François Le Drian
The Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014 in Ukraine marked a decisive turning point in the country’s history, leading to a radical shift in its geopolitical orientation and contributing to the outbreak of an armed conflict.
This article analyzes how the strategies of the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), particularly through NATO and EU expansion and economic pressures, sowed the seeds of the war in Ukraine.
By examining key events, official statements, and implemented policies, we aim to shed light on the complex interests that fueled this crisis.
A central question arises: should the upheaval of 2014 be described as a revolution or a coup d’état? This text invites readers to reflect on the responsibilities of international actors and their dramatic consequences.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, an influential neoconservative strategist whose ideas shaped U.S. foreign policy, the post-Soviet space, particularly the former Soviet republics, represents a “vast black hole” that is both dangerous and rich in resources, especially hydrocarbons.
In its July 2004 issue, Le Monde diplomatique summarized this vision as follows:
A disoriented Russia would be definitively excluded from Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, regions whose hydrocarbons would be exported outside its control. This would create a geopolitical balance more favorable to the West.
The North Caucasian republics, those small ethnic enclaves still under Russian influence, could be freed from Moscow’s domination.
Moreover, the two Azerbaijans (the one from the former USSR and the one in Iran) could potentially be reunited.
This analysis reflects a Western strategy aimed at reducing Russian influence in its former Soviet space by promoting the integration of neighboring countries into the EU and NATO.
In July 2004, Le Monde diplomatique further summarized this neoconservative American perspective:
Poorly de-Sovietized, Russia should be definitively separated from Ukraine, pushed out of the Caucasus and Central Asia, whose hydrocarbons would be exported outside its control. A weakened Moscow would result in a more favorable geopolitical balance. The North Caucasian republics, this “constellation of small ethnic enclaves still under Russian domination,” could be emancipated. “The two Azerbaijans (former USSR and Iran) would be reunited.”
This analysis reflects a Western strategy aimed at reducing Russian influence in its former Soviet space by promoting the integration of neighboring countries into the EU and NATO.
As early as 1992, following the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. strategy for Europe was as follows:
- Expansion of NATO and the European Economic Community (EEC) eastward.
- Countering excessive integration of the twelve member states that could hinder the integration of Eastern countries.
- Preventing the twelve from establishing an autonomous European defense system.
The question of NATO’s eastward expansion is thus part of a long-standing agenda.
A declassified document from February 9, 1990, reports a promise made by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during negotiations on German reunification:
“If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a member of NATO, there will be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction one inch to the east.”
Although this assurance was not formalized in a treaty, it was perceived as a moral commitment by Russia, fueling accusations of “broken promises” in response to NATO’s subsequent expansion into former Soviet bloc countries.
Moreover, on April 4, 2008, during the NATO-Russia Council session in Bucharest, Russian President Vladimir Putin firmly opposed NATO’s expansion, which he saw as a provocation aimed at preparing the ground for EU integration.
The Russo-Georgian War of August 2008, which erupted in the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was a logical consequence of these tensions, although the conflict had deeper historical roots, particularly the strained relations between Russia and these regions, exacerbated by the pro-Western orientation of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Ultimately, the Bucharest Summit, where NATO promised future enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia, acted as a catalyst.
Five years later, in 2013, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), comprising 12 active former Soviet republics, aimed to transform into a customs union, modeled after the European Economic Community.
While Ukraine was preparing to strengthen its economic ties with Russia, Ukrainian oligarchs, led by Petro Poroshenko, one of the country’s wealthiest individuals, pushed for an association agreement with the EU.
Thus, when appointed as trade minister, Poroshenko negotiated this association project, described as the “most ambitious bilateral agreement” ever signed by the EU, which included a 99% reduction in customs duties.
The EU demanded that Ukraine choose between its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) and the customs union with Russia, presenting this decision as an exclusive choice between two geopolitical blocs.
Economically, Ukraine was going through a difficult year. As a result, President Viktor Yanukovych requested €20 billion in annual aid from the EU, which offered only €610 million, conditional on reforms. French President François Hollande responded, “We are not going to pay Ukraine to sign the association agreement” (The Telegraph, November 29, 2013).
Thus, in 2013, Ukraine faced a dilemma with dramatic consequences.
Vladimir Putin considered that “a Ukraine-EU free trade agreement would represent a major threat to Russia and lead to increased unemployment” and posed the question: “Must we strangle entire sectors of our economy so that Europe appreciates us?” (BBC, November 26, 2013).
Yanukovych proposed a trilateral agreement including Russia to avoid excluding either partner, but the EU, represented by Barroso, rejected this proposal, stating, “When we sign a bilateral agreement, we do not need a trilateral treaty.”
Ultimately, Russia offered Ukraine $15 billion in aid and a reduction in gas prices, formalized in an agreement signed by Yanukovych on December 17, 2013. However, Petro Poroshenko and other pro-EU oligarchs pursued a different path, advocating for European integration.
Unfortunately, the story did not end there. Poroshenko decided otherwise.
At this stage, it is worth examining the thesis that the EU, and especially the US, manipulated the pro-EU protest movement and created the Euromaidan movement, partially funded by the oligarch minister Petro Poroshenko.
On February 7, 2014, the pro-Western Ukrainian newspaper Kyiv Post reported a poll based on a representative sample of 2,600 people, which found that 48% did not want closer ties between Ukraine and Europe and did not support the “Euromaidan” movement, compared to 45% who supported the protests.
Coup d’État or Revolution?
When a government, supported by half the population and contested by the other half, is overthrown by the use of violence, should it be called a “revolution” or a “coup d’état”?
If the Yellow Vests in France had overthrown the government, would the international community have hailed it as a revolution?
The manipulation of protest movements, theorized during the Kosovo War in the 1990s, seems to have been repeated in Ukraine.
Euromaidan, fueled by both genuine popular discontent and external influences, led to a violent change of power, raising questions about the role of foreign actors in Ukraine’s destiny.
In his article “The Orange Revolution as a Geopolitical Phenomenon” (Hérodote, vol. 129, no. 2, 2008, pp. 69-99), Viatcheslav Avioutskii writes about the so-called “Orange Revolution” of 2004:
“The opposition could rely on the support of Western NGOs and foundations ‘specialized’ in velvet revolutions, such as Freedom House and George Soros’s Open Society Institute, as well as American think tanks like the National Democratic Institute (NDI), linked to the Democratic Party, and the International Republican Institute (IRI), tied to the Republican Party. These organizations had numerous local relays, among which the most significant was the student movement Pora. Beyond this indirect influence, the United States and the European Union used official channels to exert strong pressure to ensure fair elections. Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski and his Lithuanian counterpart Valdas Adamkus, accompanied by Javier Solana, were called upon to mediate during the November 2004 crisis.”
He concludes:
“It is undeniable that campaigns organized by youth movements, such as Pora, have proven effective in the political transformation of the post-communist space. They rely on activists trained and funded by NGOs and primarily American foundations, which provide them with an intellectual framework, practical training, and significant financial and material resources. These youth organizations, operating across borders and thus constituting transnational movements, challenge the principle of national sovereignty that previously dominated classical geopolitical analysis. The United States has proven to be a pioneer in this regard, though it does not hold a monopoly on this principle.”
The following transcript of an interview with George Soros by CNN demonstrates that the U.S. has never ceased to influence Ukrainian public opinion:
ZAKARIA: “First on Ukraine. One of the things that many people have recognized about you is that you, during the revolutions of 1989, funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?”
SOROS: “Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent from Russia. And the foundation has been functioning since then. And it played a – an important role in the events now.” (Referring to the Maidan events).
Victoria Nuland, the famous U.S. Undersecretary of State who uttered the infamous “Fuck the EU,” revealed on December 13, 2013, before the US-Ukraine Foundation that the United States had spent $5 billion to help Ukrainians “fulfill” their “aspirations,” namely to turn away from Russia and join the West.
On February 7, 2014, BBC News published a transcript of a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, headlined: “Victoria Nuland’s leaked phone call (with the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine) shows U.S. control over Ukraine.”
In the conversation, Victoria Nuland is heard discussing with the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and uttering her famous “Fuck the EU.”
The transcript of this conversation portrays a Victoria Nuland who vetoes one candidate for the position of prime minister and single-handedly selects her preferred candidate, who is later appointed prime minister.
Nuland: I don’t think Klitsch (the current mayor of Kyiv and former boxer, Wladimir Klitschko) should go into the government, it’s not necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, another opposition leader] and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: I think Yats (Yatsenyuk) is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk, it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
Indeed, on February 27, 2014, five days after the ousting of President Yanukovych, whose election had been certified by the OSCE, Yatsenyuk was appointed prime minister.
Victoria Nuland thus effectively chose the Ukrainian prime minister at least three weeks before the supposedly unplanned fall of the duly elected president occurred.
Subsequently, foreign-born individuals were granted Ukrainian citizenship just hours before taking office to join the new government.
Le Monde reported on December 2, 2014:
“This team includes a major surprise and a novelty: three foreigners take on top responsibilities. The Ministry of Finance is assigned to Natalia Yaresko, a U.S. citizen of Ukrainian origin, who had a career at the U.S. State Department before working in the private sector,” where she oversaw an investment fund created by the U.S. government to invest in the country and served as CEO of Horizon Capital, a company managing various Western investments in Ukraine. A Lithuanian, Aivaras Abromavičius, a former basketball champion and head of the Kyiv branch of the East Capital investment fund, is appointed to the economy. Finally, Sandro Kvirikashvili, former Georgian minister of health and labor, takes the health ministry, a key position given the corruption plaguing Ukraine’s healthcare system.”
Le Monde continues:
“These three surprising appointments are an initiative of President Poroshenko, who reserved some of the posts for his party for ‘foreigners,’ as the Ukrainian press already refers to them. Naturalization decrees were urgently issued on Tuesday.”
Regarding the conversation between Nuland and the Ambassador, the BBC article specifies:
“The bulk of the conversation shows that the U.S. is manipulating Ukraine as much as Russia is, and that is the real diplomatic disaster.”
What this recording reveals is that Victoria Nuland seems to consider the fall of the sitting president as a foregone conclusion.
Such certainty could be explained either by an extraordinary understanding of history and events or, more simply, because a plan had been devised to that effect.
Those who might doubt that such a plan could have been considered and dismiss this hypothesis as conspiratorial are likely unfamiliar with the concept of “regime change,” which has become a U.S. specialty, supported by the “psychological operations” division.
As examples of the practical application of U.S. “regime change” techniques, the following article lists seven foreign governments overthrown through CIA-led operations.
Retrospectively, the Cato Institute think tank stated in 2017 regarding the 2014 Maidan events: “The extent of the Obama administration’s interference in Ukrainian politics was breathtaking.”
A second element supports the thesis of an orchestrated coup: the implementation of a “false flag” operation.
Specifically, snipers fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing numerous protesters.
Public opinion believed that government forces were responsible for this massacre of civilians and that President Yanukovych had personally ordered the shooting.
Not only was the international community outraged by these shootings, but many Ukrainians in the west, who were initially not pro-EU, joined the pro-Euromaidan movement.
Ultimately, the Ukrainian president was ousted by parliament, although the constitutional law did not permit it, and this was done in the absence of votes from the elected deputies of his own party.
Since then, researchers have analyzed the footage, particularly a Ukrainian-Canadian researcher who describes his study as follows:
“This study analyzes the revelations from the trial and investigation in Ukraine regarding the massacre that took place in Kyiv on February 20, 2014. This massacre of protesters and police on Maidan led to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government and ultimately to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the civil war, and Russian military interventions in Donbas, as well as the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia and the West, which Russia exacerbated by illegally invading Ukraine in 2022. The absolute majority of injured Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations conducted by government experts unequivocally showed that Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in buildings controlled by Maidan.”
However, to this day, due to the politically sensitive nature of these findings and their cover-up, no one has been convicted for this massacre.
The article discusses the implications of these revelations for the war between Ukraine and Russia and for the future of Russo-Ukrainian relations.
The researcher’s conclusion, which struggled to gain acceptance but is now widely agreed upon, is that the shots fired at the crowd came from buildings controlled by pro-Maidan forces.
Thus, the reality of the “false flag” operation is reasonably established.
It can therefore be considered a genuine coup d’état, a “regime change” operation.
Did the U.S. approve the “false flag” operation and participate in organizing the coup?
In 2014, a leaked phone call between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet revealed that they had discussed a possible false flag operation.
The 11-minute conversation was published on YouTube.
During the call, Paet states that he was told that the snipers responsible for the killings of police and civilians in Kyiv the previous month were provocateurs from the protest movement rather than supporters of then-President Viktor Yanukovych.
Ashton: “I didn’t know… My God.”
Paet: “There is a growing understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but someone from the new coalition.”
Today, given the above evidence, it is difficult to dismiss the hypothesis of a U.S.-orchestrated coup or one that at least received Washington’s approval.
U.S. interference, however, is beyond any doubt.
On December 15, 2013, Senator John McCain directly addressed the crowd of protesters.
Four days earlier, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland distributed sandwiches to protesters in the heart of Kyiv, as she might have done to Yellow Vests attempting to storm the Élysée Palace.
These symbolic actions were not gratuitous. They aimed to send a strong message to the crowd, namely: “The U.S. supports you and will continue to support you.”
Today, a retrospective analysis of the facts demonstrates that without the effect of violent groups joining the crowd of protesters and without the impact of the false flag operation, the Ukrainian president would not have been ousted.
Weeks before the president’s fall, Victoria Nuland acted as if it were inevitable, which supports the idea of a U.S.-orchestrated “regime change” operation, especially since such operations have frequently been conducted by the U.S.
Yet, an agreement negotiated by the EU on February 21, 2014, provided for new elections in December 2014, an amnesty for protesters, and the restoration of the 2004 constitution.
The three opposition signatories were Vitali Klitschko, whom U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland did not want as prime minister; Arseniy Yatsenyuk, her preferred candidate; and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the ultranationalist Svoboda party, known for its antisemitic positions.
The next day, the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in what some describe as a coup d’état. In line with Nuland’s preferences, expressed in an intercepted February 2014 phone call (“Yats is the guy”), Yatsenyuk was appointed prime minister.
The day after this agreement, the duly elected president was ousted, and on February 27, 2014, five days after the president’s ousting, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in accordance with Victoria Nuland’s decision, was indeed appointed prime minister.
At the end of 2013, U.S. Senator John McCain was criticized for meeting with opposition leaders, including Tyahnybok, whose Svoboda party advocated for recording ethnicity on passports and used derogatory terms to refer to Russians, Germans, Jews, and others, accused of wanting to “take possession of the Ukrainian nation.”
The rest is history.
As early as May 13, 2014, journalist John Pilger warned in The Guardian: “In Ukraine, the United States is dragging us toward war with Russia.”
On April 21, 2010, Le Figaro reported that “in exchange for an agreement on the price of Russian gas, Ukraine allows Russia to maintain its military presence in the Black Sea.”
Given that Sevastopol has hosted the Russian, then Soviet, Black Sea Fleet since the late 18th century, it does not take a great strategist to understand that the Maidan coup and agreements with NATO threatened the continuity of this strategic naval base.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea was therefore eminently predictable.
Given these elements, it is difficult not to see the responsibility of the EU and the U.S. in this conflict.
Reality exists, and its examination shows that European governance, neo-European expansionism, the greed of the European Commission, the intransigence of José Manuel Durão Barroso and his superiors, and U.S. interference are at the root of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians.
On February 25, 2022, the day after the Russian intervention, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) hastened to erase all traces of the actions it had carried out in Ukraine.
However, a copy of the NED website before the deletion of the files is available by clicking the link below :
In conclusion, we invite the reader to reflect on the words of philosopher Karl Popper, apparently misunderstood by his former student George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations supported pro-“democracy” movements in Ukraine:
“Rather than fighting for so-called higher values, politicians should focus on combating existing misfortunes” and “reducing avoidable suffering.”
Excerpt from The Open Society and Its Enemies
Journal d'idées 