Shattering Myths The Other Side of Ukraine's Conflict with Dr. Ivan Katchanovski

Uncover the hidden narratives of the Euromaidan massacre with Dr.Ivan Katchanovski, a political scientist who dares to challenge the accepted story of the 2014 protests in Ukraine. Through a meticulous examination of evidence, Dr. Katchanovski proposes a controversial new perspective: the shots that rang out in Maidan Square may not have come from government forces, but from within insurgent-held areas such as Hotel Ukraina. This episode peels back layers of geopolitical intrigue and media hesitancy, offering a pivotal understanding of the events that have shaped the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict.

This conversation with Dr. Katchanovski also navigates the murky waters of Ukraine's political shifts, where the lines between mainstream parties and far-right groups blur, reshaping Ukrainian nationalism. We scrutinize the involvement of these groups in the Maidan protests, the historical regional divides within Ukraine, and how these elements contributed to the escalation that led to Crimea's annexation and the war in Donbas. The revelations from Dr. Katchanovski's research suggest that the power struggles and alliances formed during this period were a prelude to the turmoil that engulfs the region today.

Finally, we tackle the challenge of distilling facts from the complex web of the Ukraine-Russia situation. Dr. Katchanovski points listeners toward his research and commentary, which cuts through the noise with academic rigor and insightful analysis. Anticipation builds for his forthcoming book, set to be a cornerstone work in understanding the conflict from its roots to the current war. Our episode culminates with invaluable guidance for those seeking to navigate the complex narrative of the Euromaidan massacre and its implications for the world stage.

Transcript

C. Derick Varn: 1:39

Hello and welcome to my blog, and today I'm here with Dr Ivan Kachanovsky, ukrainian-canadian political science teacher, who teaches at the School of Political Studies at University of Ottawa. A lot of writing on the current Ukrainian-Russia conflict, including its lead-up, misunderstandings about Euromaidan and other misleading information that has been widely touted here in the Anglophone world, and I think you are most famous for what is often called a false flag theory of what happened at Euromaidan. I don't know that calling it a false flag theory is actually fair, but can you explain your understanding of what did happen at Euromaidan and how it may have been important for the lead up to the current conflict?

Ivan Katchanovski: 2:39

Yes, thank you for the invitation. I think this is a very important issue to understand, actually, what happened during Maidan Euro-Maidan in Ukraine in 2014. And this is also particularly relevant to the current war in Ukraine, because we have the 10th anniversary of Maidan massacre, which would be on February 20th, and also second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is directly linked to this massacre, because this was escalation of the conflict which started with Maidan massacre, which led to the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government and subsequently to the Russian accession of Crimea, civil war and Russian military interventions in Donbass. And finally, russia drastically escalated this conflict between Ukraine and Russia and between the West and Russia, and between the West and Russia, and also internal conflict in Ukraine, and basically invaded Ukraine two years ago. So this is why it's very important to understand this issue and I published already three peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic and I have a book which would be devoted to this massacre which took place in Ukraine just comprehensive examination of this massacre from a major Western university press, which will be published this year, and another book which I just completed, which is called From the Maidan to the Russia-Ukraine War, also examines this massacre and how it led to a whistle of the Ukrainian government and to the current war in Ukraine. So I think this is a very important issue and I examined all publicly available evidence, including thousands of videos and live recordings of Ukrainian tale which took place about this massacre which was recently completed. And again, this is evidence. Now beyond any doubt, I can say this is quite unprecedented for a social science researcher like me, and specifically political scientists who specialize in political violence and conflicts in Ukraine, to see such evidence which is just beyond anything which I saw in any other context which I examined.

Ivan Katchanovski: 4:58

And this evidence says basically that quite unequivocally that this massacre was conducted not by the government forces special police operation or any government sniper units, but this was basically mass murder organized and perpetrated by snipers who were located in Maidan-controlled buildings like the Hotel Ukraina, which was controlled by the Far Right's Voboda Party, according to their own admission before the massacre, according to their own official statements before the massacre and even according to the verdict which was issued recently by the trial in Ukraine. So this is again evidence includes testimonies of absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters who testified that they were shot from, not from government forces locations. They were shot from the back or from the side, from the buildings which were controlled by the Maidan forces, specifically the Hotel Ukraina in the back or on the side, and they also testified that they saw snipers in this hotel and other locations nearby buildings which are again controlled by the Maidan forces, and they testified this official officially to Ukrainian trial and investigation and also in the media. Some of them testified about this and recently there was a trial decision which used some of the testimonies to confirm what was considered kind of by so-called self-proclaimed experts and basically even media, including New York Times and a lot of other kind of people who have a very vague idea about actually what happened, like Wikipedia especially, which is an important source of disinformation about this conflict. So they basically claimed that this was a kind of conspiracy theory, that there were snipers, any other snipers besides government snipers or Berkut.

Ivan Katchanovski: 7:02

But actually now this is confirmed in official verdict about this massacre because Ukrainian court decision jury and the judges issued decision which stated that there were snipers located in this hotel Ukraina. They stated that this hotel ukraine was controlled by the maidan activists in the middle massacre and they also stated that that protesters were shot from this location, from this hotel ukraine, and that bbc television crew also was shot by snipers from this hotel ukraine and this was um, and this led to to killings of many protesters and also to killings or wounding of many other protesters, and so this is quite unprecedented to see such evidence, but it was never reported by any major Western media. And the media which reported this, like this conservative website which is called Bulwark, and there's such an opinion editor like Katie Young, who has no background in any kind of Ukrainian politics or conflicts, but she published an opinion piece which basically still calls this a conspiracy theory and so on. Even so, you have the evidence is beyond any doubt and now officially confirmed by madame massacre tile, which was not independent. Again, this was quite surprising for me to see this um, this decision, because the just different system in ukraine is controlled basically by the presidential administration who can, which you can just give uh judges, what is basic instructions, what kind of decisions we issue.

Ivan Katchanovski: 8:41

But in this case, it was surprising to see even such kind of um half admission, of confirmation of this uh kind of of this evidence that uh, that mydan protesters were shot from the my don't control locations, specifically hotel ukina. Even so, there was no investigation, official um investigation you can deny that there were any snipers and this is, I think, very important. And in addition to this evidence is includes videos of such snipers shooting from hotel ukina, inside of hotel ukina, videos of far-right group of snipers who were in this hotel with firearms, with hunting rifles, with Kalashnikov-type weapons. This again was confirmed by verdict from the Maidan massacre. And there were also ballistic and forensic examinations by government experts who also basically found that the protesters were shot from very steep directions, from the back and from the side and not from the front when they faced police in front of them. And ballistic examinations which were conducted also showed many of them showed that protesters were shot also from the hotel Luchina and other locations which were controlled by the Maidan forces. And for this reason official investigation in Ukraine did not complete and did not conduct basically ballistic examinations for now, for 10 years, even after they were ordered by the judges and the jury for this trial to conduct such examinations by ballistic experts, they did not do this and the Maidan massacre trial revealed that basically they did this specifically to kind of stop revelations about Maidan snipers, because even at the first such ballistic examinations the evidence pointed that protesters were shot from location which was controlled by the Maidan opposition at the time, specifically against this Hotel, ukraina.

Ivan Katchanovski: 10:43

There are also other evidence which includes testimonies by several hundred eyewitnesses of the Maidan massacre in the media. So this is quite unprecedented to see such kind of evidence and also quite unprecedented to see denial of this evidence and total kind of censorship of this evidence. Again, all the major media kind of these few exceptions in italian and spanish media they do not report this revelation. So again, most people have no idea and people who have information, like wikipedia, which is kind of just beyond belief, kind of they. Again they promote this, they declare this conspiracy theory and they kind of remove all the evidence about metal snipers, specifically by a group. There is a very active group of editors in Wikipedia which specifically tries to eliminate all the evidence and tries to openly whitewash far-right and mass medicine.

Ivan Katchanovski: 11:42

You can go back not only to Maidan massacre but also to World War II, like Nazi collaborators from UUN and UPA and the leadership, like Bandera and Shukhevich and the Galicia Division, even, whose member was recently celebrated at the Canadian parliament, and contemporary far-right organizations, including neo-Nazis like National Corps, which is a civilian wing of a neo-Nazi-led Azov regiment, and suborder and right sector and so on. So this is quite unprecedented and, based on my research, I can say this is not beyond any reasonable doubt that this massacre was conducted specifically in order to overthrow the Ukrainian government by blaming the government forces for this mass murder of the protesters and the police, with basically help of mass media, which perpetrated this kind of false information and never reported and suppressed basically all the information which was revealed, even by Ukrainian Madame Moscow's title and investigation and by my own academic studies, which are again peer-reviewed articles and now will be published as books, two books from a major Western academic press. So this is quite amazing to see and witness. So this is one of the most important sources of misinformation and this also has very big relevance to the current war in Ukraine, because this massacre launched a chain of conflicts which led ultimately to this Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is again illegal and based also on a lot of false information, claiming that Ukraine is a Nazi state and so on. But this is similar propaganda and disinformation in the West, claiming that this was just peaceful revolution again and that massacre was conducted by government forces.

Ivan Katchanovski: 13:43

Even so, an official verdict they stated that Berkut police was responsible for mass murder of 35 Maidan protesters. But even this kind of verdict, they based this on principle of collective responsibility and all the evidence was again, even the evidence was very clear that this police did not commit this massacre. They blame them because, kind of by using like videos and other evidence, they dismissed testimonies of wounded Maidan protesters. Again, they did not use any ballistic examinations because official investigation kind of denied this request from even from the judges and from the jury to do this and they claimed that most protesters were killed by the Berkut police. Even if you are looking to synchronize videos, they were not shooting at the time when protesters were killed.

Ivan Katchanovski: 14:48

And also, even with this official verdict, this is, I think, very, also important information, because this verdict also stated that Berkut police did not wound 29 Maidan protesters.

Ivan Katchanovski: 15:03

And this is very important because before, even before the trial, official government investigation stated that almost half, I think now more than half, of all wounded protesters were shot not from government locations, not from the Berkut location, but some other snipers located in another sector which is basically Maidan location.

Ivan Katchanovski: 15:26

So now, and they did not judge anybody, so now you have basically official court trial decision and official Ukrainian government investigation found that majority of wounded protesters, basically based on their own investigation in the trial, were shot not by the government police but by some kind of unknown. They call this unknown people and forces whom they do not want to investigate or name and this is quite clear. This is basically dogs that do not bark in Sherlock Holmes novel, because this was kind of this evidence against again points to their shooting from Maidan control locations by snipers. Because in Katashchuk kind of wounded protesters who testified about the snipers it's much easier to blame kind of Berkut police for killing of most of Maidan protesters because they could not testify in Katashchuk the wounded protesters who testified that they were shot from Hotel Kirin and other locations and also they witnessed snipers there.

C. Derick Varn: 16:31

So, yeah so the findings of the recent I guess 2024 court seems to contradict, or at least greatly complicate, the findings of the 2020 court, which blamed the massacre on Yanukovych and the Bakut, and it seems pretty clear that you cannot blame at least half uh the Bakut Um, and it seems pretty clear that that you cannot blame at least half of these on the Bakut Um. I think, for a lot of uh uh people in uh Anglophone North America, um that Maidan was presented for a long time as something like the Arab Spring or even Occupy Wall Street, and one thing that I, even before I had read anything that you had written, had gleaned is that the political coalition behind Euromaidan was much less left-wing than generally assumed. It's not to say that there was no left-wing in there I don't want to erase that from its history but that there were strong elements of the far right um in the Euro. My dumb protest Um and you know, as your report shows up, it seems that they probably had something to do with those snipers.

C. Derick Varn: 18:10

Um uh, can we you know this may be opaque to people who really only started caring about um the situation in ukraine when the when the war popped off in 2022? Um, but can we kind of build up the political tensions that led up to to your ramadan, like you know, uh, victor yanukovych is often presented as like just a simple russian stooge president, and it seems pretty clear to me that that's a vastly um oversimplified narrative. So, um, why were, why was the right mad at Yanukovych? The far right, and what else do you think most Canadians and Americans not understand about the political situation during the Yanukovych period right before Yom Ha'Adon?

Ivan Katchanovski: 19:14

I think this is also a very important issue and I have a whole chapter about UR Maidan in the UK and I studied this context even before in Ukrainian politics before the Maidan. And I can say also which I think is relevant to this question, to your question that actually now official verdict from the Maidan massacre tale in October, which was issued in October of last year, stated that there was no evidence that Yanukovych or his Ministry of Internal Affairs or any other kind of government Yanukovych government members were responsible for giving order to massacre Maidan protesters. They said that there was no such order, no evidence, which I think was the reason for their blaming Yanukovych for this massacre and for his overthrow in February of 2014. And also, in addition to this, there were testimonies and admissions by 14 members of several admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, and some of them were from far-right link Maidan company, which was led by far-right deputy from Maidan opposition, and they admitted shooting and killing police and many of them also admitted killing and shooting Maidan protesters, specifically snipers from Georgia. And so this conflict actually started well before because Ukraine was historically divided. So Ukraine, in all elections, in all public opinion polls, in all political issues, ukraine was very deeply divided, even more divided than Canada, and I published a book on this topic Cleve Counties in 2006, based on my dissertation which I defended in the United States, and this basically, divisions were geographical in nature and there was division between forces which were pro-Western oriented and pro-nationalist oriented, including the far right, and forces which were pro-right oriented and pro-communist party and pro-communist, pro-soviet orientation, and this, in all of the elections, was basically a fight between these two different visions of Ukraine pro-Western, pro-nationalist and pro-Russian, pro-communist. And before the Maidan and even during the Maidan, there was a split on the issue among Ukrainians. So about half of Ukrainians supported Maidan, eu Maidan and the other half opposed EU Maidan and the EU Maidan started in November of 2013 after Yanukovych, who was elected on his mostly pro-Russian platform.

Ivan Katchanovski: 22:07

He promised to make Russian official language of Ukraine in addition to Ukrainian and close the cooperation with Russia. But he was not, how to say, a Russian client, as is now portrayed, because he was basically a member of the oligarchic party of regional opposition, which was linked to oligarchs like Rinat Akhmetov, who was a very powerful oligarch in Donbas, which was a native region of Yanukovych. They basically owned all the major enterprises in this region. Basically, they were also very close to all the government institutions and they were able to take power in entire Ukraine. There was an entire oligarchic clan in Ukraine and Yanukovych was convicted in his use for some crimes. So basically, he was interested in using power which he obtained after presidential elections in 2010 for advancement and the initialment of his own family and friends and so on, and also for his oligarchic supporters.

Ivan Katchanovski: 23:25

But before the Maidan, there was a very important event which took place and also which led to this start of mass protests against Yanukovych, because when he was elected, he promised that Ukraine would not join NATO, which was again a major concession and a major sign of a Russian position in this case. But he also said that he wanted for Ukraine to sign an association and a state agreement with the European Union. Before the Maidan, there was a whole campaign by Yanukovych and his party of regions to basically to say that this would be a very good agreement for Ukraine, and so on, and then suddenly he made the decision to suspend this agreement, the signing of this agreement with the European Union, at the last moment and saying basically that this agreement would have a very negative effect on the Ukrainian economy, because the Ukrainian economy was very dependent on Russia. So if this agreement would be signed, this would have a negative impact on the Ukrainian economy and this was the decision for suspending this agreement with the European Union, which Yanukovych promised before, again shortly before, and this led to mass protests against the Yanukovych government and these protests were immediately joined by far-right opposition, far-right activists who were again very small in terms of membership in Ukraine. They were not very powerful. They had a very small following in Ukraine, with the exception of some Western regions where the Sobota Party had significant support in elections, but in terms of their membership they were quite limited and in terms of participation in EU Maidan, they were also a minority among Maidan protesters. But I think two important events took place in Maidan that they were actually even so, they were minority. They became members of Maidan opposition.

Ivan Katchanovski: 25:26

So mainstream opposition parties in Ukraine and mainstream leaders of Maidan opposition, like Poloshenko and party party of Tymoshenko and other Muslim-led parties, they accepted far-right opposition and they became allied with the far-right opposition. So this was a very important development because they not only accepted them into their ranks, but they also accepted even their slogan like Glory to Ukraine, glory to the Heroes, which is actually a slogan which was first used and invented and adopted by the far-right organization of Ukrainian nationalists in 1941 in Nazi-occupied Poland, and this slogan was this greeting was based on and modeled on the greeting which was used by other fascist and semi-fascist parties like Nazi party and creation of Stasi and Slovakian Far-right parties and Italian fascists and so on. So there is no evidence whatsoever that this slogan or greeting was used previously in Ukraine. So this is just and this slogan, which goes back to kind of basically to this own and which was also laid by, also used by OPA, which again finite organizations which collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and were involved in mass murder of Jews in Ukraine, poles and Ukrainians, was actually now became adopted by Maidan opposition. And this is, I think, quite significant because it shows how small and kind of not very influential force of Far-right became a part of the MES team in Ukraine and now became promoted as kind of supporters of Ukraine and kind of slogans. Even Githin, which was also used by far right only before maidan, now became official kind of meeting and a slogan of the maidan opposition. And now this getting became official getting of the ukrainian military and and other forces and used by zelensky and many other, even people in the west. Even so, this is like a still kind of fascist origins of this meeting now basically denied or omitted. Even so, all the evidence again very clear.

Ivan Katchanovski: 27:41

And in addition to this, basically kind of accepting Far-Right into kind of mainstream coalition, you have a very important development, which because Far-Right organizations and activists. They rely on violence. So even though they were small in terms of membership, they were able to have a much bigger effect on Maidan opposition and also on politics in Ukraine during Maidan and afterwards, because they rely on violence and all sorts of violence. So they were able to participate in all the major clashes with police during Maidan. They specifically were involved in this first major clash between police and Maidan opposition protesters on the Maidan Square, independence Square of Ukraine, in November, on November 30th 2013. And this again this basically crashes between Berkut. Police and Far-right protesters actually were led to beating of some protesters who were not members of the Far-right and this, but this was televised live on one of the main television channels in Ukraine, which was actually owned by Oleg Alkhovich, who was close to Yanukovych but was then in conflict with Yanukovych. This was represented by the media in Ukraine and the West as basically beaten by the police and provoked without any reason beating of students and young people on the Maidan. Even so, again, police was responsible for this violence, but it actually was. This violence also involved far-right activists, specifically right sector, who was stationed there, but they fled and they were never shown by television. So this is kind of just one example of importance of far-right.

Ivan Katchanovski: 29:33

They also became very active during Maidan massacre. They had control over Hotel Okaina which I mentioned. They officially stated this during Maidan massacre. They took control over Hotel Okaina during this massacre, which was the location of Maidan snipers. One of the locations and another location which they used was Music Conservatory, which was used as a location of this Farid-led company of Medan Snipers, and they started massacre from shooting police from this location, from Music Conservatory, and now even they shot at German journalists from television, journalists from this building and from building which was controlled by the right sector nearby. So this is kind of just and they were responsible and kind of involved in this Maidan massacre.

Ivan Katchanovski: 30:22

But in addition to this, they were also involved in assassination attempts against Yanukovych and this kind of assassination attempts actually were the reason why he fled Ukraine. And again, this is never reported by the media, this almost total blackout of this. All the evidence. Even so, evidence is revealed by the trials in Ukraine, by Yanukovych's trial in absentia, by testimonies of witnesses, by other evidence. So this is clear evidence that Farid was also involved in assassination attempts against Yanukovychych and this is why he fled Ukraine again to Russia.

Ivan Katchanovski: 30:57

And this is kind of was also very major development because small far right were able to, as a part of medallion position, were able to overthrow the government in Ukraine again, which was illegal, always law and democratic, overspent, major crime. Butverslaw was supported by the West. So this again a very important development as well, because Western countries, basically they sided with far right, they sided with Maidan opposition in Overslaw of Yanukovych, which is again, even though this was a relatively pro-Russian government it was a democratically elected government and Overslaw of this government led to basically Pandora's box was opened and conflicts started afterwards. And Farid was also a very important role in these conflicts in the start of war in Donbass, civil war in Donbass. They were also responsible for the death and massacre of Persepetus protesters and they were also actively involved in Ukrainian politics, basically preventing Zelensky, who was elected on the Peace Platform, to actually implement his election promises because they said openly that his life would be in danger if he would fulfill promises of peaceful resolution of war in Ukraine. So this is kind of just illustration of the power of far-right and Yanukovych again, I think again he was kind of not a Russian stooge or kind of not a Russian client state.

Ivan Katchanovski: 32:30

But actually after Maidan, ukraine became an American kind of client state and the United States was involved in the overthrow of Yanukovych. There was a peace deal which the United States and other Western countries were involved in, trying to have a position in Ukraine the Maidan massacre. They basically reneged on this deal, which was basically promised early elections in Ukraine and withdrawal of both Maidan forces and official government forces from downtown Kyiv. But when government forces withdrew from downtown Kyiv, maidan opposition basically took power in Ukraine. In relation to this agreement, this was supported by the West. Obama admitted officially in his interview that the United States had a direct role in the transition of power in Ukraine in 2014. So this is kind of, I think, a very important background of why this happened and the conflict which is now costing a lot of lives for Ukraine and would have a tremendous negative impact on Ukraine for a very long time.

C. Derick Varn: 33:48

Hmm, so you know, I am tempted to go back even further and talk about this in terms of like the Orange Revolution in 2004. But I think maybe that might lose people to me to talk about the situation with the separatist republics and Crimea, because while the annexation of Crimea by Russia was a Not particularly legal under international law, it was also not particularly opposed by Crimean, something that I'm not going to say. It's not talked about at all in the Western media, but it isn't really focused on. Similarly, it seems like that at least a majority although how large a majority is unclear to me of the residents of the Donbass and the Likons were also relatively either pro-independence or pro-Russian, but did not have a lot of trust in the more Western-aligned parts of Ukraine. You mentioned that this was geographical and cultural. What particular issues exacerbated this during the beginning of the Zelensky era? Why was this? Why did this seem unresolvable?

Ivan Katchanovski: 35:38

Yes, I think this is a very important observation and I publish articles, journal articles and chapters about the conflicts in Crimea and Donbass even before this happened and I was wondering about such possibility in Crimea and Donbas even before actually this happened and I was wondering about such possibility that Crimea was and Donbas were two regions in Ukraine with very significant separatism and Russian orientation, and in my book, which I mentioned, published in 2006, I specifically discussed separatism in Crimea and Donbas and that this was a very dangerous development and issue for Ukraine. The only reason that Ukraine did not break apart, similar to, maybe, moldova, was that at the time, politicians tried to find a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in Ukraine, specifically along geographic lines, and this not only to politicians in Ukraine but also in Russia and in the West. But this all changed during Maidan. So this was a total change when Western countries basically supported the kind of elected government which was supported by half of Ukrainians, kind of specifically in the east and the south, but was opposed by another half of Ukrainians in the west and in the center of Ukraine, almost kind of 90 to 90 percent kind of differences in terms of political orientation and support for Yanukovych opposition, yanukovych government and Maidan and anti-Maidan at that time. This was a very major development and actually I conducted a public opinion poll in Donbas in May and April 2014 using the Kiev Institute of Soci sociology, which is major and internationally kind of very highly reputable kind of polling organization, and they, in this public opinion, found that majority of Donbas residents supported various forms of separatism at the time, but the majority meant that they supported not only secession from Ukraine or joining Russia, but many of them supported autonomy within federal Ukraine, but these were different forms of separatism.

Ivan Katchanovski: 38:02

In Crimea, support for separatists and joining Russia was much larger and much higher compared to Donbas, but again, two regions where they have history of separatism. So again and this is almost never mentioned or if it is mentioned, this is often dismissed as kind of an important issue and so on. But this is actually a very important issue because this was supported by a lot of Ukrainians and they now still support again in Donbas and in Crimea, we still have a very strong support for Russia and separatism against Ukrainian government and joining Ukraine or returning to Ukraine control and this means that war in Ukraine which is going on right now is is not only war between Russia and Ukraine, but also this war still has elements of civil war and in addition, it also is a proxy war between the West and Russia. So this is, I think, very important development and in terms of reasons for this, I think because there are very strong stereotypes about different parts of the UK. So when I am originally from Western UK myself and so again, people who are in Western UK, they have very different history and cultural background compared to people in the East and compared to people in the South, especially in Crimea, because in the West people, again, western Ukraine, became part of the Soviet Union only after World War II. So before World War II they used to be part of Poland, romania, hungary. They had very different history and some of these regions also used to be part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before World War I. So they have basically a very different culture.

Ivan Katchanovski: 39:59

Even religion in this part of the Western Ukraine, in the Galicia region and the Bukovina region, is Greek-Catholic, which is kind of different from mostly Orthodox religion. Orthodox Christian religion in Eastern and Central Ukraine and also in the South and Eastern and Southern Ukraine, was much more Russian in terms of orientation, because they used to be part, they became part of Russia since the formation of these regions. They were not very well populated during the Middle Ages and then they were controlled by Russia after it became part of Russia in the Middle Ages and so this led to a very pro-Russian orientation in these regions, and especially Crimea, which was occupied and taken by Russia from the Ottoman Empire basically from Crimea and Harkonnay state for a long time. This became a very pro-Russian region and when I visited Donbass myself and Crimea myself, these regions were very different from and in terms of orientation, they were very different from Western Ukraine and from central ukraine and specifically people there spoke not ukrainian, but almost all of them spoke russian. Even so, many of them were ethnic ukrainians. They still spoke russian as a main language. They were very high kind of relationship and connections. Many of them intermarried with russians. So and ethnic and ethnic Russians comprise majority of population in Crimea and close to half of population of Donbas, in contact to over many ethnic Ukrainian and Ukrainian-speaking population in the west and the central Ukraine.

Ivan Katchanovski: 41:43

And there were stereotypes about people from different regions, because people in Donbas were regarded basically as kind of as not true Ukrainians.

Ivan Katchanovski: 41:53

Basically they were regarded as very pro-Russian and again as kind of, how to say, not very intellectually developed, kind of very industrial regions which do not have a strong intellectual capital, in contrast to Western Ukraine, in contrast to Central Ukraine, and the people in Donbas and in Crimea and other regions of East and South Southern Ukraine regarded people in the West as basically kind of followers of Bandera Stepan Bandera, who was a leader of UPA and also a leader of UN, which also organized UPA during World War II and collaborating with Nazi Germany. So this was kind of stereotypes about people from different regions and these stereotypes were very useful for conflict when it started in Ukraine, because people regarded basically Ukrainians in one state were regarded in different regions in very negative terms. This is also an important factor which led to this civil war in 2014. Still, there are such stereotypes. Now this conflict became very violent and many people again are getting killed and wounded in this conflict, which still has a dimension of a civil war in Ukraine.

C. Derick Varn: 43:20

Well, in 2002, you wrote that if the Minsk protocols have been maintained, that probably this current war could have been avoided. For those who don't really know what the Minx protocols were and how NATO sort of abandoned them, can we give a kind of rundown of the Minx protocols and then NATO's response to those protocols?

Ivan Katchanovski: 43:58

Yes, and again this is, I think, very important kind of my comment about this, which I also mentioned in my interviews, media interviews. But these interviews and my comments about this I think were kind of edited out and basically censored by this group of Wikipedia editors who actually are the same editors who whitewash OPA and OUN and their leaders and again and Glodichuk and Gitin in terms of origins. They whitewash kind of SS Galicia division and mass murder by UN members and UNPAR members. So this is contemporary far-right organizations. So they are kind of they actively try to kind of smear me on Wikipedia and other sites, basically trying kind of to kind of to kind of by voice anything positive or kind of anything which kind of goes actually on my research which would have any positive impact. So they actually even remove any comments because my full comment was in the media interviews, was in my publications, that this conflict could have been prevented, that there was real danger of a war between russia and uk Ukraine, which I predicted based on my own research. So this is again, they also removed these references and so on. So this is kind of very important because I predicted this and I warned about such a danger, real danger, at the time when even Zelensky said that there would be no possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine or Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ivan Katchanovski: 45:33

And again, many people also did not believe this, because I think this was a very important kind of development and very dangerous development which was taking place because war could have happened. And for this reason, I said and I argued that it would be possible to avoid this war in the first place or prevent this war in the first place if Ukraine would agree to implement Minsk agreements and to be a neutral country, not to join NATO and to just declare neutrality in exchange for Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union, or just to have a promise of membership in the European Union, which was not given to Ukraine during this agreement in 2014. And again, there was no such possibility. Specifically, eu members in 2014, when they offered Ukraine a free trade and association agreement, they specifically did not mention even possibility of Ukraine joining the European Union in the foreseeable future. If you can, where to fulfill such conditions? So this kind of I think this was kind of a way to kind of resolve this issue is to promise you can becoming a member of European Union in exchange for neutrality of you can not join NATO and implementing Minsk agreements, which were signed by the Polushenko government in 2015, and then in 2015, specifically to prevent or to stop Russian intervention. You can, because Russia in both these times in 2015, in August of 2014, and later in January and February of 2015, sent correctly the military forces to Ukraine to support separatists. Even so, they officially denied such interventions. There's a lot of evidence that there was Russian forces in Ukraine in that time and fighting with Ukrainian forces in Ukraine in that time and fighting with Ukrainian forces in Donbas, and so this led to Poloshenko basically accepting these agreements, which promised that this conflict would be resolved peacefully as a result of Ukraine giving autonomy, very strong autonomy, to the Donbas region. Butbass would remain part of Ukraine.

Ivan Katchanovski: 47:55

And these agreements again were not implemented by Ukrainian government, by Poroshenko government and later by Zelensky, who specifically refused to implement them because of the pressure from the far right which I mentioned, and also because of pressure from the West, from the Biden administration. They wanted to use Ukraine to fight Russia and they wanted to again. They did not want it to have a peaceful resolution of this conflict. So they wanted basically, for them, even war would be a kind of, I think, a better outcome and they still support now this proxy war in Ukraine. So this was basically a policy of the Western countries not to implement Minsk agreements.

Ivan Katchanovski: 48:35

And afterwards, after the Russian invasion, there were also testimonies and admissions by former German Chancellor, angela Merkel, by former President of France, holland, and by Zelensky himself and Poroshenko also, and they all stated basically they did not want to implement Minsk agreements in the first place and they basically used them to kind of just try to buy time.

Ivan Katchanovski: 49:02

And so this is, I think, missed opportunity, because now you came in much more difficult position and Minsk agreements now would look like a much better kind of possibility and much better outcome, because now Russia makes not only Donbass but also the Andromeda and Crimea, but they also annex two other regions or parts of two other regions in the south of Ukraine, and they again might annex even more of Ukraine, and now conditions for any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine would be much worse compared to the Minsk agreement. So I think this was a missed opportunity to do this and now, I think, very difficult situation for Ukraine, because this all kind of war could have been avoided, this much kind of, and led to much better situation for Ukraine and Ukrainians. But now I think this is a missed opportunity and there is no such possibility to go back to Minsk agreements, which again is a big tragedy for Ukraine.

C. Derick Varn: 50:09

I guess this leads us to where we are today. We've had this war for two years. It seems clearly like Selensky's forces can't truly win.

C. Derick Varn: 50:22

Neither side has been, I think, portrayed honestly in any world media as far as I can tell, and that means that misinformation about the conflict is rife, both in official channels and in unofficial channels, and often because it's clear that so much of the Western coverage is absurdly anti-Russian that Russian propaganda will also sometimes get through, and backdoor channels too, because people can kind of tell that the coverage is so incredibly biased In the United States. This also seems to be tying into our culture war, which of course means that we can't talk honestly about it because now it's politically polarizing, with a small section of the very far left basically being sympathetic and or endorsing of Russia and a small section of and a medium sized section of the right being somewhat sympathetic to Russia, but with a kind of center-to-center-left foreign policy apparatus that has weirdly done things like, you know, ignoring, you know, fascist collaborationist history in the Ukraine, are talking about it. You know, a year and a half into the war, you're on record for saying that. You know that the far right is a very small part of the Western Ukrainian population and we shouldn't overstate how much it is, but it's become very influential. It's integrated into the military. There have been some Western commentators who've actually said that integrating it into the military was a good thing, because it gave Selinsky control over them, but it seems kind of the other way around, that the far right has been able to dictate terms to Selinsky through just threats of physical violence.

C. Derick Varn: 52:26

Um, so, uh, yeah, it also seems like the Western powers and NATO are getting tired of this war in a very real way. It's expensive. They would like to focus on Israel-Palestine and traditional spheres of NATO interference, such as the Middle East, such as the Middle East. So it is unclear to me as you know, this goes on and on, and on and on, and the death toll rises how this winds down. Because it's also pretty clear to me that you know, for reasons like you said, if Zelensky was to make a peace deal that Russia would accept, he would probably immediately be assassinated by elements of the Ukrainian right. But they also can't really make our gang very much ground, and eventually the West will probably get tired of sending so many bullets to Ukraine. I have no idea when that'll happen though. So many bullets to Ukraine. I have no idea when that will happen though.

Ivan Katchanovski: 53:43

So what do you see as a way out of this war and how likely do you think that is? I think the only, and I think the best solution for Ukraine to minimize consequences of the Russian invasion in Ukraine is to sign a peace deal and try to have a peaceful resolution of this conflict, because you can. Basically, there is no real chances for Ukraine to defeat Russia, and so the longer war would continue, the much bigger damage to Ukraine would be, the much higher losses of life for Ukrainian soldiers and also civilians would be, without any real prospect of defeat of Russia. So again and I said this based on my own research from the start of this war, even from before this war because it was clear that Russia has much bigger military, it has potential for much bigger mobilization, it has much more weapons compared to Ukraine and even different types of weapons which are much more advanced weapons like missiles and other weapons, aviation advantage and also Russia's nuclear power. So there is no real possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, contrary to what was promised by Zelensky and by the Western media and by a lot of self-proclaimed experts in order to justify this war and use Ukraine as a proxy again to weaken Russia, as was officially stated by the Secretary of Defense of the United States in April of 2014, I'm sorry, 2022, shortly after the Russian invasion, and there was a very close possibility. This was a real possibility of ending this war in April of 2022. Almost, I think, about one month after the Russian invasion.

Ivan Katchanovski: 55:27

There was a peace deal framework which Russia and Ukraine agreed as a result of negotiations in Istanbul and other negotiations which were taking place, and this agreement kind of basically was very close to being signed by Putin and Zelensky. And this agreement promise or kind of entailed that Ukraine would become a neutral country, would not join NATO, which is even there is no such real possibility for you can join NATO in any future. Even so, officially this is NATO and Ukrainian policy, but in addition to this kind of Ukraine would also promise to be in kind of, I think, promise, demilitarize their community and there were some other concessions to Russia, but in exchange, russia agreed to basically withdraw their forces from the occupied part of Ukraine, with the exception of Donbass and ex-Korea regions of kind of like southern part of Ukraine and in the bus area in eastern UK, like in Kharkiv area, without any fight, and in exchange, basically for proclaiming neutrality of UK and not joining NATO and kind of resolving this conflict, and this is, I think, was best deal. And as part of this deal, actually Russia with those forces was the best deal and as part of this deal, actually Russia withdrew their forces from Kiev area and again but this was misrepresented later by Ukrainian government and by Western media that this actually was defeated by Russia, and so this is actually led to justification that Russia could be defeated. Even so I analyzed all the videos and I was watching this live. There was fighting in Kiev area and resistance by Ukrainian forces, but there was no real defeat of Russian forces in the Kyiv area. So basically Russia, with no of their forces, came from the Kyiv area as part of this peace deal which was very close to being signed by Zelensky and Putin.

Ivan Katchanovski: 57:35

Putin but Western countries basically intervened and they told Zelensky not to sign such a peace deal with Russia, because they wanted to fight Russia. They wanted to use Ukraine to weaken Russia and for this reason, basically, the war between Russia and Ukraine became also a proxy war between the West and Russia, and the evidence is overwhelming that this agreement was again very close to being signed and that Western countries blocked this. There are like testimonies about this by a former Israeli prime minister who was involved in negotiations, by a former leader of Germany who was involved in this negotiation, by the head of the Ukrainian delegation there's peace talks who also again was directly involved in negotiations there was peace talks who also again was very involved in negotiations. There was actually initial reports by Ukrainian media from citing sources close to Zelensky himself. There were also admissions by two other members of Ukrainian delegation in peace talks. The agreement was very close but it was never implemented, never signed.

Ivan Katchanovski: 58:42

Even so, again, you can basically agree to peace deal and they signed a preliminary draft of agreement and even the Ukrainian delegation opened champagne on their way out from these talks because they believe this is a very good deal. But again, western countries, they officially oppose this. And there was a visit by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Kiev in the beginning of April and Johnson, according to Ukrainian media, sent his first request to Zelensky, told Zelensky not to sign any peace deal just to fight Russia and because he said that this was a good opportunity to do this. So kind of Anna Zelenskyy accepted this deal, kind of basically accepted because again, as I mentioned, ukraine is a client state of the United States and the West. So it's kind of after Maidan and the United States and other Western countries have very strong influence on ukrainian politics and and even as they were involved in selection of uk and government officials, in even the selection of head of security service, uh, prime minister of ukraine and particularly general. If you can, this is like open admissions by biden and they are like. They are like video. They are telephone uh recording of newland anduland and US ambassador discussing a new government, if you can. So there are a lot of other video recordings of Biden and Poroshenko discussing composition of Ukrainian government and so on.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:00:04

So this is actually Western countries also told Ukraine not to resist Russia during the Crimea administration by Russia in order to not launch this conflict into war between Russia and Ukraine. So this is very clear that Western countries basically use their patronage status over Ukraine and Ukrainian government specifically to prevent this peaceful resolution and to continue using Ukraine and Ukrainians to weaken Russia. So this continue using Ukraine and Ukrainians to weaken Russia. So this is kind of now had very negative effect again various large casualties without any prospect of Ukraine defeating Russia for the reason which I mentioned. So this was kind of, I think, major folly kind of major tragedy, because it was easily predictable, it was easy avoidable again, but it was used for geopolitical reasons. Basically, ukraine, the Ukrainians, were used to as a tool against Russia, without any concern for what would happen to the Ukraine and the lives of Ukrainians. This is again.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:01:06

This peace deal was almost never mentioned by any major Western media. This was almost thrown back out about this possibility of peaceful resolution of this conflict, and I think this opportunity now is lost. There is no possibility of having similar peace deal on similar conditions, which was very favorable for Ukraine, and now possibility of peace deal again in any case would be much more difficult for Ukraine to reach because of conditions for such peace deal would be much more negative for Ukraine. So this would mean Russia would now demand not only neutrality of Ukraine but also annexation and admission of Russian, annexation of Crimea, of Donbass, and not only Donbass and Crimea but also the Parisian Kherson regions, and even they might demand even some other regions like Odessa or Kharkiv, or just the demilitarization of these regions, and they would also demand even a regime change, which was original kind of. So the original goal of the Russian invasion was not to occupy the Ukraine or to kind of untie the Ukraine, but actually basically to force Zelenskyy to sign a peace deal similar to Minsk agreements, which was done two times before by Poroshenko, and also to have a regime change in the Ukraine into a government from pro-Western to pro-Russian government. But again this failed and afterwards now became a war of attrition between Russia and Ukraine which again Ukraine is not likely to win. So in any case a peace deal would be now signed on conditions which would be much more negative for Ukraine and for Zelensky and in such a situation, even when such a peace deal would be signed, he would face possibility of violent overthrow by opposition, specifically by far-right opposition. Even so they integrated into Ukrainian military, into Ukrainian police and security forces. They still maintained control over their units.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:03:09

So like Azov is still led by this neo-Nazi kind kind of activist and from the neo-Nazi party which actually was also involved in Maidan and Odessa massacre. So again the opening is threatened, the leader of Azov opening is threatened as a part of movement. So this is like you have Ukrainian regiment and Azov regiment, which is now not only one regiment, you have two Azov brigades. So they have a lot of power basically in the influence to Olesov-Zelensky because they have informal control over this entire two brigades of Ukrainian military forces and also they have their own separate unit called Kraken, which is led by neo-Nazi again Azov veterans, and this unit became part of Ukrainian UK military intelligence, like formerly, but again they are also part of this neo-Nazi movement, azov. The same applies to the right sector. They have their own brigade, but they also officially are kind of also part of the right sector movement. So they still have basically far-right, still maintains political control and informal control and even formal control over this military units which now much larger compared to what was situation before the war, and, for instance, bilecki, the leader of the Nazi party which organized the Azov battalion initially, and he's still now commander of one of the other brigades. So this is kind of opening.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:04:39

I think this is open set to Zelensky because he would face such a possibility of overthrow. I think this would be a very real issue now because his presidential term would expire in two months, because he was elected as the president of the UK in May of 2019,. The second round, the first round, was conducted. I think it would be elections supposed to have been conducted again this spring in the UK, but they were cancelled by Zelensky. So there would be a crisis of legitimacy of Zelensky. Now, even when he would sign such an agreement with Russia, he would face possibility of basically being overthrown by opposition, including by Farid, because his legitimacy would weaken. They would say that he basically is no longer president of the UK because his term expired, and this would have very significant consequences because I think even police and police forces would not protect him, because now they are part of, they got far right as again integral part of the UK community and so on. So they became mainstream in UK, in Ukrainian politics and society and the media teach them as national heroes.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:05:58

And again for this reason I think Zelensky is in a very tough position because he kind of built all his power on this false promise to Ukrainians and to the West that he would defeat Russia and now he basically failed to do. This would mean that his influence would decline and again he would have either to resign or to leave Ukraine or he has possibility of being overthrown and his life might be in danger, I think. But the West I think very likely to save him kind of in such case. So I think this is a very difficult situation for Ukraine because in any case, there's no good outcome Now and the longer war continues there would be a much more difficult situation for Ukraine would be. So I think this is a big tragedy for Ukraine and Ukrainians, which is, again, almost never reported because all the media basically says that Ukrainians just willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and so on.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:06:55

Even so, in practice, I saw a lot of. I see a lot of videos, for instance, which shows that this forced mobilization taking place, when people were just captured on the streets in Ukrainian cities and towns and so on and brought to the military for military service. Again they will. There's statistics show that almost 700,000 Ukrainians went to European Union and to other Western countries, men of military age. They do not want to fight and even according to Aristović, former advisor of Zelensky, he stated that more than 4.5 million of Ukrainian men refused to register for, again, military service. Even so they are. This is not even a mobilization, this is just registration for military service. They don't want to do this. So I think this is a very tough situation for you. Can you can future, kind of. I look very pessimistic about future if you came in any case, but I think they still hope that there will be some peaceful agreement which might minimize damage to Ukraine because of this war.

C. Derick Varn: 1:07:59

All right. Thank you so much for your time, Dr Kuzmenovsky. Where can my listeners find more of your work and maybe also can you suggest a few sources you think may be legitimate for following this conflict?

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:08:19

Yes, thank you again for the invitation for this conversation.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:08:26

If anybody wants to find my research-based comments and posts about this war, the best source would be looking to Twitter.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:08:37

I'm very active on Twitter just commenting on this conflict in Ukraine, on issues which I research, and all my comments are based on my research, academic research, so I specialize in conflicts and politics in Ukraine, so is is the best way on social media to find such information about ongoing conflicts and updates about the conflict and so on.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:09:02

But if people are interested in my academic publications, I have academic websites, um, which are also available on their twitter or just using google it was it will be possible to find such sources again for information.

Ivan Katchanovski: 1:09:19

These are copies of my publications, including open access articles about all the issues which I discuss, and my book, which will be published later this year by Major Western Academic Press, will be also open access because I was able to get current funding for this book, so it will be available free of charge to anybody who would be interested in this conflict and the origins of this country, going back to maidan and all the other countries came here, dunbar and again, war between russia and ukraine, and also there will be a chapter on far right and involvement of harry my done in the war in the bus and and also current war between Russia and UK. So this information is available and, again, I'm actively involved in commenting about this issue and I also give a lot of media interviews about the conflicts in UK in different countries. So there's also possibility to find my comments in the media as well.

C. Derick Varn: 1:10:13

Thank you so much.