Content uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski on Feb 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The "Snipers' Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine
Abstract and Figures
The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre. The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protestors. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries (some 150 Gigabytes) , news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes.
This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.
Figures - uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski
Content may be subject to copyright.
Supplementary resources (3)
... Most of them found that the far-right and oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition, in particular Fatherland, the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the false-flag Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police (see Katchanovski, 2015a. The first academic study of the Maidan massacre concluded that it was not a failed attempt by the government to suppress the "Euromaidan" protests but a successful false-flag operation, which was organized and covertly conducted with involvement of elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition and concealed groups of "snipers" in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the "Euromaidan" and seize power in Ukraine (Katchanovski, 2014a(Katchanovski, , 2015a. Its updated and revised version, which analyzed even greater volume of various kinds of data and was published in a peer-reviewed journal, produced similar conclusions . ...
... There is not a single scholarly study of the Maidan massacre that was based on the analysis of primary sources and disproved major findings of scholarly studies by the author. Major findings of original studies by Katchanovski (2014aKatchanovski ( , 2015aKatchanovski ( , 2016a were replicated by Hahn (2018). He stated that "independent investigations by numerous organizations and a plethora of video and audio evidence support Katchanovski's findings: Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a BBC documentary film, a documentary film by Beck-Hoffman, among several others" and "moreover, the trial's revelations, Maidan regime General Prosecutor Office (GPO) court appeals, and resulting court decisions began to undermine the Maidan myth and support Katchanovski's version of events…" (see Hahn, 2018). ...
This open access book provides a comprehensive analysis of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. It uses a theoretical framework of rational choice, moral hazard, state- repression backfire, and Weberian ideas about rational action to explore the massacre.
The book draws on publicly available videos, photos and audio recordings of the massacre in English, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish and other languages, along with several hundred individual testimonies and revelations from the Ukrainian investigation and a trial and its verdict. By examining which parties were responsible for the massacre, the book analyses its implications for not only Russia’s war on Ukraine but also political developments across the globe.
... Most of them found that the far-right and oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition, in particular Fatherland, the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the false-flag Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police (see Katchanovski, 2015a. The first academic study of the Maidan massacre concluded that it was not a failed attempt by the government to suppress the "Euromaidan" protests but a successful false-flag operation, which was organized and covertly conducted with involvement of elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition and concealed groups of "snipers" in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the "Euromaidan" and seize power in Ukraine (Katchanovski, 2014a(Katchanovski, , 2015a. Its updated and revised version, which analyzed even greater volume of various kinds of data and was published in a peer-reviewed journal, produced similar conclusions . ...
... There is not a single scholarly study of the Maidan massacre that was based on the analysis of primary sources and disproved major findings of scholarly studies by the author. Major findings of original studies by Katchanovski (2014aKatchanovski ( , 2015aKatchanovski ( , 2016a were replicated by Hahn (2018). He stated that "independent investigations by numerous organizations and a plethora of video and audio evidence support Katchanovski's findings: Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a BBC documentary film, a documentary film by Beck-Hoffman, among several others" and "moreover, the trial's revelations, Maidan regime General Prosecutor Office (GPO) court appeals, and resulting court decisions began to undermine the Maidan myth and support Katchanovski's version of events…" (see Hahn, 2018). ...
This chapter analyzes the Maidan massacre in Kyiv on February 18–19, 2014 and other related cases of violence in Ukraine during the EuroMaidan. Various evidence, such as videos, live streams, SBU and police radio communications recordings, and witness testimonies, shows that the violent attack of the Ukrainian parliament and the Party of Regions headquarters was initiated on February 18 by the Maidan leadership and Maidan Self-Defense, including the far-right Svoboda and Right Sector, and that the Security Service of Ukraine and police launched an attempt to clear the Maidan by force in response.
... Most of them found that the far-right and oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition, in particular Fatherland, the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the false-flag Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police (see Katchanovski, 2015a. The first academic study of the Maidan massacre concluded that it was not a failed attempt by the government to suppress the "Euromaidan" protests but a successful false-flag operation, which was organized and covertly conducted with involvement of elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition and concealed groups of "snipers" in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the "Euromaidan" and seize power in Ukraine (Katchanovski, 2014a(Katchanovski, , 2015a. Its updated and revised version, which analyzed even greater volume of various kinds of data and was published in a peer-reviewed journal, produced similar conclusions . ...
... There is not a single scholarly study of the Maidan massacre that was based on the analysis of primary sources and disproved major findings of scholarly studies by the author. Major findings of original studies by Katchanovski (2014aKatchanovski ( , 2015aKatchanovski ( , 2016a were replicated by Hahn (2018). He stated that "independent investigations by numerous organizations and a plethora of video and audio evidence support Katchanovski's findings: Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a BBC documentary film, a documentary film by Beck-Hoffman, among several others" and "moreover, the trial's revelations, Maidan regime General Prosecutor Office (GPO) court appeals, and resulting court decisions began to undermine the Maidan myth and support Katchanovski's version of events…" (see Hahn, 2018). ...
This chapter presents video reconstruction and the content analysis of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine using over 2,000 videos and recordings of live Internet and TV broadcasts of the massacre in nearly 50 countries, news reports and social media posts by some 120 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, over 6,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops. Synchronized videos show that specific times and directions of shooting by the Berkut policemen did not coincide with specific times and directions of killings of specific protesters.
... Most of them found that the far-right and oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition, in particular Fatherland, the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the false-flag Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police (see Katchanovski, 2015a. The first academic study of the Maidan massacre concluded that it was not a failed attempt by the government to suppress the "Euromaidan" protests but a successful false-flag operation, which was organized and covertly conducted with involvement of elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition and concealed groups of "snipers" in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the "Euromaidan" and seize power in Ukraine (Katchanovski, 2014a(Katchanovski, , 2015a. Its updated and revised version, which analyzed even greater volume of various kinds of data and was published in a peer-reviewed journal, produced similar conclusions . ...
... There is not a single scholarly study of the Maidan massacre that was based on the analysis of primary sources and disproved major findings of scholarly studies by the author. Major findings of original studies by Katchanovski (2014aKatchanovski ( , 2015aKatchanovski ( , 2016a were replicated by Hahn (2018). He stated that "independent investigations by numerous organizations and a plethora of video and audio evidence support Katchanovski's findings: Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a BBC documentary film, a documentary film by Beck-Hoffman, among several others" and "moreover, the trial's revelations, Maidan regime General Prosecutor Office (GPO) court appeals, and resulting court decisions began to undermine the Maidan myth and support Katchanovski's version of events…" (see Hahn, 2018). ...
This chapter analyzes results of forensic ballistic and medical examinations and investigative experiments by government experts for the Ukrainian government investigation and the Maidan massacre trial.
... Most of them found that the far-right and oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition, in particular Fatherland, the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the false-flag Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police (see Katchanovski, 2015a. The first academic study of the Maidan massacre concluded that it was not a failed attempt by the government to suppress the "Euromaidan" protests but a successful false-flag operation, which was organized and covertly conducted with involvement of elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition and concealed groups of "snipers" in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the "Euromaidan" and seize power in Ukraine (Katchanovski, 2014a(Katchanovski, , 2015a. Its updated and revised version, which analyzed even greater volume of various kinds of data and was published in a peer-reviewed journal, produced similar conclusions . ...
... There is not a single scholarly study of the Maidan massacre that was based on the analysis of primary sources and disproved major findings of scholarly studies by the author. Major findings of original studies by Katchanovski (2014aKatchanovski ( , 2015aKatchanovski ( , 2016a were replicated by Hahn (2018). He stated that "independent investigations by numerous organizations and a plethora of video and audio evidence support Katchanovski's findings: Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a BBC documentary film, a documentary film by Beck-Hoffman, among several others" and "moreover, the trial's revelations, Maidan regime General Prosecutor Office (GPO) court appeals, and resulting court decisions began to undermine the Maidan myth and support Katchanovski's version of events…" (see Hahn, 2018). ...
The final chapter summaries the main findings of the comprehensive evidence-based and theoretically based analysis of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. The analysis of various evidence, such as synchronized videos, audio recordings, testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, and some 500 other witnesses, shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the Maidan protesters and the police were massacred by Maidan snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings in a rationally organized operation with involvement of far-right and oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition.
This chapter analyzes testimonies concerning snipers by wounded Maidan activists and prosecution, defense, and Maidan witnesses at the Maidan massacre trial and the investigation in Ukraine.
This chapter analyzes interviews and statements in the Ukrainian and other media and social media after the Maidan massacre of the Maidan protesters and the police by several hundred witnesses, primarily eyewitnesses among Maidan activists and journalists, concerning Maidan snipers, snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings, and other evidence of the false-flag massacre in downtown Kyiv in Ukraine on February 18–20, 2014. It also examines interviews and statements by 14 self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, in particular, about shooting the police and the protesters in various media and the social media. Many Maidan activists and self-admitted snipers publicly stated that they witnessed involvement of specific top Maidan leaders from the oligarchic parties and far-right organizations in the massacre.
The Maidan massacre trial verdict in Ukraine in October 2023 confirmed that many Maidan activists were killed and wounded and BBC and ARD TV journalists were shot at on February 20, 2014, not by Berkut or other law enforcement but by snipers in Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations, that this hotel was controlled by Maidan activists, including a far-right-linked Maidan company of snipers, that Russian agents were not involved in the massacre, that there were no massacre orders by President Yanukovych and his police and security chiefs, and that EuroMaidan then was an armed rebellion, which involved the massacre of the Berkut and Internal Troops.
This chapter examines different narratives concerning the Maidan massacre of the Maidan activists and the police on February 18–20, 2014, and previous scholarly studies of this massacre. The dominant narrative promoted by the Ukrainian and Western governments and with some exceptions the media attributed the Maidan massacre of the protesters to the Yanukovych government and his security forces and Berkut anti-riot police.
The chapter describes importance of the Maidan massacre of the police and the Maidan protesters in Kyiv in Ukraine on February 18–20, 2014, and its role in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government and ultimately in the start of the war in Donbas, the Russian annexation of Crimea, and conflicts of Russia with Ukraine and the West that Russia escalated dramatically by launching the illegal war with Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The question is whether the Yanukovych government, the Maidan opposition, in particular, the far-right, or any “third force,” such as Russia, was involved in the mass killing of protesters and the police.
Ukraine previously experienced significant regional political divisions, including separatism in Crimea and Donbas. However, in contrast to post-communist countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and former Yugoslavia, prior to 2014 Ukraine was able to avoid a war and a break-up. This study examines the role of separatists, the Yanukovych government, the Maidan opposition and the Maidan government, far-right organizations, Russia, the US, and the EU in the conflict in Donbas. It uses a specially commissioned survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 2014 to analyse public support for separatism in Donbas, compared to other regions of Ukraine, and the major factors which affect such support. It concludes that all these actors contributed in various ways to the conflict in Donbas, which involved both a civil war and a direct Russian military intervention since August 2014. The study links this conflict to the 'Euromaidan', specifically, the government overthrow by means of the Maidan massacre, and the secession and Russia's annexation of Crimea. The KIIS survey shows that support for separatism is much stronger in Donbas compared to other regions, with the exception of Crimea, and that the break-up of Ukraine is unlikely to extend to its other parts.
This chapter presents a summary of analysis, evidence, and findings of a study of the “snipers’ massacre” of “Euromaidan” protesters and policemen on the Maidan in Ukraine on February 20, 2014. This mass killing was a turning point in the Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in a conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This massacre led to an overthrow of the government of Viktor Yanukovych and a Russian annexation in Crimea, a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, and Russian military intervention in support of separatists in these regions. The question is which side was involved in the “snipers’ massacre.” This study relies on rational choice and Weberian theories of rational action. It employs interpretative and content analyses of a large number of different sources. The analysis shows that armed groups of concealed Maidan shooters first killed and wounded policemen on the Maidan and then protesters. Armed groups of “snipers” and parts of leadership of the far right organizations, such as the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland, were involved in various capacities in the massacre. This mass killing was misrepresented by the media and the governments in Ukraine and the West.
Conventional wisdom dictates that Ukraine’s political crises can be traced to the linguistic differences and divided political loyalties that have long fractured the country. However, this theory obscures the true significance of Ukraine’s recent civic revolution and the conflict’s crucial international dimension. The 2013-14 Ukrainian revolution presented authoritarian powers in Russia with both a democratic and a geopolitical challenge. In reality, political conflict in Ukraine is reflective of global discord, stemming from differing views on state power, civil society, and democracy. Ukraine’s sudden prominence in American politics has compounded an already-widespread misunderstanding of what is actually happening in the nation. In the American media, Ukraine has come to signify an inherently corrupt place, rather than a real country struggling in the face of great challenges. Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know® is an updated edition of Serhy Yekelchyk’s 2015 publication, The Conflict in Ukraine. It addresses Ukraine’s relations with the West, particularly the United States, from the perspective of Ukrainians. The book explains how independent Ukraine fell victim to crony capitalism, how its people rebelled twice in the last two decades in the name of democracy and against corruption, and why Russia reacted so aggressively to the strivings of Ukrainians. Additionally, it looks at what we know about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, the factors behind the stunning electoral victory of the political novice Volodymyr Zelensky, and the ways in which the events leading to the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump have changed the Russia-Ukraine-US relationship. This volume is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the forces that have shaped contemporary politics in this increasingly important part of Europe, as well as the international background of the impeachment proceedings in the US
This fascinating new study shows how the CIA and the British secret service, in collaboration with the military alliance NATO and European military secret services, set up a network of clandestine anti-communist armies in Western Europe after World War II. These secret soldiers were trained on remote islands in the Mediterranean and in unorthodox warfare centres in England and in the United States by the Green Berets and SAS Special Forces. The network was armed with explosives, machine guns and high-tech communication equipment hidden in underground bunkers and secret arms caches in forests and mountain meadows. In some countries the secret army linked up with right-wing terrorist who in a secret war engaged in political manipulation, harrassement of left wing parties, massacres, coup d'ètats and torture. Codenamed 'Gladio' ('the sword'), the Italian secret army was exposed in 1990 by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to the Italian Senate, whereupon the press spoke of "The best kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II" (Observer, 18. November 1990) and observed that "The story seems straight from the pages of a political thriller." (The Times, November 19, 1990). Ever since, so-called 'stay-behind' armies of NATO have also been discovered in France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Greece and Turkey. They were internationally coordinated by the Pentagon and NATO and had their last known meeting in the NATO-linked Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) in Brussels in October 1990.
The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands investigates the Soviet response to nationalist insurgencies that occurred between 1944 and 1953 in the regions the Soviet Union annexed after the Nazi-Soviet pact: Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Based on new archival data, Alexander Statiev presents the first comprehensive study of Soviet counterinsurgency that ties together the security tools and populist policies intended to attract the local populations. The book traces the origins of the Soviet pacification doctrine and then presents a comparative analysis of the rural societies in Eastern Poland and the Baltic States on the eve of the Soviet invasion. This analysis is followed by a description of the anti-communist resistance movements. Subsequently, the author shows how ideology affected the Soviet pacification doctrine and examines the major means to enforce the doctrine: agrarian reforms, deportations, amnesties, informant networks, covert operations, and local militias. The book also demonstrates how the Soviet atheist regime used the church in struggle against guerrillas and explains why this regime could not curb the random violence of its police. The final chapter discusses the Soviet experience in the global context.
This article considers the unique forms of digital labor that emerged in the wake of the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Donetsk, Ukraine in July of 2014. Whereas such investigations traditionally rely on expert analysis and strict information control, the Ukrainians took an unconventional, open-source approach to the case. By releasing key pieces of video evidence on social media, the Ukrainian government recruited a vast roster of skilled online analysts to work on its behalf without expending any financial resources. Placing this user activity in the context of scholarly studies of both fan labor and citizen surveillance, the paper argues that social and economic aspects of online culture enabled Ukraine to benefit significantly from the discourse produced by unpaid workers. Ultimately, the output of these laborers played a key role in counteracting Russia's use of global broadcasting and expensive online propaganda to dominate international debate surrounding MH17.
During the past decade, particularly under the presidency of the third Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko (2005–2010) there have been repeated attempts to turn the leading fi gures of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its armed wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) into national heroes. As these fascist organizations collaborated with the Nazi Germany, carried out ethnic cleansing and mass murder on a massive scale, they are problematic symbols for an aspiring democracy with the stated ambition to join the European Union. Under Yushchenko, several institutes of memory management and myth making were organized, a key function of which was to deny or downplay OUN-UPA atrocities. Unlike many other former Soviet republics, the Ukrainian government did not need to develop new national myths from scratch, but imported ready concepts developed in the Ukrainian diaspora. Yushchenko’s legitimizing historians presented the OUN and UPA as pluralistic and inclusive organizations, which not only rescued Jews during the Holocaust, but invited them into their ranks to fight shoulder to shoulder against Hitler and Stalin. This mythical narrative relied partly on the OUN’s own post-war forgeries, aimed at cover up the organization’s problematic past. As employees of the Ukrainian security services, working out of the offices of the old KGB, the legitimizing historians ironically dismissed scholarly criticism as Soviet myths. The present study deals with the myth-making around the OUN, the UPA, and the Holocaust, tracing their diaspora roots and following their migration back and forth across the Atlantic.