Results of 2010 election in which Yanukovych (written Janukovych) won by a slim majority almost entirely on the South-Eastern vote - Ukrainian political division falls on geographic lines.
Many know this story, but I’d like to summarize it as succinctly as possible, using only primary and establishment media sources in hopes that this article may be persuasive and shareable to friends/family of all politics. The goal is not to distract from Ukrainian suffering but to inform US citizens of how their leaders often engage in harmful foreign policy so that we may refrain from electing such leaders in the future.
Throughout 2012 and most of 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had been in negotiations with the European Union on the terms of a political/trade agreement involving a sizeable loan, lowering of tariffs, and a goal to “promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine's ever-deeper involvement in the European security area” (direct quote from the agreement). Putin has stated, numerous times over several decades, his concerns about Western military forces creeping closer to Russia’s border. The Ukranians asked for $160 billion to offset trade restrictions that Russia would likely implement as a result of the deal. The EU could only offer $828 million. Russia then offered Ukraine a $15 billion loan and to cut Russian natural gas prices by almost a third. Yanukovych canceled negotiations with the EU and accepted Putin’s offer. Considering the Russian loan was nearly 20 times greater than the EU loan and the agreement eliminated the possibility of Russian sanctions while leaving EU relations largely unchanged, this was a rational decision by Yanukovych. To quote Reuters, “the unwillingness of the EU and International Monetary Fund to be flexible in their demands of Ukraine also had an effect, making them less attractive partners.”
Results of 2010 election in which Yanukovych (written Janukovych) won by a slim majority almost entirely on the South-Eastern vote - Ukrainian political division falls on geographic lines.
The decision to cancel the EU agreement, which was not a unilateral decision by Yanukovych but a valid vote by Ukranian Parliament, was met with protests in the North-Western Capital Kiev, led by prominent members of Yanukovych’s opposition party, which quickly turned violent. Western Ukranians were understandably upset after the one-year-long negotiations fell through. By January 20, 2014, the BBC reported “Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych has agreed to negotiate with pro-EU protesters and opposition leaders after violent clashes in the capital Kiev.” Days later, in an attempt to quell the uprising, Yanukovych offered1 two opposition leaders key positions in his administration - prime minister to Arseniy Yatsenyuk and deputy prime minister for humanitarian affairs to Vitali Klitschko. When they declined, he repealed anti-protest laws and agreed to accelerate the presidential elections (which were due in about one year) to allow the people an opportunity to vote sooner.
Yatsenyuk tweets his rejection to joining Yanukovych’s administration.
While these protests did get bloody, the systems underpinning democratic republics were functioning as intended by forcing Yanukovych to the negotiating table with his constituents and political opponents. One would think it best to let the Ukrainian people work this out, but US foreign policy officials decided otherwise.
A leaked phone call, believed to have taken place on January 28, 2014, between then US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt revealed that Obama-admin officials were involved in a scheme to oust Ukrainian President Yanukovych and replace his administration with Western allies. The call was discussed in several US-based media outlets though, for the most part, they refrain from discussing its content and instead focus on Nuland’s expletive remark of “Fuck the EU” and highlight that Russian hackers were likely the leak’s source. Then State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki corroborated the legitimacy of the call as she “did not dispute the authenticity of the recording and said that Nuland had apologized to European Union officials for her remarks,” according to Associated Press. Listen to full call here:
Here are what I believe to be the key quotes from the call and their context and implications [emphasis added]:
It’s fairly clear that the subject of Nuland and Pyatt’s conversation was how to influence opposition leaders and leverage ties with the United Nations to legitimize this unconstitutional vote. Such an act, by the way, falls under the definition of a coup. The prescient nature of this conversation, how subsequent events played out in accordance with Nuland’s directives, implies it was not simply a brainstorm session. This was a deliberate attempt to install a Western-friendly regime into a sovereign nation - one sharing a border with Russia just 500 km from Moscow - and it was a successful attempt at that. All because US officials couldn’t settle for neutrality and self-governance; they knew better than the people of Ukraine. Jonathan Marcus of the BBC summed it up well at the time:
The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals.
These acts by the US forever changed the trajectory of Russia-Ukraine relations: The 2013 Russian trade deal was revoked, this pushed Russia into a similar deal with China a few months later, and the following years were filled with periodic announcements of Ukraine’s intentions to join NATO accompanied with showy military exercises like the NATO-sponsored ‘Clear Sky’ event held in Ukraine in 2018. Remember, NATO was created by the US and other Western countries in 1949 with the stated goal to “provide collective security against the Soviet Union.” Given that the Soviet Union hasn’t existed in decades… why does NATO need to exist, let alone expand?! Tensions have continued to fester ever since, culminating in the catalytic spark of today’s conflict when president Volodymyr Zelensky implied that Ukraine might pursue nuclear weapon accumulation if international treaties were unsatisfactory. This was all the justification that Putin needed.
Putin watched in the early 2000s as seven former Soviet Union countries joined NATO. Despite promises by the Clinton administration that NATO would not keep military forces in Eastern Europe permanently, over 20 years later NATO “has about 4,000 troops in multinational battalions, backed by tanks, air defenses and intelligence and surveillance units” across Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, according to Reuters. Putin tolerated such expansions for decades, and while it was not without complaints and retaliatory acts of his own, he clearly is not a madman intent on re-establishing the Soviet Union.
If you are a US citizen, and if, God willing, the world survives this war, then please, do not continue to tolerate these neo-conservative and neo-liberal establishment politicians. They are on both sides of the aisle - Bush’s, Clinton’s, Obama, Schumer, McConnell, Pelosi, Cheney’s, Anthony Blinken, McCain, John Bolton. It’s a special kind of hubris and naiveté to believe covert and reckless regime change operations will flourish into Western values. The Middle East has paid this price for years and now neo-con machinations are potentially putting the entire planet at risk.
As a funny aside, during the leaked call Pyatt said, “We could land jelly-side up on this one if we move fast.” I think it’s safe to say, after 8 years, which direction the ‘jelly-side’ landed.
