How A False Flag Massacre Led To The Proxy War In Ukraine

New research proves that the "Maidan Massacre" used to justify the 2014 coup in Ukraine was a false flag.

Some Background On The Maidan Coup.

The fact that the 2014 U.S.-backed “Maidan coup” against Ukraine's elected president Viktor Yanukovich led to the Ukraine Proxy war has been widely discussed.

For a refresher, since 1991 the U.S. has spent 5 billion dollars in propaganda efforts to try to push Ukraine in a more western friendly direction. This spending became far more targeted in the lead-up to 2014 when the U.S. funneled money through the N.E.D. (National Endowment for Democracy), U.S.A.I.D. (United States Agency for International Development) and the security state tied billionaire Pierre Omidyar to think tanks that were generating protests against the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich.

Economist Jeffery Sachs- who was heavily involved in the economic reforms put in place in post soviet states after the collapse of the Soviet Union- was asked to help with economic reforms in the new government in Ukraine. In a recent interview on “Breaking Points”, he revealed how coordinated the think tank funding was saying:

“I flew there (to Ukraine) … and when I got there somebody representing an American NGO … somebody explained to me how much American money had gone into pumping up the Maidan (coup). I saw it (the Americans said) we gave 50 thousand to this one (think tank), 5 million to this one, 5 thousand to this one and so forth”

This funding eventually sparked protests against the Yanukovych government. Certainly, the U.S. could not have done this without real grassroots opposition to Yannakovitch, many of the initial protestors came out based on genuine anger over Yannakovitch’s corruption. While the majority of protestors were not far right, when the protests turned violent, the violence was almost entirely from far-right and neo-nazi linked groups. As Branko Marcetic reported in Jacobin, “The driver of this violence was largely the Ukrainian far right, which, while a minority of the protesters, served as a kind of revolutionary vanguard.”

The Vast majority of violence came from two specific groups, the first being the far-right party Svoboda and the second being Right Sector, a neo-nazi linked paramilitary group.

The U.S. government supported the protests, even while violent far-right elements increasingly became the driving force. Some U.S. politicians even actively cheered the violence, Senators John Mcain and Cris Murphy went to Ukraine and stood alongside Oleh Tyahnybok - the leader of the far-right Svoboda party- while he called for violent protest against Yanukovych.

Pictured Above: Senator Chris Murphy (left) and John Mcain (Middle) standing with far-right Svoboda party leader, Oleh Tyahnybok (right) as he called for violent protests against Yannakovitch.

Murphy admitted on C-span that America went further than just funding the protest and actively had politicians and officials on the ground taking part in it. He said

“With respect to Ukraine we (the U.S. government) have been very much involved, we have members of the senate who have been there, members of the State Department who have been on the square.

Eventually, the violence led Yanukovych to leave power and flee Ukraine. The U.S. was again deeply involved in making this happen, Chris Murphy admitted in the above-mentioned C-Span interview that the American threat and passing of sanctions against Yanukovych is what led to the “change in regime”.

After Yannakovitch fled, America yet again played a role in shaping the new government to make sure politicians sympathetic to Western business interests were in high positions. The assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland was caught on tape deciding who of the three opposition figures would be in and out of government. On a phone call with the US ambassador to Ukraine Jeffery Pyatt, she said “I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside.” “Yats” was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who Forbes magazine called “Washinton’s man” because he was “willing to do the IMF bidding”. Just as Nuland called for, when Yannakovitch was forced from power Arseniy Yatsenyuk was installed as the interim prime minister of Ukraine with Vitali Klitschko and Oleh Tyahnybok outside of government.

The reason cited by the U.S. government and supporters of “Maidan” for the legitimacy of Yannakovitch’s removal was a sniper massacre that took place in Ukraine’s “Independence Square” where 48 protestors were killed and hundreds injured.

The official narrative claims that Yannakovitch ordered this massacre and it was carried out by the pro-Yanukovych Berkut special police forces, possibly with the help of Russian agents.

However, newly released evidence researched by Ukrainian-Canadian professor of political science at the University of Ottawa Ivan Katchanovski shows that Yannakovitch did not order the massacre, Russian agents were not involved, and the killing was in fact done by far-right elements of the Maidan protests in order to give a justification for the coup against Yanukovych.

Forensics and Witness Testimony Point the Finger To The Right Sector For the Massacre

After, reviewing all of the footage of a trial in Ukraine that charged five members of the Berkut special police forces for the massacre, Katchanovski found that the evidence presented in court showed that the massacre was actually done by far-right pro-coup forces that were the revolutionary vanguard of the protests.

For starters, the majority of witness testimony points to them being the culprit. Katchanovski found that 51 of the 71 surviving protestors who were wounded in the shooting testified that “they had been shot by snipers from Maidan-controlled buildings or areas , had themselves witnessed snipers there, or had been told by other Maidan protesters about such snipers”.

31 of the wounded protestors testified that they were shot from “Hotel Ukraina, the Bank Arkada, and Zhovtneva Palace, the buildings on Muzeinyi Lane and Gorodetskiy Street,” all locations that were taken over by pro-Maidan forces such as right sector and Svoboda.

Another 33 wounded protestors said they “witnessed snipers and/or were told about snipers” at the “Hotel Ukraina” a hotel at the square that was occupied by Svoboda party leaders and pro-Maidan coup forces. For example, one protestor who was injured in the shooting testified that he was told by other protestors that “this was our sniper”.

Video of testimony taken that day also told a similar story. Katchanovski found that dozens of witnesses in the videos testified about “witnessing snipers in the Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings” As well as a Georgeon who “confessed to being a member of a group of Maidan snipers.”

The forensics showcased at the trail also showed that people in Maidan-controlled areas were responsible for the mass shooting. The forensic examinations showed that “ 40 out of the 48 killed protesters were shot from a high angle” and that “at least 36 of them were killed at a time when the Berkut policemen were filmed on the ground.” Similarly, the forensics showed that 48 of the 51 surviving protestors examined had “steep entry wounds, consistent with the theory that they were shot by snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings”. Examination of the bullets used in the shooting also found that 19 of the people killed were killed with “bullets matching the hunting versions of Kalashnikovs assault rifles” which video showed Svoboda members had when entering the “Hotel Ukraina”. The forensics also showed that bullets found at the scene “did not match the police database for Kalashnikov assault rifles of members of the entire Kyiv Berkut regiment, including the special Berkut unit deployed”. Finally, they showed that 77 out of the 157 protestors wounded by bullets were “wounded from sectors where no Berkut police were located”.

Despite the evidence presented clearly pointing to this massacre being a false flag operation done by pro-Maidan coup forces, Katchanovski predicted that the verdict would be a cover-up of these facts stating “the Prosecutor General’s Office has been headed by either politicians from the Svoboda and Peoples Front parties, or close allies of presidents Poroshenko and Zelensky”. Katchanovski was mostly correct with this prediction, the verdict did put most of the blame on five members of the Berkut police force (despite the evidence showing otherwise), but there were still some crucial admissions buried in the one-million-word verdict that was put forward in October of 2023.

The Verdict’s admissions and evidence of a cover-up.

Despite the verdict mostly being a cover-up of the evidence presented at the trial, there was still some important admissions buried within it. Professor Ivan Katchanovski detailed these after researching the entire one million-word verdict in his book “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World”.

For starters, the verdict confirmed the existence of opposition snipers at the Hotel Ukraina saying that “based, even only on the testimony of the victims themselves, there was enough data to make a categorical conclusion that on the morning of February 20, 2014, persons with weapons, from which the shots were fired, were in the premises of Hotel Ukraina.” The verdict also found that they were responsible for “ killing 13 and wounding 29 Maidan activists”.

The verdict also said that the Hotel Ukraina and other buildings that the witnesses testified being shot from were “controlled by the activists” and that the pro-Maidan coup “activists” in these buildings had “Kalashnikov assault rifles and hunting rifles”.

Another bombshell revelation from the verdict was that “there was no order by Yanukovych or his government to massacre the Maidan protesters”. This alone is a huge revelation as the excuse given for the overthrow of Yannakovitch was that he ordered the massacre of protestors.

Even though the verdict blamed the Berkut police for the killing of many of the protestors it even admitted that they were not responsible for “killing 13 and wounding 29 Maidan protesters”. Despite finding that these murders and attempted murders were not done by members of the Berkut police forces they did not charge anyone, instead putting the blame on unnamed people who were “not law enforcement officers” likely because “an amnesty law, adopted by the Ukrainian parliament on February 21, 2014, granted blanket immunity from prosecution for Maidan participants for a variety of serious crimes, including murder, terrorism, and seizure of power” as Katchanovski detailed in his first paper.

The verdict also confirmed that there was no Russian involvement in the massacre, stating that “The Russian trace was not confirmed after examining the relevant documents”.

Despite the evidence presented at the trial clearly showing that the massacre was a false flag, the verdict still convicted three of the five Berkut police officers - who are now in the Russian-controlled separatist Donbas region and cannot face consequences- for killing 31 of 48 protestors and wounding 44 of 80. The charge is based on a single forensic examination, that does to match up with the 40 previous forensic examinations reviewed above in this article, which earlier in the trail was “dismissed” because “it was based on a bullet fragment that had appeared on the scene without any trace of corresponding pieces from the same bullet—a sign of evidence tampering.” as Katchanovski wrote in “Canadian Dimension”.

Aside from contradicting the majority of witness testimony and forensics presented at the trial, it also contradicted synchronized videos shown at the trial that proved “Berkut officers had not been shooting at the specific times when almost all of the Maidan activists were killed”. As Katchanovski wrote, “Berkut policemen were filmed shooting neither at the specific time the protesters were killed nor in their specific direction”.

The single bullet on the scene used to convict the Berkut police officers is provable planted evidence as the officer convicted is on video not shooting at the time the protestor was shot and the protestor himself testified that he was shot from a Maidan-controlled area. As Katchanovski wrote, “The convicted policeman was filmed not shooting at the time when this protester (who himself testified that he had been shot from the Hotel Ukraina) was wounded”.

This single, provably false piece of evidence was used to assume that the majority of protestors were shot by Berkut officers. The verdict speculated that the Berkut police were responsible for the majority of the deaths because “these protesters were killed in the same group and in approximately the same time and place.” even though “the trial verdict convicting the officers admitted that people in the same groups of protesters had been killed and wounded, at about the same time and place, not by law enforcement but by “unknown persons” located in the Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings and areas”.

As Katchanovski noted, it was much easier for the court to blame the Berkut police over Svoboda for the killings as the dead victims were not able to testify but of the survivors “the overwhelming majority testified to witnessing snipers and/or being shot by snipers operating in the Maidan-controlled buildings and areas”.

There has also been evidence of far-right forces in Ukraine forcing the court towards the verdict. As Katchanovski wrote in his book, The Prosecutor General Office in Ukraine has been “headed by either politicians from the Svoboda or Peoples Front parties”. He also noted that pro-Maidan parties had earlier blocked an investigation into the massacre saying “pro-Maidan parties blocked creation of a parliamentary commission concerning the Maidan massacre during Petro Poroshenko’s presidency.”

Finally, there is a lot of evidence of interference attempts from far-right forces on the trail. Katchanovski found that “Several attacks by the neo-Nazi C14 and other far-right groups disrupted and threatened the trial” and that a lot of the crucial evidence went “missing” when it was supposed to be collected by pro-Maidan forces.

The significance of this revelation.

The trial verdict proves that Yannakovitch did not order the massacre of 48 protestors, that 13 were killed and 29 were wounded by “activist” forces, that there were pro-coup forces firing on protestors in their controlled buildings, and that there was no Russian involvement in the massacre. Contrary to the verdict, witness testimony, forensic examinations, and synchronized videos show that the massacre was a false flag attack done by far-right forces such as the Svoboda party to justify overthrowing Yanukovych. The evidence given by the verdict to convict Yannakovitch’s forces for the remainder of the murders is based on provably false evidence and goes against all the evidence presented at the trial. This means that the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine was not only based on a lie but on an intentional false flag massacre of civilian protests in order to justify it.

This coup is what eventually led up to the current proxy war with Ukraine, as Katchanovski noted:

This Maidan massacre of protesters and police led to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government and ultimately to the Russian annexation of Crimea, the civil war and Russian military interventions in Donbas, and the Ukraine-Russia and West-Russia conflicts which Russia escalated by illegally invading Ukraine in 2022

This means that this false flag event is what began the domino effect that led to the current never-ending proxy war.

The New York Time’s cover-up

Another massive revelation from the trial is the fact that the New York Times took part in covering up who committed this massacre. In 2018 the New York Times Magazine published an article based on a “3-D model” that tried to prove Berkut forces were behind the massacre. The article claims that those correctly saying the massacre was a false flag were taking part in a “disinformation campaign”.

But the trial showed that by publishing this “3-D model” the New York Times was itself guilty of falling for a disinformation campaign. It turns out that prosecutors “did not present the SITU 3D model during the recent trial, even after wasting court and jury time by introducing it”. This was because it “was unreliable, having been based on a primitive fraud in which the victims’ wound locations, which in fact accorded with the direction of gunfire from Maidan-controlled buildings, were altered to accord instead with Berkut positions on the ground.”.

The 3-D model’s evidence was so flimsy the prosecution did not even present it in court and instead used it to “propagate disinformation in articles published in the New York Times and other Western and Ukrainian media.”

The Final Question

The only question left is if the U.S. had knowledge or involvement in the Massacre. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever get an answer as the mainstream media has refused to cover the reality of the trial or the verdict let alone ask this crucial question.

Note to Readers: If you would like to read more about this story, you can read Professor Ivan Katchanovski’s work.

You can read his paper on the content of the trial here.

You can read his book on the Maidan Massacre here.

And you can read his summary of his findings in “Canadian Dimension” here