Читать книгу Russia. Crimea. History - Николай Стариков - Страница 3

When talking about the return of Crimea to Russia the most difficult is to find a start point of the narration. Especially if the decision is to make a historical essay in the reverse time order. Where to start? The Ukrainian state was marching to its deplorable final from the very first days of its independent existence – i. e. from the 1991. One of the most prosperous Soviet republics with a developed industry and with superb conditions for agriculture has rapidly degraded in all respects. This is true for both the industry and the living standards – but most importantly, we are talking about the entire political system. Ordinary Ukrainian citizens know about this best of all. Those same voters who endlessly choose and elect, have the apparent deterioration of their life as a background of this permanent electoral process. Let’s refresh in our memory the basic info about those who led the Ukrainian stat from 1991.

The first Ukrainian President – Leonid Kravchuk. A functionary of the Communist Party, partially resembling Boris Yeltsin in his biography[1] and in his participation in absolutely illegal destruction of the USSR. Together with the Belorussian leader Shushkevich, and through violation of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin and Kravchuk signed the documents about the elimination of the great global power and its breakup into “fiefdoms”. What is considered nowadays as “independence” is in reality nothing else but a kind of feudal fragmentation. Vanity and arrogance of several politicos, coupled with a desire to please the West, led to an immense tragedy. Now, when Crimea has reunited with Russia, we should remember that in 1990 nobody would have believed that the united country could be ever destroyed at all. And Crimea, the Black Sea Fleet and all people who lived on the peninsula would have at once found themselves abroad. In order to realize the scale of the tragedy one should always remember that the “Belovezh trio” betrayed not only their contemporary fellow citizens, but also their ancestors – the Russian state had to face the same problems, which our great-grandfathers have solved a long time ago. And they thought that they have resolved them for good. For example, Moldavia (Bessarabia) was incorporated into Russia in 1812. Nobody ever doubted the legitimacy of this accession. Major part of Baltic lands was incorporated into Russia according to the results of the war with Sweden and to the Peace Treaty of Nystad of 1721. Riga and Tallinn became Russian ports; defeated Sweden has even received a monetary compensation of several million golden thalers[2]. Crimea was incorporated into Russia during the Catherine the Great reign in 1783. Suvorov fought on the peninsula, Kutuzov lost his eye in one of the battles in Crimea. Nobody has ever questioned the fact that this territory had been under the Russian Crown for many generations. And in 1991 – the President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev – instead of arresting those, who were destroying his country – criminally agreed with its dissolution. He also felt very insulted that Yeltsin was the first who phoned to the President of the USA George Bush – to report about the accomplished deed…

Keeping in mind all last events in Ukraine and reunion of Crimea with Russia, there is a lot of talks that Yeltsin should have got the peninsula back just during the meeting in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha in December 1991. While he allegedly was not raising the issue at all. To be fair, let us quote the narrative of Leonid Kravchuk about how Boris Yeltsin once tried to discuss the Crimean issue during a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the USSR:

“When we were considering the agreement about the establishing of CIS (The Commonwealth of the Independent States), a question arose of the nuclear weapons and about Crimea. Yeltsin began reasoning… Well, Crimea… 1954. Khrushchev made a gift to Ukraine. May be, he said, it is time to re-establish justice and order.

– And give Crimea back to Russia!

– Well well, I replied – there were no gift at all. On the contrary, Ukraine took a huge burden. Khrushchev said at the time that Crimea should be handed over to Ukraine, not because it is forever…

– That is, temporarily handed over to you, huh?

– There was no word “temporarily” there… Rather, Ukraine was to help rebuild the economy of Crimea and to make it a tourist center. And I told Yeltsin: let us now skip the issue of the handover of Crimea.

– And Crimea was not handed back.

– We just agreed, that let us establish CIS, let us start living and let us see how it will go on, and after that will consider all borders, legitimately, according to the international law. Yeltsin agreed…”[3]

The main guilt of Yeltsin and the other two “leaders”, who sentenced our superpower to a disintegration, is not that they “have forgotten” to get Crimea back to Russia, but is that they have split Russia. The USSR was in fact the Big Russia…

Anyway, let us come back to the personalities of the Ukrainian Presidents. We need it in order to understand how the consequent events would unfold. Leonid Kuchma replaced Kravchuk at the helm of Ukrainian state. An engineer and constructor, he was even awarded with the Lenin’s Prize for his contribution in the designing of SS-18 and SS-20, which the West regarded as the main threat to its nuclear security. Later he started a political career, became a Parliament member, and was a Prime Minister of Kravchuk’s Government. In 1994, he became the President of Ukraine. The answer to the question, how did the head of Ukraine in 1994 make his decisions, is simple, if we recall what has happened in Russia in 1993. Moscow just ceased to be a center of power. Ministries of the Yeltsin’s Government were besieged by American advisers of all stripes, like a hive of bees. It was a climax of the one-polar world – the USA were at the summit of its might. Ukraine was (and is) one of the strategically important points of the policy of the West. An estrangement of Ukraine from Russia gives a lot of strategic advantages:

• it hinders re-establishment of a strong Euro-Asian alliance – it is not possible without Ukraine;

• it enables a launch of a brainwashing campaign of Ukrainian citizens targeted on creating a new nation from Ukrainian-Russians and setting it off on Russians and Russia.

Therefore, the second Ukrainian President was closely controlled by the Americans. The further events of 2004 were directly connected to his personality. The essence of the first “orange” Maidan was not too complicated. American “partners” and advisors suggested to Kuchma quite a “reliable ploy” which can enable him to stay at helm for another one term. Two politicians should be put forward on the political scene; both must be supported by large numbers of voters but by no means – majority of them whatsoever. Next, they both should be set upon each other, thus creating a crisis. Kuchma himself was supposed to play a wise arbitrator, who could tackle all problems. And that’s it – people’s gratitude would be ensured – together with a new set of authorities. Being a rocket engineer of the highest skills, which was reaffirmed by the Lenin’s Prize reward, Leonid Danilovich Kuchma was a mediocre politician. That is why he has entirely and blindly relied on experts from the States. They, however, had their own plans for the future of Ukraine. The time to seed havoc was coming. The “orange” scenario was tested in Serbia and Georgia. Ukraine was to become a “bundle of sticks” to start an “orange” fire in Russia[4].

Now it is time to step aside from the events in Ukraine for a while, and to talk about the technologies of a coup that are now known as the “Orange Revolution”. First – the main point. To carry out any coup, you need traitors. Without them – nothing will work out. A “fifth column” inside a country is a must for any change of power. Precisely this “orange” column helps external forces to find an ostensible cause for either explicit diplomatic or clandestine (or both) pressure on existing state authority. At the same time, street protesters (to cut it short, we will call them in the future just the “Street”) demonstrate the level of “popular mistrust to a corrupt government”. A part of local elite supporting the “orangists” represents a split at the top and also “manages” the level of “popular discontent” and governs the “street democracy”. Social instability reaches a certain degree that enables external forces to deploy maximum diplomatic and clandestine activity and put a pressure on the existing Government. Using carrot and stick approach, these forces try to bring about an additional split into the remaining loyal part of the elite, and force the existing authorities to voluntarily give up their powers, yielding their positions to that part of the elite, which has already took the side of “orangists”.

This is an essence in a nutshell, now is the time for important details. It is believed that an American professor Gene Sharp developed the technology of non-violent action in his handbook “From Dictatorship to Democracy”. When studying this “theory” – as well as many other “products” of the same kind – one can understand that all this so called “literature” together with particular “manuals” conceals something very substantial. Scattered pieces, each of them being apparently quite logical and apprehensible inside, fail to be put together in order to form a general concept. A finished concept, which gives comprehensive view – when one can see everything at once and in whole. And really understand how “it” works. What are the father-founders of “orange” technologies keeping back from us? They are not talking about the “cement”, which holds together all their techniques. They keep silent about those several pre-requisites, which give “orangists” opportunities and possibilities to reach their objectives via quite simple actions. One can compare the difference between “orange” revolutions and “usual” revolutions of the past with athletes, who use doping and thus who can achieve better results with significantly smaller efforts, and athletes, who does not do this. So, what is the “doping of orangism”?

They are several. They work only together. Neutralization of one of them results in a failure of all “orange” efforts. Here they are:

• It’s mandatory for the local elites to be involved in an “orange” revolution. Most of the elites or not, more influential ones or less – all these questions are not crucial – rather they are “technological” ones. But these elite, participating in an “orange” revolution, must have the possibility and authority to be able – if necessary – to block all functioning state institutions, or – at least – to hamper them to a large extent.

• An “orange” revolution must have own “Street” (means – significant number of “ordinary” protesters), i. e. there must be a kind of a “critical mass” of “dissatisfied”. At the same time, the “indignation” of the “dissatisfied” should not be a result of their hopeless destitution. The cause of the dissatisfaction must be a feeling (maybe, inspired from outside) that people are deceived and are deprived from something. This is one of the most important conditions. It keeps the “Street” under control. In fact, in all “orange” revolutions the “dissatisfied” are well fed, more or less well dressed, employed and enjoy all benefits of the social security provided by the state. But propaganda has persuaded them that their protest can help them personally to reach a higher level of consumption and/ or to be largely involved in the state governance. Only well fed, reliably employed and “embedded” into social institutions of the state “dissatisfied” can be expressing their dissatisfaction by giving blooms to “satraps of the murderous regime”. Or to be “creative” in Twitter, and to hang about on city streets. Those, who are really deprived from bare essentials, cannot afford to be involved in such a baloney. Such people would either tighten belts or start to smash everything around that is hateful, and physically eliminate those who are the objects of his hatred. Clap hands for rock groups at squares, discuss the news and get acquainted with opposite gender on the amusing fancy gatherings of the “regime fighters” – all this is alien to him because of his utter and hopeless depression.

• Real threat of overthrowing a government must always come from abroad. Internal forces – expressing discontent elite and the “Street”, who wallow in ecstasy of a “festival of disobedience” – can only bring dirt and garbage to parks, but to risk their well-being, given to them by a “criminal regime”, and even more – to risk their lives, they are not able at all. Only external forces pose a real threat to a power. Only they are able to economically influence on state institutions. Only they are able to politically influence governments. Politically – means, individually – on certain elite members in order to reduce the resistance of those, who wish to rally around a government. Finally, only external forces have an ability to use military power in extreme cases. Either as a threat (Syria) or in a form of real hostilities (Libya). A provisional conclusion: a part of local elites and the “Street” play their roles as carriers of an external influence and as evidences of the weakness of the current authorities and thus – the legitimization of the right of those external forces to act on it. • And finally, the most important condition – the external forces must guarantee the local elite and the “Street” that the supreme power of the country will not dare to “hurt” anyone. It means that the local elite will not be persecuted in case of any outcome of such “non-violent” coup, even if participation of those elites in an “orange revolution” is obvious. This is the first thing, which ambassadors of influential states start telling to local governments. This is the main condition for those local governments for not being included in a “global black list”. This is the first issue for a political pressure, which foreign ambassadors and their agents begin to apply to local governments at the first signs of unfolding of an “orange” scenario in a country.

By understanding how the “orangism” works, one can work out a scheme of counteraction from the side of the authorities of a country, which Washington, London or Brussel want to “democratize”.

1. “Neutralizing” the part of the local elite, which has taken a side of “orangism”, by means of depriving it of confidence in their own possibilities. Local power should clearly demonstrate that all guarantees of “inviolability” provided to the “orangists” from abroad, costs less than a penny – in case the state is quite adamant in defending of their positions. The local elite should realize that it is not going to be “a game into one gate”. Official positions, memberships in the councils of all level (up to the National Parliament), business, personal freedom and social status – all this can be irrevocably lost in case of non-loyalty to the current power in its opposition to the external pressure[5].

2. The “Street” should not be considered as something “uniform” or “homogeneous”, which is to be either tolerated or rigidly broken up and scattered. The “Street” can be divided into two different and unequal parts. The majority of it comprised of so-called “well-fed non-satisfied”, who became active as a result of massive propaganda of geopolitical “partners”. Another (the smaller) part of the “Street” is a kind of “militant and governing” squad – a rabble of various provocateurs and instigators of whatever riots. They are usually disguised as “ordinary demonstrators”, but in fact, they are paid agents of certain organizations, which are supported from abroad. Therefore, if one can neutralize the second part of the “Street”, which is really active and well-coordinated, then the rest majority of the “well-fed non-satisfied” would lose a “catalyst of discontent”. And this majority would remain without their “shepherds” and will lose an ability to become a dangerous mob, which can be manipulated by professionals in psychology of the management of mass activities[6].

3. The policy of a Government in respect to those external forces, which are trying – with the help of the local elites and the “Street” – to impose terms of surrender of that Government in a country, that has to face an “orange” aggression, must be to “wave with hand and keep smiling”. To make believe that the suggested (from the outside) approaches of tackling the internal political “crisis” are not quite clear. To suggest postponing of the imposed decisions – in order to better understand the situation and to think over everything more and more thoroughly. Moreover, KEEP ON SMILING! Better – to smile directly and boldly staring to “partner’s “ eyes, at the same time, for example, starting whatever military exercises with artillery or missile shootings in those part of the country, where is may “puzzle” the “partners” most. To play for time, to propose counter offers which are knowingly not acceptable for the counterparts. To agree on everything by a declaration of some “third” person on behalf of the power and – after some time – to deny it with indignation in whatever speech or interview of the first or the second one. In the deep Russian slang, such behavior is called “to switch on a fool”. While winning time by the aforementioned ways, it is crucial to work hard with that part of the local elite, which tends to join the “orange” party, and with that part of the “Street”, which consists of paid instigators. All this must help to win time and to prevent the consolidation of the destructive elements, who in fact are agents of the external pressure[7].

Incidentally, namely the first Maidan of 2004 demonstrated the climax of the might of the “orange techniques” – so called, non-violent overthrowing of governments. The second Maidan (2014), which was accompanied with bloodshed, with armed and disguised militants, has marked a decline of such methods of seizing power. No doubt that the “orange scenario” will be used somewhere and sometime in the future, but most likely, a sheer violent scenario will frequently be replacing it. Now masks are thrown off; nobody is keen on pretending to be not involved. To be more precise, masks are more and more often seen on the “peaceful protesters’” faces. Only now, they have not carnations in their hands but rather baseball bats and bottles with flammable liquid. A violent coup d’état in its full swing. So to say – the classics of the genre, elaborated during centuries: violence and mass informational manipulations. Such is the face of the “revolution”, which the USA impose all over the world. It implies that the response to such techniques of powers’ overthrowing should be adequate. Rallies and pickets will not defeat militants, one cannot resist to baseball bats and traumatic guns with only posters and placards. All attempts to violently seize power must be rigidly responded by law enforcement units. This refers to the counteraction to our possible future “Maidan” in Russia, which will be definitely masterminded and instigated by our American “partners” in 2016, during the Duma’s elections – or a bit later – during the Presidential elections. If the economy of the USA and their satellites continue to decline faster, then the attempts to set up such “Maidan” in Russia may start even in 2015…

Anyway, let us come back to 2004. Euphoria was in the air, happy faces in the streets. Freedom and democracy have won. Now, ten years later, contemplate this without pity is impossible. If freedom took an upper hand at that time – why it turned up that was needed a new Maidan just a decade later – after the “final victory of democracy”? Why did the Ukrainians in 2010 absolutely freely and independently elect Yanukovich? Though they in 2004 came for the third, obviously illegal round of the elections[8]… The answer of this question one can find by understanding the techniques, which Americans used in Ukraine. We are considering now those two politicians, who were suggested to Kuchma as the leaders of the East and the West of Ukraine. In order to prevent the situation when one leader can gather sympathies of the most of Ukrainian people no matter of which part of the country. Both of them – Yanukovich and Yushchenko – used to be Prime Ministers of Kuchma’s Governments, both were entirely oriented onto the USA[9]. This orientation was via family ties either (Yushchenko’s wife was a US intelligence officer) or via money, which – according to the habits of all officially honored oligarchs – must be deposited “over there”, i. e. in Western banks (the Yanukovich’s case). A huge amount of compromising materials on both candidates was required (and it had been collected) in order to control them and manipulate them. Required were flaws in their biographies and in their political positions, which would hamper each of them to become a national leader and attract sympathies of the most Ukrainian people. Precisely because of this was selected Yanukovich with his “semi-criminal” juvenility, precisely because of this was selected Yushchenko with his Bandera-like rhetoric, which is absolutely not acceptable in any form for a large number of Ukrainian citizens.

Kuchma gave a green light to this cunning operation aimed at – as he believed – preserving his power. In reality, the first Maidan happened, and it put an end to his career. The Americans has brought Yushchenko to the power. And he would for four years absolutely loyally do whatever he was told to do. He would lose all his popularity and charisma, and he would be even expelled from his own political party “Our Ukraine”! The time of his reign – is the period when the Americans were preparing an attempt of an “orange-like” coup in Russia. The start of an active part of the ploy was done in December 2011 – just before the Parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation. The main aim of the American plan was to prevent the victory of Vladimir Putin at the Presidential elections of 2012. As the very last events on the global arena have shown, our American “partners” had all rationale for their desire not seeing him in the Kremlin. The accession Crimea to Russia is the most brilliant confirmation of it…

After Putin was re-elected as the Russian President, our relations with the West deteriorated. Putin always firmly but softly[10] defends the interest of his country, basing on the rule that “politics is an art of the possible”. The deterioration happened because the Russian leadership was not willing to sacrifice interests of the country just for maintaining a “good name” and for occasions, when “big guys” “clap you on shoulder”. The West is always benevolent to those who serve it. In order to support this, one can exemplify the careers of the two Ukrainian Presidents, who were equally tightly bound to the American interests. Yushchenko was safely retired with honor – he would be lecturing and breed bees. Yanukovich dared not to sign the enslaving agreement with the European Union. Therefore, he barely escaped an assassination attempt, and the next – when it failed – his favorite “toys” (the money) were arrested in the Western banks for still unclear reasons[11].

Interesting to note, that during the Yushchenko’s reign the Americans did not even demand from him to sign this treaty with the EU, which became fatal for the career of Yanukovich. Why did not they do this? Because Ukraine itself was not in the center of the American foreign agenda. The US was preparing for a fight for power in Russia. Ukraine was of some interest for them, may be as a venue for training of militants and “non-violent protesters”, who were supposed to come to Moscow as a reinforcement and pretending to be Russian citizens[12]. It must have happened, or, better, – it could have happened several times. Once – that day, when the Duma member Ilya Ponomariov, “the greatest thinker of the modern times” Navalny and Udaltsov-Tiutiukin were defending a fountain at the Pushkin Square from assaulting OMON (Special police forces). The plan was – establish a foothold here, at the Pushkin Square – the Kremlin is nearby. In case of success, “good guys” of Ukrainian origin and with the brand new Russian passports should have come up to the venue. It failed.

The USA started losing in Russia when Dmitry Medvedev agreed not to run for President for the second term, but to become the Prime Minister. The final scene of the failure of the American scenario was at Poklonnaya Gora (a Moscow City Park of the Victory situated on a hill called “mountain”) by a rally 4 February 2012 with more than 100 thousand people – this demonstration showed to everybody, that whatever “orange” scenario in Russia is doomed. The very last attempt of the Americans was the unrest at Bolotnaya square a day before the official inauguration of Vladimir Putin. The main goal of the opposition leaders was to sit and remain sited there. In case the police would refrain from any action thousands of the protesters could have remained at the square (thus occupying it) until the next day. On the contrary – active interference of OMON could have bring something that usually inspire revolutionaries of all times (and especially their curators from abroad) – dead bodies of the protesters. The Western machine of propaganda could have a chance to start working at full swing branding the “sanguinary regime”, which has shed blood of its citizens right the first day of the new Presidential term.

It all was a failure. Then the USA decided to concentrate efforts on Ukraine and began preparations of the Ukrainian state’s destruction. Having lost a battle for Russia, the Americans decided to win a “smaller prize” – Ukraine – by all means. They immediately demanded Yanukovich to ratify the already signed (incidentally, signed by himself) notorious agreement with the EU as soon as possible. Of course, the scale of these actions is not as big as desired, but if this has not worked out in case of the greater challenges, let us start over with smaller ones. The Americans were planning to start the next Maidan during the next regular Presidential elections in 2015. One very interesting and characteristic detail to be mentioned – in all “orange” scenarios the Americans overthrow persons, which are 100 % – dependent on the USA. No overthrowing of a sheer enemy – always overthrowing more or less depending puppets.

Let us repeat once more the definition of an “orange revolution”. An “orange revolution” – it is an external aggression, which is accomplished with the help of informational technologies and street unrest. It is usually accomplished by hands of internal “orange” fifth column, but in fact, it is a method of legitimization of an external pressure onto a state power (Government) in order to force the latter to change a politics and make this politics in-line with the one, which aggressors pursue. Or to force current local authorities to hand over all levers of power to those persons, who are ready to change the politics according to the guidelines of the external powers. Weak puppet-like state gets scared in such situation, starts ceding positions and tries to make agreements with the aggressors. Agreements not with rebels/insurgents – but with their puppeteers. With Washington. And here we see several very contrasting examples. Muammar al-Gaddafi tried to reach an agreement. Bashar al-Assad did not and started a struggle right away. The results are well known. Victor Yanukovich was struggling until that “red line”, beyond which it was necessary to deploy armed forces. He must use his armed forces – according to the Constitution of Ukraine. If he would have done this, then, in 2014, Crimea would NOT have reunited with Russia, there would not be a bloodshed at the streets of Ukrainian towns, and the violence would have been confined within a small spot in the center of Kiev.

But what has happened, happened. The collapse of the Ukrainian state happened not as a snap and all of a sudden – just within several months of the second Maidan. Such developments were brewing for many years. From the Nazi-like torchlight processions, which was welcomed by the power at Yushchenko’s rule, which were left on their own and were not dispersed by police at the Yanukovich’s rule. It is a paradox – the state of Ukraine came to the verge of its very existence because of the coup, accomplished by the extreme-nationalists and by pro-American forces in Kiev. Those, who shouted loudly about the love to Ukraine, almost ruined the country. Why? Because the violent overthrowing of power has sharply aggravated all intrinsic and inborn contradictions of the Ukrainian society, which have been existing all the years of the “independence” of the Ukrainian state. These collisions are understandable from the point of view of struggles of civilizations. The Ukrainian nation is a part of Russian civilization. Most of the Ukrainians feel this at the “gene” level. Affection to Russia is an affection to own self. The Western civilization – with all its pageantry and brilliance – is something alien. Each Russian (Ukrainian, Chechen, Tatar, etc.) feels it when coming abroad to the West from Russia or Ukraine. But at the same time, a significant part of Ukraine (the Western one) feels a part of the Western civilization. We will not discuss whether it is true or no – it is not that important. What is important is – the West does not acknowledge Ukraine as a part of the Western civilization. Ukraine is like a lad striving to marry, he has appointed a date of a wedding but still does not have “yes” from his beloved girl. All talks that “Ukraine is Europe” is nothing else but just flamboyant chatter and slogans, which are being put forward by politicians who are struggling to achieve their goals. The attempts to draw a part of the Russian civilization into a kind of civilizational “in-between”, i. e. to rip out Ukraine off Russia at the same time denying it in full integration with Europe, has resulted in serious internal cracks in the Ukrainian state and in the Ukrainian mentality. The first serious crisis has brought these cracks at surface; the state began to splutter.

Nobody can expect that a rape of a “genetic code” of dozens of millions people would remain without any consequences. During the two decades, people were permanently told that they are Ukrainians; they MUST talk, write, and think only in Ukrainian. It was not a problem for those, who feel an ethnic Ukrainian – they were doing all this without any internal discomfort. But for those, who believed to be a Russian or of any other ethnical origin, were feeling a kind of violence, a kind of being “slightly raped”. There were no such frustrations during the USSR: everybody studied at schools both Russian and Ukrainian languages. There were no tension. Why? Because nobody forced no one to get into another civilization; within the scope of the Russian World, nobody regarded Ukrainian language (or any other original language of whatever territory) as an alien one. It is quite natural – our civilization is multinational and versatile, this civilization has NEVER imposed any bans on talking and writing native language. Denial of national identity and genocide – all these came from the West, these are signs of western civilizations. In fact, Ukraine could not have taken place as a state, because its elites kept on telling people about the “European choice”, and they were pulling the country toward an alien civilization, going to “cut” to the quick.

Here is a chronology of those crucial and fateful for the history of the Russian world events[13].

18 September 2013. Ukrainian Council of Ministers unanimously approved a draft of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement[14].

23 October 2013. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on the European Neighborhood Policy – Recommends that the Council sign the Association Agreement between the EU and its Member States, on the one part, and Ukraine on the other part[15].

24 October 2013. At the press conference on the results of the Minsk EurAsEC (The Eurasian Economic Community) summit, The Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that in case of the association of Ukraine with EU, Ukraine would not be eligible to join the Customs Union (The Eurasian Customs Union (EACU)).

18 November 2013. The meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council of EU was supposed to elaborate the final decision on whether to sign the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement during the EU summit in Vilnius 28–29 November 2013 or not. The Council failed to adopt the final decision because Ukraine had not yet met all requirements, which were mandatory to put into effect this Agreement. It was declared that the doors are still open for Ukraine. One of the main pre-requisites was to release Yulia Timoshenko from prison and let her travel to Germany for further treatment. The liberation of the “orange princess” meant a political suicide for Yanukovich; the West demanded of him full and unconditional surrender. Timoshenko herself – as a political leader – was, however, of no need for the West. The results of the elections 25 May 2014 showed this clearly. She got four times fewer votes than the US-appointee – Petr Poroshenko!

21 November 2013. All Parliament members from the fractions of the Party of the Regions and the Communist Party during a plenary session of the Supreme Rada rejected all six legislative drafts, which would enable the ex-Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko go abroad for the further treatment – this was one of the main requirement of the European Union.[16].

• Later that day the Ukrainian Council of Ministers (the Government) adopted a document called “The question of the agreement on association of Ukraine on the one hand and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and the Member States on the other hand”. According to the document, taking into account the issues of the national security of Ukraine, the process of the preparation of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and EU has been suspended[17]. In the same document, several Ukrainian ministries were entrusted “to resume the active dialogue with the Russian Federation and with other countries of the Customs Union and the countries-members of CIS in order to boost up trade and economic relations for the sake of preserving and strengthening of the economic potential of the country by means of joint endeavor”. It was like a bomb explosion. Information began to circulate in mass media that the Ukrainian Council of Ministers has finally made a point of thorough reading and calculation of the Agreement, proposed by the EU. And got horrified. The question why the President and the ministers had not done this before (had not read the text of the Agreement) was silently hushed up.

• Approximately, at 22:00 21 November the first action started at the Kiev’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti (The Square of Independence – or just “Maidan”). About one or two thousand people got together for a rally. It was quite a motley crowd: journalists, social activists, opposition leaders (Vitaly Klitschko – “UDAR” party, Oleg Tyagnibok – party “Svoboda” (“Freedom” or “Liberty”), Arseniy Yatsenyuk – Party “Bat’kivshchina” (“Fatherland”)). They came there after they had received definite instructions from their Western curators. They came only AFTER SEVERAL HOURS after the suspension of the Association Agreement was declared. Later, namely these three persons would become the “faces” of the second “Maidan”[18].

22 November 2013. Despite the Kiev municipal authority’s ban, “itself” formed a tent city. Just “spontaneously” formed… With a commandant Andriy Parubiy[19]. Protests started in Lvov.

• At the same day, EU declined an offer of the Ukrainian Government to arrange trilateral talks – EU-Ukraine-Russia – as an “unparalleled” in the practice of the European Union. Only after blood was shed, only after several months of sheer violence the West agreed on the participation of Russia in the talks on Ukraine – as one of the equitable parties. But in November 2013 both Bruxelles and Washington refused – according to their plans, Russia must not be present in Ukraine at all soon[20].

• Crimea. The Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea supported the decision of the Ukrainian Prime Minister Azarov to suspend the process of the “euro-integration”. The Supreme Council expressed its deep concern about the “destructive actions of the political opposition forces”, and called upon to “the further strengthening friendly ties of Crimea and Russia”[21]. The people of Crimea have not yet known how drastically their whole live would change in just only four months.

24 November 2013. A mass rally at the Maidan. After it has finished, a part of the protesters (most of them were pro-“Svoboda” party activists) tried to break through to the main entrance of the building of the Council of Ministers and blocked the access to it for official government vehicles. The entrance was guarded by several hundred soldiers of the special police unit “Berkut”. The protesters began clashes with the police forces. The police has used batons and tear gas; the protesters has also sprayed out gas and thrown several firecrackers and flash-bangs[22].

28–29 November 2013. A summit of the Eastern Partnership took place in Vilnius. Only an agreement on joint aviation area between Ukraine and the EU was initialed within its framework. The Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union was not signed. Yanukovich has come out of hand, and from that moment he became “doomed”. During all official and unofficial meetings held at the summit, all European leaders were expressing an explicit coldness toward him; their faces wore not smiles but rather something in between despise and annoyance. Yanukovich could have saved himself as a political leader only via struggle and resistance – but not via talks and blind trust in somebody’s promises.

30 November 2013. The police forces has dispersed the “Euromaidan”. At four o’clock in the morning, the police demanded to clear out the square. It was a sheer provocation – there was no sense to use force to scatter several hundreds of students, who were gathering there at that moment[23]. But somebody has ordered. In order to create a “casus” a number of aggressive football fans from the Western Ukraine were brought to Kiev. After idling for several days at countryside’s camps, they shown up at Maidan “just in time” and began fight with “Berkut” – they began to throw bottles, rocks and stones, metal sticks and fittings into the police rows. After having this done, they have just quickly disappear from the crowd, leaving the “romantics of the Eurointegration” eye-to-eye with the angered and furious policemen. Of course, these “romantics” have felt the hard way all power of the retaliation. Very interesting detail pertaining to this event, which became known only at summer 2014. Ukrainian mass media reported that the police lieutenant colonel Sergey Alexeevich Boiko, who commanded the crackdown on the “unhappy stormy petrels of the Maidan” and was initially in a lustration list as a person, responsible for beating of the pro-Euro-integration protesters, was eventually… promoted to a higher position already by the new power. He has taken a position of a head of the public security police of Kiev[24]. So, that is how the new power “punished” colonel Boiko, who, in fact, helped them to overthrow the President Yanukovich.

The picture of the sanguinary crackdown of peaceful demonstrators was immediately broadcasted by all Ukrainian (and not only Ukrainian) TV-channels. Several journalists were wandering about the streets with the allegedly “broken heads”, without any attempts to stop bleeding, giving interviews with blood blemished faces – in several hours after this event. Any injured person would first try to stop bleeding and wipe blood from face – but not these “heroes” whose aim was just to pose for cameras. It was one of the “cunning tricks” of Gene Sharp – one should have a small plastic bag with an animal’s blood; in a certain moment, when a crowd was pushing and squeezing especially hard, this small bag needs to be punctured or smashed on top of a head with horrifying yelling “police-killing-help-me!” A “swanky” close-up is ensured!

1 December 2013. After the police crackdown on the Maidan protesters, which was (“surprisingly”) comprehensively and promptly enlightened by ALL TV channels, the streets of Kiev became overflowed with indignant people. The specially trained militants, using the thousands of “normal” protesters as a “human shield”, began to act. The general situation in Kiev dramatically aggravated.

• From the 1 December 2013, the main focus of the protest rallies shifted from the demands of the Euro-integration to resignation of the Government and the President: Arseniy Yatsenyuk called on the Western countries to impose sanctions against the top Ukrainian officials as a response to the crackdown on the Saturday’s (30 November) rally of the supporters of the Euro-integration. He also declared his intention to organize a voting in the Supreme Rada on the draft resolution about the dismissal of the Government. “We will not go away from here until the Azarov’s Government will resign” – he claimed[25].

• During the whole day and night before the rally of the 1st of December, calls for the mobilization of the “Right sector” were dominating the Internet. The militants were instructed: “Take bottles of paint, any … Sprinkle them not with gas, but with paint – their helmets. They will not be able to see through, they will be forced to get them off… Take knives, pierce through tyres of every vehicle around, do everything that can cause problems with traffic on the streets (all would pardon us, the time is such…). Gas cylinders, preferably several, better to use indoors. Expel everybody from subways to the streets”[26].

• Approximately at 13:00 was seized a building at Kreshchatik street 36; it was the residence of the Kiev City Municipality and the Kiev City Council. After a short while MPs from “Svoboda” party took the full control over the building – they organized there a place where the protesters could warm up. At the same time, being afraid of possible storming of the building by police forces, the occupying squads began to fortify the building from inside, using everything that may come in handy – for example, furniture. The building became gradually surrounded by a crowd of thousands – most of them moved into this place from the central rally at the Maidan. Many of them were just wandering inside the building staring at everything like being on an excursion[27].

• Groups of “peaceful protesters”, armed with bats, chains, stones, traumatic weapons and bottles filled with flammable liquids, tried to break through to the Presidential Administration. In order to break through a police cordons they used a tractor of city utility services, which was stationed close to a fence surrounding the main big New Year Tree at the Maidan. Next, about 200 militants with masks of their faces attempted to break through the police cordons. They were throwing firecrackers towards the police, sprinkling some gases on them. The conscripted soldiers, who were holding the first line of the police defense, were beaten with chains. “Molotov’s cocktails” were also from time to time thrown at the police cordons. There are a lot of evidence of this in form of video recordings[28]. Fifteen policemen were wounded; one of them was hurt by a backhoe. Another one was pressed by the backhoe to a turnstile, he lost consciousness. Three more police officers were poisoned with unknown gas[29]. Closer to the evening, the “Berkut” special forces, which were most of the day located behind the police cordons, moved forward to the front line and pushed back the militants.

• At 14:40 1 December 2013 some representatives of the parties “Svoboda” and “Batkivshchina” have broken the entrance doors of the Trade Union House (the address is Maidan Nezalezhnosti, 18/2), seized the building and stopped the commercials of a big video screen. The guards of the Trade Union House left the captured building. Oleg Tyagnibok stated that from now on, this building will be the headquarter of the National Resistance[30]. In order to prevent looting and vandalizing the building, the leaders of the Ukrainian Trade Unions would later make an agreement with the invaders about a “rental” of the building for just a symbolic fee. It would not help – during the climax of the unrest, 18 February 2014; – the House of the trade Unions would be burned. Later, on 2 May 2014 one more House of Trade Unions would be burned – that time in Odessa. There, the militants of nationalists organizations – i. e. those, whom in December 2013 were called by the Western and Ukrainian journalists as “peaceful protesters” – would cruelly murder about fifty civilians (it was a real massacre – first to wound, then – to kill for certain; or to burn alive in the already set on fire building). This is according to the official statement. Unofficially – it is believed, that in the Odessa Trade union House more than 100 people were assassinated.

• The same day 1 December 2013 the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared, that the “current opposition actions in Kiev are jeopardizing the political and economic stability in Ukraine” and that “a handful of politicos are trying to seize the power in the country, pretending that they are defending the European vector of the social development”[31].

2 December 2013. “The peaceful protesters” has blocked the entrance into the building of the Ukrainian Government, and made the routine operation of the Prime Minister’s apparatus impossible – they blocked the Hrushevsky street, and they did not let governmental officers to their working places. The Speaker of the Supreme Rada claimed that should be held a round table with the participation of representatives of the opposition and the Government. However, the opposition leaders declined to participate in the negotiations[32].

• Crimea. The same day the Crimean Parliament addressed to the President Yanukovich an appeal to undertake some actions in order to restore public and social order in the country, as well as to introduce a state of emergency if the situation would require such extreme steps. 76 deputies out of 78 totally voted supported the Appeal[33].

3 December 2013. Crimea. The Presidium of the Supreme Council of Crimea suggested to the President and the Government to consider a possibility for Ukraine to join the Customs Union and EurAsEC[34].

3 December 2013. Kiev. The German foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle during his visit to Ukraine, breaking all imaginable diplomatic rules, came down to the protesters’ camp at the Maidan. He had meetings with V. Klitschko and A. Yatsenyuk, after that he declared that the EU is highly interested in further development of close relations with Ukraine. According to him, the dialogue with the opposition leaders was very constructive and interesting[35].

5 December 2013. The protesters have blocked the bases of the “Berkut” special police forces in Vasilkovo and at the Krasnozvioszdny prospekt (Red-Star Avenue) in Kiev, where “Berkut” had its hostel. The opposition drafted a law in Rada about the dissolution of “Berkut” and about depriving the soldiers and the officers of the Special Forces of all special and military ranks[36]. The campaign of psychological and physical pressure on “Berkut” has started. However, these warriors fulfilled their duty with dignity.

7 December 2013. Mikhail Saakashvili and a delegation of the European People’s Party visited the Maidan[37]. The specialist in loss of territories has come to give advice. Perhaps, due to such guests, Crimea would later reunite with Russia…

8 December 2013. New protest actions in Ukraine – so-called “people’s veche” (assembly). The most numerous rally happened in Kiev. In the center of the city, the Euro-Maidan activists vandalized a sculpture of Lenin and demolished it. The “Svoboda” party took the full responsibility for this[38].

9 December 2013. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Vice-President of the European Commission Baroness Catherine Margaret Ashton arrived in Kiev. She had talks with the President Yanukovich and conveyed to him the position of the United Europe: All the disputes in Ukraine must be settled in peaceful way[39]. The Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the US Department of State Victoria Jane Nuland also arrived in Kiev. Interesting, has she got the famous “cookies” with her already?

11 December 2013. After one o’clock in the morning, soldiers of “Berkut”, Interior Troops (gendarmerie-like force) and workers of communal services began to move from the adjacent streets toward the barricaded areas. Using the police shields, they were trying to gradually “oust” the protesters from the occupied square, and simultaneously started to demolish the barricades[40].

• In the morning, the law enforcement units also attempted to storm the building of the Kiev’s City Hall, which had been previously captured by the protesters. A tear gas was utilized during the assault. However, the operation failed and soon was terminated. The troopers, standing at minus 12 degrees frost and being poured with the cold water from the building of the city administration, had to retreat[41].

• The same day and also in the morning the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visited the camp of the protesters at the Maidan accompanied by the American Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. She handed out “cookies” to the protesters[42]. Can you imagine anything else, more violating the diplomatic etiquette? An Ambassador at a protest rally in a foreign country…

• At the end of the day, Victor Yanukovich invited the opposition leaders to join to a round table of negotiations[43].

• Crimea. The Presidium of the Supreme Council of Crimea claimed that there is a threat for the current autonomous status of the region and called upon all Crimeans to be mobilized for the sake of preserving the Autonomous Republic of Crimea[44].

19 December 2013. 339 Deputies of the Supreme Rada voted for the oppositional draft law, which exempts all participants of mass protest rallies from criminal prosecution[45]. Officers and soldiers of the Ukrainian law enforcement institutions have felt that they have been betrayed. They were beaten, crippled, killed – and now all this will be left with impunity?

22 December 2013. Another “people’s veche” announced the creation of a new national association “Maidan”. Co-chairpersons of the Council of this association were appointed Oleg Tyagnibok, Sergei Kvit, Vitaly Klitschko, Yury Lutsenko, Ruslana Lyzhychko, Yulia Timoshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Several Russian opposition leaders – Ilia Yashin, Konstantin Borovoy, and others – also took part in the “veche”[46].

10 January 2014. Protesters tried to disrupt the court hearing of the case of “terrorists of Vasilkovo”. (22 August 2011 in a small town of Vasilkovo of the Kiev region, the Ukrainian Security Service arrested two municipal deputies of the Council of Vasilkovo – Igor Mosiychuk and Sergey Bevz – and an assistant of a deputy Vladimir Shpara. They were indicted in the preparation of an act of terrorism – i. e. an explosion of the Lenin’s monument in Borispol). As a result of the street fighting between the protesters and the police forces, two MPs of “Svoboda” party (Yury Bublik and Eduard Leonov) and the former Interior Minister Yury Lutsenko were hurt. About 20 “Berkut” officers got various traumas[47].

12 January 2014. The first “veche” in the year 2014 took place at the Maidan in Kiev. According to the mass media from 50 to 200 thousand people took part in it.

16 January 2014. The Supreme Rada adopted a series of amendments in the legislation. In particular, it was banned to wear facemasks during mass rallies and meetings, to install tents without permission, and to block access to residential buildings. Several amendments have criminalized slander and defamation, and extremist activities, in particular, on the Internet[48]. The opposition immediately branded these laws as “dictatorial” ones.

19 January 2014. After the people’s “veche”, summoned by the opposition leaders, clashes began between the most radically minded protesters, who expressed their discontent with the laws adopted by the Supreme Rada on 16 January 2014, and the police units. The opposition demanded resignation of the Government and continuation of the Euro-integration. These demonstrations proved to be the most numerous and tense for the entire two-monthly period of the protests[49].

The administration of the American President Barack Obama claimed that the responsibility for the conflict escalation should be on the Ukrainian authorities. Which proved to be not able to “admit and accept legitimate demands of own people” – according to a statement of the American administration. “The steps towards to criminalization of the peaceful protest, which were undertaken by the Ukrainian Government, undermine the democratic principles of the country” – claimed the U. S. National Security Council representative Kathleen Hayden[50]. Cannot help asking – why did the American administration not used the same approach to the “junta”, which later called itself as a power in Kiev? Why they have not blamed Turchinov and Yatsenyuk in the escalation of tension in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions? These two personage have certainly proved to “be not able to admit and accept legitimate demands of own people”? This question is a rhetorical one – the Americans always help only to “their” (i. e. “good guys”) and interfere with those who are not deemed to be “their” (i. e. “bad guys”).

20 January 2014. The Foreign Affairs Council of EU called upon the official Kiev authorities to revise their last legislative acts. “They significantly restrict the fundamental rights of Ukrainian citizens to association, freedom of the media and the press, as well as seriously curtail the activities of public organizations” – claimed the Council[51].

22 January 2014. An amazing picture on the Hrushevsky street. The confrontation between the militants and the police forces actually was taking place only on this street! Moreover, only on just one side of the street. Accesses to the administrative buildings on another side of the street are guarded only by a thin police line. The militants stubbornly attacked only from one (another) side.

And all of a sudden, “Berkut” swooped forth, and just a mere handful of policemen took control over a barricade on the Hrushevsky street. Later it would be proven that there were no command to attack, the “Berkut”-guys just threw several stun grenades, and then – seeing fleeing militants – decided to move out forth on their own initiative. However, since there was no command – “Berkut” had to draw back to their initial position. After that in the social networks were flooded with the news: two people killed by “pro-Government snipers”. In fact, the police recovered two dead bodies[52]. Despite the attempts to make of those two unfortunates as victims of the “sanguinary regime”, the Interior Ministry claimed that these people were killed by a hunting shot and from a close range. Most likely – they were the specially prepared “sacred and sacral” victims of the revolution. This assumption is indirectly supported by the origin of the victims: one of them was a Belarusian, the second one – an Armenian nationalist. Seems, as if Ukrainian nationalists were specially left untouched. The Armenian guy just before his death read poems of the Ukrainian poet Shevchenko in front of a video camera with the flaming barricades as a background. Very romantic. Interesting, whether all militants recite poems, or only those, who then will be “accidentally” killed?[53]

23 January 2014. The negotiations between Yanukovich and the opposition leaders lasted for five hours. After that, the opposition declared that an agreement was reached: the arrested protesters would be let free in return of de-blocking of the Governmental quarter and the Hrushevsky street. However, the people’s assembly rejected this proposal. After that, Arseniy Yatsenyuk declared that the Maidan would extend and would occupy the Hrushevsky street[54].

28 January 2014. Most of the “dictatorial laws of 16 January 2014” were cancelled by the Rada majority vote. The Party of the Regions – on Yanukovich’s command – voted for the abolition of the laws, which were adopted by the very same deputies only two weeks ago. These “laws of 16 January” were finally annulled on 31 January 2014 by a special decree of the President Yanukovich No.732-VII[55]. The same day the President accepted the resignation of the Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov and the entire Government[56]. After some time the President proposed the position of the Prime Minister to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The latter has turned down the offer. His aim was to become a Prime Minister without Yanukovich, and he was ready to pay for this with hundreds of human lives during the unrest and the coup.

• Crimea. A mass meeting took place in Simferopol “against the dictatorship in Ukraine”. It was organized by the Majlis of the Crimean-Tatar people. The action was supported also by the “Euromaidan – Crimea” movement. The demonstration took place in front of the building of the office of the President of Ukraine in Crimea instead of the central square of Simferopol – at this square an anti-Maidan rally started at almost the same time.[57]

1 February 2014. The opposition leaders Klitschko and Yatsenyuk participated in a Munich Conference where they had several meetings with the US Secretary of State John Kerry and some European leaders[58].

4 February 2014.

• The leader of the “UDAR” fraction Vitaly Klitschko called upon the Supreme Rada to vote for the enactment of the Constitution of 2004. The “Bat’kivshchina” leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk supported this proposal[59].

• At the same time, Yulia Timoshenko had sent a letter from prison calling upon the “Bat’kivshchina” fraction to opt out the return to the 2004 Constitution and to start preparations for the new Presidential campaign instead.

• Crimea. The Presidium of the Crimean Supreme Council has resolved “in the circumstances of zeal for power of national-fascist groups” to initiate a pan-Crimean poll about the state status of the Crimean Peninsula[60].

12 February 2014. President Yanukovich agreed for a coalition government. By the day of 15 February, all arrested rioters were released from jails and were put under home detention in the scope of an amnesty. During the night from 15 to 16 February, the protesters unblocked all regional administrative buildings[61]. Seemed that the “orange scenario”, with all this violent fighting with police, with throwing “Molotov’s cocktails”, was about to fail. But at this moment, the USA just within one day switched from the “peaceful protest” onto the scenario of a violent coup.

18 February 2014 – the crucial day. A drastic aggravation of the situation happened in the morning. It was accompanied by mass bloodshed. At the session of the Supreme Rada, the opposition has demanded an immediate roll back to the Parliamentary– Presidential form of the state governance, and return to the 2004 Constitution.

• Approximately, at 11 o’clock the opposition leaders started the so called “peaceful assault” of the Supreme Rada. Several thousands of the Euro-Maidan activists rallied towards the Parliament building. The procession was headed by Andrey Ilienko, Oleg Tyagnibok, Oleg Lyashko and Andrey Parubiy. The “peaceful mode” of the demonstration “evaporated” at a distance of 100 meters from the walls of the Parliament. The protesters began stoning the police, and set fire on parked cars and trucks using bottles filled with flammable liquids. Fierce clashes began between the militants and the police forces, which were guarding the accesses to the Parliamentary building[62].

• A little bit later, the militants stormed and seized the Kiev office of the Party of Regions. During the assault, all windows were broken and internal rooms burned. All cars in a garage as well as the ones parked around the building were crashed. During the storming, the militants were throwing bottles with “Molotov’s cocktails” into the windows. When female employees were leaving out the building, the crowd tore off from them their hats and knick-knackery[63]. Two employees of the Party of Regions office were killed during the storming. The first one – when he went out to negotiate with the militants about letting women to leave the building. The second body was recovered after the fire was extinguished[64]. Almost simultaneously, the Euro-Maidan protesters seized the House of Officers, which is located at the crossroads of the Krepostnoy (Fortress) alley and the Hrushevsky street near the building of the Supreme Rada – just opposite to the Mariinsky Park.

• At 13:00 started an active violent confrontation between the police and the Euromaidan activists in Mariinsky Park. Militants began erecting barricades there. Stones, fireworks, firecrackers, Molotov cocktails were throwing to the police rows. The law enforcement forces used stun grenades, traumatic weapons in response. There were tens of wounded from the both sides[65]. There were documented cases of using firearms and sniper rifles by militants. The battlefield has spread over the park from the Square of the Constitution (where the building of the Supreme Rada is located) to the Hrushevsky street 9A. Medical doctors confirmed the death of three people in the House of Officers. Two of them were wounded with firearms, the third was fatally injured in a car accident. One more victim of the unrest passed away in an Ambulance after a fatal bullet wound at Mazepa street[66]. According to the Department of Health of the Kiev City Administration, there were about 165 calls to emergency medical aid services from injured protesters. 109 of them were hospitalized. Reasons for complaints – injuries and chemical burns of eyes. According to the information of the Interior Ministry, the number of injured police officers exceeded 100. Almost 50 police officers of various special units, who got different injuries of varying severity, were delivered to the Central hospital of the Interior Ministry – according to a report as of 22:00. Several policemen got serious head injuries. In addition, several law enforcement officers received poisoning with unknown gaseous substance.

• As of 17:30 the police special forces “Berkut” and the Interior Troops completely purged the Governmental quarter and the October Palace from the protesters. They also took control over the Square of Europe. The Head of the Security Service of Ukraine and acting Interior Minister warned that if the protests do not cease by 18:00, the law enforcement troops would be obliged to suppress the disorder by all legal means[67]. Closer to the evening, forces of “Berkut” and the Interior Troops have driven back all the protesters to the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. During that day and the following night as a result of severe clashes between the law enforcement forces and the opposition supporters 25 people were killed. More than 350 were injured, and more than were 250 hospitalized[68].

• The five soldiers of the Interior Troops, killed in Kiev 18 February, got the bullet wounds in the area of head and neck – obvious result of sniper fire. This was declared by the Commander of the interior troops of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine Lieutenant-General Stanislav Shuliak in his address. “During the implementation of tasks of maintaining public security and public order in the Government quarter in Kiev on 18–19 February 2014, 5 soldiers of the Interior Troops of Ukraine died of gunshot wounds” – said in an official declaration of the press department of the Ministry[69].

• The journalist of the Ukrainian newspaper “Vesti” (“News”) Vyacheslav Yeremei was wounded by a gunshot in chest. In the evening of 18 February, armed militants attacked a taxi car that he happened to be in. When the car stopped at a traffic light, militants in helmets, masks, and camouflage wear began to throw “Molotov cocktails” at the car, after that all people, who were in the car, were severely beaten. The journalist was delivered to a hospital in critical condition and placed in an intensive care ward, where he passed away on February 19 at night[70].

• The situation at the Western Ukraine extremely aggravated.

• According to the Health Ministry since 18 until 21 February 77 people died in Kiev; Interior Ministry reported about 16 killed police officers[71].

18 February became the turning point – the militants for the first time explicitly used firearms, and for the first time they were explicitly killing people. Driven back at bay to Maidan by the police forces, they were surrounded there. The only thing remained to do was to give the order to the “Berkut” forces to purge the Maidan, and to let them use firearms. But during the night, this order was not given. One armored police vehicle tried to break through the barricades, but was burned, and the driver had a narrow escape.

What was necessary to do? The answer is simple: firmly curb the incipient chaos. Declare martial law, curfew, give an order to disperse the militants by force, if necessary – by a military. The “peaceful protest” has been neutralized by troopers of “Berkut”, who just firmly stood at their positions; the violent coup should have been suppressed by decisive actions of the same “Berkut” and other law enforcement units. In a matter of minutes, not even hours, the special forces surrounded the militants and hold them blocked on a limited area; subway trains were stopped, all entrance roads to Kiev were blocked. It was the most real chance to rescue Ukraine. Save Ukraine from the chaos and civil strife. Yanukovich has not given this order. Yanukovich quailed and did not dare to act. Yanukovich began to make arrangements with the opposition leaders and the western envoys. The ensuing chaos and civil unrest were the direct consequence of that not-given command to suppress the riot. The head of Ukraine began his favorite game on two sides – and that, and this – and this finally has led him to the loss of power.

But on the evening of 18 February perplexity and dismay reigns the Maidan, the opposition is on the verge of defeat. However, the treason on the very top of the Ukrainian power has saved it (the opposition). Yanukovich has chosen money, has chosen personal safety guarantees for himself and for his son-billionaire. Yanukovich has betrayed everybody who had been fighting on the side of the law and against the putsch[72].

On the night 19 February 2014 in Lvov region militants seized large quantities of weapons and ammunition[73].

• In Kiev, the command to purge Maidan from militants has never been given. The events of those days will be still subject of thorough analysis and investigation. And they were: as if creating an alternative of the hesitant President Yanukovich, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine Alexander Yakimenko took the initiative[74]. He declared about the start of an anti-terrorist operation if the country: ““Security Service of Ukraine and the Anti-Terrorism Centre today decided to commence an anti-terrorist operation on the territory of Ukraine”. According to his words, it was done because the actions of various radical and extremists groups jeopardize lives of millions of Ukrainians”[75].

• The press department of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine claimed 19 February that the police and the Interior Troops of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine has not used firearms when protecting the public order and localizing the clashes in the center of Kiev. “Taking into account the character of fatal wounds of the killed civilians (“blind” injuries, wounds in napes) as well as the specs of the weapons seized, one can admit that these injuries could have been caused to the injured by other protesters. Police reminds that the day before during the liberation of streets of Kiev from the participants of the mass unrest, weapons, which protesters have dropped fleeing from the law enforcement troopers, were found by the police”[76]. On the night of 19 February, a fire started in the House of Trade Unions at Khreshchatik street. Nobody ever stormed the House, but the building somehow caught fire immediately and dramatically. There is quite substantial reasons to believe that, expecting a “Berkut” attack, the militants just tried to “clean up” and to cover their tracks[77].

20 February 2014. In the morning, the Supreme Rada – according to an initiative of the ceding all and everything President Yanukovich – decided to withdraw from Kiev all law enforcement troops[78]. Yanukovich actually relinquished the power – by his consent to withdraw all loyal to the oath law enforcement troops from the Capital.

• The Maidan protesters moved forth again – the police retreated. At this moment a mass shooting of protesting militants happened on the Institutskaya street. There were several snipers; they fired from several points. Footages show how the militants with shields were coming ahead and were falling, being struck by bullets, which are flying from behind and from a side. Who was shooting? It is extremely important – to thoroughly investigate the filthy and bloody story of the mass murder of people by “unknown snipers” in Kiev. Yanukovich has stated that he had not given a command to shoot at unarmed people. Such an order really did not exist. Furthermore, the fighters neither of “Berkut” nor of Internal Troops had firearms at their disposal when they were confronting the protesters. These guys could not have killed anyone and were not going to kill anyone. But at the same time, the same “unknown snipers” have made many shots at the law enforcement troopers and wounded more than 20 of them. Namely being exposed to this gunfire, the police forces began to retreat from the Maidan[79].

• Openly, in front of cameras at a press conference, the leaders of the anti-terrorist units and groups of snipers claimed, that they did not shoot at the demonstrators. Snipers of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine were deployed at the scene of the clashes, but they have not used their special rifles at the protesters – they were preparing positions for anti-sniper fight… “The commander of a unit of the special forces to fight terrorism “Omega” colonel Anatoly Strel’chenko claimed, that the fighters of his unit have not shot on the protesters on the Institutskaya and Hrushevsky streets …”My unit was slandered as allegedly like a “death squad”. I want to officially state that “Omega” did not kill anyone, “ – said the commander of the elite unit of special forces …”[80]

There is still no answer on the question, who was shooting. It is not going to be found. The special forces “Berkut” were blamed. Several “Berkut” troopers were arrested. But even a commission, created on a command of the putsch leaders, concluded that people were killed not of the firearms, which the law enforcement units may have had[81]. Who had been killing? Unknown snipers[82]. The mass murder of people by “unknown snipers”, who were – as a matter of fact – placed on roofs of Kiev by western secret agencies, enables to blame the authorities for brutalities and violence[83]. And to respond with violence. All Western and controlled by the West Ukrainian mass media got the best out of this provocation – they quickly have formed the public opinion in Europe, in the USA, and in Ukraine. This multi-step scenario, in which the opposition, Western powers and intelligence agencies, as well as “independent” media were playing one bloody game. This was the essence of the technique of overthrowing a power. The same – or similar – provocateurs were killing people in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Kirgizia, Tunisia, and – at last – in Moscow in 1993. Let us try to key in the word “sniper” together with a name of a country into a search line of whatever Internet search engine, and you will see how often our American “partners” repeat the same trick – first, the sniper fire at crowds and then – blaming the authorities in the massacre[84]. If the “script” of killings of different victims in absolutely different places of the world is the same – it is the evidence that the killer is a serial one, the evidence that the killer is just one. Nowadays only one country in the world can replicate provocations globally in pursuit of own geopolitical objectives.

21 February 2014. Under a pressure of Western powers Yanukovich signed with the opposition an agreement about the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. The Agreement contained mandatory provisions, in particular, – immediately (within 2 days) put into effect the Constitution of 2004, a Constitutional reform and a new early Presidential elections not later than in December 2014.

The guarantors of the Agreement’s implementation were the Federal minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Poland Radosław Sikorski and the Head of the Department of the Continental Europe of the Foreign Ministry of the French Republic Éric Fournier[85].

The surrender of all positions by the authorities was at the full swing. The Security Service of Ukraine announced the abolishment of the anti-terrorist operation, the start of which was declared on 19 February, but which in fact has never been started[86]. After the signing of the Agreement, the opposition began to work on an issue of physical extermination of Yanukovich. After the complete relinquishing the power, he may come in handy for them and for their Western curators only in a form of a corpse[87]. In such case, the problem of the legitimacy of their power would be solved itself. But Yanukovich managed to escape. Fleeing, he has not signed a decree about the putting into effect of the Constitution of 2004, what is a mandatory condition according to the Agreement. The putsch leaders did “not notice” such a trifle.

• The same day the leader of the “Right Sector” Dmitry Yarosh declared the non-recognition of the Agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition leaders. He threatened to begin storming the Presidential Administration with the forces of the “Right Sector” if Yanukovich would not resign until the next morning[88].

• At the night 21–22 February, the President Yanukovich left Kiev for Kharkov[89]. In Ukraine has been committed a coup d’état. There is no other name to the violent seizure and usurpation of power occurred there.

22 February 2014. The Supreme Rada adopted a resolution, which declared that “Yanukovich has withdrawn from the exercising of his constitutional powers in an unconstitutional manner” and he does not fulfill his duties. Rada has scheduled early Presidential elections on the 25 May 2014[90]. At the same time, some TV channels broadcasted an interview with Yanukovich from Kharkov. He claimed that he is not going to resign and sign any documents or decisions of the Supreme Rada, which he deems to be illegal. He named all, what was happening in the country as “vandalism, gangsterism and a coup d’état”[91].

23 February 2014. The Presidential duties – in violation of the Constitution – were assigned to the Chairman of the Supreme Rada Alexander Turchinov. The same day the Rada repealed the Law about the regional Languages[92]. The roistering of the militants in Kiev were the background of the voting in the Parliament. The militants several times attacked the “Berkut” troops on their way out of the city. Many Rada deputies were detained in the Parliamentary premises and forced to surrender their smart cards for secure voting. Unwanted “guests”, armed and disguised, were visiting houses and apartments of many politicians. Militants of the Maidan “self-defense” guarded the building of the Supreme Rada[93].

Now a few words about the “legitimacy” of the new power in Kiev, which appointed itself after the coup of 21 February 2014. The apparent legitimacy was provided by the fact that all decrees and resolutions were approved by the Supreme Rada. The same Rada, which existed BEFORE the coup. But it all was an illusion of a legitimacy. In this is not hard to make sure. It’s enough just to read the Constitution of Ukraine. Let us skip all emotions and chatter about who and how liked or disliked Yanukovich, as well as about what kind of a poor leader he was. Also, we are not going to discuss such baloney as reasoning of the kind “since he has left the territory of Ukraine then he ceased to be as its President”. In the Constitution there is nothing of the kind, there is no single word about “a love to a President” or “about the Presidential sacred duty to be in Ukraine”. But the Constitution contains very clear legal conditions describing the circumstances of the termination of Presidential powers. Here is the Constitution of 2004, to which the opposition had been so keen on returning:

“Article 105. The President of Ukraine enjoys the right of immunity for the period of the execution of powers. For infringement of the honor and dignity of the President of Ukraine, the perpetrators are to be brought to justice under the law. The title of President of Ukraine is protected by law and remains for him for life, unless the President of Ukraine has been dismissed from the post of Impeachment”[94].

The President is inviolable – he may not be detained or arrested. The Maidan militants were trying to do precisely this – when Yanukovich fled. There was firing at his car, there was a group of commandos for his extermination.

But let us come back to the Constitution. It says that the President of Ukraine may be ousted from his position ONLY as a result of impeachment. No matter what kind of crime he would have allegedly committed, any other way of the ousting must be treated as the MOST SERIOUS VIOLATION of the country’s main law. Only impeachment – and nothing else. So, what does the procedure of impeachment look like? The Constitution provides the comprehensive description of it. It is not just a simple voting. To initiate a procedure of impeachment at least 226 Rada deputies must have voted for a creation of a special commission, which should include special prosecutor and special investigators. Has such commission been set up? No. The next step is the investigation, the conclusions of which should be presented to and considered by the Supreme Rada. After that, at least 300 Rada deputies should vote that a President is guilty. Let us emphasize: vote not for ousting, but just for deeming that a President is guilty! Finally, at least 338 Rada deputies (>75 % of 450 total number of the Rada deputies) must vote for the impeachment itself, and thus oust a President from powers. But this voting would be legitimate “only after the checking the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and receiving its conclusion regarding compliance with the constitutional procedure of the investigation and consideration of the case for the impeachment, and also receiving a conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine that the acts, in which the President of Ukraine is being accused, carry the signs of high treason or other crimes”[95].

One can immediately see, that nothing, which required by the Constitution has been done. It simply means – there were no impeachment. The procedure was not even initiated. Finally, during the voting in Rada (the voting itself already violated the Constitution) for the “dismissal of Yanukovich” were only 328 votes – compare with the Constitutional requirement of minimum 338. Thus, the law was broken for many times. It is high time to ask a question: whether it is possible to violate a Constitution in such a delicate matter as appointing of the head of a state? The answer is – NO. But if it is done (i. e. a Constitution is violated), it is means that the power, which emerged as a result of such a “procedure”, is illegal and not legitimate. This was exactly, what was said in Russia starting from the very first day of the coup in Kiev…

• Crimea. 23 February 2014 in Sevastopol people refused to recognize the new self-proclaimed Ukrainian authorities. Tens of thousands people gathered at a rally and declared a distrust of the local administration. At the same time, the rally participants voted for a new city head – the citizen of Russian Federation Alexey Chaly. The new city authorities have formed a new executive body of the city administration – the Directorate for ensuring of the functioning of all vital municipal services of Sevastopol. Chaly has headed the Directorate[96].

• Crimea. A meeting of Crimean Tatars, timed to the day of memory of “the well-known” Mufti Noman Çelebicihan, took place in Simferopol. Surely, in the course of it, the event has become a political one – and targeted to a support of a “new power”. The demonstrators carried flags of the European Union, Ukraine, old flags of Crimean Tatars, slogans like “The Future of Ukraine is in the family of the united nations of Europe”, “Euro-Maidan Crimea”. The participants repeatedly chanted “Glory to Ukraine! To heroes – fame!”[97] Almost at the same time as the Crimean Tatars were rallying, other Simferopol’s residents, who were not willing to live in a “new Ukraine” under the non-legitimate and nationalist power, began to organize squads of self-defense of Crimea.

24 February 2014. The new Ukrainian authority got recognition from the side of the European Union and the USA.[98] Such “trifles” as the absence in the Constitution even a mentioning about such state position as “Acting President”, the total violation of the Constitutional procedure of the impeachment, were of no concern for the “legalists” from the “civilized world”. They do not care about the “trifles” – “their” people have committed the coup, therefore the new power was immediately recognized.

25 February 2014. Crimea. People at a mass rally, which was held in front of the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea, demanded that the local government should hold a referendum, and thus decide what will be the future of the Peninsula. The main objective of this rally was to show to the Crimean Parliament (the Supreme Council) that the demonstrators have not accepted and have not recognized the new Kiev authority as their own one. “We do not accept this brown, pro-fascist plague, which is imposing their notions on us,” – said one Cossack ataman[99].

25 February 2014. Crimea. Crimean self-defense forces have erected the first checkpoints around Sevastopol[100]. All this happened because of the growing understanding that the chaos could come very soon to the peninsula from Kiev, and it may result in a bloodshed. Mass protests began in Simferopol, the protesters refused to recognize the change of power in Ukraine, which occurred after the President Viktor Yanukovich fled from Kiev[101]. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars organized a counter-rally of own supporters at the same place – in front of the Supreme Council of Crimea. The Tatar demonstration has fully supported the putsch in Kiev. These two actions at the same time and at the same place have resulted in a crush. About 20 people were injured nearby the Crimean parliament in scuffles, as the two rallies took place at the same time with opposite slogans[102]. Two people died – one as a result of crowding, another – from a heart attack[103]. Fortunately, it was the only one clash with an ethnic (or national) background. Other clashes of the same kind, which would be such desirable for Kiev authorities, were avoided.

27 February 2014. Arseniy Yatsenyuk was appointed as a new Ukrainian Prime Minister; a Provisional Government was formed[104].

• Crimea. At 4 o’clock in the morning unknown “Polite people” entered into the premises of the Supreme Council of Crimea. They ensured the security for the local deputies in holding plenary sessions. The story of the Crimean self-defense forces has begun[105]. The session of the Crimean Parliament has appointed a deputy of the Crimean Supreme Council, the leader of the “Russian unity” party Sergey Aksenov as a new Prime Minister of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea[106].

• The same day Victor Yanukovich held a press conference in Rostov-on-Don. He claimed that the nationalist and pro-fascist thugs have seized the power in Ukraine, with the assistance and as a result of irresponsible policies of the West and the United States. He does not recognize the adopted by the Supreme Rada new laws – inasmuch as he has not signed them. He claimed that the Rada deputies are intimidated by the activists of the “Maidan self-defense” and militants of the “Right Sector”. Finally, he stated that the Supreme Rada is not legitimate anymore. Yanukovich also appealed to the Russian authorities to provide his personal security “from any extremists actions” – as long as he keeps on receiving personal threats[107].

1 March 2014. President of Russia Vladimir Putin submitted to the Council of Federation an Appeal about the use of Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine until the normalization of the social and political situation in the country[108]. The same day an emergency session of the upper house of the Russian Parliament unanimously supported this Presidential Appeal[109].

3 March 2014. Crimea. The PR-department of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic Crimea issued a statement that the deputies of the Crimean parliament decided to hold the republican (local) referendum as a form of direct democracy – on the issue of amending the status and powers of the autonomy on 30 March 2014[110]. One more initiative came during this day – now from Sevastopol – about a change of the city’s legal status and about the administrative subordination of the city to the Crimean authorities directly[111].

5 March 2014. Crimea. A Court of Kiev resolved to detain Sergey Aksenov and Vladimir Konstantinov, for whom a criminal case has opened according to the article “Actions aimed at violent change or overthrow the constitutional order or the seizure of state power”[112].

6 March 2014. Crimea. The Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea decided to join the Russian Federation as one of its subjects. It was resolved to hold a Referendum over the entire Crimean territory (including Sevastopol) – and not at the day of 30 March, but of 16 March – where to resolve the issue of the future status of the peninsula. The Referendum query presumed two possible answers:

• “Do you support the reunification of the Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?” • “Do you support the restoration and putting into effect of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?”[113]

The municipal Council of Sevastopol adopted the same day a resolution about the Referendum[114].

• Crimea. The first deputy of the Prime Minister of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea Rustam Temirgaliev said that all Ukrainian property in Crimea would be nationalized in favor of the new authorities of the region; all private property on the territory of the peninsula will be re-registered according to the legislation of the Russian Federation. He pointed out that Crimea is ready to switch into the Ruble’s zone[115].

7 March 2014. Crimea. The Speaker of the Russian State Duma Sergey Naryshkin stated that Russia would support “a free and democratic choice of Crimean and Sevastopol people”. The same day a delegation of the Crimean deputies had a meeting with the Speaker of the Council of Federation of Russia Valentina Matvienko. She assured that if a decision of accession of Crimea to Russia would be made, the members of the Council of Federation would support this[116].

9 March 2014. Crimea. The first rallies supporting the accession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation took place in Simferopol, Sevastopol, Kerch and Eupatorium. Representatives of the new Crimean authorities called on the people of the peninsula to vote for the reunification with Russia[117].

• Crimea. As of 9 March, all Ukrainian TV channels stopped broadcasting. Instead, the Russian channels – “The First Channel”, “Russia-24”, NTV, TNT, STS, and “Russia-1” are on air. The local channel “Crimea” also continued to broadcast.

11 March 2014. Crimea. The Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Municipal Council of Sevastopol adopted a Declaration of Independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol. According to it, in case of the Crimean Referendum’s decision to reunite with Russia, Crimea will be declared a sovereign Republic and – according to this international status – will re-unite with the Russian Federation as one of its subjects[118].

13 March 2014. Crimea. The four leading political parties of Crimea adopted a Memorandum about the full cooperation in expediting of free will of Crimeans during the All-Crimean referendum. The document was signed by the head of the Crimean Regional organization of the Party of Regions Vladimir Konstantinov, the leader of the “Russian Unity” party Sergey Aksenov, Deputy Chairperson of the Crimean Regional organization of the “Union” (Soyuz) party Svetlana Savchenko, the leader of the Crimean Regional organization of the Communist Party of Ukraine Oleg Solomakhin[119].

16 March 2014. Crimea. The Referendum was held. Participated 83.1 % of the registered voters of Crimea (without Sevastopol), around 96.77 % out of them voted for the accession of Crimea to Russia. The corresponding figures for Sevastopol were 89.5 % and 95.6 %[120]. Unparalleled surge of spirit and incredibly high turnout at the poll stations. After the end of the ballot, fests were arranged at the central squares of Sevastopol and Simferopol. Streets were overcrowded with people shouting “Russia!” and with a festive salute as a background of the whole action.

17 March 2014. The President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed a decree recognizing the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign and independent state in which the city of Sevastopol has a special status[121].

• Crimea. Russia provided Crimea a financial aid in the amount of 15 billion Rubles[122].

18 March 2014. Russia and Crimea signed a Treaty about the accession of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation. The signing ceremony took place in the Georgian Hall of the Kremlin. The Document was signed by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, the Chairman of the State Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Crimea Sergey Aksenov and the municipal head of Sevastopol Alexey Chaly. Simultaneously to the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation, there were constitutionalized two new subjects of Federation – the Republic of Crimea and a City of Federal subordination Sevastopol[123]. The State Duma adopted the appropriate federal constitutional law[124].

• Crimea. An unknown sniper of a subversive group of the “Right Sector” has shot dead a Cossack – a member of the Crimean self-defense force – just few steps from the gates of a Ukrainian military installation. The same sniper just in seconds has also killed a Ukrainian soldier, thus instigating a confrontation[125]. All Ukrainian mass media immediately raised a hysteria – Russia assaulted a Ukrainian army, blood was shed![126] Afterwards, some Russian media published a detailed description of the incident and the hysteria came to naught. Historians of the future will tell how many subversive group were neutralized during these historical days. However, one such group has not unfortunately been neutralized on time – as the result the price of the accession of Crimea to Russia is two human lives[127]. They are – a volunteer from Volgograd Ruslan Kazakov[128], and a Ukrainian trooper Sergey Kokurin, killed by the same sniper. Russian names, Russian family names – from both sides. Nothing gives us understand more explicitly, how nominal are the boundaries, which have split one great nation…

21 March 2014. Vladimir Putin signed the Federal Constitutional Law about the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation and about the formation of two new subjects of Federation – the Republic of Crimea and a City of Federal subordination Sevastopol. Together with the law, Putin has approved the ratification of the Agreement on the accession of Crimean Republic into the Russian Federation and the formation within the Russian Federation of new subjects. Simultaneously a decree on the establishment of the Crimean Federal District was signed[129].

The feelings of Russian citizens at those days can be best of all described by the words of Alexander Vassilievich Suvorov: “I am Russian! What a delight!”

18 March 2014. The President of Russia addressed in Kremlin a speech to the deputies of the State Duma, to the members of the Council of Federation, to the heads of the regions of the country and civil society representatives in connection of the appeal of Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol for admission to the Russian Federation. This speech is very unusual[130]. This speech of Vladimir Putin is, perhaps, one of the best in his entire career. The head of our state spoke very clearly, resolute, colorful and – what is very important – very fair and square. It was possible to summarize the provisional outcome of that struggle on the territory of Ukraine, which was imposed on us by the West by funding and masterminding the coup d’état in Kiev. The Treaty of the accession of Crimea into Russia was signed, “the Crimean round” Russia won clearly. However, ahead we have hard and painstaking work on returning onto the orbit of the Russian world of the people of Ukraine. Those people, who were for two decades exposed to aggressive media attacks and who were brought up in the spirit of Russo phobia and hatred toward our common historical homeland[131].

Let us quote here the most brilliant moments, when the head of Russia has spoken out, what was deep in hearts of all Russian people, when he explained why we have been always perceiving Crimea as a part of our country.

“Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Chersoneses, where Prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire in 1783 are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolizing Russian military glory and outstanding valor”.

“In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century”.

“Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city”.

“I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to a peaceful protest, democratic procedures, and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day… There was a whole series of controlled “color” revolutions. Clearly, the people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were taken advantage of cynically… As a result, instead of democracy and freedom, there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter”.

…So, this way Crimea has come home. And besides, the reunification with Russia was held so instantly and so delicately that our geopolitical opponents simply did not have time to realize what is going on. The USA organized and supported the coup in Ukraine in order to expel the Russian navy from the Black Sea. To make the Black Sea coast a “Russia-free” zone. The West wanted to “rewind” history – to return to the times of the Crimean Khanate and Turkish reign. To void and cancel deeds of Catherine the Great, under whose reign in 1783, Crimea became a part of our state. But everything turned out differently.

Nevertheless, we agreed to go along the river of time in reverse way. In the opposite direction. Now it is time to recall those dreadful for Russia times, when not only Crimea but also Ukraine itself left our big common home. We are coming back to 1991. Without this story, we will not be able to understand the degree of the enthusiasm of people of Crimea, who have now came back to Russia after two decades of the “forced emigration”…