The happening, which is proudly called the “Revolution of Dignity” in Ukraine, included many violations of Ukrainian laws by “revolutionaries” – in November 2013 they seized the square in the Ukrainian capital, kept this square for more than three months and clashed with police who tried to remove them; they occupied administrative buildings throughout the country etc.
This happening ended with another violation of law – on 22 February 2014 the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was removed from his post without impeachment procedure which is prescribed by the Ukrainian Constitution.
Of course, there were attempts to justify all these violations of Ukrainian laws, i.e, attempts to find noble reasons for this “revolution” (see below).
1. Reasons for the “revolution” which were declared earlier
1.1. Widespread corruption under President Yanukovych
After the “revolution” the then US President Barak Obama named Viktor Yanukovych a corrupt ruler (see here) and the first “post-revolutionary” Attorney General of Ukraine declared that Yanukovych had stolen from the state more than 100 billion dollars of which at least 32 billion dollars had been transported in cash abroad in trucks at the beginning of 2014 (see here).
1.2. Ukraine was a Russia’s colony under Yanukovych who usurped the power
After the “revolution”, new Ukrainian rulers opened several criminal cases against Yanukovych; one case was based on allegation that Yanukovych had usurped the power (see here).
It was alleged too that Yanukovych planned to prevent Ukraine from joining the European Union and wanted to forcibly make Ukraine a member of the Customs Union which had been earlier created by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
1.3. Police used excessive force during fights with protesters
On 21 November 2013 the Ukrainian government suspended a signing of the association agreement with the European Union. Although the government had the legal right to such suspension, protests against this suspension started on streets of the Ukrainian capital on the same night and later spread throughout the country.
During fights with protesters the police allegedly used excessive force and therefore more than 100 protesters were killed from 21 November 2013 till 22 February 2014 (see here).
2. Analysis of the above-mentioned allegations
2.1. Analysis of allegation above widespread corruption in Ukraine under Yanukovych
Of course, the new “post-revolutionary” rulers at once opened a lot of criminal cases against Yanukovych’s ministers, leading members of the former ruling party etc., some of them were arrested and the former leader of this party’s faction in the Ukrainian Parliament even spent 3 years in a pre-trial jail.
Yanukovych himself, his Prime Minister and other members of his team, who left Ukraine, were charged in absentia.
These investigations have been lasting for seven and a half years (since February 2014) but nobody of the above mentioned persons has been convicted (in presence or in absence) on corruption charges. Although some criminal cases against members of Yanukovych’s team are not closed yet, all above mentioned persons, who had been earlier arrested, have been later released.
The Article 62 of the Ukrainian Constitution declares that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until his/her guilt has been proven by a court; it means that Yanukovych himself, his former ministers etc. are still presumed innocent of corruption.
2.2. Analysis of allegation that Ukraine was a Russia’s colony under President Yanukovych who usurped power
2.2.1. Did Yanukovych usurp power?
It has been said above in par. 1.2. that the criminal case was opened by “post-revolutionary” authorities declaring that Yanukovych had usurped the power. But similar to situation with charges of corruption, Yanukovych is still presumed innocent of usurpation of power too, because no court has still found him guilty of it.
Yanukovych was a legitimately elected President of Ukraine. The election, which he had won in 2010, has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE (see here)
2.2.2. Was Ukraine a Russia’s colony before the “revolution”?
A colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule (see Wikipedia).
Through the whole period of its independence Ukraine has been ruled by its people who have expressed their will through free and independent presidential and parliamentary elections.
The independent status of Ukraine was and is recognized by the United Nations, European Union, USA etc.
When Ukrainian citizens are dissatisfied with policy of one of their Presidents, these citizens can elect another President in a free and independent election. Three sitting Ukrainian Presidents (Kravchuk in 1994, Yushchenko in 2010 and Poroshenko in 2019), who tried to be reelected for a second term, were replaced through election.
If majority of Ukrainian voters were dissatisfied with policy of President Yanukovych – e. g. dissatisfied with his contacts with Russia (or with the USA, or with the Principality of Liechtenstein etc.) – they could elect another President in the next election, which was scheduled for March 2015.
Hence, there was really no need for an unconstitutional removal of Yanukovych from his post in February 2014.
2.3. Analysis of allegation that police used excessive force during fights with protesters
2.3.1. Number of causalities may be overestimated
Elena Lukash, Doctor of Law, the former Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, says that the list of people, who have allegedly been killed by the police during protests, contains dozens names of persons who have died of natural causes, have probably been killed during conflicts of criminal groups etc.(see here).
You can see the English version of the above mentioned list at the following link (see List of people killed during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution).
The first two persons in this list (Yuriy Verbytsky and Pavlo Mazurenko) have been included in this list because they had allegedly been killed by the police. But the column “Case of death/Reference” shows information that the official cause of death of Verbytsky was said to be hypothermia and that one of Mazurenko - two-way contagious bovine pleuropneumonia.
I don’t exclude the possibility that the initial death certificates could contain false information but on 22 February 2014 change of power took place and new rulers could order exhumations in order to reexamine the bodies.
But new rulers ordered no exhumations therefore there are no official proofs that the initial death certificates were false.
2.3.2. When protesters have been clashing with police for months, some people – including police officers – may be killed
As you can read in Wikipedia, the protests were violent from their very beginning in November 2013: “On 24 November 2013, clashes between protesters and police began. Protesters strived to break cordon.” (see here).
On the night of 30 November 2013 police chased protesters away from the Ukrainian capital’s central square where they had erected a tent camp.
The Ukrainian government of that time was severely criticized for this dispersal although it is a common practice to force out protesters from city parts (see Occupy Wall Street). Nobody was killed or crippled on 30 November 2013 and all detained persons were released the next day.
But clashes continued and approximately two months later (on 22 January 2014) several protesters were shot dead during just another clash in the capital.
Several days later, i.e. on 26 January 2014, the first police officer (Alexander Kisilevsky) was stabbed to death during another clash in the city of Kherson (see here)
And it is not surprising, that his name and his death are not mentioned in the above mentioned list of people who were killed during clashes (see List of people killed during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution).
Since it is disadvantageous for Ukrainian “post-revolutionary” rulers to mention this police officer’s killing because no single protester was killed in Kherson during these clashes and therefore it is impossible to present this officer’s killing as an act of self-defense.
The person suspected of this killing was arrested on the day of the crime but after change of power he was amnestied at once and released (see here list of amnestied persons, item 23.).
2.3.3. Were protesters innocent, peaceful people?
If we read the list of people who have been killed during riots, we can find for example two persons (Liudmyla Sheremeta and Dmytro Pahor) who were killed in the city of Khmelnitsky on 19 February 2014 during a storming of office of State Security Service.
But if somebody in the USA tries to storm an office of FBI, will FBI officers open fire or will not?
Many people – including police officers - were shot dead on 18 February 2014 in the capital when 20,000 protesters tried to force their way to Ukraine's parliament although a day before a peace agreement had been concluded between authorities and leaders of protesters (amnesty for protesters in exchange for vacation of the administrative buildings seized by them) and arrested protesters had been released.
2.3.4. What are official results of investigation of the killings?
Investigations of these killings have been lasting for seven and a half years but nobody is found guilty of the killings.
There are many speculations about reasons of absence of results and I want to present my own explanation below.
The undeniable fact is that a certain number of people – including police officers – were killed during the protests.
But establishment of real quantity of killed persons and finding of killers would be disadvantageous for Ukrainian “post-revolutionary” rulers therefore these rulers deliberately drag out the investigations.
2.4. Court trial of private person Yanukovych
The Ukrainian “post-revolutionary” rulers had to try to convict Yanukovych in order to justify his unconstitutional removal from presidency. Fearing for his life, Yanukovych had left Ukraine after change of power but he agreed to give evidence to prosecutors and before judges via video link from Russia.
But the Great (!!!) Criminal Case (Велика Кримінальна Справа) of the former Ukrainian President Yanukovych ended with his conviction for actions, which he took as a private person, i.e. which he took after he had been removed from presidency on 22 February 2014.
Yanukovych was sentenced to 13 years of jail in absentia for a letter which he had sent to the Russian government at the beginning of March 2014.
It means that Yanukovych, as a President, is presumed innocent because no criminal offense, which he allegedly committed during his presidency, has been proved by a court (see Article 62 of the Ukrainian Constitution).
3. Absolute indifference of Ukrainians about total absence of proofs of the former authorities' “crimes”
In my opinion, the total absence of proofs of the former authorities' “crimes” is not the most important thing.
The most important thing is absolute indifference of Ukrainians about this fact.
3.1. Situation in Ukraine is not so catastrophic
One may say that Ukraine is now at war with Russia and therefore Ukrainians cannot find resources for investigations and that it is a reason for total absence of proofs of the former authorities' “crimes”.
But if we see what the Ukrainian law-enforcement agencies are doing, we find that the situation in Ukraine is not so catastrophic.
For example, I have read in Internet that the Ukrainian police had opened a criminal case against an owner of a tourists’ carriage because this owner had cruelly treated his horse (see here).
In my opinion, if there are tourists in a country, it means that the situation in this country is not so bad.
And since the Ukrainian police find time and resources for investigation of cruel treatment of animals, it must find time and resources for investigation of former authorities' “crimes” too.
3.2. Criminals could have been punished
Many former members of Yanukovych's team have stayed in Ukraine but he himself and some other members of his team left the country after change of power.
But Ukrainian laws allow to convict the persons who can not be brought to a court, i.e. to convict them in absentia.
Since Yanukovych was convicted in absentia for actions which he had taken as a private person, i.e. which he had taken after he had been removed from presidency (see par. 2.4); it is possible to convict him and other members of his team in absentia for their actions which they had taken when they had been in power.
3.3. But Ukrainians are absolutely indifferent about total absence of proofs of the former authorities' “crimes”
As much as I know, nobody in Ukraine asks: “Why were all violations of Ukrainian legislation needed which were committed during protests against suspension of signing of the association agreement with the EU?”
Since after seven and a half years of investigations of "widespread corruption”, “usurpation of power” etc. nobody is found guilty of these crimes, it means that there were no "widespread corruption”, “usurpation of power” etc.
And why could Ukrainians not settle the problem with suspension of signing of the association agreement with the EU in peaceful way?
Nobody in Ukraine now feels himself betrayed and says: “In the next presidential election in March 2015 we could legitimately have elected another President who would immediately have signed this agreement. Why was it so important to commit all these violations of law in order to sign this agreement at the end of June 2014?”
In my opinion, nobody in Ukraine now feels himself betrayed because from the very beginning nobody has believed in "widespread corruption”, “usurpation of power” etc. and the real reason of the “revolution” was quite a different one – please see the next paragraph.
4. Other versions about real reasons of the “revolution”
4.1. It was a form of struggle for power
Struggle for power exists in all countries and in each country it has its own traditions and forms.
The independent Ukraine now exists for nearly 30 years (its independence was declared at the end of 1991) and, of course, there was, is and will be power struggle between various parties.
But never before the “revolution” of 2014 and never after it, this struggle for power included stabbing of police officers, shooting on them, unconstitutional removal of a legitimate President etc.
Therefore I believe that struggle for power was not the main reason of this “revolution”.
4.2. My opinion about the real reason of the “revolution”
In my opinion, by 2013 a large part of Ukrainian elite decided that there was an opportunity to permanently get much money from the USA and Western countries if Ukraine would carry out an extremely anti-Russian policy. Therefore the fable was invented that Ukraine was a Russia’s colony, that Russia did not allow Ukraine to join the EU etc. And I believe that this elite was supported by a large part of Ukrainians who hoped to gain from this anti-Russian policy too.
And that had nothing to do with suspension of signing of the association agreement with the EU because since there was no usurpation of power by Yanukovych, Ukrainians could legitimately have elected another President in March 2015 who would immediately have signed this agreement.
The Ukrainian elite wanted to fight in order to demonstrate for the West that it was fighting for Europe.
And in my opinion, these Ukrainians are quite successful in implementation of their plan – Western countries now grant them non-repayable subsidies, Western market is opened for Ukrainian goods, many Ukrainian nationals have the right to work in Western countries etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment