A leading British newspaper columnist has blamed the Western-sponsored 2014 coup in Kiev for the current military disaster in Ukraine.
The Mail on Sunday, an established British daily publication with the third biggest readership in the UK, published an op-ed by veteran columnist Peter Hitchens.
He raised uncomfortable questions about the ongoing Ukraine conflict and the chain of events in the February 2014 coup in Ukraine.
"What is Britain’s interest in this conflict? Why do so many in politics and the media cheer for carnage that has devastated Ukraine, the country they claim to love and admire?" asked Hitchens. "What has Ukraine gained from it? What can Ukraine and its people possibly gain from it?"
Hitchens also asked why the West supported undemocratic violence and overthrow of legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovich.
Laying out the events November 2013 – February 2014, Hitchens stressed that before Euromaidan Ukraine was "a crude but functioning democracy" which faced both east and west politically. He noted that Yanukovich won the 2010 election fair and square, beating his nearest rival Yulia Timoshenko, and that in February 2014 Yanukovich was "the lawful head of state, with two years to run."
He added that what was painted as a peaceful protest at the start was soon hijacked by a violent mob.
"There is much that is murky about these bitter days, including the mysterious shootings of members of the crowd," Hitchens said of the sniper shooting spree in February 2014. The journalist quoted the leaked — and never denied — phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and then-EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. The two discussed "stronger and stronger understanding" that "behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition."
Hitchens pointed out that following the bloodshed, Yanukovich signed an agreement with three senior Euromaidan leaders on February 21, 2014 in the presence of three EU ministers.
Then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (C) and then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (R) shake hands as Vitali Klitschko, one of the Maidan leaders, peers over his shoulder after the signing of what was thought to be a compromise deal in Kiev on February 21, 2014
© AFP 2023 / SERGEI SUPINSKY
"Yanukovych offered a rewrite of the constitution to suit the opposition; a new government; early presidential elections (no later than December 2014); and an impartial probe into the violence (which there has never been). All sides renounced the use of force," the journalist underlined.
But by the evening of the same day the deal was torn apart by the Kiev mob – "an unelected body with no constitutional or democratic authority" which "certainly did not represent the eastern part of the country," Hitchens wrote.
The Maidan leaders made no effort to defend the duly-elected president against the violent crowd. In fact, the Ukrainian parliament or Verkhovna Rada moved to remove him in violation of the nation's constitution, the British journalist noted.
In the aftermath of those events Yanukovich fled Kiev, but did not resign or leave the country, stressed Hitchens, quoting highly-respected Ukrainian historian Serhy Plokhy. That "shows beyond doubt that the elected President was still in office and in Ukraine when parliament voted to remove him."
But what struck Hitchens the most was the reaction of the West to the obviously illegitimate coup d'etat.
"Western nations, including Britain, should have condemned this action. They are normally vigilant defenders of law and democracy all over the world, are they not? But in this case, they condoned the coup," the journalist wrote, quoting then-foreign secretary William Hague, who he accused of lying when he told the House of Commons on March 4, 2014 that Yanukovich was removed "by the very large majorities [in the Verkhovna Rada] required under the constitution." In reality, the vote was unlawful, since Ukrainian MPs lacked the votes needed to do so under the constitution, explained Hitchens.
Lord Hague’s assertion that "it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities" in fact "seriously misled Parliament," stressed the journalist.
The events of February 2014 irrevocably divided Ukraine and caused "a filthy little war in the east of the country in which (among other tragedies and horrors) many civilians died at the hands of the Ukrainian army," Hitchens continued, adding that the current conflict is only the "second stage" of the Ukraine war which started 10 years ago.
While falling short of accusing US and EU of playing a direct role in fomenting the 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev, Hitchens still stressed that "the West blatantly betrayed its own principles to condone and forgive the nasty event." According to the journalist, those who supported the putsch are also responsible for the ongoing havoc.
"Think of that as you listen to all those loud, safe voices demanding that we keep on fuelling this war, in which Ukrainians die daily for democratic principles we do not, in fact, support," he concluded.
In an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson earlier this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin openly attacked the West's readiness to embrace the illegitimate regime change.
Putin made it clear that the Euromaidan events led to the bloodshed in eastern Ukraine that did not accept Yanukovich's overthrow. After exhausting all avenues for ending the internal west-east Ukrainian conflict through the 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements, Russia launched its special military operation in 2022 to end the Kiev regime's years-long war against Russian-speakers in Donbass, according to the Russian president.
Hitchen's piece for the Mail on Sunday indicates that some understanding of Euromaidan and its disastrous consequences has started to manifest itself in the West.