Yes

A Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and my answers on Quora, people often say to me ‘I am not convinced that the US perpetuated the coup in Ukraine in 2014’ I am here to show you how and possibly what they did, and I will not use Russian government sources to argue it and will try to balance argument.

I have been wanting to write an answer to this for a while, I consider this extremely important to get into public consciousness, because it does not just affect Ukraine. As always with these answers I will try to answer comments and leave the section but not those of harassment or people who have not read the article. Assuming the article does not get taken down.

Firstly I want to say that I am not a political expert, I studied social science which does have some similar elements, but now work in a similar field. So if my knowledge on specific political theory is lacking, please don’t hold that against me. Also I will not be going into the 2004 coup in this which I also believe was strongly influenced by the US.

I recommend looking at the external sources yourself, all the ones you have not previously seen. So sit tight this will be a long answer but I will try to make the arguments as brief as I can since this really should be a book written by someone with more skill than me, and it should be on every shelf in the west.

Ukraine

I have delved into the history of Ukraine a bit in my previous answers, some of the sociological issues within.

In 2013 Ukraine was a divided nation, politically, socially, language, religion etc. The President Yanukovych was heavily criticized for corruption and disrupting political process. His approval ratings were losing ground, and there was lots of pressure on his both internally and externally.

These concessions lead to the Kharkiv agreement, which extended the Russian lease of Sevastopol Naval base, in exchange for gas concessions. Opponents though criticized this move as catering to Russian demands, for fear that Ukraine will once again be under the Russian thumb.

The UK’s Guardian reported…

Th Orange revolution of course was the political turmoil which saw a pro-NATO candidate take the Presidency in Ukraine in 2004. The Guardian argued that Yanukovych was reverting Ukraine back into a Russian satellite state.

D’Anieri continues to add…

So Yanukovych had a policy of closer ties to the EU economically but maintaining relations with Russia. This was stated more succinctly in September 2021 when he refuted the notion of closer ties to Russia, even within his own party.

This was a sure way of getting both the south eastern oblasts, which overwhelmingly voted for Yanukoych and preferred a pro-Russian foreign policy, but also to appease the western oblasts which had a very strong pro-EU foreign policy line. This division was explored deeply by sociological research published by the Royal Society in 2019.

The only time when voting patterns in Ukraine looked like a ‘normal’ country and were not so divided along geographical lines was in 1999 when Kuchma won his second term, under the same foreign policies. It was the only time were people in the southeast and northwest shared the same principle candidate.

Voting patterns in 1999

So there was no doubt that Yanukovych saw himself as a bridge between the east and the west, not only geopolitically but in domestic politics. But many in the west like Carnegie, funded by NATO, claimed that relations between Putin and Yanukovych were sour.

As Trenin (2009) published in the Washington Quarterly points out…

So we can see that there was no real opposition to Ukraine getting closer to the EU, that Russia was seeking neutrality for Ukraine more along defensive lines and that this was a very divided nation with two sets of competing political interests. The efforts of Yanukovych were to balance between them, while trying to increase his own dwindling support from within his own party from pro-Russian interests, and from outside from pro-EU interests and Oligarchs like Poroshenko.

So this is the internal political landscape and introduction to some of these actors, but there will be more later.

November 2013

The first major record of the coup was with Ukrainian Prime minster standing up in Parliament warning of an planned coup attempt. This video is a must watch for anyone serious on this subject as it was posted before any protests took place. It was even reported on by the BBC in 2013

Euromaiden protests begun the following day.

This is a part translated to English…

This particular statement by the Ukrainian prime minister lead me to try to discover what these Tech Camps were, were they operating out of the US Embassy and why.

These Techcamps were set up in 2012, and were hosted by the US government and the US Embassy, so this much at least was true.

They stated that they had…

Sure this is a bit of jump between civil society organizations and armed insurrection, and that jump initially seemed implausible or at least somewhat unrealistic. Although it was the same technique that French Canadian Political Scientist Bensaada, explained about when he referred to US involvement in the Arab Springs in his book titled L’Arabesque Americaine written in 2011 as well as Bramhall’s book The Arab Spring: Made in the USA, written in 2015. But to keep an open mind I started looking into the funding of these Techcamps to find out more.

I refer to a book written by Political Scientist Bandiera called The World Disorder, written in 2019, which I will reference this book quite bit in this article and I believe its probably the best analysis of the situation available.

Now lets look at these organizations which funded these tech-camps closer, all of them are NGO primarily funded directly or indirectly by the US government, except for the Open Society Foundation which is run by Soros, a businessman who has been the target of lots of conspiracy theories over the years. I won’t go into those in this post, except to say that he has been operating in Ukraine since 1989 and is funded partly by

And this is the one I want to focus on here.

The National Endowment of Democracy

Wikipedia states this as

So looking back at 1983 we can have a look at a few items which really sets the stage for what this organization is and what its mission is.

Firstly, from the first Direction of the National Endowment of Democracy or the NED Carl Gershman, who in 1986 stated

This was also similar to his statement in congress in 1987

So this organization was built around the premise that the CIA could no longer operate and ‘promote democracy’ around the world the old fashioned way but now needed to use new methods and techniques which included the establishment of Non-Government Organizations to be able to continue to do without scrutiny by the public. In a document posted by Wikileaks on a congressional hearing, Paul McCarthy NED program officer in 1999 said.

as well as

So here is an ‘NGO’ that is following US foreign policy objectives. Lets have a look at this first statement. NED proclaims itself an NGO, McCarty suggests that is why NED is more welcomed in creating programs. So lets look at its funding…

So here is an ‘NGO’ which is funded 99.4% by the US Government, doesn’t sound like much of a non-government organization. But there is more.

In 1996 a whistleblower who worked for the CIA explains what this organization is all about in detail.

Busic, an American Writer and activist wrote in 1999 at length about the activities of the NED, including the following passage. She confirms the statements of the whistleblower, giving more background information regarding the CIA’s congressional hearings regarding their involvement in foreign government activities between the 60’s and the 80’s, and then concluding

Leftest newspaper found that the board of the NED were…

Additionally in a book that Noam Chomsky described as the best book on the subject, William Blum’s Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II outlines CIA operations around the world in great detail, including giving great details in how the NED functioned to provide funds to enact regime change in multiple nations.

But NED funds don’t just go anywhere, they are controlled and targeted where they can be the most use to force US foreign policy. A congressional research service report in 2019 explained

However details on Ukraine had been wiped from the NED website at the start of the Russian invasion in 2022.

So we have established that the US and the CIA was indeed instrumental in running these tech camps out of the Kyiv US Embassy. But it still does not completely bridge the gap between civil society organizations pushing US foreign policy and armed insurrection. This is where political and social theory comes into play.

Bandiera explains further, using Paul Craig Roberts as a source who was assistant secretary of the treasury under Reagan.

In an article by Mowat, an expert on marketing and manipulation, explain the process.

So by the use of these techniques which have been refined over time in the many regime changes orchestrated by the US, these camps could train large demography based upon these known propaganda techniques combined wit as Dr. Peter Ackerman’s work who was the author of Strategic Nonviolent Conflict and proposes alternatives to military intervention to conduct regime change.

In fact Turbville

Turbeville also sources many others to back up his summations of a blatant CIA coup in Ukraine, such as Traynor a journalist from the Guardian who describes the process…

So it is indeed possible that to influence and manipulate mass amounts of susceptible people into civil organizers, that some may eventually become angry insurgents. This became all too easy with social media and technology, and in the cases of countries listed by Blum and others, the CIA has orchestrated over a dozen regime changes in the past couple of decades through their ‘NGO’ fronts.

In fact many media outlets are now funded by the NED also including Bellingcat, Radio Free Europe, Chatham House, Freedom House and many more as per this Swiss article

Euromaiden

Protests begun peaceful in November 2013. The western narrative here is that these protests were in response to Yanukovychs unwillingness to sign a trade deal with the EU, and pressure from Moscow.

Bandeira (2019) writes

This sourced from the Washington Post

Yanukovych opted to delay any deals at the time. And this was the reason which has been attributed to the commencement of the protesters. Later, the EU tried to rectify the deal after the protesters commenced, but by now it was too late.

This shrinking has partly due to the civil war and losing Crimea also. However Roberts was essentially correct as well, the looting had begun.

So when the protests begun at Euromaiden, Yanukovych made it very clear he knew who was responsible.

Using the new found social media platforms, protesters flocked to the streets, initially called for by Yatsenyuk, who of course secured a position as prime minster after the coup. These protesters were calling for Yanukovych’s resignation.

I will try to cut this part a bit short since I have essentially answered the question, this is not a thesis and I have spent 12 hours writing this, and I think the right-wing and the role US played in recruiting them and the Nazi’s should be left for another answer. However if you want to know more I suggest a documentary called Ukraine of Fire, found here..

I also recommend checking out investigative journalist Zuesse who pieces everything together

But needless to say that the people who were instrumental in bringing violence and overthrowing the government were awarded with positions in the new government. The documentary interviews Yanukovych who claimed he had no choice but to flee to Russia after the right wing element of the protesters put a bounty on his head, and members of his government were beaten up by thugs

This paved the way for the protesters to force the government out an install a new ‘unity’ government which was unconstitutional

Nevertheless the UK and the EU supported the new government.

I wanted to continue by adding a few things which consolidates the argument.

The first being the US Under Secretary of the State, Victoria Nuland talking to the US ambassador Pyatt and discussing the make up of the new government in 2013 before the coup had even occurred.

This substantiates the claim that the NGO’s operating out of the US embassy and their tech camps were involved in a intentional regime change. The audio and transcript can be found on youtube or google.

McCain of course is an ex-solider and was the chairman of the IRI, which we established was one of the principle recipients of the National Endowment of Democracy.

Bandeira:

Nuland afterwards even admitted that the US had spent 5 Billion USD in Ukraine in 2013/2014 on ‘promoting democracy’

But of course back-peddled on this statement indicating that a large portion of it was on security.

So I think I have presented a strong argument for this, and even Political experts like Mearsheimer speak of these events, not only in Ukraine but elsewhere as US instigated coups

Sources

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33

34.

35.

36.

37.

Footnotes