Post New

This is a fairly extensive interview with Ivan Katchanovski, the respected Canadian-Ukrainian political scientist who conducted extensive research into the Maidan massacre of February 2014 in Kyiv, Ukraine:

https://youtu.be/iPJcW48Vufs?si=EmPUHgh0w2kyX8I6

His work contradicts our present propaganda narrative and he concludes that the massacre, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of protesters and police, was a false-flag operation ordered by US politicians executed by far-right groups, rather than by the government forces of then-President Viktor Yanukovych, as widely claimed.

His analysis is based on a comprehensive review of publicly available evidence, including videos, witness testimonies, forensic ballistic and medical examinations, and court proceedings from the Maidan massacre trials in Ukraine.

Katchanovski argues that the snipers responsible for the killings were primarily located in Maidan-controlled buildings, such as the Hotel Ukraina, and not in areas controlled by the Berkut special police or other government forces. He asserts that this mass killing was US planned to delegitimize the Yanukovych government, provoke its overthrow, and seize power, ultimately succeeding in toppling the government on February 22, 2014. He highlights that the majority of wounded protesters testified to being shot from directions inconsistent with government positions, and forensic evidence supports this, showing shots fired from steep angles, sides, or backs of victims—indicative of sniper fire from opposition-held locations.

Regarding U.S. involvement, Katchanovski does not explicitly claim that the United States "arranged" the massacre itself in the sense of directly ordering or executing it. Instead, he suggests that the U.S. played a significant role in ordering the broader overthrow of the Yanukovych government, which the massacre facilitated. He points to circumstantial evidence, such as U.S. officials’ backing of the Maidan movement and their interactions with opposition leaders, but his primary focus remains on the massacre’s execution by domestic actors—specifically oligarchic and far-right elements within the opposition. In his writings, he concludes that the event was a key part of a Western-backed regime change operation.

In summary, Katchanovski concludes that the Maidan massacre was a false-flag operation by Maidan opposition forces, not the Yanukovych government, aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government in Kyiv. He implies U.S. complicity in the broader coup, though his evidence centers more on the massacre’s domestic orchestration and its consequences, which aligned with Western geopolitical interests, including an established goal of escalating tensions with Russia.

So did you tube tell you why your posts were deleted?

SNIP Claims that the killings were a false flag operation intended to topple Yanukovych and install a pro-Western government began to circulate almost immediately. No one has done more to give this conspiracy theory quasi-respectable cover than Ivan Katchanovski, a Ukrainian-born political scientist at the University of Ottawa. Katchanovski has authored several papers on the subject; as I noted in a Bulwark article last year, few other scholars take his work seriously, and it is generally viewed as politically motivated. He is, however, popular not only with the Russian propaganda machine but with Ukraine skeptics in the West, from right-wing British sociologist Noah Carl to American leftists Katie Halper and Aaron Maté. SNIP

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/false-flag-fantasies-...

I assume you are aware of the above.

^^ I assume you are aware of the above. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/false-flag-fantasies-... ^^

Note the source. The Bulwark claims that it is funded by subscriptions, but the bulk of the funding is from donors (e.g., Kathryn Murdoch, Reid Hoffman) and grants via Defending Democracy Together Institute (DDTI), The Bulwark’s ties may bias its analysis toward Western-aligned, anti-authoritarian narratives, particularly on issues like Ukraine-Russia.

The academic credibility of Katchanovski is high. Professors like Ivan Katchanovski, rooted in academic institutions, typically adhere to rigorous, peer-reviewed methodologies and primary source data (eg., his work on Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan events). Their funding, often from universities or grants, is less tied to advocacy, reducing partisan influence.

The Bulwark’s advocacy-driven funding and editorial stance, shaped by its Never Trump and neoconservative roots, may prioritize narrative over nuance, unlike Katchanovski’s evidence-based, less ideologically driven academic analysis, which is subject to scholarly scrutiny.

The US has often been cast as a key player in sparking the Ukraine conflict, from NATO’s provocative expansion to its role in the 2014 Euromaidan upheaval. I agree with you that it is tough finding sources that are not pro-West in our environment, but this is a Political Asylum board and the whole point is to find information that cannot be written elsewhere. Sometimes we are taken for a ride. This happened with the War in Iraq citing weapons of mass destruction, which was a made up narrative, and whilst we say it is obvious now, it had widespread following and anyone arguing with the premise at the time would been, if not aggressively smeared (if the publication was widely read), then at least dismissed (if it was a uni protest, or private argument) as loony. With our history of the public being duped in the past, we need to be more careful of this same blindness occurring with new situations that the US gets itself into, where the narratives we are fed are there to fuel war support, rather than having primary relation to what is true.

I should add that being tough finding sources that are not pro-West made up narratives being hard, of course has no relation to whether the narrative we're fed about Ukraine is true or not. In fact much information published outside the mainstream is of course false. But it is the purpose of this board to focus on the subset of information that isn't publishable normally. The references that I'll place below are pretty benign and heavily peer reviewed, but even publishing that information outside of academia is pretty hard with our automated censorship routines. The narratives that are omnipresent are easy enough to find and don't require work.

Back in 2008 NATO’s Bucharest Summit dropped a bombshell. Ukraine could one day join the alliance. This set off alarm bells in Moscow, with Russia's admin seeing it as a direct threat right on Russia’s doorstep. Imagine an a military alliance hostile to the US, say between China, North Korea and Iran, saying in an important summit that one day they intend to expand to Mexico. Do you think that would be okay with us? They might add "Don't worry, that's only if Mexico want to, we aren't forcing them" while they sponsor anti-US media in Mexico with anti-USA non-profits and eventually calling on the English language to be banned there. But don't worry, they tell Mexico, if US interfere with your country, we'll protect you. Of course we'd not be happy with that situation.

John Mearsheimer, in a 2014 Foreign Affairs piece, nails this point, arguing that NATO’s push eastward, backed by U.S. liberal ambitions, ignored Russia’s security red lines and set the stage for conflict. It’s not about excusing Russia’s actions but recognizing how Western moves stoked the fire.

Fast forward to 2014, when Ukraine’s Euromaidan protests—cheered on by the U.S. and EU—toppled a pro-Russian government. Richard Sakwa, writing in Global Affairs (2022), calls this a tipping point, with Western support for the shift escalating tensions into a full-blown Russia–West standoff. He stops short of calling it a “coup” but hints at heavy external influence. Similarly, Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro in Survival (2015) point out that U.S. backing for Ukraine’s new direction, combined with NATO’s lingering promise, made Russia feel cornered—geopolitically, not just rhetorically.

The kicker? This drama unfolded thousands of miles from America’s borders but right next to Russia’s. That proximity, Mearsheimer and others argue, marks the West as the aggressor in Russia’s eyes. These sources—rigorous, peer-reviewed, and published by reputable outlets like the Council on Foreign Relations and Taylor & Francis—aren’t tainted by obvious political funding, though no analysis is ever fully “pure.” They offer a clear-eyed look at how U.S. and NATO actions, from 2008 to 2014 and beyond, helped light the fuse in Ukraine.

For more, check articles on JSTOR or Taylor & Francis. They’re dense but worth it for anyone wanting the real story behind the headlines.

Mearsheimer, John J. "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin." Foreign Affairs, vol. 93, no. 5, 2014, pp. 77–89.
Publisher: Council on Foreign Relations.
Access: Available on JSTOR (stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306) or directly via Foreign Affairs archives.
Relevance: Discusses NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit promise to Ukraine and U.S. role in escalating tensions.

Sakwa, Richard. "The Death of Europe? Reflections on the Russia–Ukraine Conflict." Global Affairs, vol. 8, no. 2, 2022, pp. 119–136.
Publisher: Taylor & Francis.
Access: Available on Taylor & Francis Online (DOI: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/p...) or potentially via JSTOR for institutional subscribers.
Relevance: Examines U.S. and EU influence in the 2014 Euromaidan events and NATO’s role in provoking Russia.

Charap, Samuel, and Jeremy Shapiro. "Consequences of a New Cold War." Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 57, no. 2, 2015 - http://scharap.fastmail.net.user.fm/files/Conseque...
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (for the International Institute for Strategic Studies).

Post New

Political Asylum FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.