How the coup d'état began in Ukraine #7

On January 11-12, the All-Ukrainian Euromaidan Forum was held in Kharkov, the delegates of which discussed issues of coordination of actions, information policy, and security. Special guests from Poland, one of the founders of the Helsinki Committee of Poland, Zbigniew Romaszewski, and one of the founders of the Solidarity party, Zbigniew Bujak, shared their experience of action against the regime and strategies for building civil society.

 On January 12, the first “People's Assembly” in 2014 took place in Kiev. According to media reports, from 50 to 200 thousand people took part in it. A rally of Automaidan participants took place in front of Viktor Yanukovych’s residence in Mezhygorye.

And again, I cannot help but note the phenomenal activity of Western representatives.

 During this period, visits by representatives of international and various government organizations simply came to a phenomenal level.

 And it must be said frankly that it was pressure from the West that, in many ways, prevented the Ukrainian authorities, and specifically Yanukovych, from decisively dispersing the Maidan.

 I already wrote about the massive visits of foreign delegations in December. In January there were even more of them. And the Ukrainian authorities were constantly forced to justify themselves to Western visitors.

Thus, on January 13, at the premises of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, a meeting was held between Minister of Foreign Affairs Kozhara, Minister of Internal Affairs Zakharchenko, representatives of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Health with the head of the EU Delegation to Ukraine, ambassadors of EU member states, the USA and Canada. At the meeting, Ukrainian officials tried to explain the state policy regarding illegal actions, but from Western diplomats they encountered a wall of misunderstanding and outright pressure on Kiev. The main leitmotif was to prevent a forceful dispersal of the Maidan.

 On January 13, the American Ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt expressed concern about the escalation of violent actions. At the same time, in his message on Twitter, he noted:

 - I condemned the violence against Maidan activists and pointed out the need for the authorities to provide complete and objective information regarding the events that took place;

- the authorities do not respond to peaceful protests, which pushes the opposition to take action in order to maintain protest potential.

 At that time, the number of injured law enforcement officers exceeded several hundred.

Indeed, peaceful opposition actions...

 And in the US Senate, hearings on the crisis in Ukraine were scheduled for January 15. In this connection, American diplomats organized a telephone conversation between US Deputy Secretary of State Nuland and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kozhara.

 In general, in January the West no longer stopped only at putting pressure on official Kiev. No, representatives of Western diplomatic institutions and international organizations directly contacted Euromaidan supporters to obtain information, discussed specific plans to counter the authorities, and openly financed some opposition representatives.

 For example, Deputy Ambassador of Great Britain Martin Day regularly received information from MP Ariev (Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna faction) regarding the situation and actions with the participation of opposition representatives.

The well-known Yuriy Lutsenko (who was injured in a clash with Berkut on January 11) discussed with representatives of the German embassy (Weil - ambassador, Feldhusen - adviser-envoy) the question that, given the fact that picketing of government institutions only in Kiev did not bring the desired results, similar actions must be carried out in all regions of the country.

 As they say - remember this message.

  Well, diplomats of the US Embassy in Ukraine (Page - employee of the political department, Johnson - head of the public relations department) resolved issues of providing grants from the American side to the head of Automaidan Poyarkov. Page appointed embassy employee Tatyana Podobinskaya to be responsible for the direct transfer of money.

 By the way, remember the figure of Sergei Poyarkov - this character will later play a significant role in the Kiev crisis, fully justifying the role of the sacred victim, which was highlighted in the media, used in every possible way by Western curators, including in financial terms.

But let's return to the events in Kiev.

 In January, additional forces arrived from western and central Ukraine to support the Kiev Maidan, and self-defense units held combat exercises on the Maidan. This made it possible to hold positions and make occasional forays, but such forces were not enough to demonstrate a complete and convincing advantage that could lead to a relatively peaceful seizure of power.

 In turn, the government attracted its supporters (“Anti-Maidan”) and security forces to Kiev.

 In such conditions, one of the most significant events in the political sphere took place.

 On January 16, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a number of laws, which were signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych the next day.

The opposition called these laws “Dictatorship Laws” because, in their opinion, these laws were repressive in relation to human rights. The organizers themselves openly noted that the adoption of the laws was caused by the events taking place in the country.

 In particular, they introduced the following norms:

- Administrative responsibility was established for the movement of convoys of more than five vehicles without the consent of the traffic police, in case they interfere with road traffic.

 - The activities of media outlets that do not have state registration were prohibited.

 - The procedure for bringing members of parliament to criminal liability has been simplified.

 - Violation of the rules for holding rallies was punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 10 days. It was prohibited to participate in demonstrations using means that impede personal identification, to attend a rally with open fire, pyrotechnics, weapons, gas canisters, explosives, etc.;

 - Criminal liability was introduced for “extremist activities”;

 - Criminal liability was introduced for blocking state and public buildings;

 - Criminal liability for hooliganism was tightened;

- Criminal liability was introduced for the illegal collection and dissemination of confidential information about a law enforcement or judicial officer, as well as their relatives;

 - Criminal liability was introduced for unauthorized interference in the work of government information resources or the dissemination of classified information.

 - Regulation of the activities of public organizations was tightened and the number of legal grounds for their ban increased. In particular, the concept of “public associations performing the functions of foreign agents” was introduced;

 - The National Commission for State Regulation of Communications and Informatization received the right, without a court decision, to restrict access to Internet resources that disseminate illegal information or operate as a news agency without registration.

The opposition immediately subjected the adopted laws to harsh criticism. According to experts, independent media and the opposition, the laws were turning the country into a “police dictatorship.”

And of course, the reaction of Western countries immediately followed.

 Here are some excerpts from that reaction:

 - Tombinsky (EU representative in Ukraine) actively discussed events in the Verkhovna Rada with representatives of the government and opposition, questioned the compliance of the adopted laws with the Constitution of Ukraine and reported on the planned statement of the EU headquarters on this issue;

 - Pyatt (US Ambassador to Ukraine) planned to hold a meeting with Levochkin on January 17 to discuss the current situation. The US Embassy was working on a statement to be made by official Washington. The text of the statement should have included a proposal to the President of Ukraine to veto the adopted laws;

 - Page (secretary of the political department of the US Embassy in Ukraine) believed that changes in legislation are aimed exclusively at those who disagree with the authorities: “there are laws against “Svoboda”, Maidan and Automaidan”;

 - Weil (German Ambassador to Ukraine), at the request of Yatsenyuk, had to inform Steinmeier (German Foreign Minister) about the need for his telephone conversation with the President of Ukraine in order to convince the head of Ukraine to veto the adoption of changes to legislation.

In turn, opposition leaders planned to personally visit the Administration of the President of Ukraine on the morning of January 17 in order to publicly announce the demand for vetoing the adopted laws.

Necessary explanation on the “Dictatorship Laws”.

 The adoption of these laws gave a new impetus to the Euromaidan protests. But after the victory of opposition supporters, within a few years, the new Kiev government adopted changes to legislation that not only repeated the “Dictatorship Laws”, but in some ways exceeded them in severity.

 This concerned the possibility of passing sentences in absentia, blocking websites and electronic media, and laws on “foreign agents.” In the new Ukraine, liability for calls for a change of government and for slander was sharply tightened, control over the movement of convoys was introduced, and the rights of the National Guard, SBU and National Police were greatly expanded. So, in Yanukovych’s Ukraine, law enforcement officers never even dreamed of it. And the well-known Arsen Avakov actually tried to introduce the concept of “presumption of correctness” of police officers.

And they try to say something about Berkut...

 But what's the end result?

It was the adoption of the “January 16 laws” that became the reason for the opposition to take protests to a new level.

 And it happened soon, on January 19th.

 On January 19, 2014, the “peaceful protest” on Maidan of Independence in Kiev finally ceased to be peaceful: the far-right power bloc of Maidan activists entered into active clashes with law enforcement officers, finally turning the situation into a mode of civil conflict.