Trump-Zelensky meeting: what do you expect?

Trump can be often unexpected and often changes his public views, in particular, concerning the Russia-Ukraine war and its peaceful resolution. I do not expect any viable peace agreement as a result of his meeting with Zelensky. Russia repeatedly stated that they would not accept any ceasefire unless Zelensky would agree to withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from the remaining part of Donbas.

In your opinion, will new negotiations open to finally end the conflict in Ukraine?

The chances of ending the war in Ukraine via a peace deal are less than the chances of the continuation of the war until at least the end of this year. Putin and other Russian officials state that Russia can end the war on the terms of the informal peace agreement between Trump and Putin at the Anchorage summit. Withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from all of Donbas and no NATO membership of Ukraine are key parts that reflect Russian demands. However, Zelensky and leaders of the UK, France, Germany and other European countries refused to accept it and proposed a peace deal on their terms, which are unacceptable to Russia. Marco Rubio-led Neocon faction of the Trump administration basically did the same and apparently persuaded Trump, at least for now, to do the same.

Donald Trump has guaranteed that Kiev will be granted a license to produce Patriot missiles. Do you think the US stance toward Ukraine has become more accommodating?

The Trump decision actually means refusal to sell the Patriot missiles to Ukraine via the NATO countries. The licensing of the Patriot missiles is unlikely to produce such missiles in Ukraine for a year or more. But Trump became more accommodating to Zelensky. He refused to use the leverage that the US has over Zelensky and Ukraine to compel them to accept the peace deal on the terms that were informally agreed by Trump and Putin in Anchorage. Trump also authorized the CIA to provide US intelligence and guidance for the Ukrainian long-range drone and missile strikes targeting the Russian oil refineries and Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

There has been a change in military leadership, with Fedorov and Syrsky replaced, but the protests aren’t calming down. What do you think?

These relatively small protests demand that Zelensky reinstated Fedorov as the minister of defence. Zelensky is unlikely to do this because he sacked the entire cabinet to get rid of Fedorov, his long-term associate whom he now regards as his potential rival for presidency. Zelensky wants to eliminate any potential challengers for his rule Ukraine.

How do you assess the course of the conflict for the parties involved?

The Ukrainian forces this year launched a limited counteroffensive and were able to recapture some territory. Russian territorial advanced slowed down considerably this year compared to the previous one. But Russia still advances and captures more territory, in particular, Kostiantynivka, and approaches Sloviansk and Kramatorsk in Donbas. The Ukrainian drone strikes damaged significant number of Russian oil facilities. But they could not halt Russian oil production, refinement, and export. Russian oil revenues, including taxes from the oil extraction, increased significantly because of the oil prices jump as result of the US and Israel’s’ war with Iran and blocking of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran in response.

The claims and limited Ukrainian advances and long-range strikes are used to create the alternative reality in Ukraine and the West that Ukraine turned the tide of the war and winning the war. This this done to propagate the continuation of the unwinnable war for Ukraine.

Russia by all measures is winning the war with Ukraine, which is also a proxy war with NATO. It controls close to 20 percent of the territory of Ukraine and has escalation dominance. As my open access book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins” shows, the war is likely to end with a partial defeat of Ukraine.

Ukraine has advantage of using NATO countries as its weapons production, supply, and repair base, which is safe, at least for now, from the Russian strikes. Russia is likely again to target power plants and powers substations when the winter approaches. Russia will try to achieve its major war goal of capturing the territory of the entire Donbas.

But the size of the territory captured is not an accurate measure of the state of war of attrition. Relative military casualties are more important. My new in press book estimates that at least 230,000 Russian and Donbas separatist forces members and around 250,000 Ukrainian forces members were killed during the Russia-Ukraine war. This estimate is based on killed and missing in action individuals identified by name by BBC Russian and Mediazona and the Ualosses site and adjusted for undercounting gaps to make them more comparable. The Zelensky government relies on forced mobilization. Thousands of videos posted by Ukrainians on the social media show use of force by military draft officers to mobilize men in by snatching them on the streets, in stores, buses, parks, homes, workplaces, etc.

We, the undersigned, express our support for academic freedom and Dr. Ivan Katchanovski. We might differ on various issues, but agree on the importance of academic freedom and the need to protect it when it comes under attack. Professor Katchanovski is a well-known Ukrainian and Canadian political scientist at the University of Ottawa. A recent collective letter denounced him and his open access book The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War. The letter baselessly linked this peer-reviewed book published by a major Western academic press to Russian propaganda and the high popularity of the book to behind-the-scenes promotion by Elon Musk.

Dr. Katchanovski’s other recent academic press book titled The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World was banned by the Ukrainian State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting led by a far-right OUN leader. Professor Katchanovski was also blacklisted by Myrotvorets hit list for his scholarly studies of the Maidan massacre that were published in peer-reviewed journals and books and for his exposure of a Waffen SS Galicia Division veteran, who was given standing ovations in the Canadian parliament. He also reported that his home and all other property in Ukraine were seized in retaliation to his scholarly studies. Though we might not share all of Dr. Katchanovski’s academic perspectives, we denounce the persecution against him for his scholarly research.

Dr. Katchanovski is one of the most cited political scientists who specialize primarily in the politics and conflicts in Ukraine. His academic publications include 7 books and 3 dozen refereed journal articles and book chapters. He currently teaches at the University of Ottawa. He was a Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Politics at the State University of New York at Potsdam, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and a Kluge Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. He received his Ph.D. from the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University under the direction of Seymour Martin Lipset.

We note that Dr. Katchanovski has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 from the start, called for a long time for European Union membership of Ukraine, and supported democracy and freedom in Ukraine since before its independence. He is also widely quoted in many outlets around the world, does numerous media and social media interviews, and presents his research at major academic conferences in the field.

Academic freedom in both the West and Ukraine is especially important during times of crisis and conflict, such as the tragic Russia-Ukraine war. Academic freedom has to be protected even for scholarly research that challenges prevailing narratives. This particularly concerns politically charged topics regarding this war and its origins. Scholars and their books and other academic publications should not be subjected to collective denunciations, censorship, sanctions, criminal prosecution, and other such retaliation for their academic research. Scholarly publications need to be judged by academic standards. Scholarly disputes need to be settled in academic venues.

This applies to Dr. Katchanovski, his book The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War, and his other publications. Our position also applies to other scholars researching this war. We advocate for the defense of academic freedom and its application in the case of Dr. Ivan Katchanovski and his research.

Please send your name, position/job title, institutional affiliation, country, and whether you prefer that your name be published (or just your institutional affiliation and country) to openletter2026@gmail.com.

Signed (in alphabetical order)

Abelow, Benjamin, M.D. Formerly, Lecturer in Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine

Acerbo, Maurizio, former member of the Italian Parliament

Alper, Muzaffer Ege, Senior Researcher, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland

Amar, Tarik Cyril, Associate Professor, Department of History, Koc University, Istanbul

Ames, Mark, Journalist, podcast host, “Radio War Nerd,” New York, USA

Anonymous, Dr., School of Political Science, University of Ottawa, Canada

Anonymous, former senior police officer, Italy

Anonymous, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Anonymous, PhD Candidate & Lecturer, York University, Canada

Anonymous, PhD Candidate and Lecturer at the University of Potsdam, Germany

Anonymous, Photographer, freelance, Germany

Anonymous, Retired, Norway

Anonymous, Retired Solicitor, Inverness, Scotland

Anonymous, Student of Economic Sociology, University of Turku, Finland

Anonymous, Teaching Professor, University of Ottawa, Canada

Anonymous, Vocational College BS Wilhelmsburg, Germany

Anonymous, Worker, Slovyansk, Donetsk Region, Ukraine

Aunola, Otso, Political Science student, University of Helsinki, Finland

Bakić, Jovo, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Sociology, Serbia

Ball, Karyn, Professor, Department of English and Film Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton

Baumgarten, Helga, Professor emeritus, Birzeit University, Palestine

Baysha, Olga, PhD, Associate Professor in Political Communication, National Research University “Higher School of Economics, “Moscow, Russia

Beauchamp, Jonathan P., Associate Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University, USA

Belorusets, Yevgenia, writer, artist, Ukraine, Germany

Berekashvili, Bakar, Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Georgian American University, Tbilisi, Georgia

Bergeron, Frédéric, Librarian, Quebec, Canada.

Blackburn, Matthew, Senior Researcher, The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Norway

Blot, Lionel, copy editor, Éditions Gallimard, France

Bloxham, Donald, Richard Pares Professor of History, University of Edinburgh, UK

Blumenthal, Bud, artist, activist, Brussels, Belgium

Borozna, Angela, California State University Fullerton

Bouzek, Tomáš, Mgr., military historian, Opava, Czech Republic

Brandist, Craig, Professor of Cultural Theory and Intellectual History, University of Sheffield, UK

Buhre, Isabelle, MSc MA, Political scientist and latinist, The Netherlands

Buls, Zintis, IT support manager, Latvia

Cafruny, Alan W., Henry Bristol Professor of International Affairs, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, USA

Castelein, Luc, admin of the Karl Popper page on Facebook, Belgium

Cato, Jasper, retired conservator, previously at the Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Cavallari, Gerard, Ethnomusicologist, UK

Chaufan, Claudia, MD, PhD, Professor, Health Policy, York University, Canada

Chebani, Rhizlaine, Retraitée, Québec, Canada

Cinquini, Nicolas, intelligence analyst, former French intelligence officer in counter-terrorism, Corsica

Clayton, James, Journalist, World Socialist Website

Colley, Philip, Literary executor, The Gareth Jones Society, United Kingdom

Cooke, Sophie, Associate Lecturer, The Open University

Cosma, Valer Simion, Dr., historian, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania

Crews, Robert, Professor of History, Stanford University

Cuccoli, Lorenzo, independent historian, Centre d’études russes, caucasiennes, est-européennes et centrasiatiques (CERCEC, EHESS), France/Italy

Dall’Asta, Monica, Full Professor, University of Bologna, Italy

De Leonardis, Fabio, Ass. Prof. of Semiotics, Shanghai International Studies University, PRC/Italy

De Zayas, Alfred, Prof. Dr. Geneva, Switzerland, Geneva School of Diplomacy, former UN Independent Expert on International Order (2012-18), former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, former Chief of the Petitions Department at OHCHR, former President PEN International Centre Suisse romand 2006-09 and again 2013-17

Depoortere, Johan, Journalist, Belgium

Dergunov, Yuriy, Senior lecturer in Sociology, Donetsk

Dionisi, Davide, Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Doherty, Niall, Project Officer, Ireland

Eckert, Laura, Artist, USA

Elkhoury, Ann, Dr, Sydney, Australia

Ewald, Engelen, Professor of Financial Geography, University of Amsterdam

Federl, Doris, Germany

Forsgren, Mattias, Stockholm, Sweden

Frijters, Paul, Emeritus Visiting Professor, London School of Economics

Gamet, Frédéric, copy editor, Paris, France

Garcin, Javier, journalist, Mexico

Garman, Sebastian, Dr., retired Senior Lecturer, Brunel University, London School of Economics and Brunel University, United Kingdom

Gigantino, Bryan, Lecturer, Georgian-American University, Tbilisi, Georgia

Gjefle, Karsten, International Development Professional, Oslo, Norway

Golinkin, Lev, author and journalist, USA

Golovan, Sergey, Senior Scientist, USA

Grable, Alexander, PhD Candidate, King’s College London, United Kingdom

Grenier, Paul R., President, Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy

Grinshpun, Yelyzaveta, Germany

Haack, Jonathan, Adjunct Faculty, Santa Fe Community College

Hahn, Gordon M., Expert, Corr Analytic

Hagen, Alexander, Founder, ISP, Montara, California

Håkan Julander, actor, poet and podcaster for Dissidentpodden, Sweden

Håkan, Danielsson, retired, Göteborg, Sweden

Hammond, Philip, Emeritus Professor of Media & Communications, London South Bank University, UK

Hanley, Brian, Clinical Asst. Professor, UTRGV School of Medicine, USA

Havryshko, Marta, Dr. Thomas Zand Visiting Assistant Professor in Holocaust Pedagogy and Antisemitism Studies, Clark University, USA

Herman, Daniel, Professor, Central Washington University, USA

Hill, Alexander, Professor in Military History, University of Calgary, Canada

Hough, H.P (Pierre), Chairman, SALM, South Africa

Ilkowski, Filip, PhD habil., University of Warsaw

Ingledew, Francis, Professor Emeritus of English and Comparative Literature, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA/Germany

Ioffe, Grigory, Professor Emeritus, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

Ishchenko, Volodymyr, Dr., guest researcher, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Israel, Lena, former associate professor media science, Sweden

Johnová, Radka, PhD, Retired Assistant Professor at Czech Technical University and external lecturer in economics and marketing at Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Johnson, Charles, Worker, Organizing Director for a Peace Organization, Certificate in Unarmed Civilian Protection, Former Educator, United States

Jones, Peter, Professor, Faculty of Design, OCAD U, Toronto

Juncker, David, Professor, McGill University, Canada

Jurema, Bernardo, Research Associate, Research Institute for Sustainability at GFZ, Germany

Kalb, Don, Professor of social anthropology, University of Bergen, Norway

Kalkanis, Gregory, school teacher, United States of America

Kallio, Timo, PhD (tech.), Helsinki, Finland

Karrasch, Ulrich, pensioner, Berlin, Germany

Kien, Tran Manh, Vietnam

Klein, Daniel, Professor Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Kozlovsky, Gregory, Ph.D., Owner, Locust Software GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland

Kragsterman, Johan, retired, Stockholm, Sweden

Kuzmenko, Oleksiy, erstwhile researcher of the Ukrainian Far Right

Laakso, Mertz, entrepreneur, Sweden

Lagercrantz, Lova, architect, Sweden

Lane, David, Fellow Academy of Social Sciences (UK), Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Lashmankin, Aleksandr, graduate student, sociologist, Samara University, Russia

Latva-Nevala, Marko, Key Account Manager, Stockholm, Sweden

Lauterbach-Lang, Anastassia, Dr., Professor of AI and Cybersecurity, Founder AI Edutainment GmbH, an AI Literacy company

Law, Simon, Retired, Australia

Lerchner, Johannes, PhD, Senior scientist, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany

Lévesque, Jean, Associate Professor of History, Université du Québec à Montréal, QC, Canada

Libby, Jacob Aaron, OTR-CHT

Lieven, Anatol, Dr., Andrew Bacevich Chair in US Diplomatic History. Director, Eurasia Program, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Lilja, Christer Carl, retired, Sweden

Lindquist, Björn, retired psychiatrist, Sweden

Lodynski, Andrzej, London, UK

Loewen, Helmut-Harry, Lecturer, Criminology and Sociology (retired), The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada

Löfquist, Johan B, journalist/photographer, Oslo, Norway

Lorenzo, Stefano Di, Journalist, East And West, EU

Lorincz, Tamara, PhD, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University

Lottaz, Pascal, PhD. Associate Professor, Kyoto University, Japan

Lucas, Jeffrey, Retired, UK

Malmsten, Hasse, Sweden

Mandel, David, Retired professor, Department of Political Science, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Marcetic, Branko, staff writer at Jacobin magazine, USA

Markwick, Roger, Dr. Honorary Professor of Modern European History, the University of Newcastle, Australia

McCormack, Tara, Dr., Lecturer in International Politics, University of Leicester, UK

McCracken, Ian, Retired, Norway

McFarlane, Peter, Writer, former Chair of the Writers’ Union of Canada, Canada

Mécontent, Gueux, Secretary of the 3R association, Strasbourg, Alsace

Meder, Sigyn, teacher, Sweden

Mercouris, Alexander, YouTube Commentator, The Duran, United Kingdom

Mkrtchian, Alexander, Research associate, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Germany/ Ukraine

Modlich, Hans, M.Eng, Toronto

Mølster, Magne, Theologian / pastor, Estonian Lutheran-Evangelical church, Estonia/Norway

Moscicki, Pawel, Professor, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Muggler, Reto Andreas, Self-employed, Switzerland

Munley, Frank, Associate Professor (retired), Roanoke College, United States

Mutt, Maria, retired, Sweden

Ng, Ryan, graduating student & Chick Fil A worker, College of Staten Island, USA

Nikitin, Vadim, Contributing writer to the London Review of Books and the Nation, United Kingdom

Nirody, Suresh, President, Naught Foundation, U.S.A.

ÓhAiseadha, Coilín, Senior Medical Officer, Health Service Executive, Ireland

Öhlin, Mats, Retired Director of Education, Sweden

Olofsson, Erika, Librarian, Sweden

Paikin, Zachary, PhD (University of Kent), Senior Fellow, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, Canada

Pearce, James, Dr, history and languages lecturer, City College Peterborough, UK

Peck, Michael, PhD, Retired, Sydney, Australia

Petersen, Henrik, writer and translator, Stockholm, Sweden

Pettersson, Ulf, economist, Stockholm, Sweden

Petrov, Alexey, Hanover, Germany

Pfefferkorn, Roland, Professeur émérite de sociologie, Université de Strasbourg

Pflugbeil, Sebastian, Dr.rer.nat,Dipl.Phys., retired, cofounder of the NEUES FORUM, Minister after 1989, former Member of the Berlin House of Representatives, founder of “Children of Chernobyl”, former President/board of the German Society for Radiation Protection, Germany

Picker, Jean-luc, MD, FRCS (Ed), Retired director of International Centre for Therapeutic Research, France

Pochapsky, Jason, artist and craftsman

Poenaru, Florin, lecturer in sociology, University of Bucharest, Romania

Popova, Ruja, Historian, Assistant Professor, PhD, Institute of Balkan Studies with Centre of Thracology at Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria, Sofia

Proskurnyak, Olga, Postgraduate student of political science, University of Sydney, Australia

Prudnikov, Vladimir, PhD Student, Department of History, Princeton University, USA (citizen of Latvia)

Quinn, Kevin J, BA, Owen Sound, Ontario

Ragozin, Leonid, freelance journalist, Latvia/Russia

Raviot, Jean-Robert, Professor of Russian and Post-Soviet Studies, Université Paris Nanterre, France

Read, Christopher, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Warwick

Richards, Alan, Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

Roberts, Geoffrey Member of the Royal Irish Academy. Emeritus Professor of History, University College Cork

Robinson, Piers, Dr, Co-director, Organisation for Propaganda Studies, Research Director, International Center for 9/11 Justice, Germany

Rodin, Andrei, associated researcher, Paris-Cité university

Rosenzweig, Mark Charles, Easton PA , USA, Former director of Reference Center for Marxist Studies, NYC

Roos, Carl-Erik, Retired, Sweden

Ross, Eric, PhD, MBA, Retired, USA

Rotlid, Steinar, Norway

Ruiz, Daniel, PHD, Researcher, UNED, Spain

Runo, Fredrik, Svetsare, Sverige

Sakwa, Richard, Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of Kent, England

Sand, Bo, Retired nurse, Danmark

Sanduja, Utsav, Founder and Chairman, Hindus for America First, USA

Sanzo, Luis, Former Head of Statistics in Employment and Social Needs, Basque Government, now retired, Spain

Sapir, Jacques, Professor of Economics (retired) at EHESS-Paris, Professor at School of Economic Warfare – Paris

Sazib, Zahidul Islam, Freelance Translator and Photographer, Bangladesh

Schoendorff, Benjamin, Clinical Psychologist, Liberpsy, Montreal

Sedefian, Zachary, graduate student, Department of Political Science, Brooklyn College, USA

Senyk, Sophia, Historian, Professor Emeritus, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome

Seymour, Michel, professeur honoraire, Université de Montréal

Shakarian, Pietro A. Dr., Lecturer in History, American University of Armenia, Yerevan

Simons, Greg, Professor, Department of Journalism, Media & Communication, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Sjölund, Per Olof, history graduate from Lund and Malmö university, Sweden

Skaperdas, Stergios, Professor of Economics, University of California, Irvine, USA

Skogholt, Karl, fisherman, Norway

Slanař, Zbyněk, Businessman-Director/amateur researcher, Pardubice, Czech Republic

Sloper, Miko, retired teacher, Leipzig international school, USA/Thailand

Smirnov, George, Professor of Physics, Retired, Switzerland

Söderström, Henry, economist and translator, Stockholm

Solar, Marc, MSc. Physics, Teacher in Bern and CEO Serenity Audio

Solomon, Jon, Professeur des universités, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 et Université Paris Nanterre, France

Soshnikov, Alexander, Professor of Mathematics, University of California at Davis, USA

Spinoso, Salvatore Fabrizio, Professore, Docente di Conservatorio, Italia

Spriewald, Götz, former photo lab technician and media designer, Germany

Stranne, Frida, Associated Professor Peace- and development Studies, Senior Lecturer Political Science, Sweden

Szamuely, George, PhD, Author, broadcaster and podcast host

Taras, Raymond, Professor Emeritus, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States

Tasić, Vladimir, Professor, University of New Brunswick, Canada

Terekhov, Ievgen, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Ukraine

Thelin, Ace, historian, journalist, California, USA

Tikhonov, Vladimir (Pak Noja), professor, Oslo University, Norway

Tokarczuk, Wiesław, Master of Science in Forestry, retired, Poland

Trégouët, Gildas, retraité, Montréal, Canada

Turner, Hugo, independent historian, USA

Utter, Paul, entrepreneur, Spain/Sweden

Van de Beek, Eric, investigative journalist, Media Pro – Pro Media, The Netherlands

Van de Water, Rob, Former Special Adviser to the Group of Progressives and Democrats in the European Parliament, Germany

Van der Kelen, Thomas, Translator, Antwerp, Belgium

Van der Pijl, Kees (Prof Dr), retired from University of Sussex, UK, the Netherlands

Vidojević, Jelena, Research Fellow, New South Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa

Vielmini, Fabrizio, MA, Analyst – Russia & Eurasia V&GT – International Institute for Global Analyses, translator of the Italian version of the Maidan Massacre book

Villaseñor, Dario, Mexico City, Mexico

Vollan, Tore, Cinematographer, Norway

Voronin, Anatoly, multilingual blogger, Ukraine

Vuorinen, Esa, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics, Luleå Univ. of Technology, Sweden

Wahlby, Mercédès, Senior physician, in internal medicine and geriatrics, Sweden

Webster, John, Retired, UK

Weskamp, Axel, retired teacher, Germany

Williams, Rob Lyons, former member Province of Saskatchewan Legislature

Winzer, Beate, Dipl. Pol., free Researcher, Berlin

Wünschmann, Doris, Academic Student – master of governance, Fern Universität, Hagen, Germany

Yoshida, Hiroshi, Associate Professor of Okayama University, Japan

Youril, John, Artist, USA

Zaeh, Rudi, retired, Germany

Zaslavskii, Oleg, Senior Scientific Fellow, V N. Karazin Kharkiv University, Ukraine

The New Paradigm, June 19, 2026

The war has now been ongoing for more than four years. In your latest book, you wrote that “the chances of a Ukrainian victory are close to zero.” Why do you make this assessment?

My open access book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War” shows that Russia has advantage over Ukraine in terms of weapons and manpower. Russia maintained significant military advantage over Ukraine during the entire war in terms of artillery, missiles, aviation, and electronic warfare. Russia also has a bigger army and a potential to increase its military size because of its much bigger population. And finally, it has nuclear weapons which it can use as the last resort in unlikely case of facing defeat by Ukraine.

Mainstream media often highlight Ukraine’s drone industry as a major technological advantage that could give the Ukrainian army a decisive edge. Is this realistic, or does it border on propaganda?

Ukraine had advantage over Russia in terms of early wide adoption and use of FPV drones. They helped the Ukrainian military to contain Russian advances and compensate to certain extent to the lack of soldiers. The Ukrainian forces also recently significantly increased numbers and distance of its long-distance strike drones. Ukrainian long-distance drone strikes of energy infrastructure and military targets in Russia rely on US intelligence information for targeting and guidance. But these drones are largely assembled from parts produced in China and Western countries. Russian military was able to get upper edge over Ukraine in optically guided FPV drones. And Russia has advantage during the war in terms of the numbers and capabilities of long-distance drones, which were acquired from Iran and since significantly modified by Russia.

What do the recent corruption scandals involving figures like Rinat Akhmetov and Andriy Yermak reveal about the current Ukrainian government?

The charges by the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine against Yermak and other close political and business associates of Zelensky in large-scale corruption reveals that Zelensky and his inner circle is corrupt and was stealing and laundering large amounts of money during the war. In particular, they were building for themselves palaces near Kyiv with such stolen and laundered money. Akhmetov is an oligarch whose business relies on access to the state. He went from being an associate and sponsor of Yanukovych to a backer of Poroshenko and now Zelensky.

In your book, you describe Ukraine as “largely undemocratic.” What exactly do you mean by that?

My book shows that Ukraine became largely undemocratic since the violent overthrow of the government in 2014 by means of the Maidan massacre of the Maidan protesters and the police, assassination attempts against Yanukovych, and his unconstitutional removal by a parliament vote, which was held under duress and with use of duplicate cards to inflate result.

After a brief period of relative democratization and semi-democracy following a victory of Zelenskyy in the presidential elections in 2019, he moved to institute a largely authoritarian rule, for instance by blocking the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and by imposing sanctions against some opposition leaders on state treason charges that appeared trumped-up. Zelenskyy used the Russian invasion and the war as a pretext to eliminate most of the political opposition and potential rivals for power and to consolidate his largely undemocratic rule in Ukraine. Seventeen opposition parties were banned by a court in Lviv in Western Ukraine after hasty proceedings and without any lawyers present. They were banned even though these parties condemned the Russian invasion or did not endorse it. Six leaders of major Ukrainian political parties, including ex-president Petro Poroshenko and Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko, were charged with state treason or were reportedly investigated on state treason charges that appear to be trumped up.

Thousands of Ukrainians imprisoned, killed or “disappeared” because of their political views. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church and many of its priests were subjected to political persecution or trumped-up charges of state treason even though the Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not support Russia during the war and declared its separation from the Russian Orthodox Church following the Russian invasion.

The Zelenskyy government also closed five opposition TV news channels and after the start of the Russian invasion required all remaining TV news channels to broadcast the single television news marathon program. He cancelled the presidential elections in 2024 even though the Constitution only prohibits the parliamentary elections during martial law.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Iuliia Mendel, former spokesperson for President Zelensky, stated that up to 7 billion dollars may have been diverted from Ukrainian state coffers. She said: “The conflict has created a system in which a small circle close to the president derives enormous financial benefits from arms contracts, international aid flows, and public procurement.” What is your reaction to her testimony?

As I mentioned above, the charges by the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine against Yermak and other close political and business associates of Zelensky in large-scale corruption and money laundering support this statement. But the amount stolen is likely much larger.

President Zelensky is approaching the end of what would have been his second term without having been re-elected. Do you consider this constitutional and legal? What do you think the future holds for him personally and politically?

Zelenskyy cancelled the presidential elections in 2024 even though the Constitution only prohibits the parliamentary elections during martial law. He stays in power illegally by using his control over the parliament and security forces. Zelensky’s power and possibly even freedom and life depend on the continuation of the war. If the war would end with a peace deal largely on Russian terms, he would likely lose any relative free and fair elections and might be prosecuted by his successor or targeted by the far-right, in particular, the neo-Nazi Azov movement.

Your research on the Maidan massacre of February 2014, which dramatically changed the course of the revolution, is among your most influential work. You concluded it was a false-flag operation. Are we 100% certain of this today? What is the strongest “smoking gun” evidence supporting this conclusion?

My open access book “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World,” which was also translated and published in France, four peer-reviewed journal articles, and two book chapters present overwhelming evidence which beyond doubt shows that the Maidan massacre of the protestors and the police was a successful false flag operation by elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition alliance and concealed groups of Maidan snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings in order to seize power in Ukraine.

Snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings aiming at or shooting Maidan protesters were filmed in at least 14 videos. They included 10 videos in which these snipers were identified as Maidan opposition snipers by Maidan protesters, journalists, content analysis, and other evidence. Several hundred witnesses also reported snipers in Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings during the massacre. Eight Maidan politicians and activists publicly stated that they witnessed the involvement of specific top Maidan leaders from oligarchic parties and far-right organizations in the massacre, such as their advance knowledge about the massacre, deployment of snipers, and evacuation of snipers who were captured by Maidan protesters. This is consistent with other evidence, such as testimonies by 14 self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, particularly from a far-right-linked Maidan company and Georgia.

Synchronized videos show that specific times and directions of shooting by the Berkut policemen did not coincide with the specific times and directions of shooting of specific protesters. There is no specific evidence that Yanukovych or his ministers and commanders ordered or were involved in other ways in the massacre of Maidan protesters.

The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters testified at the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine that they and other protesters were shot by snipers in Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings. Government ballistic experts determined that many protesters were shot from Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings, and initial ballistic examinations that did not match bullets extracted from the bodies of killed protesters to the Berkut Kalashnikovs. Even the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s investigation determined that about half of Maidan protesters were wounded from locations other than the Berkut police positions and did not charge anyone with their attempted murder.

Forensic medical examinations by government experts determined that the majority of the protesters were shot from a steep angle from either the side or back. This is consistent with locations of the Maidan-controlled buildings.

The Maidan massacre trial verdict, which was issued by a Kyiv court, confirmed that many Maidan protesters were killed and wounded and BBC and ARD TV journalists were shot at not by Berkut or other law enforcement officers but by snipers in Hotel Ukraina and other locations and that this hotel and these locations were not controlled by the government forces but were Maidan “activists-controlled.” The verdict also confirmed that there were no Russian snipers involved in the massacre and that there were no massacre orders from Yanukovych or his ministers.

Its conviction of three Berkut officers for killings of Maidan activists was based on a single forensic examination of bullets, which reversed some 40 previous such examinations and contradicted synchronized videos, forensic medical and ballistic examinations, and testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters and several hundred witnesses. This is consistent with evidence tampering and cover-up of Maidan opposition snipers. The government investigation denied that there were any snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings and refused to use ballistic experts to determine the bullet trajectories and locations of shooters even after being ordered to do so by the court during the trial.

What are the main new elements or revelations that have emerged since the publication of your book The Maidan Massacre in 2024?

The declassified text of the verdict, which was issued by the Khmelnytskyi court in March 2025 following a several-year long closed trial de facto confirmed a finding of my studies that an elderly female Maidan protester was killed and three others wounded not by the SBU officers from inside of the SNU headquarters but by a Maidan activist in the Maidan-activist occupied SBU veranda during attempted storming by far-right Maidan activists of the Security Service of Ukraine headquarters in the Khmelnytskyi Region. The 2025 verdict publicly revealed for the first time that soon after the shooting in 2014 the special commission of the Security Service of Ukraine, which was then under control of the Maidan leaders, determined the same.

The verdict acquitted the ex-head of Khmelnytskyi SBU and the SBU Alfa officer for shooting of these Maidan activists because of the lack of evidence of their involvement in the shooting and because of such evidence of the false flag shooting. The verdict was based on such evidence as videos, forensic ballistic and medical examinations, on-site investigative experiments, and witness testimonies. It was upheld by the Khmelnytskyi court of appeals based on the same evidence.

Do we have evidence that Western intelligence agencies supported or were aware of the false-flag operation in February 2014? If so, what form did this support take?

My scholarly studies relied only on publicly available evidence and cannot examine this issue. But overwhelming publicly available evidence showing the false-flag Maidan massacre suggests that the US and other Western governments at least knew about the actual perpetrators of this false-flag mass killing. Two leaders of the far-right Svoboda Party stated in their separate interviews that a Western government representative told them and other Maidan leaders a few weeks before the massacre that Western governments would turn on the Yanukovych government after casualties among protesters would reach 100. The killed protesters were called Heavenly Hundred by the Maidan opposition leaders immediately after the massacre. The Western governments during and after the Maidan massacre blamed the Yanukovych government and his forces for this mass killing and recognized the new Maidan government.

You argue that after the overthrow of Yanukovych, Ukraine became a “US client state.” In what specific ways does this characterization manifest itself?

Ukraine becoming a US client state right after the Maidan is indirect evidence of the US-led regime change. US administration was involvement in appointments and dismissals of top Ukrainian government officials and in key policy and military decisions in Ukraine since the Maidan. The Ukrainian media, Ukrainian and US officials, and a declassified transcript of a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine revealed that the US and other Western governments told the Maidan government leaders not to use military force during the Russian annexation of Crimea in order to avoid a war with Russia. The nearly perfect alignment of the Ukrainian and US government policies after the Maidan is also consistent with Ukraine becoming a US client state and remaining during the Russia-Ukraine war. The US administration was involved in the Maidan government decision to use force in the separatist conflict in Donbas. The use of Ukraine as a proxy for a proxy war with Russia after the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 and the US and UK blocking of a peace deal to end the war in April 2022 also show that Ukraine was a client state.

In response, Russia supported pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. What was the exact nature and extent of this Russian support between 2014 and 2022?

My book shows various evidence, such as Glaziev tapes and the Surkov-linked hacked emails, also suggests that after the Yanukovych overthrow the Russian government at least indirectly initially and then directly started to back separatists in Donbas and other Southern and Eastern regions. Intercepted telephone calls segments made public by the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine in 2016 indicate that Sergey Glaziev told some leaders of pro-Russian separatist organizations and activists to seize regional councils in such regions beyond Donbas and Crimea as Kharkiv, Odesa, and Zaporizhzhia and to request Russian military intervention. Glaziev was an adviser to Russia’s President Putin concerning the Customs Union.

There is various evidence of the direct participation of the Russian Wagner mercenary company in the war in Donbas. This mercenary company was headed by Evgeni Prigozhin, a Russian businessman. However, it was de facto organized with Russian military intelligence involvement for the war in Donbas and it was armed and financed primarily by the Russian government.

There were direct Russian military interventions in Donbas in support of separatists in August 2014 and January-February 2015. Since the end of summer 2014 and until the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, regular Russian troops in Donbas included, military advisers, operators of advance weapon systems, and military reconnaissance and intelligence personnel.

But there was no evidence of permanent presence of Russian regular military units in Donbas during the civil war there. The absolute majority of the military of self-proclaimed Donbas republics were Ukrainian citizens, mostly local. The overwhelming majority (around 95%) of about one thousand POWs, who were exchanged to Donbas separatists and Russia since the start of the war in Donbas in 2014 and before the Ukraine-Russia war in 2022, were Ukrainian citizens. 3.5% of the exchanged POWs were Russian volunteers and mercenaries, and 1.5% were regular Russian military members.

The self-proclaimed separatist republics in Donbas became de facto client states of Russia since the end of summer 2014. Soon after the direct Russian military intervention in August 2014, almost all separatist units in Donbas were brought under the de facto overall command of Russian military ‘curators.’

Former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud has claimed that Russia provided no direct military help initially and that the Donbass regions sought autonomy within a federalized Ukraine rather than full separation. What is your view on this assessment?

My studies produced similar assessment. Until the direct Russian military intervention in August 2014, Russia initially supported separatists in Donbas by allowing nationalist volunteers and weapons to cross the border from Russia, and in providing weapons, recruitment, training, and safe haven to Donbas separatists, and later by using Wagner mercenaries. Prior to April 2014 many separatist leaders in Donbas called for federalism and regional autonomy within Ukraine. The Russian government also pressed for federalism and de facto confederation which would have given Donbas the power to block decisions of the central government, including those regarding matters of foreign policy. The Minsk agreement, which was negotiated in 2015 by the leaders of Russia and Ukraine with participation of French and German leaders, an which was signed by separatist leaders, also de facto provided autonomous status within Ukraine to separatist-controlled part of Donbas..

You have written that the initial goal of the Russian invasion in February 2022 was not a full-scale conquest or total annexation of Ukraine. What evidence supports this view?

The size of the original Russian invasion force was insufficient to seize entire Ukraine, in particular Kyiv, unless there was no significant resistance. There was no Russian military or civilian administration organized in occupied regions of Ukraine in the first month of the war, in contrast to separatist administrations in captured parts of Donbas. Ukrainian local governments and Ukrainian flags remained in occupied cities and other settlements in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions for several weeks after their Russian occupation.

Russia agreed in spring 2022 to a peace deal framework which envisioned withdrawal of the Russian forces from the occupied parts of Ukraine, with exceptions of Donbas and the annexed Crimea. Russia withdrew its forces from Kyiv area and the entire Northern Ukraine primarily as result of the peace deal talks.

You describe the Russia-Ukraine war as the most important conflict of the 21^st century. Why?

The Russia-Ukraine war is the most significant armed conflict of the 21^st century in terms of countries involved, casualties inflicted, and actual and potential impact not only in Ukraine and Russia but in many other countries. Russia and Ukraine, two largest countries in Europe are involved in this war directly, while the US, other NATO countries, and EU members are involved in the war indirectly in various ways. The war is most significant conflict involving main nuclear powers in the world, specifically Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. In addition, the war has major political, economic, and financial impact on Ukraine and Russia, and many other countries of the world, in particular the EU members. The outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war will shape the world order.

Is the Bucha massacre a false-flag operation, as Russia claims? What independent evidence do we have to establish exactly what happened there?

Contrary to the Russian government claims of false-flag killings in Bucha, my analysis of UN and Amnesty International reports, forensic expert reports, videos, satellite images, eyewitness reports, media investigative reports, and other sources suggests that a few dozen civilians and territorial defense members were likely shot deliberately or indiscriminately or summarily executed by individual Russian soldiers or Russian units during the Russian occupation of Bucha.

However, circumstances of killings of most of the victims in Bucha have not been made public by the Ukrainian and Western investigations and the media. The total 458 victims identified in Bucha after the Russian force’s withdrawal included some non-civilians, and 39 who died of natural causes. Forensic experts confirmed that many victims were shot in the head or by automatic gunfire but did not reveal their specific number. The absolute majority of the victims were likely killed by shelling since videos, photos and eyewitnesses showed shelling in Bucha by Russian and Ukrainian forces during fighting for control of this town. A US military intelligence official expressed similar view. Forensic experts revealed that dozens of Bucha residents were killed by tiny metal arrows from artillery shells (flechettes).

You argue that the United States, the United Kingdom, and NATO countries blocked peace negotiations in 2022 (particularly the Istanbul talks). Is this now established with a high degree of certainty?

My book cites 12 sources from Ukraine, Israel, Germany, Turkey, and Russia which either explicitly stated or suggested that the peace deal was blocked by the US and or the UK. They include statements by the head of the Ukrainian delegation at the peace talks, two delegation members, one of whom was then a Zelenskyy’s adviser and a propaganda chief, Ukrainian officials close to Zelenskyy, former prime minister of Israel, Viktoria Nuland, the ex-German chancellor, president of Turkey, and the Turkish foreign minister, Russian president Putin, the head of the Russian delegation at the peace talks, and the Russian foreign minister. They all participated in the peace talks or had insider knowledge about them.

What is the current influence of far-right groups in Ukraine in 2026? Is it as strong as it was in 2014?

My book and other peer-reviewed publications show that as a result of the far-right involvement in the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government by means of the Maidan massacre the far-right organizations achieved their strongest influence in Ukraine since its independence in 1991. Because of their involvement in the Maidan massacre that led to the overthrow of Yanukovych government and because of their reliance on violence, the far right radically increased their power and influence in Ukraine and attained the ability to overthrow the Ukrainian governments, including the Zelensky government. The neo-Nazi and radical nationalist organizations and leaders after his election threatened to overthrow and kill Zelensky if he were to implement his election promise to end the war in Donbas and make a peace deal with Russia. He reversed all his election promises as a result of the pressure from far-right and the West.

In spite of their relatively small numbers and relatively weak electoral support, the far-right-led armed formations and radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations have achieved significant political influence and became integrated in the government, the police, military, and security services during the civil war in Donbas and the Russia-Ukraine war.

While Russia falsely claimed that Ukraine is a Nazi or a Neo-Nazi state and justified its invasion of Ukraine by “denazification,” my book shows that the power of the far right, in particular, the neo-Nazi Azov movement, significantly increased in Ukraine during the Russia-Ukraine war. The far-right-led units increased their numbers and membership. The neo-Nazi Azov movement expanded during the war from one Azov regiment to two corps. The far-right symbols, and the “Glory to Ukraine. Glory to Heroes” greeting, which was adopted by the OUN along with a fascist hand salute, based on similar greeting and hand salutes of the Nazi party and other fascist parties, became mainstream after the Maidan and especially during the Russia-Ukraine war. Zelensky glorified, pandered to, and promoted the far-right-led units, including neo-Nazi-led Azov brigades and corps.

He also openly glorified Nazi collaborators, such as Andriy Melnyk, the OUN leader. Zelensky and his government reburied this fascist OUN leader and Nazi collaborator. The Melnyk faction of the OUN organized with Nazis the police, the SD battalion, and the SS Galicia Division which perpetrated mass murder of Jews, Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians. Zelensky standing ovation to SS Galicia Division veteran in Canadian parliament was not accident. He called Melnyk, who praised Hitler, “Ukrainian hero.”

How has your work been received in Ukraine? Have you faced threats, and if so, from whom?

I gave several dozen research-based interviews to the Ukrainian media. But most of the Ukrainian media after the Maidan deliberately ignored and censored findings of my academic studies for political reasons. My home, land, and all other property in Western Ukraine were illegally seized with involvement of oligarchic politicians, who were linked to far-right Maidan snipers, in retaliation for my academic studies of Maidan massacre. The State Committee for Television and Radio-Broadcasting of Ukraine banned my open access book “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine” and threatened me with criminal prosecution because it shows neo-Nazi involvement in this massacre. The first deputy head of State Committee for Television and Radio-Broadcasting of Ukraine, who banned my book, heads far-right Melnyk faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. This OUN faction was involved in the creation of the SS Galicia Division, whose veteran I exposed on X after he was given standing ovations in Canadian parliament by Zelensky and his government ministers.

Andreas Umland, who backed a call for total mobilization in Ukraine by a neo-Nazi admirer of Hitler, Anton Shekhovtsov, who headed the Dugin’s organization in Crimea, and their ilk, mostly from Ukraine and Ukrainian diaspora, resorted to a Stalinist-like collective denunciation of my open access book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins.” They rely on primitive fraud, such as falsely claiming that Elon Musk covertly engineered 248,000 views and downloads of my book. They falsely linked my book to the Russian media simply because a US-educated German professor at a Turkish university, who specializes in Ukrainian history, was one of those who congratulated me on X with its publication.

The collective denunciation resorted to such fraud even though my book preface clearly stated that “my academic publications, which primarily concern conflicts and politics in Ukraine, have reached over 2,000,000 reads and downloads just on my academic websites and the publisher sites. My research-based Twitter and Facebook posts and YouTube videos reached over 125,000,000 views. I am one of the most cited political scientists who specialize primarily in politics and conflicts in Ukraine. My research-based publications, interviews, and comments appeared in more than 4,000 media reports in more than 80 countries.”

The denunciation deliberately omitted that my open access book “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World” has nearly 500,000 views/downloads just on the publisher website. My book about the Russia-Ukraine war now reached 334,000 views and downloads on the website of the publisher, a leading Western academic press. Musk did not fund this book but helped on Twitter/X to stop an attempt of censorship of my book and unblock my GoFundMe for this book. Open-access publication of my book was funded by open access publication grant from the University of Ottawa and over 350 GoFundMe contributors.

Ukrainska Pravda propagates such defamation, denunciations, and fake news concerning me by propagating fake news linking me to the Russian media and refusing to publish responses. I helped to publicize in the US media kidnapping and killing of its founder by helping an American journalist to travel to Ukraine and cover this story. I do not give any Russian media interviews during the war. There were no Russian media publications citing my book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins.” I publicly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the start in my Ukrainian and Western media interviews and on the social media.

In response to such attacks, more than 200 people from 35 countries, including more than 100 scholars, signed An Open Letter in Support of Academic Freedom and Ivan Katchanovski. It can be still signed by sending to openletter2026@gmail.com name, affiliation/position, and country.

Are you listed as an “enemy of Ukraine” on the Myrotvorets database?

I am blacklisted by the Myrotvorets hit list for “launching campaign against” the SS Galicia Division veteran, who was hailed as a hero in Canada parliament, for tweeting that a neo-Nazi was given fellowship in Austria, and for my scholarly studies of far-right involvement in Maidan massacre.

My X post with ‘like” by Elon Musk, about the Nazi SS Galicia veteran, my tweet about the neo-Nazi Azov leader, who gave Nazi salute in front of Nazi flag, my academic study of far-right involvement in Maidan massacre in Ukraine, and my Ukrainian media interview about my research are posted by Myrotvorets as evidence of “deliberate act against the national security of Ukraine, the peace, the security of humanity and the international legal order, as well as other offenses.”

What are the likely prospects for Ukraine in the coming weeks and months? Do you believe the country will survive this war as a unified, independent state?

There are real prospects for a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine. Trump promised to end this war before and after his election. But the main sticking points include withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from a part of the Donetsk region, the US security guarantees, and the presidential elections in Ukraine. But Trump does not use leverage over Zelensky. Putin wants to end the war largely on his terms, which include neutrality of Ukraine and entire Donbas. Zelensky continues to reject a peace deal without prior US security guarantees. He also continues to reject a key Russian demand of withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from a part of Donbas under Ukrainian control. The EU states and the UK on the contrary push Zelensky to continue the unwinnable war.

The most likely outcome of the war is a partial defeat of Ukraine with a loss of Donbas and parts of Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Ukraine will remain at least formally an independent state. The longer the war continues, the worse consequences to Ukrainians would be. The continuation of the war, in addition to many more casualties and devastation of Ukraine, would lead to Ukraine losing more territory to Russia and to worse position and terms for Ukraine in case of a peace deal with Russia. Even with support of the UK and the EU countries, such as France and Germany, Ukraine would not be able to continue the war for a long time without the US supply of weapons, intelligence, and economic and financial support. In such a case, Ukraine can face a real possibility of front collapsing, a complete defeat, and capitulation.

The interview also explores the evolution of Ukrainian politics since 2014, the influence of nationalist movements, the impact of Western military and financial support, and the challenges facing Ukrainian democracy during wartime. Katchanovski shares personal experiences regarding his academic work, public criticism of Ukrainian authorities, and the consequences he says he has faced because of his research. We also examine some of the most debated questions surrounding the conflict:

Can Ukraine still achieve its strategic objectives?

Why have peace negotiations repeatedly failed?

What role do the United States and Europe play in shaping the course of the war?

How strong is President Volodymyr Zelenskyy politically today?

What could Ukraine look like after the war?"

It’s revealing who joined such Stalinist-like denunciation by means of false claims. For them, politics trumps merit, evidence, and scientific research. There are already those who express regret signing the collective denunciation of me and my book. They said that they did not read my book, trusted Umland’s solicitation and want now to withdraw their signatures. Like they said in the Soviet Union in collective denunciations of the “Doctor Zhivago” book, “I did not read it, but I condemn it.”

More than 120 people, including over 70 scholars from more than dozen countries, such as the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Ukraine, Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Japan, Poland, Romania, Georgia, China, Bangladesh, and South Africa, signed Open Letter in Support of Academic Freedom and Ivan Katchanovski just in two and half days.

The letter with the list of initial signatures is available at the following link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dv5ee5OK_MutZeXGIRyHBZ-REyEH0zOB-MnCjjaV0Uo/ It is open for signing by sending to openletter2026@gmail.com the name, position/job title, institutional affiliation, country, and if prefer that the name is not published and only institutional affiliation and country are listed.

This open letter was signed by prominent Western and Ukrainian scholars researching the Ukraine-Russia war and related topics in Ukraine and Russia. But the large number of signatures over such short time from scholars from different disciplines and people in other occupations from about two dozen countries shows that impact of my book and my other studies is not limited to the narrow field of East European area studies. This is also another demonstration that the claim that the popularity of my book is covertly engineered by Elon Musk using X is patently false.

Umland’s initial draft, which he wrote was formulated with the involvement of Shekhovtsov, was sent to the large number of his handpicked recipients on January 1, 2026, but the absolute majority of them did not sign. He spent more than 4 months on personally soliciting signatures via email and added the denunciation of Elon Musk, whose Starlink has been critical for communication of the Ukrainian Armed Forces during the Russia-Ukraine war. I was forwarded copies of the different drafts of the Umland’s denunciation and his solicitation emails.

Many scholars, including prominent Western and Ukrainian academics, criticized on the social media and in private messages to me this Umland-initiated collective denunciation. They called it on the social media as follows: ‘neither democratic nor liberal nor properly academic, conspiratorial and obscurantist collective denunciation;’ ‘public lynching;’ ‘bullying mob;’ ‘KGB-style sabbath; ‘censorship and the inquisition;’ ‘bizarre letter laced with ad hominem attacks and conspiratorial thinking;’ ‘unfair, unbalanced, virtual gang assault;’‘a defamation campaign;’ ‘ad hominem attacks;’ ‘a self-discreditation of the signatories as scientists;’ ‘pseudo-academic mobilization to suppress politically unwelcome research;’ ‘useless and corrupted with agendas;’ ‘character assassination;’‘smears and censorship;’ etc. Several journalists used similar terms, such as ‘academic mob’s coordinated attack;’ ‘war propagandists;’ and ‘a cesspool of pro-war grift.’

My book was published by a major Western academic press following very positive peer-review by two experts. It was endorsed by four leading American, British, and Ukrainian experts: Dr. Volodymyr Ishchenko, research associate at the Institute for East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin; Dr Anatol Lieven, Director, Eurasia Program, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Richard Sakwa, Emeritus Professor of Russian and European Politics,

University of Kent, UK; and Jack F. Matlock, Jr, Duke University and the former US ambassador to the Soviet Union. Jack Matlock called this book “absolutely essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand why the war in Ukraine occurred and why it is vital for Ukraine to agree to a negotiated settlement.”

In her review of my open access book, a noted British journalist wrote that “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins is not just another study of the conflict. It is a tour de force of advocacy—for truth—a feat of evidence gathering and probably the closest that anyone has come to disentangling the host of conflicting narratives that have so characterised this war.”

Umland and co in their denunciation deliberately misrepresented findings of my book which clearly states:

The analysis shows that the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, represented the extreme escalation by Russia of the conflicts with Ukraine and the West, the civil war in Donbas, the annexation of Crimea, and the Western-backed violent and illegal overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine by the oligarchic and far-right alliance by means of the Maidan massacre and assassination attempts during Euromaidan. NATO accession of Ukraine was a major factor, but it, like the role of the far right, was inflated by Russia. Russian imperialism was also significant but secondary factor. Ukraine is not a democracy.

My book shows that narratives propagated by the Russian governments and media concerning the Russia-Ukraine war and its origins are false. It shows that contrary to Russian government and media propaganda the Russian invasion in 2022 was illegal under the international law, that this is a war and not a special military operation in Ukraine. My book also shows that there is no genocide of ethnic Russians/ Russian speakers in Donbas, that the war crimes are primarily committed by the Russian forces, that there killings in Bucha and the MH17 shotdown were not false flags by the Ukrainian forces/Western-organized provocation, that there is no Nazi or neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine, there was no ‘fascist coup” in Ukraine in 2014, that Ukraine is not a US colony, that there were covert Russian military interventions in Donbas in August 2014 and January 2015, and that the Russian annexation in Crimea is illegal.

My book specifically shows that the Russian government and propaganda justification of the war by threats of imminent NATO accession of Ukraine and US missiles deployment, the Nazi regime in Ukraine, and a preventative special military operation to stop Ukrainian attack in Donbas, and humanitarian intervention to stop genocide in Donbas are false. It shows that Russian imperialism was a major factor, in particular, in the annexation of Crimea, Donbas, and Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, but that there is no evidence that Russia wants to occupy and annex entire Ukraine.

The Russian role in the war origins is not confined to Russian imperialism. My book examines many factors of the war origins. Denying role of other factors and claiming that Russian imperialism was the only factor of the war origins and any scholar who does not accept it and deviates from it echoes Russian propaganda has nothing to do with science and academic research. This is an attempt to force scholars to follow not evidence but propaganda, narrative control, and political agenda.

Various other books by scholars focused on the role of the West in the war origins. They include Stephen Kinzer’s “Boiling Point: How America Brought War to Ukraine, Scott Horton in Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.” He is Senior Fellow at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University and the former The New York Times correspondent. Such arguments are also made by the University of Cambridge Emeritus Professor Jonathan Haslam in his book “Hubris: The American origins of Russia’s war against Ukraine” that was published in 2025 by Harvard University Press. Other such books include Benjamin Abelow’s “How the West brought war to Ukraine: Understanding how U.S. and NATO policies led to crisis, war, and the risk of nuclear catastrophe;” and “The Russo-Ukrainian War: Follies of Empire” by Richard Sakwa.

The collective denunciation offers only one specific example challenging my book’s specific findings, which show that the Russian annexation of Crimea in February-March 2014 was “mainly a disproportionate escalation of the conflict as a reaction to the Western-backed violent overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine during Euromaidan.” But my book, along with various other evidence, specifically quotes US President Barak Obama who stated in his CNN interview in 2015 that “Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off balance by the protests in the Maidan, and Yanukovych then fleeing after we’d brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.”

My book chapter about the war origins quotes statement by Donald Trump in the All-In Podcast with David Sacks that the NATO accession of Ukraine provoked the Russia-Ukraine war. It quotes NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that Putin “went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.” It quotes Davyd Arakhamia, the head of the Ukrainian delegation at the peace talks that the Ukrainian neutrality was main Russian condition for the peace deal and that the war could have ended in spring of 2022 if Ukraine had agreed to neutrality.

My book also quotes Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission President, that the Maidan massacre was crucial in the origins of the Russia-Ukraine war. She stated that “this conflict began already ten years ago,” “when peaceful protesters, just waving the European flags in Maidan Square, were shot dead by snipers.” Such major Western media as the New York Times and CBC also linked Euromaidan, and specifically, the Maidan massacre with the roots of the Russia-Ukraine war.

In essence, the collective denunciation letter falsely accuses not only the book by a Ukrainian and Canadian scholar but also Obama, Trump, NATO and EU chiefs, the head of Zelensky faction in the parliament and the head the Ukrainian delegation at peace talks, the New York Times, CBC, and many others of echoing Russian propaganda on the war origins. They also falsely accuse Elon Musk and David Sacks, two leading American entrepreneurs and members of the US administration, of echoing Russian propaganda because they supported the GoFundMe crowdfunding to make my book open access, i.e. freely accessible.

They falsely link me and my book to the Russian media simply because a US-educated German professor at a Turkish university, who specializes in Ukrainian history, was one of those who congratulated me on X with its publication. I do not give any Russian media interviews during the war. There were no Russian media publications citing my book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins.” I publicly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the start in my Ukrainian and Western media interviews and on the social media.

My book is based not on Russian, Ukrainian, or Western propaganda but on thousands of primary and secondary Ukrainian and Western sources. In contrast to me, Umland, Shekhovtsov, and those who signed their denunciation with just a few exceptions did not publish books about the Russia-Ukraine war. Einstein reportedly said in response to the publication of the German book “100 Authors Against Einstein”: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough” to disprove his theory of relativity. Scientific truth is based on verifiable evidence and not on political denunciations and numbers of those who denounce it.

Ukrainska Pravda propagates such defamation, denunciations, and fake news concerning me. I helped to publicize in the US media kidnapping and killing of its founder by helping an American journalist to travel to Ukraine and cover this story.

The collective denunciation letter propagates primitive fakes about popularity of my book, because it reached 248,000 views and downloads on the publisher website 6 months since its official publication. It falsely claims that Musk and Sacks covertly promote its views and downloads on X. Like their Soviet counterparts denouncing books, which they did not read, they did not even read the book’s preface or read it but propagated deliberate fraud, nevertheless. My book clearly states:

My academic publications, which primarily concern conflicts and politics in Ukraine, have reached over 2,000,000 reads and downloads just on my academic websites and the publisher sites. My research-based Twitter and Facebook posts and YouTube videos reached over 125,000,000 views. I am one of the most cited political scientists who specialize primarily in politics and conflicts in Ukraine. My research-based publications, interviews, and comments appeared in more than 4,000 media reports in more than 80 countries. They include such major Western media as ABC News, BBC Ukrainian, Associated Press, Canadian Press, CBC News, CTV News, France 24, France Télévisions, Daily Beast, Euronews, Global TV, Globe and Mail, Guardian, Hill TV, La Presse, Le Figaro, La Razón, La Stampa, National Post, Reuters, Sky News Australia, Times Higher Education, Vice, and Washington Post.

My paper, “The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine,” is the most downloaded paper among almost 20,000 papers on subject of ‘Ukraine’ in Academia.edu, a major registered-based research depository and site for scholars. I published its greatly expanded and updated versions and parts in peer-reviewed journals and books. These open access studies have over 1,000,000 views and downloads. Four my papers are among the top dozen most downloaded papers on subject of ‘Ukraine’ on Academia.edu. Umland, Shekhovtsov, and their ilk are well aware about impact of my previous studies, but they deliberately propagate fakes.

It’s revealing that the Umland-led denunciation deliberately omits my open access book “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World” and its nearly 500,000 views/downloads just on the publisher website. The denunciation letter even falsely claims that Yanukovych was not removed from presidency during Euromaidan. Colleagues said that Umland told them privately even before the war that he was convinced by my studies of the Maidan massacre. His 2018 Facebook post suggests this as well: “Worrying collection of testimonies collected by Ivan Katchanovski. Given the ambivalence of this evidence, the snipers massacre demands a proper investigation and extensive report. That such a document does not yet exist is, unfortunately, a worrying sign by itself.”

But instead of admitting this publicly he and his ilk resort to Stalinist-like denunciation of me and my other book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War” and false claims that its 248,000 views/downloads were covertly engineered by Elon Musk.

My Maidan massacre book, 4 peer-reviewed journal articles and 2 book chapters, including in a chapter in “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins,” about this massacre are based on testimonies by the absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters and about 100 witnesses for the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine, testimonies by over 500 other witnesses and 14 self-admitted Maidan snipers, over 20 videos of such snipers, ballistic and medical examinations by Ukrainian government forensic experts, bullet hole locations, and synchronized videos of the massacre. Major findings of my studies are de facto corroborated by the text of two verdicts of Ukrainian courts. The Ukrainian media and the mainstream Western media, with a few notable exceptions, did not report such evidence even though it is available online in my academic and social media publications video appendixes of my book and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Unreported parts of the nearly 1,000,000-word Maidan massacre trial verdict that was issued by the Sviatoshyn District Court in Kyiv in October 2023 following a seven-year long trial of 5 Berkut police officers confirmed findings of the studies that many Maidan activists were killed and wounded and BBC and ARD TV journalists were shot at not by Berkut or other law enforcement but by snipers in the Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations. It also confirmed findings of my studies that this hotel was “activists-controlled” and that there was a far-right-linked special armed Maidan company in this hotel and the Music Conservatory. The verdict stated there were no Russian snipers involved in the massacre and that there were no massacre orders by Yanukovych, his government, the SBU, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The trial verdict stated that Maidan then was not a peaceful protest but “a rebellion” which involved the massacre of the Berkut and other police members.

The declassified text of the Ukrainian court verdict in March 2025 confirmed the false flag shooting of Maidan activists in Khmelnytskyi during the Maidan massacre. Forensic expert examination of videos, forensic ballistic and medical examinations, on-site investigative experiments by government forensic experts, witness testimonies, and investigations by the SBU the Ukrainian Military Prosecutor Office showed that gunshots made from the SBU veranda, which was occupied by Maidan activists, killed elderly female Maidan protester and wounded other Maidan protesters. The verdict acquitted the ex-head of Khmelnytskyi SBU and the SBU Alfa officer for shooting of these Maidan activists because of the lack of evidence of their involvement in the shooting and because of such evidence of the false flag shooting.

Oleh Tatarov, who is now the deputy head of the Zelensky Office of President of Ukraine, told Western ambassadors on February 19, 2014 that Maidan protesters were shot in the back by other Maidan activists and that the police did not shoot them. Tatarov, who then was the deputy head of the investigative department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was the first to publicly refer to the false flag Maidan massacre one day before 49 Maidan activists and 4 police officers were killed in the false flag mass killing.

Calling the false flag Maidan massacre and testimonies by the Maidan protesters and other Ukrainian witnesses, and verdicts of the Ukrainian courts Russian propaganda is therefore Orwellian propaganda itself.

Open-access publication of my book was funded by open access publication grant from the University of Ottawa and over 360 GoFundMe contributors. Contrary to the denunciation, Elon Musk did not fund my book but helped on Twitter/X to unblock my GoFundMe for this book.

I publicly thanked Elon Musk, David Sacks, and all contributors, whom Umland, Shekhovtsov and their ilk slander. It is great that that such leading US Silicon Valley entrepreneurs openly supported crowdfunding for an academic book and opposed the attempt of political censorship.

Umland falsely calls Elon Musk and David Sacks “techno-fascists” and now states that “the purpose of the ‘campaign is to counteract interventions by super-rich techno-authoritarians with connections to the White House in Eastern European studies.” He and other denouncers, who came from the said institutions, are perfectly fine with Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch wanted by the US on bribing charges, giving $6.7 million to establish and finance Cambridge Ukrainian Studies; Pinchuk financing Ukrainian history initiative, and over 1,000,000 endowments by SS Galicia Division veterans for the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies.

Andreas Umland in recommendation section, approvingly quoted a call for total mobilization in Ukraine by a neo-Nazi admirer of Hitler, and called videos of forced mobilization in Ukraine Russian propaganda. He propagated the now discredited conspiracy theory about the false flag Nord Stream bombing by Russia. Anton Shekhovtsov headed the Dugin’s far-right organization in Crimea and led its protest against NATO in Ukraine. Umland, Shekhovtsov, and their ilk try to force scholars to parrot such propaganda and propagate politically convenient fake narratives that they propagate themselves.

Umland and Shekhovtsov resorted to such denunciation in retaliation of references in my book to their partisan whitewashing of neo-Nazis in Ukraine:

Some researchers, especially from partisan think tanks, regarded the role of the far-right organizations and formations in Ukraine in Euromaidan, and the war in Donbas as insignificant or marginal. They focused on numerical strength of far-right organizations and electoral support for the far-right parties and ignored or denied the far-right involvement in political violence, such as the Odesa massacre and the civil war in Donbas. They claimed that the presence of Russian-speakers in the Azov regiment and other neo-Nazi-led armed formations is evidence of their relative tolerance and asserted that the Azov regiment moderated by abandoning its far-right roots (see, for example, Umland, 2019, 2020)...Anton Shekhovtsov compared the mass killing of people by a fire in the Trade Union building in Odesa to his killing of Colorado potato beetles by collecting them in a box and then burning them” (Anton, 2014). He was earlier a leader of the Crimean branch of the pro-Russian far-right Eurasian Youth Union led by Aleksandr Dugin (AntiNATOvskii, 2006).

The denunciation of me and my scholarly book by Umland, Shekhovtsov, and their ilk is not only an open attack on academic freedom but also an attempt to censor my book and subject me to criminal prosecution or sanctions for my academic research. They falsely link my book to Russian propaganda, Russian media, and “apologetics” of the Russian invasion, which are all criminal offensives in Ukraine. There were many such cases of political persecution in Ukraine.

My house, land, and all other property in my native Western Ukraine were illegally seized in retaliation of my scholarly studies of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. I was blacklisted on the Ukrainian government-linked Myrotvorets hit list for “crimes” of showing involvement of radical nationalists and neo-Nazis in this massacre of the Maidan protesters and the police and for exposing the SS Galicia division veteran, who was given standing ovations in the Canadian parliament by the Canadian government, parliament, Zelensky, and his delegation. The Ukrainian government agency, led by the leader of the OUN, which collaborated with Nazi Germany and was involved in organizing the SS Galicia Division, banned my book and threatened me with criminal prosecution for it.

Their Stalinist-era predecessors published in a Ukrainian newspaper a similar denunciation of Mykhailo Krawtchouk, my distant relative, and his mathematical book, during the Stalin’s Great Terror. Two volumes of this mathematical book were translated and used by the American inventor of the electronic digital computer in inventing his computer to speed up solutions of mathematical equations by methods that this noted Ukrainian mathematician developed. He was then arrested on false charges and perished in Stalin’s GULAG. Now, their contemporary successors use this invention for similar political denunciation of me and my academic book.

An Open Letter in Support of Academic Freedom and Ivan Katchanovski

We, the undersigned, express our support for academic freedom and Dr. Ivan Katchanovski. We might differ on various issues, but agree on the importance of academic freedom and the need to protect it when it comes under attack. Professor Katchanovski is a well-known Ukrainian and Canadian political scientist at the University of Ottawa. A recent collective letter denounced him and his open access book The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War. The letter baselessly linked this peer-reviewed book published by a major Western academic press to Russian propaganda and the high popularity of the book to behind-the-scenes promotion by Elon Musk.

Dr. Katchanovski’s other recent academic press book titled The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World was banned by the Ukrainian State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting led by a far-right OUN leader. Professor Katchanovski was also blacklisted by Myrotvorets hit list for his scholarly studies of the Maidan massacre that were published in peer-reviewed journals and books and for his exposure of a Waffen SS Galicia Division veteran, who was given standing ovations in the Canadian parliament. He also reported that his home and all other property in Ukraine were seized in retaliation to his scholarly studies. Though we might not share all of Dr. Katchanovski’s academic perspectives, we denounce the persecution against him for his scholarly research.

Dr. Katchanovski is one of the most cited political scientists who specialize primarily in the politics and conflicts in Ukraine. His academic publications include 7 books and 3 dozen refereed journal articles and book chapters. He currently teaches at the University of Ottawa. He was a Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Politics at the State University of New York at Potsdam, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and a Kluge Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. He received his Ph.D. from the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University under the direction of Seymour Martin Lipset.

We note that Dr. Katchanovski has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 from the start, called for a long time for European Union membership of Ukraine, and supported democracy and freedom in Ukraine since before its independence. He is also widely quoted in many outlets around the world, does numerous media and social media interviews, and presents his research at major academic conferences in the field.

Academic freedom in both the West and Ukraine is especially important during times of crisis and conflict, such as the tragic Russia-Ukraine war. Academic freedom has to be protected even for scholarly research that challenges prevailing narratives. This particularly concerns politically charged topics regarding this war and its origins. Scholars and their books and other academic publications should not be subjected to collective denunciations, censorship, sanctions, criminal prosecution, and other such retaliation for their academic research. Scholarly publications need to be judged by academic standards. Scholarly disputes need to be settled in academic venues.

This applies to Dr. Katchanovski, his book The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War, and his other publications. Our position also applies to other scholars researching this war. We advocate for the defense of academic freedom and its application in the case of Dr. Ivan Katchanovski and his research.

Please send your name, position/job title, institutional affiliation, country, and whether you prefer that your name is not published and only your institutional affiliation and country are listed to openletter2026@gmail.com

Signed (in alphabetical order)

Abelow, Benjamin, M.D. Formerly, Lecturer in Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine

Acerbo, Maurizio, former member of the Italian Parliament

Alper, Muzaffer Ege, Senior Researcher, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland

Amar, Tarik Cyril, Associate Professor, Department of History, Koc University, Istanbul

Anonymous, Department of Political Science, Brooklyn College, USA

Anonymous, former senior police officer, Italy

Anonymous, PhD Candidate & Lecturer, York University, Canada

Anonymous, Student of Economic Sociology, University of Turku, Finland

Anonymous, Vocational College BS Wilhelmsburg, Germany

Aunola, Otso, Political Science student, University of Helsinki, Finland

Blackburn, Matthew, Senior Researcher, The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Norway

Bloxham, Donald, Richard Pares Professor of History, University of Edinburgh, UK

Borozna, Angela, California State University Fullerton

Bouzek, Tomáš, Mgr., military historian, Opava, Czech Republic

Buhre, Isabelle, MSc MA, Political scientist and latinist, The Netherlands

Buls, Zintis, IT support manager, Latvia

Chaufan, Claudia, MD, PhD, Professor, Health Policy, York University, Canada

Cinquini, Nicolas, intelligence analyst, former French intelligence officer in counter-terrorism, Corsica

Clayton, James, Journalist, World Socialist Website

Cooke, Sophie, Associate Lecturer, The Open University

Cosma, Valer Simion, Dr., historian, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania

Cuccoli, Lorenzo, historian, chercheur associé at the Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen (CERCEC, EHESS) Italy

Dall’Asta, Monica, Full Professor, University of Bologna, Italy

De Leonardis, Fabio, Ass. Prof. of Semiotics, Shanghai International Studies University, PRC/Italy

Depoortere, Johan, Journalist, Belgium

Dergunov, Yuriy, Senior lecturer in Sociology, Donetsk

Dionisi, Davide, Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Doherty, Niall, Project Officer, Ireland

Eckert, Laura, Artist, USA

Ewald, Engelen, Professor of Financial Geography, University of Amsterdam

Forsgren, Mattias, Stockholm, Sweden

Frijters, Paul, Emeritus Visiting Professor, London School of Economics

Garcin, Javier, journalist, Mexico

Gigantino, Bryan, Lecturer, Georgian-American University, Tbilisi, Georgia

Golinkin, Lev, author and journalist, USA

Grable, Alexander, PhD Candidate, King’s College London, United Kingdom

Grenier, Paul R., President, Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy

Grinshpun, Yelyzaveta, Germany

Haack, Jonathan, Adjunct Faculty, Santa Fe Community College

Hahn, Gordon M., Expert, Corr Analytic

Håkan Julander, actor, poet and podcaster for Dissidentpodden, Sweden

Hammond, Philip, Emeritus Professor of Media & Communications, London South Bank University, UK

Hanley, Brian, Clinical Asst. Professor, UTRGV School of Medicine, USA

Havryshko, Marta, Dr. Thomas Zand Visiting Assistant Professor in Holocaust Pedagogy and Antisemitism Studies, Clark University, USA

Herman, Daniel, Professor, Central Washington University, USA

Hill, Alexander, Professor in Military History, University of Calgary, Canada

Ingledew, Francis, Professor Emeritus of English and Comparative Literature, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA/Germany

Ioffe, Grigory, Professor Emeritus, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

Ishchenko, Volodymyr, Dr., guest researcher, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Juncker, David, Professor, McGill University, Canada

Jurema, Bernardo, Research Associate, Research Institute for Sustainability at GFZ, Germany

Kalb, Don, Professor of social anthropology, University of Bergen, Norway

Kien, Tran Manh, Vietnam

Kozlovsky, Gregory, Ph.D., Owner, Locust Software GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland

Kuzmenko, Oleksiy, erstwhile researcher of the Ukrainian Far Right

Laakso, Mertz, entrepreneur, Sweden

Lagercrantz, Lova, architect, Sweden

Lane, David, Fellow Academy of Social Sciences (UK), Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Lashmankin, Aleksandr, graduate student, sociologist, Samara University, Russia

Lerchner, Johannes, PhD, Senior scientist, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany

Libby, Jacob Aaron, OTR-CHT

Lieven, Anatol, Dr., Andrew Bacevich Chair in US Diplomatic History. Director, Eurasia Program, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Lodynski, Andrzej, London, UK

Löfquist, Johan B, journalist/photographer, Oslo, Norway

Loewen, Helmut-Harry, Lecturer, Criminology and Sociology (retired), The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada

Lorenzo, Stefano Di, Journalist, East And West, EU

Lorincz, Tamara, PhD, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University

Lottaz, Pascal, PhD. Associate Professor, Kyoto University, Japan

Lucas, Jeffrey, Retired, UK

Malmsten, Hasse, Sweden

Marcetic, Branko, staff writer at Jacobin magazine, USA

McCormack, Tara, Dr., Lecturer in International Politics, University of Leicester, UK

Meder, Sigyn, teacher, Sweden

Mercouris, Alexander, YouTube Commentator, The Duran, United Kingdom

Mkrtchian, Alexander, Research associate, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Germany/ Ukraine

Mølster, Magne, Theologian / pastor, Estonian Lutheran-Evangelical church, Estonia/Norway

Moscicki, Pawel, Professor, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Muggler, Reto Andreas, Self-employed, Switzerland

Munley, Frank, Associate Professor (retired), Roanoke College, United States

Nikitin, Vadim, Contributing writer to the London Review of Books and the Nation, United Kingdom

ÓhAiseadha, Coilín, Senior Medical Officer, Health Service Executive, Ireland

Öhlin, Mats, Retired Director of Education, Sweden

Olofsson, Erika, Librarian, Sweden

Paikin, Zachary, PhD (University of Kent), Senior Fellow, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, Canada

Petersen, Henrik, writer and translator, Stockholm, Sweden

Petrov, Alexey, Hanover, Germany

Pochapsky, Jason, artist and craftsman

Poenaru, Florin, lecturer in sociology, University of Bucharest, Romania

Popova, Ruja, Historian, Assistant Professor, PhD, Institute of Balkan Studies with Centre of Thracology at Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria, Sofia

Proskurnyak, Olga, Postgraduate student of political science, University of Sydney, Australia

Prudnikov, Vladimir, PhD Student, Department of History, Princeton University, USA (citizen of Latvia)

Quinn, Kevin J, BA, Owen Sound, Ontario

Ragozin, Leonid, freelance journalist, Latvia/Russia

Raviot, Jean-Robert, Professor of Russian and Post-Soviet Studies, Université Paris Nanterre, France

Read, Christopher, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Warwick

Richards, Alan, Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

Roberts, Geoffrey Member of the Royal Irish Academy. Emeritus Professor of History, University College Cork

Robinson, Piers, Dr, Co-director, Organisation for Propaganda Studies, Research Director, International Center for 9/11 Justice, Germany

Rodin, Andrei, associated researcher, Paris-Cité university

Rosenzweig, Mark Charles, Easton PA , USA, Former director of Reference Center for Marxist Studies, NYC

Ross, Eric, PhD, MBA, Retired, USA

Rotlid, Steinar, Norway

Ruiz, Daniel, PHD, Researcher, UNED, Spain

Runo, Fredrik, Svetsare, Sverige

Sakwa, Richard, Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of Kent, England

Sand, Bo, Retired nurse, Danmark

Sanduja, Utsav, Founder and Chairman, Hindus for America First, USA

Sapir, Jacques, Professor of Economics (retired) at EHESS-Paris, Professor at School of Economic Warfare - Paris

Sazib, Zahidul Islam, Freelance Translator and Photographer, Bangladesh

Senyk, Sophia, Historian, Professor Emeritus, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome

Seymour, Michel, professeur honoraire, Université de Montréal

Shakarian, Pietro A. Dr., Lecturer in History, American University of Armenia, Yerevan

Simons, Greg, Professor, Department of Journalism, Media & Communication, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Sjölund, Per Olof, history graduate from Lund and Malmö university, Sweden

Skogholt, Karl, fisherman, Norway

Slanař, Zbyněk, Businessman-Director/amateur researcher, Pardubice, Czech Republic

Sloper, Miko, retired teacher, Leipzig international school, USA/Thailand

Söderström, Henry, economist and translator, Stockholm

Solomon, Jon, Professeur des universités, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 et Université Paris Nanterre, France

Soshnikov, Alexander, Professor of Mathematics, University of California at Davis, USA

Spinoso, Salvatore Fabrizio, Professore, Docente di Conservatorio, Italia

Stranne, Frida, Associated Professor Peace- and development Studies, Senior Lecturer Political Science, Sweden

Terekhov, Ievgen, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Ukraine

Tikhonov, Vladimir (Pak Noja), professor, Oslo University, Norway

Tokarczuk, Wiesław, Master of Science in Forestry, retired, Poland

Trégouët, Gildas, retraité, Montréal, Canada

Utter, Paul, entrepreneur, Spain/Sweden

van d er Pijl, Kees (Prof Dr), retired from University of Sussex, UK, the Netherlands

van de Beek, Eric, investigative journalist, Media Pro - Pro Media, The Netherlands

Van der Kelen, Thomas, Translator, Antwerp, Belgium

Vielmini, Fabrizio, MA, Analyst – Russia & Eurasia V&GT – International Institute for Global Analyses, translator of the Italian version of the Maidan Massacre book

Vidojević, Jelena, Research Fellow, New South Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa

Vollan, Tore, Cinematographer, Norway

Voronin, Anatoly, multilingual blogger, Ukraine

Vuorinen, Esa, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics, Luleå Univ. of Technology, Sweden

Wahlby, Mercédès, Senior physician, in internal medicine and geriatrics, Sweden

Weskamp, Axel, retired teacher, Germany

Williams, Rob Lyons, former member Province of Saskatchewan Legislature

Winzer, Beate, Dipl. Pol., free Researcher, Berlin

Yoshida, Hiroshi, Associate Professor of Okayama University, Japan

They and their ilk want not only to censor my book but also to go after my university job and subject me to criminal persecution and sanctions by the Zelensky regime because they are incapable of challenging my evidence-based analysis. Instead of following standard academic norms and practices, they resort to such collective denunciation of a book and a scholar, which is typical of Soviet practices. And their denunciation is based on primitive fraud, fakes, and slander.

Umland’s first draft, which was formulated with Skekhovtsov involvement, was sent to his handpicked recipients on January 1, 2026, but the absolute majority of them did not sign. He spent 4 months on collecting signatures by adding denunciation of Elon Musk, whose Starlink has been critical for communication of the Ukrainian Armed Forces during the Russia-Ukraine war. They also smear David Sacks for his GoFundMe contribution. Ukrainska Pravda, propagates defamation, denunciations, and fake news concerning me. I helped to publicize in the US media kidnapping and killing of its founder, but it now turned into an equivalent of Soviet Pravda. It’s revealing who joined such Stalinist-like denunciation by means of false claims. For them, politics trumps merit, evidence, and scientific research.

Open-access publication of my book was funded by open access publication grant from the University of Ottawa and over 350 GoFundMe contributors. Contrary to the denunciation, Elon Musk did not fund my book but helped on Twitter/X to stop an attempt to block my GoFundMe. I publicly thanked Elon Musk and all contributors, whom Umland, Shekhovtsov and their ilk slander.

They also propagate primitive fakes about popularity of my book, because it reached 249,000 views and downloads on the publisher website 6 months since its official publication. They falsely claim that Musk and Sacks covertly promote its views and downloads on X. Like their Soviet counterparts denouncing books, which they did not read, they did not even read the book’s preface or read it but propagated deliberate fraud, nevertheless. My preface clearly states:

My paper, “The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine,” is the most downloaded paper among almost 20,000 papers on subject of ‘Ukraine’ in Academia.edu, a major registered-based research depository and site for scholars. I published its greatly expanded and updated versions and parts in peer-reviewed journals and books. These open access studies have over 1,000,000 views and downloads. Four my papers are among the top dozen most downloaded papers on subject of ‘Ukraine’ on Academia.edu. Umland, Shekhovtsov, and their ilk are well aware about impact of my previous studies, but they deliberately propagate fakes.

My book was published by a major Western academic press following very positive peer-review by two experts. It was endorsed by four leading American, British, and Ukrainian scholars. In her review of my open access book, a noted British journalist wrote that “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins is not just another study of the conflict. It is a tour de force of advocacy—for truth—a feat of evidence gathering and probably the closest that anyone has come to disentangling the host of conflicting narratives that have so characterised this war.” The book is based on primary evidence and not on narratives propagated by Russian, Ukrainian, and Western governments. But Umland and co in their denunciation deliberately misrepresented findings of my book which clearly states:

Umland, Shekhovtsov, and their ilk try to force scholars to parrot the Zelensky government propaganda and propagate fake narratives that they propagate themselves, such, as false flag Nord Stream bombing by Russia, genocide in Ukraine, Ukraine as democracy, and no neo-Nazis in Ukraine. They falsely claim that the blocking of the nearly finalized Istanbul peace deal by the Western governments is Russian propaganda and denounce my book for this even though this was stated or de facto admitted by the head and members of the Ukrainian delegation, ex-prime minister of Israel, president and foreign minister of Turkey, Victoria Nuland and several other such top officials. They falsely link me and my book to the Russian media because a noted US-educated German professor specializing in Ukrainian history was one of those who congratulated me on X with its publication.

They falsely equate the Zelensky regime with Ukraine and Ukrainians and their support for the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government, mutual killings of Ukrainians in civil war in Donbas, and the proxy war to the last Ukrainian with supporting Ukraine and Ukrainians. They choose to attack and defame one of a few Ukrainian political scientists in the Western academy specializing primarily in conflicts in Ukraine.

Umland and Shekhovtsov resorted to such denunciation in retaliation of references in my book to their partisan whitewashing of neo-Nazis in Ukraine:

The denunciation of me and my scholarly book by Umland, Shekhovtsov, and their ilk is not only an open attack on academic freedom but also an attempt to censor my book and subject me to criminal prosecution or sanctions by the undemocratic Zelensky regime for my academic research. They falsely link my book to Russian propaganda, Russian media, and “apologetics” of the Russian invasion, which are all criminal offensives in Ukraine. There were many such cases of political persecution in Ukraine.

My house, land, and all other property in my native Western Ukraine were illegally seized in retaliation of my scholarly studies of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. I was blacklisted on the Ukrainian government-linked Myrotvorets hit list for “crimes” of showing involvement of radical nationalists and neo-Nazis in this massacre of the Maidan protesters and the police and for exposing the SS Galicia division veteran, who was given standing ovations in the Canadian parliament by the Canadian government, parliament, Zelensky, and his delegation. The Ukrainian government agency, headed by the leader of the OUN, which collaborated with Nazi Germany and was involved in organizing the SS Galicia Division, threatened me with criminal prosecution for exposing involvement of neo-Nazis in the Maidan massacre.

Their Stalinist-era predecessors published in a Ukrainian newspaper a similar denunciation of Mykhailo Krawtchouk, my distant relative, and his mathematical book, during the Stalin’s Great Terror. Two volumes of this mathematical book were translated and used by the American inventor of the electronic digital computer in inventing his computer to speed up solutions of mathematical equations by methods that this noted Ukrainian mathematician developed. He was then arrested on false charges and perished in Stalin’s GULAG. Now, their contemporary successors use this invention for similar political denunciation of me and my academic book. They have no decency left.

A chapter of my recently published open access book “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War” and my open access peer-reviewed article “Who Perpetrated the Maidan Massacre? Who Overthrew the Ukrainian Government in 2014?” in Econ Watch Journal in 2025 examined the US regime change policy during Euromaidan in Ukraine.

Excerpts from my book:

“There is also various evidence of the US-led regime change during the Maidan in Ukraine. The Ukrainian foreign minister during Euromaidan testified at the Maidan massacre rial in Ukraine in 2019 that a senior US State Department official Victoria Nuland in her meeting with him and Yanukovych at the very start of Euromaidan on December 5, 2013, proposed to sack the Mykola Azarov cabinet, restore the constitution of 2004, and to conduct early parliamentary and presidential elections (see Zasіdannia vіd 3.12.2019 2019). This de facto meant a peaceful regime change and the same points as were the demands of the Maidan opposition. Yanukovych eventually accepted all these US administration demands and first fired Azarov and his Cabinet of Ministers and then signed the agreement with the Maidan opposition leaders and French, German, and Polish foreign ministers on February 21, 2014 (Katchanovski, 2025a).

An intercepted telephone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Ukraine prior to February 20, 2014 shows them discussing which specific Maidan opposition leaders, specifically Arseniy Yatseniuk, can be in the Ukrainian government after Yanukovych offered the positions in his government to the opposition leaders following the sacking of the Azarov and the Cabinet of Ministers (Marionetki, 2014). John McCain, the influential US Senator, stated in his CNN interview during his and other US politicians visit to Kyiv in December 2013 that they were trying to “bring about a peaceful transition” in Ukraine (i.e., the government change) (see McCain, 2013).

Similarly, US Senator Chris Murphy, who also backed the Maidan anti-government protests during his visit to Ukraine, stated shortly after the Maidan:

I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office… We have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there. Members of the State Department have been on the Square. The Obama administration passed sanctions. The Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions, and as I’ve said, I think that the clear position of the United States has, in part, been what has helped lead to this change in regime… If, ultimately, this is a peaceful transition to a new government in Ukraine, it will be the U.S. on the streets of Ukraine who will be seen as a great friend in helping make that transition happen. (Murphy, 2014)

Nuland and various other senior US and EU officials and politicians also publicly supported Euromaidan by visiting the Maidan. US and EU leaders also publicly condemned use of force by the Yanukovych government against the Maidan protesters and threatened to impose sanctions. Yanukovych ordered to stop such attempts by the police and the Internal Troops to clear the Maidan on December 10, in late January, and on February 18 in part because of such pressure from the Western leaders (Katchanovski, 2025a).

US President Barack Obama stated that “we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine” after the massacre and before Yanukovych fled, but the US president or other American government officials did not release any specific information about the nature of this involvement (PRES, 2015). Yanukovych and Putin stated that right after the Maidan massacre there was an agreement with Obama but that the US president broken it. Mykhailo Dobkin, the former governor of Kharkiv Region, confirmed this. He said that when they met in Kharkiv in February 2014, Yanukovych told him that he had guarantees from Obama and Putin concerning the implementation of the agreement which he signed (Dobkin, 2017). Putin and the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov suggested that Obama pushed for signing a deal between Yanukovych and the Maidan leaders but that the Maidan opposition broke the deal and seized the power the next day (see Obama, 2019). The deal signed on February 21, 2014 stipulated that the Yanukovych government would not use force against the Maidan and that the Maidan forces would disarm.

Then US Vice President Biden revealed in his memoirs that during the Maidan massacre he called Yanukovych and told him that “it was over; time for him to call off his gunmen and walk away” and “he shouldn’t expect his Russian friends to rescue him from this disaster,” that “Yanukovych had lost the confidence of the Ukrainian people, I said, and he was going to be judged harshly by history if he kept killing them.” Biden wrote that “the disgraced president fled Ukraine the next day—owing to the courage and determination of the demonstrators—and control of the government ended up temporarily in the hands of a young patriot named Arseniy Yatsenyuk.” The US vice president also revealed that he “had been warning him for months to exercise restraint in dealing with his citizens.” (Biden, 2017).

The far-right Svoboda party leader and the deputy head of the Ukrainian parliament from Svoboda stated in their separate interviews that a Western government representative during their and other Maidan leaders meeting told them a few weeks before the Maidan massacre that the Western governments would turn on Yanukovych after casualties among protesters would reach 100 (Braty, 2017, p. 94). The Maidan opposition right after the massacre called the killed Maidan protesters the “Heavenly Hundred.” Some Maidan protesters and other people, who were not on the Maidan and died from illnesses and other causes were included in the “Heavenly Hundred” to bring the number of the victims to 100. The US and other Western governments blamed the Yanukovych government and his forces for the massacre of the Maidan protesters. They also immediately recognized the new Maidan government after the seizure of the presidential administration and the parliament by the Maidan Self-Defense and the parliament vote to remove Yanukovych even though such actions violated the agreement signed on February 21, 2014 by Yanukovych, the Maidan opposition leaders, and representatives of France, Germany, and Poland which stipulated withdrawal of the government forces from downtown Kyiv, disarmament of the Maidan activists, early presidential elections, and the investigation of the Maidan massacre with involvement of the Council of Europe.

There is no publicly available evidence of the direct involvement of the US or other Western governments and forces in the Maidan massacre. But these governments de facto backed the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in spite of evidence that this overthrow was perpetrated by the elements of the Maidan oligarchic and far-right opposition by means of the false-flag mass killing of the Maidan protesters and assassination attempts against Yanukovych.

Ukraine becoming a US client state right after the Maidan is indirect evidence of the US-led regime change. The Ukrainian media, Ukrainian and US officials, and a declassified transcript of a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine also revealed that the US and other Western governments told the Maidan government leaders not to use military force during the Russian annexation of Crimea in order to avoid a war with Russia (See Chapter 4; Katchanovski, 2015; U.S., 2015). The nearly perfect alignment of the Ukrainian and US government policies after the Maidan is also consistent with Ukraine becoming a US client state and remaining during the Russia-Ukraine war. The US administration was involved in the Maidan government decision to use force in the separatist conflict in Donbas (Chapter 5). The use of Ukraine as a proxy for a proxy war with Russia after the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 and the US and UK blocking of a peace deal to end the war in April 2022 also show that Ukraine was a client state.

Then a member of the Ukrainian parliament from the Poroshenko’s ruling party and the current adviser to President of Ukraine Zelenskyy stated in 2015 that “Pyatt and the U.S. administration have more influence than ever in the history of independent Ukraine.” A rare report in the US media noted that “Americans are highly visible in the Ukrainian political process. The U.S. embassy in Kiev is a center of power, and Ukrainian politicians openly talk of appointments and dismissals being vetted by U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and even U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.” (See Bershidsky, 2015).

Jeffrey Sachs, a world-renowned American economist who was invited to serve as an economic advisor to new prime minister Arsenii Yatseniuk right after the Yanukovych government overthrow, stated that the US government “definitely contributed to the overthrow of Yanukovych… I know this from inside, not just from outside. I know from top people involved in these issues.” (Jeffrey, 2023). Renowned American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said based on his insider sources in the US intelligence and the government: “We certainly did overthrow [of the Ukrainian government] with a lot more American involvement than the press knows about right now.” (CN, 2023).

Various evidence shows US administration involvement in appointments and dismissals of top Ukrainian government officials and in key policy decisions in Ukraine since the Maidan. For example, the Ukrainian media reported that then US Vice President Joe Biden requested to put Arsenii Yatseniuk, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, and foreigners in the Ukrainian government (Mostovaia, 2015). Yatseniuk became the prime minister, Nalyvaichenko the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, and the former president of Georgia and his former Georgian government officials occupied various positions in the Ukrainian state. Ukrainian media reports and tapes of phone calls between then US Vice President Joe Biden and President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko revealed that he had say in Poroshenko’s decision to dismiss Yatseniuk as prime minister and in appointing his successor. The tapes, Ukrainian media reports, and public admission by Biden showed that he was involved in dismissal of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and approval of his successor’s appointment (See FLASHBACK, 2019; Listen, 2020; Mostovaia, 2015, 2016).

The declassified transcript of the Trump and Zelenskyy phone call shows the same client-patron relationship between Ukraine and the United States (Read, 2019). The client-patron relationship between Ukraine and the US enabled the use of Ukraine as a US proxy during the Russia-Ukraine war.”

As result of the US pressure, Volodymyr Zelensky reversed his refusal to conduct peace talks with Russia after he abandoned following the US and UK demands the peace deal that was close to being finalized in spring 2022. Istanbul peace talks between Ukraine and Russia resumed briefly, and trilateral talks of the US, Ukraine, and Russia and bilateral Russia-Ukraine talks have been held in Abu Dabi.

The 28-point plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war was proposed by Trump in November 2025. The plan was developed by the Trump administration with input of Ukrainian-born Russian representative Kirill Dmitriev and Ukrainian representative Rustem Umerov. The version of the plan, which was presented to Volodymyr Zelensky, was made public by the Ukrainian and the US media. Its key provisions included renouncing by Ukraine of joining NATO and specifying this in the Ukrainian Constitution, prohibition on the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine, the size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (VSU) limited to 600,000, and territorial concessions. Ukraine retained the right to join the European Union (EU).

The peace plan envisioned recognition de facto, including by the US, of Crimea and entire Donbas (Luhansk and Donetsk Regions) as Russian and also de facto recognition as Russian of parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Regions along the frontline. It also included withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from the part of the Donetsk Region under their control, creation of a demilitarized zone in this area and its international recognition as part of Russia. In return, it specified that control over in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions will be frozen along the frontline, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact. Russia was to return under Ukrainian control occupied parts of Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions.

The electricity produced Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plan, which is located on the territory occupied and annexed by Russia, would be shared equally by Russia and Ukraine.

The 28-point plan specified gradual lifting of sanctions against Russia and invitation to Russia to return to the G8. $100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in U.S.-led post-war reconstruction and investment in Ukraine with 50% of the profits from these ventures going to the US. The other frozen Russian assets will be invested separately in a US-Russian joint investment venture. Europe was supposed to provide another US$100 billion for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The US and Russia were to extend the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control treaties, in particular, START treaty which expired on February 5, 2026.

The Trump peace plan specified that Ukraine would hold elections 100 days after the agreement signing. It also included prohibition of “all Nazi ideology and activity” and application by Ukraine of EU rules for linguistic minorities and religions to the Russian language and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

On the request of the Ukrainian side, a provision of full audit of the aid received by Ukraine during the Russia-Ukraine war and punishment of those who illegally profiteered from this war. was replaced with full amnesty for actions during the war for all parties involved in this conflict. The plan specified that a Peace Council headed by President Trump would monitor and guarantee implementation of this plan.

The 28-point plan included to various extent most of key Russian demands, such as no NATO membership of Ukraine, “denazification,” rights of Russian language and Ukrainian Orthodox Church, recognition by the US of the Russian annexation of Crimea and entire Donbas, and withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from a part of Donbas under the Ukrainian control.

This plan appears to be based on a tentative agreement reached by Trump and Puttin during the Alaska summit. For instance, the 28-point plan contained the reported Putin agreement to freeze the frontline in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Regions. This agreement paved way for the Trump-Putting summit in Alaska.

The plan did not include neutrality of Ukraine, in contrast to the Istanbul peace deal framework, which included both neutrality and no NATO membership of Ukraine. It also did not include the Russian demand of demilitarization of Ukraine.

Leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany, the UK, and the EU rejected some key provisions of the Trump peace plan and expressed desire to amend it. And the 28-point plan was modified following the US-Ukraine talks. Zelensky made public the 20-point peace plan, which he stated was negotiated with the US and France, Germany, and the UK. It does not mention the NATO membership or neutrality of Ukraine and some other key Russian demands, such as withdrawal of the Ukrainian force from the Donetsk Region. In Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Regions, the line of contact to be frozen. Russia would withdraw its forces from occupied parts Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv Regions.

The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was raised to 800,000. The plan included NATO article 5-like security guarantees to Ukraine by the US, NATO and European signatory states and joining the EU. $800 billion for post-war reconstruction and investment in Ukraine would be provided via the US and European state and private sources. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant was to be operated jointly by the US and Ukraine.

Russia rejected the 20-point plan proposed by Zelensky. But Russian leader Vladimir Putin stated that the Trump plan can be basis for the settlement of the conflict but suggested that Russia would also seek to amend some of its provisions.

Both Zelensky and US State Department Secretary and National Security adviser Marco Rubio stated at the end oof January 2026 that only one point of a peace deal remained to be resolved, while the US security guarantees to Ukraine have been agreed. The unresolved point concerned the Russian demand of withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from Donbas. Zelensky stated that separate agreements were negotiated between Ukraine and the US concerning security guarantees to Ukraine and the $800 billion Ukraine’s prosperity plan, and that both documents were ready for signing. Trump also publicly hailed the progress in the peace talks.

Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Keir Starmer sign on January 6, 2026 a declaration of intent to deploy multinational forces from France, the UK, and other Western countries in Ukraine after the end of the war. Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney says that the Canadian forces deployment to Ukraine was a possibility. Starmer stated that the UK and France will establish military hubs in Ukraine after a ceasefire. Macron said that the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces after the war will be 700,000 and that Western countries will fund and provide weapons to the Ukrainian army then.

But the peace deal to end the Russi-Ukraine war is far from certain. Major disagreements between Ukraine, the US, Western European countries, and Russia remain. In particular, Zelensky refuses the Russian demand to withdraw the Ukrainian forces from a part of the Donetsk Region.

Control over Donbas is one of the main goals of Putin during the Russia-Ukraine war, and Russia is unlikely to drop its demand concerning this region of Ukraine. The Donetsk and Luhansk Regions, along with Crimea, were the most pro-Russian and pro-Communist regions in Ukraine since its independence in 1991, as measured by vote for political parties and presidential candidates, foreign policy orientations, and support for Russian as the second state language in Ukraine. A survey commissioned by the author and conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in April/May 2014, showed that the majority of Donbas residents backed various forms of separatism, including independence, joining Russia, or autonomy in federal Ukraine (54 percent overall or 61 percent, excluding undecideds). Russia backed, including with direct military interventions in August 2014 and January-February 2015, self-proclaimed separatist republics in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk Region during the civil war in Donbas. Russia recognized their independence a few days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russia annexed Donbas along with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Regions in September 2022.

Besides withdrawal the Ukrainian forces from a part of Donetsk Region, other major points to be resolved include the security guarantees. The Trump administration made the US security guarantees conditional on the peace deal, including the withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from Donbas. And credibility of such guarantees is in question. The US is unlikely to go to a direct war with Russia, as the current war shows. Trump actions and statements concerning Venezuela, Greenland/Denmark, Canada, Iran and other countries also show that US agreements and assurances can change overnight. Trump declined to provide protection to British and French troops in case of their deployment in Ukraine. Contrary to Zelensky claims, Trump did not sign with him the security agreement and the $800 billion “prosperity” agreement in Davos.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on January 29, 2026 rejected the NATO article 5 like security guarantees demanded by Zelensky. He stated that that security guarantees must include Russia and suggested that Russia would not accept preservation of the current anti-Russian regime in Ukraine, which he falsely claimed to be “Nazi.”

Zelensky stated that a peace deal depends on the NATO article 5 like security guarantees to Ukraine that have to be ratified by the US Congress, deployment of troops from Western countries with US support, preservation of the war-size Ukrainian military that would be continued to be armed and funded by the West, and EU membership of Ukraine by 2027. These demands of Zelensky are unlikely to materialize.

Like with the NATO-article 5-like security guarantees to Ukraine, Russia would not accept deployment of troops from NATO countries in Ukraine. Russia repeatedly stated that deployment of troops from NATO countries to Ukraine is the red line and that they would be targeted by the Russian forces. France and the UK would not risk deploying their forces without guarantees of the US protection, which the US refuses to give. Germany declined even possibility of deploying its troops to Ukraine because it is afraid that such deployment can lead to a direct war with Russia, a nuclear power.

In contrast to NATO membership of Ukraine, Russia does not oppose EU membership of Ukraine. The EU during the Russia-Ukraine war reversed its refusal to recognize a potential membership of Ukraine, offered Ukraine a candidate status, and raised a possibility of fast-tracked EU membership by 2027 but without full membership rights, such as voting rights and subsidies. However, fast-tracking of EU membership by 2027 is opposed by Germany, Hungary, Luxemburg, and likely some other EU countries. Hungary threatened to block any future membership of Ukraine.

Trump has power to end the war because he has significant leverage over Zelensky and much less leverage over Putin. But this would bring political backlash from Democrats and part of Republicans in the US, European NATO members, and the Western media because they want to continue the proxy war in Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. After Trump stopped the large-scale US financial aid to Ukraine, the EU became the major source of such aid. While the EU plan to use frozen Russian assets to provide such aid to Ukraine failed because of opposition from Belgium, the EU offered at the end of 2025 90 billion Euro loan to Ukraine to continue to finance the budget and the war.

Trump presents himself as a mediator and states that this is not his war but Biden’s war. However, the US under Trump remains a patron of Ukraine and continues to provide directly intelligence and directly and indirectly via European NATO members weapons and military supplies to Ukraine. He treats Ukraine as a US client state and Zelensky as a proxy. As my new open-access books “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins” and “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine” show, Ukraine became a US client state since the violent Western-backed overthrow of the Ukrainian government by means of the Maidan massacre and assassination attempts during EuroMaidan in 2014. The war in Ukraine since the illegal Russian invasion in February 2022 is not only war between Russia and Ukraine but also a proxy war between the US-led West/NATO and Russia in Ukraine.

The Trump’s peace plan is a concession to reality which the US and Ukraine face since Ukraine is gradually loosing the war with Russia and the West is loosing the proxy war in Ukraine and has no real chance to defeat Russia. His plan, which would recognize the partial defeat of Ukraine, tries to prevent the real capitulation and surrender of Ukraine. Any future peace plan would be on much worse terms to Ukraine.

The positions of the US and Ukraine on peace talks to end the war are affected by the US midterm elections in November 2026. Reuters reported that Trump wants to reach such a peace deal and end the war by March 2026, in particular, because of the midterm elections. The US elections are typically dominated by domestic issues, such as the economy. Zelensky wants to drag the peace talks and continues the war at least until after the US midterm elections, which could shift control over the US Congress from Republicans to Democrats, which oppose the Trump peace plan and want to continue the proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia.

If the peace talks fail or drag and the war will continue, Russia can take the remaining part of Donetsk Region by military force and occupy more territory of Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

Russia has military advantage and escalation dominance over Ukraine even with Western provided weapons. This in particular concerns available manpower, long-range missiles, drones, artillery, airpower, and most other weapons.

Along with Russian seizures of several major power plants and most of coal mines in Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia region, Russian missile and drone strikes, particularly in January and February 2026, already damaged or destroyed most of energy power generation and gas production in Ukraine. Russia’s intensified strikes of the Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure this winter are also aimed at forcing Zelensky to accept a peace deal largely on Russian terms.

The Ukrainian forces casualties during the nearly 4 years of the Russia-Ukraine war include over 200,000 killed. The estimate is based on Ualosses site’s identification by name of over 175,000 killed and missing in action Ukrainian forces members since the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022 and until January 29, 2026. These casualties are adjusted for significant undercounting by Ualosses because it reports casualties based only on obituaries and other public data available online and limited data from many cities and regions of Ukraine and did not include data from cemeteries, in contrast to identification of the Russian forces casualties by BBC Russian and Mediazona.

The minimal Russian and Donbas separatist forces casualties are 175,000 killed. The estimate is based on identification by name by BBC Russian and Mediazona of over 165,000 killed Russian and Donbas separatist forces members. Estimated casualties of the Donbas separatist forces during the first year of the war were added since the BBC included them after the first year of the war.

Newly appointed Ukrainian defense minister stated in January 2026 that 2 million Ukrainian men are wanted for draft dodging and 200,000 are deserters. The Zelensky government relies on forced mobilization. There are thousands of videos of forced mobilization of Ukrainian men posted on various Ukrainian Telegram channels.

Russia is set to win the war of attrition. It can gradually seize the remaining part of Donbas and occupy parts of other Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine. The longer the war continues, the higher possibility that Ukraine can face a rapid front collapse. Russia can sustain its war of attrition in Ukraine for a much longer time than Ukraine can. Economic sanctions against Russia failed not only to prevent or stop the Russian invasion but they also failed to cripple the Russian economy. Russia was able to reorient its trade from the EU to Asia, particularly, China, and Russia can continue to finance the war. Russia has relied primarily on contract soldiers and has a significant untapped manpower potential which can be mobilized with financial incentives or another partial mobilization. In contrast, the economy of Ukraine suffered a big decline as a result of the war. Ukraine relied largely on military and financial aid by the US and the EU, but Trump basically stopped such direct US aid to Ukraine. With partial exception at the start of the war, the Zelensky government relies on forced mobilization. And Ukraine has a much smaller manpower available, compared to Russia, because of the much smaller population and large draft evasion in Ukraine.

A partial defeat of Ukraine with lose of Donbas and parts of Eastern and Southern Ukraine is the most likely outcome of the war. The Russia-Ukraine war, which is now has lasted nearly four years, has devastating consequences to Ukraine and Ukrainians. But Russia is unlikely to occupy and annex entire Ukraine, because Western Ukraine is historically very anti-Russian region and the size of the Russian military is insufficient to capture militarily all Ukraine, and in particular, such major cities as Kyiv and Kharkiv.

The internal crisis within Zelensky administration also has impact on the peace talks. The US-backed National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has been investigating large scale corruption cases involving inner circle of Zelensky and likely implicated Zelensky himself. NABU starting in the fall 2025 charged his several close business, political, and personal associates and several members of the parliament from the Zelensky’s Servant of the People faction.

Andrii Yermak, the head of the Office of President, who also headed the Ukrainian delegation at the peace talks with the US, had to leave his position following searches of his home by NABU. Yermak became the second most powerful person in Ukraine and was often de facto acting as co-president of Ukraine due his close relationship with Zelensky. He was replaced by the head of the Ukrainian military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov. The Western media reported that Yermak previously attempted several times to fire Budanov, but the US blocked these attempts.

Zelensky’s future depends on the war. Zelensky gains more time in power without the presidential elections, which he cancelled via the martial law. In case the war ends, he can lose power if the elections would be relatively free and fair or he could be overthrown. He can also be prosecuted by his successor in Ukraine.

The far right in Ukraine has power to overthrow Zelensky or block the peace deal. As my studies show, the far right was involved in the violent overthrow of the relatively pro-Russian government in Ukraine in 2014 and in vetoing peaceful resolution of the war in Donbas by Zelensky that he promised during the election campaign. Far right organizations, such as neo-Nazi Azov movement and C14, and radical nationalist organizations, such as the Right Sector, Bratstvo, and Svoboda, increased their power during the Russia-Ukraine war, in particular, by significantly expanding military, National Guard, and military intelligence units under their de facto control.

In part to placate the far right, Zelensky glorified and propelled such neo-Nazi and far-right-led units and their ideological predecessors from the OUN and the UPA, which collaborated with Nazi Germany and perpetrated mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Ukrainians. He presented them as defenders of Ukraine and denied or omitted their far-right ideology. Therefore, Zelensky opposed the Trump plan’s point that “all Nazi ideology and activity must be rejected and prohibited.”

This point of the Trump’s plan likely partly incorporated Russian demand of “denazification.” Putin and other leaders stated that one of the main goals of the Russian invasion is “denazification” of Ukraine. Russia used the outsized influence of the Ukrainian far right to justify its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and falsely claimed that Ukraine is a Nazi or neo-Nazi state.

Zelensky in his speech in Davos attacked European countries, on which he depends to survive. But major countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, and the UK continue publicly to unconditionally back Zelensky and stay silent about his attacks, corruption, undemocratic actions, and gross human rights violations. The leaders of these countries put their stakes on Zelensky and do not want to admit that they failed.

Zelensky after his failed gamble of winning the unwinnable war faces choice of accepting a peace deal under such terms or continuing the war with nearly certain prospect of a defeat of Ukraine. Any future peace deal would offer much worse terms for Ukraine than the Trump’s peace deal, which offers worse terms than the Istanbul peace deal, which in turn offered worse terms than the Minsk agreements. The longer the war continues without a peace deal, the more Ukrainians would be killed, the more Ukrainian territory would be lost, and the more energy infrastructure and other critical infrastructure in Ukraine would be destroyed as result of Russian attacks.

Published in Korean in RIO (South Korea), January 31, 2026

There is ongoing blackout and denial of the Maidan massacre trial verdict's confirmation that many Maidan activists were killed and wounded and BBC and ARD TV journalists were shot at on February 20, 2014 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 there were no massacre orders by President Yanukovych and his police and security chiefs, that Russian agents were not involved in the massacre, and that EuroMaidan then was an armed rebellion, which involved the massacre of the Berkut and Internal Troops. This confirmation is even more remarkable because it was issued by 3 jury members, who were approved by the Kyiv mayor, who was one of Maidan leaders, and by 2 judges in the Ukraine's judiciary system that lacks independence.

Such blackout and denial of the Maidan massacre trial verdict parts confirming the false-flag Maidan massacre in Ukraine continue even after I presented and quoted them in my two open access books The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World and The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War the Canadian Dimension article, and the International Studies Association conference paper.

Maidan Massacre Trial Verdict Selected Excerpts Confirming False-Flag Massacre (English Google Translation)

Unified State Register of Court Decisions (court.gov.ua) https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/114304164

SVIATOSHYN DISTRICT COURT OF KYIV

Univ. No. 759/3498/15-k avenue No. 1-kp/759/1/23

SENTENCE

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

[…]

As a result, the defendants were found without any basis guilty of 13 deaths and 29 injuries to activists.

- they are not aware that the personnel of the PMOP, RSP received personal orders from the President of Ukraine, the Minister of Internal Affairs, other officials or influential public figures regarding their, the police’s, actions during the events of the “Maidan” - among the persons questioned by the court, there were no persons who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented ;

Therefore, as a result of the trial, no evidence was obtained and submitted to the court to confirm the giving of clearly criminal orders to commit a terrorist attack, and therefore their receipt by any of the accused, and their subsequent transmission of such orders to other persons. The lack of proof of the existence of such an order refutes even the very assumption of consent to execute it or of taking actions to execute it.

the video recording of the BBC television company entitled “INFORMATION_178” (disc No. 1 - vol. 171 a. 163), examined by the jury at the court session on January 24, 2019, upon the motion of the defense in compliance with the procedure for the discovery of additional materials (part 11 of article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) , the latter recorded the firing of an automatic weapon from the left hand by a law enforcement officer in a black uniform with a white inscription on the back “Berkut” with yellow bandages on both hands and with a fixed bone of the right hand in a black leather glove from behind a tree on the alley towards the Zhovtnevy Palace, as well as by other law enforcement officers in the same direction and in the same equipment (from 03 minutes of the recording), and also activists with objects that, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms of the type hunting rifles and a Kalashnikov assault rifle (04 min. 44 and 59 sec. of the recording), visibility of the area from the position of the Conservatory colonnade is recorded (from 06 min. 37 sec. of the recording), in particular, the area around the Independence Stele, the flower clock, in front of the left wing of the Zhovtnevy Palace. This video also records shelling from the side of the building of the Hotel “Ukraine” of the BBC journalists’ film crew (a single shot is heard) (from 09 min. 34 sec. of the recording), and an activist is recorded in the premises of the Hotel “Ukraine” with an object that, by its obvious external signs, can be perceived as a firearm such as a pistol (10 min. 26 sec. of the recording). BBC journalists recorded in the area of ul. Khreshchatyk equipment of individual Maidan activists, who moved in an organized formation and wore helmets and body armor, protective armor on their legs and arms, and held shields, sticks, batons, batons, and metal rods in their hands (from 14 min. 53 sec. of the recording).

During the study of this video, the defense drew the court’s attention to the use in this plot of photographs with armed activists by photographer PERSON_2816, who was interrogated during the pre-trial investigation and which is consistent with the captions on the video itself (from 05 min. 10 sec.). The indicated remarks of the defense additionally confirm the court’s conclusions about the reliability of other photo materials of the indicated person, the analysis of which was provided earlier.

The jury, after hearing the opinion of the trial participants, evaluated the video recording provided by the defense in the context of the indictment as documented information from the activist-controlled building of the Ukraina Hotel in Kyiv about the targeted use by the activists of objects that, by their external features, are clearly similar to firearms, weapons of the type of hunting weapons, which are incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest action.

On the morning of February 20, 2014, when he was still near the PERSON_794 palace, there was a commotion because of a sniper whom activists had seen, someone said that it was our sniper, which surprised him, the witness. He turned his attention to the Ukraina Hotel and saw a man with a rifle in an open window on the seventh or eighth floor of the hotel, who waved for them not to shout, leaned out of the window and aimed the rifle towards the top of Instytutska Street, then waved that nothing was visible, and closed the window, he did not shoot. This man’s rifle looked like a 12-gauge smoothbore. Eyewitnesses to these events were also members of his company PERSON_3003 and PERSON_789 . He told about these circumstances during interrogation in 2014 to the investigator, who laughed at him. Later, since his testimony had disappeared, he reported these circumstances a second time. Later, he was surprised by a high-profile video story using the same data about the alleged shooting on February 20, 2014 from the room of “Svoboda” in the “Ukraine” hotel. He categorically insists that he did not see this person firing a shot, and that the shooting from this position with a hunting rifle of law enforcement officers who were at a considerable distance behind a snowy barricade was pointless;

According to the video recording examined by the jury at the trial on January 24, 2019, at the request of the defense in compliance with the procedure for the discovery of additional materials (Part 11 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine), entitled “Itele - Kalashnikov in hotel Ukraine” (disc No. 1 - vol. 171 a. 163), the latter in the premises of the hotel “INFORMATION_161” recorded a public figure among the activists - former people’s deputy PERSON_834, who provides passage to activists who are holding objects in their hands that, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms such as a Kalashnikov assault rifle and a hunting rifle (21, 25 sec. of the recording).

The jury, after hearing the opinion of the participants in the process, evaluated the video recording provided by the defense in the context of the indictment as documented information from the building of the Ukraina Hotel in Kyiv, controlled by the activists, about the presence among the activists of the “Maidan” of objects that, by their external features, are clearly similar to firearms, which is incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest.

According to the video recording examined by the jury at the trial on January 24, 2019, at the request of the defense in compliance with the procedure for the discovery of additional materials (Part 11 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) , entitled “RT correspondent recalls sniper-fire experience in Kiev, Ukraine” (disc No. 1 - vol. 171 a. 163), the latter recorded activists with objects that, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols (from 12 seconds of the recording), shots fired by them from these weapons from deep inside the room through an open window of the hotel, in which a video camera on a tripod is also located, as well as separate incoming (into the room) gunshot wounds on the hotel windows, which were later examined by the investigator and look out towards Maidan Nezalezhnosti (from 01 minute 30 seconds of the recording). It is also noteworthy that the journalists are on Instytutska Street near the Ukraina Hotel building and are recording events practically between law enforcement officers who were retreating down the alley and activists who were following them near the Zhovtnevy Palace. These journalists are not attacked from any side.

The jury, after hearing the opinion of the trial participants, evaluated the video recording provided by the defense in the context of the indictment as documented information from the activist-controlled building of the Ukraina Hotel in Kyiv about the targeted use by the activists of objects that, by their external features, are clearly similar to firearms, weapons of the type of hunting weapons, which are incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest action.

Thus, at the level of rumors and hearsay about the sector of shooting from the hotel “INFORMATION_161” were reported by victims PERSON_495, PERSON_496, PERSON_241, PERSON_503, PERSON_1000, PERSON_232, PERSON_1173, PERSON_336, PERSON_894, PERSON_998, PERSON_985, PERSON_2202. Victims PERSON_510, PERSON_970 believed that they saw flashes of shots or corresponding movement in the hotel windows. Victims PERSON_687 , PERSON_2040, PERSON_2204 believed that they saw the consequences of shooting from the hotel in the form of wounded activists. Victims PERSON_481, PERSON_511, PERSON_2084, PERSON_950 stated that they directly saw the shooting from the Ukraine Hotel or the victims. Both victim PERSON_930 and victim PERSON_223 believed that each of them separately received a lower limb wound from a gunshot from the right, from the area of the Ukraine Hotel. Objective data on the gunshot wounds from the side of the hotel “INFORMATION_161” were obtained based on the results of the court hearing on the episodes of the death of PERSON_1849 and the injury of PERSON_920.

The indicated data is quite sufficient to make a categorical conclusion about the presence of persons with weapons from which shots were fired in the premises of the Ukraine Hotel on the morning of February 20, 2014.

5.4.74. According to the episode of the death of PERSON_446.

Communication a) at 09:00 between 43:15 and 44:16, a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest from a firearm, which is a serious bodily injury, the wound channel was directed from the back to the inside, at the time of this injury PERSON_922 was facing the back of the body towards the source of the shot and the “Ukraine” hotel;

The connection between the gunshot wounds to the chest, right shoulder and forearm found in the victim PERSON_921 and the actions of law enforcement officers, and even more so the accused, has not been established within the framework of these proceedings.

Within the framework of this judicial proceeding, no admissible data on the infliction of such injuries to the victim by the accused has been obtained. Moreover, the fatal gunshot wounds to the torso (chest and abdomen) were received by PERSON_1770 from the side of the hotel “INFORMATION_161” and the area in front of it, which were not under the control of law enforcement agencies, and therefore the involvement of the accused and the RSP fighters in them, and as a result of the death of the victim, is excluded.

5.4.83. According to the episode of death PERSON_593

Within the framework of this judicial proceeding, no data on the involvement of law enforcement officers, let alone the accused, in such an injury to the victim has been established. The gunshot wound was inflicted on PERSON_1852 from the direction of the Ukraine Hotel, that is, from the territory that was not controlled by law enforcement agencies at that time. This shot was aimed at a crowd of people.

5.4.27. According to the episode of death of PERSON_598.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, taking into account the data on the position of PERSON_494’s body at the time of the wounding (in front towards the top of Instytutska Street) and the direction of the wound channel, data on the involvement of the deceased RSP employees and the accused in such a wounding was not obtained, in particular, since the shooting at the victim from front to back, right to left and significantly from top to bottom from the building of the “Ukrainy” hotel is not excluded based on such input data . .

5.4.37. According to the episode of death of PERSON_1441.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim.

5.4.127. According to the episode of death PERSON_2184.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, the evidence presented has not established the involvement of any specific individuals, including law enforcement officers, in such an injury.

5.4.10. By the episode of death PERSON_588.

The evidence presented in its entirety clearly indicates that PERSON_490 on February 20, 2014, shortly before 09:02 a.m., while in Kyiv on Instytutska Street in the area of the bridge across it, during the escalation of the confrontation between Maidan activists and law enforcement officers, received a fatal chest wound with the use of firearms. Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no data on the involvement of law enforcement officers in such a wound, let alone the accused in particular, has been obtained by the investigation of admissible evidence.

5.4.8. By episode of death PERSON_1213.

As for the third version, which the defense insisted on, although it is also not completely proven, the following objective data speaks in its favor.

Under such circumstances, the court is deprived of the opportunity to refute the defense’s doubts about the possibility of PERSON_491 being injured by a hunting weapon as a result of a ricochet from the blue police water cannon, since the deceased had no other obstacles in front of him on the left side (shield, fence, etc.) at the time of his injury.

The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court in this episode, conducted by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates, does not refute such conclusions of the court.

As for the RSP employees, their stay in the gray service bus, which at the time of the injury of PERSON_883 was slowly moving from the central entrance of the Zhovtnevy Palace to the area in front of the Cinema Palace, is directly documented on the video entitled “Cardstock of PERSON_1189” (Verbatim DVD+R disc with the inscription “PERSON_2867 06/21/2018” - vol. 140 a. 22), which excludes even the assumption of the involvement of the specified persons in the injury of PERSON_1225. In addition, according to the already mentioned video “Height ‘’Zhovtnevy’‘ (2nd edition). Part 2 0853-1100 (02/20/2014)” (flash drive - vol. 90 a. 40), only starting from 09 h. 03 min. 05 sec. (screens 2/3 and 2/4) for the first time, the actions of armed RSP fighters in black uniforms with yellow armbands are recorded, who are shooting from special weapons - Fort-500 rifles near the right corner of the Zhovtnevy Palace building.

The above evidence, in its entirety and when compared with all the obviousness, indicates that PERSON_491 on February 20, 2014 at 09:00:37 a.m., being in Kyiv on the sidewalk on the right side of Instytutska Street, if you move in the direction of the Khreschatyk metro station, behind the pedestrian bridge (distance 19.5 m) before entering the parking lot of the Ukraina Hotel, during the escalation of the confrontation between Maidan activists and law enforcement officers with the use of firearms, received one (as a result of one shot) blind gunshot (cannon) wound to the head, which is considered serious bodily injury, as a result of which he died. Entrance gunshot wound in the left temporal region with a diameter of 0.6-0.7 cm at a height of 165 cm from the soles of the feet, the wound channel up to 3.5 cm long extends from back to front, from left to right, slightly from top to bottom, ending with fragments of a firearm projectile (cartridge), which were removed. At the time of the injury, the victim was turned with the left surface of his head towards the muzzle of the weapon.

Within the framework of these court proceedings, no evidence was obtained beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was injured by law enforcement officers. The defense’s version that PERSON_491 was injured as a result of a ricochet from the left side of a blue police water cannon as a result of a shot from a hunting rifle fired by third parties was not refuted.

5.4.22. According to the episode of death of PERSON_596.

- only after the events recorded in photo No. 1, PERSON_492 will address the activists on the stairs, that is, he will look in their direction with an obvious turn of his head to the right, approach them and call them to action with movements of his right hand (04 min. 47 - 49 sec. of recording “00582”), one second later he will fall, struck by a bullet in the head with the direction of the wound canal from front to back - right in front of the victim at this moment was objectively the Conservatory, and to the left was the “Ukraine” hotel, based on the map of the area used by the commission of experts, not to mention the top of the street. Instytutska or the area in front of the central entrance to the Zhovtnevy Palace in general, which were located much further to the left (this is clearly visible on the photo of the place of injury of PERSON_778 “PERSON_1305_2” on a flash drive submitted by the victim’s representative - vol. 162 a. 157), which, according to the established forensic medical data, made it impossible to fire a shot from the indicated area, including the one where the armed RSP fighters highlighted by the prosecutor were recorded (screen 4/1, video “Height ‘’Zhovtnevy’‘ (2nd edition). Part 2 0853-1100 (20.02.2014)”, 17 min. 40 sec. recording), in the front-to-back direction relative to the head of PERSON_778;

- the prosecutor’s further attention to the actions of armed RSP fighters near the central entrance to the Zhovtnevy Palace lost its significance within the framework of this episode due to the lack of data on the presence of such persons in the sector from which the fatal shot to the head of PERSON_1313 could have been fired, while the defense’s version of the possibility of a shot being fired at PERSON_1312 from the Conservatory building is not only not refuted by the evidence presented, but also agrees with the data on the presence of unidentified persons on the balconies of the Conservatory (screens 3/2 and 3/3, video “Height ‘’Zhovtnevy’‘ (2nd edition). Part 2 0853-1100 (20.02.2014)”, starting from 17 min. 49 sec. of the recording, or astronomical time 09 h. 10 min. 22 sec., i.e. 11 sec. after the wounding of PERSON_778), and information about the specified area with a clear fixation from the specified place in the specified direction of the Conservatory building, which is contained in the photograph examined by the jury in the episode of the death of PERSON_494 during the interrogation of witness PERSON_1314 (vol. 219 a. 53).

5.4.69. According to the episode of death of PERSON_594.

Thus, the jury takes into account that PERSON_493, a few seconds before his fatal wound, together with other bystanders, watched the windows of the “Ukraine” hotel, his left side being conditionally turned towards the snow barricade, which was located higher up the Institutska street, and this attention, united by joint observation of the source of possible danger, did not stop on the part of all observers even after the injury of PERSON_1708, when he was already lying on the asphalt. Therefore, it absolutely cannot be ruled out that at the time of his injury PERSON_493, together with all the other activists, continued to be facing the direction of the Hotel “Ukraine”, and his back - to the left part of the facade of the October Palace . At the same time, there are no signs of movement of PERSON_1708 from his place of stay before the wounding, therefore, and the assumption of his possible reversal of the corps in the direction of the October Palace remains unsupported by anything. Of course, PERSON_493 could have been wounded under the circumstances when he could have turned sharply at the call, and therefore again returned to the front of the building of the October Palace, near which there were many activists. However, the submitted evidence did not confirm even the possibility of the existence of such versions of the specified exclamation on the video, in which from 33 to 44 sec. PERSON_493 is missing and was not interrupted at that moment, not recorded. During the wounding PERSON_493 was turned with his left side towards the top of Institutskaya Street , and his back to the left part of the facade of the October Palace, while his right shoulder joint was turned to the source of the shot.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim.

5.4.84. According to the episode of injury PERSON_453.

The prosecutor’s arguments that initial bullet damage to the tree was recorded at 18 seconds of the specified video, i.e., shots were fired in the direction of the “Ukraine” hotel, since no other evidence was established by expert means, are critically assessed by the court. On the contrary, the lack of a corresponding expert study makes the doubts on the specified issue, which were expressed by the defense, referring to the characteristic features of this recorded damage as input damage (insignificant size, no falling out of tree bark elements to the outside, the activists’ focus on the source of this shot in the direction of the “INFORMACIÓ_161” hotel building, irrefutable, and therefore the court interprets them in favor of the accused. The court also takes into account the testimony of the victim PERSON_921, who was also in the aforementioned activist group and was wounded in the back from the hotel “INFORMATION_161”, objective information about the fatal wound in the neck from the same group of the victim PERSON_1849 from the upper floors of the hotel “Ukraine”, these data make the defense’s position even more substantiated.

Thirdly, the direction of the wound channel in height established by the expert from top to bottom at an acute angle, combined with the data on the absence of information about the bullet passing through any obstacle, objectively agrees with the possibility of such a “clean” shot from the upper floors of the “Ukraine “ hotel (see, for example, photo No. 37-40 of the annexes to the protocol of the investigative experiment dated July 2, 2014 (vol. 134 a. 50-51), but it obviously does not agree with the version of the bullet ricocheting from below from the ground, i.e. from the opposite side.

5.4.42. According to the episode of injury PERSON_613.

The court critically assesses and therefore rejects the arguments of the prosecutor and the representative of the victims that the fact that the bullet passed from top to bottom in the soft tissues of the victim’s body without damaging the bones, i.e. in the absence of internal ricochet, proves the forward tilt of his body at the time of the wound as the only possible version. The direction of the wound channel from top to bottom relative to the normal anatomical position of the victim’s body does not exclude such a position of the victim’s body relative to the shooter, but does not exclude the possibility of a shot being fired from the windows of the building of the “Ukraine” hotel located next to the place of injury of PERSON_1487, i.e. simply from top to bottom, which the prosecution was unable to reject with the evidence presented during the trial. Moreover, the high probability of such a version is indicated by the facts of the use of weapons against activists from the Ukrainy Hotel building, the location of the latter on the right side of the victim, and the latter’s ability to turn to the right, i.e. towards the hotel, holding a shield in his left hand in front of him, whether standing or sitting.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim.

5.4.77. According to the episode of injury PERSON_612.

before his injury he was moving up the right side of Instytutska St. in the front group of activists , 6-7 people who were covering themselves with shields in front, there were shouts that a sniper was shooting from the Ukraina Hotel, so they turned around , the hotel was on the right behind, but he did not notice anyone there for himself; - approaching the parapet with the inscription “Arcade”, they came under heavy fire, he saw the wounded man and ran to the right to the steps to the parapet to hide behind him, but did not have time and was also wounded in the side,

The experts came to a well-founded conclusion that the entrance wound was on the left side of the torso, which was facing the barricades at the top of Instytutska Street, and the exit wound was on the right side, where the hotel was. During the investigative experiment, he mistakenly indicated the opposite direction of the wound channel - the entrance was on the right, and the exit was on the left.

is then recorded watching the windows of the Ukraine Hotel, reacting to a shot fired from the hotel, the traces of which are visualized on a tree (20 min. 07 sec. of the recording).

However, as established by the commission of experts, whose expertise did not cause doubts among the parties to the proceedings, during the direct examination of the victim and the given X-ray images, postoperative scars were found on the victim’s body, which are not wounds from a gunshot wound, a linear fracture of the right wing of the iliac bone, which is somewhat higher, accompanied by the detachment of a bone fragment and its placement in the soft tissues of the gluteal region.

The indicated data, in the opinion of the jury, substantiate the doubts of the defense regarding the erroneousness of the assumption of the victim, who reported at the trial about a different direction of the wound channel - from the government quarter (from left to right), and not from the Ukraine hotel (from right to left), as he reported during the pre-trial investigation. After all, the assumption of the defense, not refuted by other objective data, about the movement of the bone fragment torn off by the bullet in the victim’s body in the direction of the bullet’s movement, is more convincing and logical than the prosecutor’s assumption, albeit emotional, about the possibility of such movement in the opposite direction .

In addition, the difference in the heights of the wounds - on the right above - does not agree with the version of the shot from a concrete barricade, which was placed above the locally determined place of the victim’s wound near the parapet of the Arkada bank. . The absence of clothing in which the victim was dressed makes it impossible to establish by expert means the direction of the traumatic action of the bullet that wounded the victim .

Having analyzed and evaluated all the evidence submitted by the parties in their entirety, the court considers that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, in particular by forensic medical data, that the shot was fired at the victim PERSON_298 from the side of the government quarter as a whole, and the concrete barricades in particular, i.e. from left to right relative to his location in space during movement. Doubts in this regard are justified by the available forensic medical data, as well as the testimony of the victim himself about the direction of the wound channel by sensation, which he reported during the investigative experiment.

Therefore, this and all other mentioned episodes, due to their common factual basis and cross-references to evidence and facts, should also be considered in their entirety, which allows for a comprehensive review of the mentioned events themselves.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim .

5.4.30. According to the episode of injury PERSON_634.

He believes that he was shot from front to back, top to bottom, right to left, and this direction tentatively indicates the upper floors of the Ukraina Hotel (recording from 10 min. 10 sec., 10 min. 20 and 34 sec.).

At the same time, it is noteworthy that the results of the investigative experiment were not recorded in the protocol, the direction of the shot indicated by the victim was not verified by comparing the entry and exit wounds, the investigator considered it unnecessary to establish at least the approximate location of which on the victim’s body and at the latter’s suggestion (recording from 10 minutes 45 seconds), a forensic specialist was not involved in conducting this investigative action, and the data from the existing medical expert’s opinion were not taken into account.

However, due to the uncertainty of the data regarding the time and specific location of the injury of the said victim, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of law enforcement officers, and the Berkut unit of the Military Police Unit in particular, in such injury of the victim . On the contrary, the data obtained during the investigative experiment with the participation of the victim, which have not been refuted by anyone, and the objective forensic medical data agreed with them regarding the direction of the wound channel (right to left, front to back and top to bottom) refute the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot by police officers who were at that time in front of the victim and to the left on Instytutska Street. The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court on this episode by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates does not refute such conclusions of the court.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no data was obtained on the involvement of the directly accused or other employees of the RSP in such an injury to the deceased PERSON_1387 .

5.4.56. According to the episode of injury PERSON_606.

- on the left side of the alley from the place where he, PERSON_1589, was wounded, there was a green fence, on the right - the hotel “Ukraine”, half of which he managed to pass, at the time of the wound he was moving half-sitting, in his right hand he was holding a shield (wooden tabletop), he turned right to PERSON_2919, who was on the right and slightly behind, and at that moment he was wounded in the left thigh from the inside, most likely from a pistol , these events occurred at approximately 09:30 between 40 and 50 minutes, in his opinion, the shots at him were fired from the range: Institutskaya Street - hotel “Ukraine”; - on the balcony of the Zhovtnevy Palace he did not see people with weapons; - for safety reasons, he gave the doctors his name as PERSON_1590, the doctor tried to remove the bullet from his leg, but nothing worked, so he left the hospital and the bullet is still in his leg; -

During the study of the conclusion of the expert commission No. 288-2015/o, the victim stated that the experts determined the location of his injury (v. 145 a. 195) contrary to the data of the investigative experiment and its indications, and therefore categorically incorrect.

Therefore, the court finds it proven that only one wound was found on the victim’s body, which was of a blind penetrating nature and was located on the left thigh, however, the data on the direction of the wound channel were not established by objective forensic medical data. However, according to the data of the investigative experiment and the testimony of the victim in court, it was established that such a shot could have been from the inside of the left thigh, that is, from right to left relative to the location of the victim’s body.

On the contrary, the data obtained during the investigative experiment with the participation of the victim, his interrogation in court, and not questioned by forensic medical data regarding the probable direction of the wound channel - from right to left while moving towards the snow barricade along the alley of Instytutska Street, have not been refuted by anyone, and additionally cast doubt on the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot by police officers who were behind this barricade. The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court on this episode, conducted by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates, does not refute such conclusions of the court.

As witness PERSON_1594 also clarified… during their journey to the Zhovtnevy Palace, they felt danger from the side of the Ukraina Hotel…

Within the framework of this legal proceeding, no data was obtained on the involvement of RSP employees, defendants, or other law enforcement officers who were behind the snow barricade.

5.4.119. By episode of injury PERSON_605.

In particular, this concerns the first blind wound to the chest, the wound channel of which is directed from back to front and from outside to inside. Given these data, the defense’s claim that this shot could have been fired at the victim from the buildings located in front of the October Palace closer to Khreshchatyk Street is not refuted.

Within the framework of this judicial proceeding, no data has been obtained on the involvement of the accused or other persons who could have acted together with them in a prior conspiracy in a group in such injuries to the victim PERSON_838. Their, as well as other persons, probable involvement in the injury of the victim does not go beyond assumptions, on which the court cannot base affirmative conclusions.

5.4.100. By episode of injury PERSON_623.

At the time of the injury, the victim PERSON_506 was in a sitting position, and the left side of his torso was turned towards the bottom of Instytutska Street, that is, conditionally towards Maidan Nezalezhnosti.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim.

5.4.73. According to the episode of injury PERSON_639.

On the contrary, the undisputed data obtained during the investigative experiment with the victim’s participation, and the objective forensic data consistent with them regarding the direction of the wound channel - across the body during the victim’s movement in the direction of the snow barricade, refute the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot by police officers who were at that time behind the concrete barricade on Instytutska Street. The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court on this episode, conducted by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates, does not refute such conclusions of the court.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim .

5.4.71. According to the episode of injury PERSON_635.

But he cannot determine which way and how much he turned, and therefore during the experiment he only made assumptions about this, as well as about the position of the torso at the time of the wound (14 min. 05 sec., 15 min. 25 sec., 16 min. 06 sec. of the investigative action recording - the sector where the shot was fired from the “Ukraine” hotel is visualized).

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no data on the involvement of the accused in such injuries of the victim has been obtained. Moreover, it has not been proven that the gunshot wound was inflicted on PERSON_1738 from the territory where law enforcement officers were located at that time.

5.4.49. According to the episode of injury PERSON_435.

... he recreated the above circumstances on the spot during an investigative experiment, indicating the approximate location of his wound; - he believes that the person who shot him in the leg was to the right, where the “Ukraine” hotel is located...

Considering the testimony of the victim PERSON_315 in court regarding his position/pose, his use of one metal shield, the court also finds it established that the person(s) who fired the above-mentioned shots into the victim’s chest and right ankle joint were approximately in the sector along the street. Instytutska in the direction of the NBU, and the person who fired the shot into the area of the victim’s right thigh was on the victim’s right, i.e. from the side of the “Ukraine” hotel, which was established not only by the victim’s testimony in court, but also by the data of the forensic medical examination of his clothing No. 258-MK dated October 15, 2015, according to which one gunshot wound was found on the back surface of the right leg of the pants that PERSON_930 was wearing at the time of the injury, as well as by the data obtained during the investigative experiment with the victim’s participation...

At the same time, based on the data on the circumstances of PERSON_1539 receiving a gunshot wound to the right thigh, the sector of the shooting casts doubt on the possibility of its being carried out from the territory where the RSP officers were located, and due to undisputed doubts, the jury considers the latter’s involvement in causing such an injury to the victim to be unproven.

5.4.115. By episode of injury PERSON_629

These data are fully consistent with each other, and therefore the court bases its verdict on them, as well as the more accurate and verified time parameters of the video “Height ‘’October’‘ (2nd edition)...”, therefore the defense version about the injury of the victim PERSON_2098 from a sector that absolutely does not cover the concrete barricades behind which the law enforcement officers were, and in fact is the opposite, is recognized by the court as irrefutable .

The connection between the gunshot wound found on the victim PERSON_2098 and the actions of law enforcement officers within the framework of this proceeding has not been established, since the possibility of inflicting such a gunshot wound on him from a territory that was not under the control of law enforcement officers has not been refuted by the evidence presented.

5.4.118. By episode of injury PERSON_607.

- as for the danger to himself, he felt it from the sixth floor of the Ukraine Hotel, which other activists indicated as the location of the sniper, he, the victim, personally saw, observing for several minutes, how on the indicated floor of the hotel, one window was open towards the October Palace and the curtain in it periodically either swung open or covered the window...

In particular, according to the results of the specified investigative experiment, which was conducted with the participation of a ballistics expert, the victim, at the time of receiving the wound with damage to the right subclavian artery and right shoulder blade, was on February 20, 2014 on Instytutska Street opposite the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station, kneeling and making a half turn to the left (counterclockwise) in the direction of the Zhovtnevy Palace , the direction from which the bullet could have come includes the building of the Zhovtnevy Palace and the Cinema Palace.

During the study of the video recording of the investigative experiment, the victim fully confirmed its results and the voluntariness of his testimony, identifying himself on the recording of this investigative action.

Under such circumstances, taking into account the forensic and forensic data regarding the direction of the wound channel in the victim’s body, additionally from left to right, and his testimony regarding the position of the body at the time of the injury, the reliability of which is beyond doubt, the court excludes the physical possibility that the shot that injured the victim was fired from the side of the snow barricade, to which the victim was facing with his right shoulder.

The real threat of gunfire from various sectors, and not only from the area that was under the exclusive and obvious control of law enforcement agencies, is confirmed in this episode both by the victim’s own observations of the windows of the hotel “INFORMACIÓN_161”, and by the warnings recorded on the victim’s video from the “Maidan” scene about the presence of unknown armed people on the roof of the Zhovtnevy Palace (at the beginning of the recording of the video examined above under the title “video0004”).

However, due to the established data regarding the victim’s location in space at the time of the injury, which refutes the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot from the direction of the top of Instytutska Street, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that law enforcement officers, and the accused in particular, were involved in the victim’s injury.

Due to insufficient information, incompleteness or contradictory nature of the submitted data, the involvement of law enforcement officers has not been proven, and other unknown persons cannot be excluded in the following episodes: deceased PERSON_487, PERSON_488, PERSON_489, PERSON_490, PERSON_491, PERSON_492, PERSON_493, PERSON_494; PERSON_495, PERSON_496, PERSON_497, PERSON_498, PERSON_499, PERSON_500, PERSON_501, PERSON_502, PERSON_503, PERSON_223, PERSON_504, PERSON_222, PERSON_505, PERSON_506, PERSON_507, PERSON_508, PERSON_509, PERSON_510, PERSON_263, PERSON_511 were injured - that is, in 28 cases out of 128 episodes. Regarding victims PERSON_488 and PERSON_2190, neither the place nor the time of their injuries on February 20, 2014 was established, and regarding victim PERSON_2182, reasonable doubts arose about his injuries in general under the circumstances reported by him on February 20, 2014.

In particular, when the victims indicated such a feeling as a result of the actions of the police officers visualized on the video recordings, the prosecutor considered this to be convincing evidence, and when the victim indicated a feeling of danger from other sources, for example, the hotel “Ukraine” (episodes of wounding PERSON_1387, PERSON_921, etc.), the prosecutor categorically considered this to be an error in assessing the events. In addition, the lack of evidence by the prosecution of the presence of armed individuals in various potentially possible places for firing weapons, which was often referred to as the basis for refuting the victims’ statements on this matter, does not at all mean the absence of such individuals in reality, especially since doubts on this matter were dispelled during the trial by objective data, and not only by the testimonies of individual victims.

Indeed, as the prosecution noted and not disputed by the defense, in many episodes of the death and injury of activists, the place of the victim’s injury, the position of his body in space at the time of the injury, forensic medical data on the nature and localization of the gunshot wound itself were accurately established. However, this information remained unexamined by ballistics specialists during the pre-trial investigation in order to draw incredibly simple conclusions on the ground based on such initial data regarding the specific sector of the shot at the victim. The long-term (more than a year) procedural opportunity in the form of a direct court order to conduct an investigative experiment, created by the court during the trial, remained unrealized by the prosecution. The conviction of the prosecution under such conditions, in terms of its evidentiary value, is, unfortunately, a sad statement of its procedural helplessness.

Thus, as established by the results of the trial, on February 20, 2014, between 05:30 and 09:00, unidentified persons used firearms to attack law enforcement officers, as a result of which 3 law enforcement officers died and 39 more received gunshot wounds. A shot from a rifle in the direction of a law enforcement officer indicates that the accused began to implement the intention to kill such employees - the Supreme Court also drew attention to this (resolution of 08/11/2022 in case No. 446/838/21, source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105774898). Responding to the situation, which as of 08:30 developed in the epicenter of the confrontation, individual units and groups of law enforcement officers began to independently and spontaneously leave their positions, which caused a further massive and unorganized retreat of law enforcement officers as a whole. Taking advantage of these panicked actions of law enforcement officers, activists also spontaneously and en masse went beyond their barricades and began to pursue and attack law enforcement officers using “Molotov cocktails”. In this way, activists advanced up Instytutska Street beyond the bridge above it, cut through the positions of law enforcement officers at the intersection of Instytutska Street and Khreshchatyk Street near building No. 7/11 (Ukrkoopspilka), forcing one part of them to flee up the stairs to the Zhovtnevy Palace, and the other part - in the direction of European Square. Later, activists also took control of the entrance to the Zhovtnevy Palace building closest to Khreshchatyk Street (left) and approached the central entrance to it.

The explanations of the victims PERSON_1247, PERSON_282 and PERSON_924 had other relevant factual basis, they are consistent with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PERSON_2120, PERSON_1536, PERSON_1526, PERSON_2575, “PERSON_3025” (SBU), PERSON_2302, PERSON_2301, PERSON_2307, PERSON_2576, PERSON_2310, PERSON_2311, PERSON_2298, PERSON_2252, PERSON_2577 and the defense witnesses PERSON_2578, PERSON_2579, PERSON_2580, PERSON_1079, PERSON_2581, PERSON_1095, who also showed that the police began to retreat in panic due to their shelling.

Also, according to the circumstances in both indictments, which the prosecutor considered established, this retreat of law enforcement officers occurred as a result of the activists’ firing on law enforcement officers, which resulted in the death and gunshot wounds of some of them.

- the testimonies of witnesses PERSON_2310 and PERSON_2311 only confirmed the purpose of the RSP actions near the Zhovtnevy Palace - the evacuation of law enforcement officers

As for the hidden armed attack on the RSP fighters at 09:15-16, which ended with the fatal wounding of one of them and the wounding of another, the episode of the movement of the so-called PERSON_393 group and individual episodes of shelling of law enforcement agencies, to which the unarmed protesters among the victims had nothing to do (clause 2, part 1, article 15), such undoubtedly extremely dangerous actions were episodic, and also too limited in time to prolong them for all subsequent events.

Evaluating all the video recordings and photo materials examined during the trial in the context of the charges brought, the jury found that they documented in detail, from various angles, information about the situation of the confrontation between activists and law enforcement officers on February 18-20, 2014, in particular: the nature of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18-20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them, were recognized by the court as incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle; dynamics of the changing situation on the morning of February 20, 2014 (chaotic retreat of law enforcement officers, which was accompanied by an attack (attacks and persecution) by activists, and some with objects that, with all obviousness in their external signs, resemble firearms of various types, protection by law enforcement officers, as the retreating party, with the use of all available special means, including water cannons, and only then the open use of firearms by law enforcement officers; movement and displacement of the opposing parties from the occupied positions (law enforcement officers - up Instytutska Street with a delay associated with the evacuation from the Zhovtnevy Palace building, further behind the snow and concrete barricades, and activists - gradual movement in waves in the direction of the law enforcement officers to the edge of the snow barricade).

All this data, combined with the armed shelling of the law enforcement forces on the morning of February 20, 2014, stated in the indictment as the reason for the latter abandoning their positions, indicate that the activists took the initiative in their actions, not the law enforcement officers, which is completely inconsistent with the accusation of the latter in a terrorist attack.

5.7. Evaluation of all evidence examined by the court in its entirety and interrelationship.

- they are not aware that the personnel of the PMOP, RSP received personal orders from the President of Ukraine, the Minister of Internal Affairs, other officials or influential public figures regarding their, the police’s, actions during the events of the “Maidan” - among the persons questioned by the court, there were no individuals who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented;

- On February 20, 2014, during the events on Instytutska Street, PERSON_21 and PERSON_22 did not personally use firearms - these statements of the above-mentioned accused are not refuted by admissible documentary data, including photo and video materials recording the events of the above-mentioned day and conclusions of ballistics examinations, according to which no traces of the use of the regular weapons assigned to PERSON_645 and PERSON_652 on February 20, 2014 during the above-mentioned events were found (Chapter 5.3. of the verdict);

The “Russian trace” was not confirmed after examining the relevant documents. In particular, all cases of FSB officers crossing the border zone into Ukraine, their movements in Kyiv and the region, the time and place of their stay, as well as the dates and ways of their leaving the territory of Ukraine, were investigated. This group of individuals was constantly monitored and their whereabouts were monitored. Accordingly, they did not have any participation in the events on the Instytutska street.

7. Grounds for the jury to declare part of the accusation unfounded.

The court, based on the results of the trial, considers the facts of the disclosure in any way by the accused from among the RSP fighters during the arming on February 18, 2014, of their readiness to execute the order of the leadership to indiscriminately use firearms against an unspecified circle of activists with the aim of committing a terrorist act combined with mass murder, as well as the receipt by those among them who armed themselves with Fort-500 rifles of cartridges with a lead buckshot charge, prohibited for use, as unproven within the framework of the formulated accusation.

No victim or witness questioned by the court on either side indicated such facts (the detection of the indicated readiness and receipt of prohibited cartridges) as they were personally aware of; on the contrary, some of the questioned witnesses, both for the defense and the prosecution, denied such information in both indictments, which is fully consistent with the consistent position of the questioned defendants on this matter. The indicated facts were not confirmed either by documentation or by the results of any expert studies, including forensic ballistics.

As for the use of cartridges with a charge of lead buckshot, then, indeed, according to the results of the study of evidence in individual episodes of death and injury of the victims ( PERSON_481 , PERSON_1047 , PERSON_491 and PERSON_1233 ), it was directly established that these persons received gunshot wounds as a result of such a shot. At the same time, even at the level of assumption, the involvement of RSP fighters, including the accused among them, in causing such injuries to the specified persons is excluded, which was exhaustively stated during the assessment of evidence in the specified episodes.

The lack of evidence regarding the receipt by the RSP fighters, who were armed with Fort-500 rifles, of cartridges with a lead buckshot charge, prohibited from using, directly affects the other scope of the indictment, from which the court excludes all references to the use of this category of cartridges by the RSP fighters, since nothing else has been proven. As a result, the court recognizes as an assumption on which the guilty verdict cannot be based, and the statement in the acts about the shooting from 08:50 on February 20, 2014 by the RSP employees on February 20, 2014 of cartridges with a lead buckshot charge from the Fort-500 rifles they had, as a result of which mass premeditated murders were committed and attempts were made on them.

Taking into account the above, the court excludes from the indictment of all the accused the indication that a component of the criminal orders of PERSON_31 himself, as well as the unlawful actions of the other accused in their execution, was their use of Fort-500 rifles equipped with cartridges with a charge of lead buckshot.

In addition, given the signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense during the killing of the unarmed PERSON_393, who acted in a group with an armed person, the consequences of such exceeding cannot be attributed to other persons who are not involved in the fatal wounding of the specified victim. Therefore, the court excludes from the indictment the reference to the alleged actions of PERSON_31, PERSON_28 and PERSON_25 causing the death of the specified victim, as a component of their accusation of his intentional murder.

Also, the jury finds part of the indictment in the context of the list of victims, the harm caused to whom the accused is accused, unfounded. In particular, due to the lack of evidence of the involvement of the accused PERSON_31, PERSON_28 and PERSON_25, the court excludes from the scope of the indictment brought against them references to causing harm to the health of such victims, namely: by episodes of death - PERSON_480, PERSON_490, PERSON_491, PERSON_475, PERSON_487, PERSON_488, PERSON_489, PERSON_492, PERSON_493, PERSON_476, PERSON_494 - as a component of their intentional murder; by injury episodes - PERSON_477, PERSON_478, PERSON_479, PERSON_481, PERSON_482, PERSON_483, PERSON_484, PERSON_485, PERSON_486, PERSON_495, PERSON_496, PERSON_497, PERSON_498, PERSON_499, PERSON_500, PERSON_501, PERSON_502, PERSON_503, PERSON_223, PERSON_504, PERSON_222, PERSON_505, PERSON_506, PERSON_508, PERSON_507, PERSON_509, PERSON_510, PERSON_263, PERSON_511 - as components of a completed attempt to murder them.

In addition, the jury, based on the results of the trial and on the basis of the assessment of evidence for individual episodes of injury and death of the victims, recognizes as unproven, and therefore excludes from the scope of the charge, the infliction by individual of those bodily injuries, in the causing of which the involvement of the accused PERSON_31, PERSON_28 and PERSON_25, other law enforcement officers who tactically interacted with them, has not been proven. In particular, it excludes from the scope of the charge brought against the said persons the infliction of:

- victim PERSON_2551, February 20, 2014 from 09:03:47 a.m. to 09:09:30 a.m. - blind penetrating gunshot wound to the abdomen and a through gunshot wound to the left forearm, which were inflicted as a result of a single shot from a smooth-bore firearm and are classified as serious bodily injury due to the danger to life;

- to the victim PERSON_1777, on February 20, 2014, between 09:43:14 a.m. and 09:44:43 a.m. - a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest, a blind penetrating gunshot wound to the abdomen, which were inflicted as a result of shots from a 9 mm caliber rifled firearm and caused the victim’s death;

- to the victim PERSON_1541, on February 20, 2014, between 09:24:00 and 09:24:48 - one blind penetrating gunshot wound to the right thigh, which was caused by one shot from a 9 mm rifled firearm and is classified as a bodily injury of moderate severity;

- to the victim PERSON_1111, on February 20, 2014, in the period from 09:43:15 a.m. to 09:47:11 a.m. - a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest, which is a serious bodily injury, a blind gunshot wound to the right shoulder with the presence of a pistol bullet in the wound, which is a minor bodily injury, a gunshot wound to the right forearm, which has signs of a moderate bodily injury;

- to the victim PERSON_1995, on February 20, 2014, in the period up to 09:56:43 - a gunshot wound to the right thigh, which is a minor bodily injury, which caused a short-term health disorder.

In this regard, in the part concerning episodes PERSON_773, PERSON_315, PERSON_921 and PERSON_1640, the exclusion of the reference to the involvement of the aforementioned accused in causing the aforementioned bodily injuries does not entail a change in the criminal legal assessment of their actions as an attempt to intentionally murder these victims.

.

In this context, the court is forced to repeat for this case that, according to the results of the trial, the following were excluded from the scope of the indictment with a statement of the reasons for the decisions taken (Sections 6-7 of the verdict):

- all indications of the alleged commission of criminal acts by other persons named in both indictments, who were not charged and whose guilt was not proven in a lawful manner and not established by a court verdict of guilt, in particular, aimed at committing a terrorist act combined with mass murders, at stopping and forcibly dispersing protests, planning, preparing, giving and executing criminal orders, instructions and instructions for this purpose;

- as an unproven reference to the fact that the accused from among the RSP fighters, during their arming on February 18, 2014, showed in any way a willingness to carry out the order of the leadership to indiscriminately use firearms against an unspecified circle of activists with the aim of committing a terrorist act combined with mass murder;

- as an unproven reference to the presence of a detachment of RSP fighters, including the accused, from the night of February 19 to the morning of February 20, 2014 in reserve with the special purpose of providing assistance to other units in the event of their storming of the “Maidan” and carrying out tasks to disperse it by force, as well as the corresponding order to commit a terrorist act combined with mass murders, as well as the facts of someone setting and receiving such tasks, someone issuing and bringing such orders to them, and accordingly, expressing consent to their execution;

- as an unproven reference to PERSON_376 receiving, between February 18 and 20, 2014, an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to prepare for a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and his consent to the execution of such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters;

- as an unproven reference to the receipt in the period from 08:30 to 09:00 on February 20, 2014 by PERSON_376 of a criminal order by the RSP forces, who were on Instytutska Street, to commit premeditated murders in a generally dangerous manner of the largest possible unspecified circle of activists in order to intimidate them in order to completely stop the protests, as well as the fact of prior coordination with the PMOP commander of the tactics of actions of the RSP fighters for this purpose, a reference to the execution by PERSON_31 of the specified order, when he began on February 20, 2014 at approximately 08:50 to coordinate the withdrawal of units and special vehicles;

- as an unproven indication that all the accused, during the period of February 18, 19 and until 08:30 on February 20, 2014, in execution of a clearly criminal order, exceeded their authority and official powers, participated in committing a terrorist act, committed the intentional murder of two or more persons, attempted such murders, or were preparing for such actions;

- as an unproven reference to the purpose of PERSON_376 giving a clearly criminal order to subordinate RSP fighters on the morning of February 20, 2014, specifically to commit a terrorist act.

Therefore, as a result of the trial, no evidence was obtained and submitted to the court to confirm the giving of clearly criminal orders to commit a terrorist attack, and therefore their receipt by any of the accused, and their subsequent transmission of such orders to other persons. The lack of proof of the existence of such an order refutes even the very assumption of consent to execute it or of taking actions to execute it.

In addition, as already established by the court, the actions of the RSP fighters and PERSON_31 armed with AKMS, Fort-500 rifles and pistols around the Zhovtnevy Palace and after that, recorded on February 20, 2014 from 09:05 to 09:16 on video recordings (paragraph 5.3.2 of the verdict), indicate their limited nature with a special purpose - ensuring the evacuation of law enforcement officers from the Zhovtnevy Palace building.

It was precisely this direction of the actions of the RSP fighters under the command of PERSON_31 around the Zhovtnevy Palace that other persons (victims PERSON_507, PERSON_1391, witnesses from among the law enforcement officers PERSON_861, PERSON_863 and PERSON_862, “PERSON_3025” (SBU Central Security Service “A”), PERSON_859, PERSON_860, etc.) indicated during interrogation in court, whose testimonies were not refuted by the evidence presented and, on the contrary, were documented by photo and video materials.

- receipt, between February 18 and 20, 2014, by the deputy commander of the PMOP PERSON_376 of an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding preparations for committing a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and his consent to the execution of such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters.

The prosecution did not submit any evidence to confirm the specified special purpose of the RSP fighters being in the reserve and receiving the aforementioned task PERSON_2788, and among the persons questioned by the court (victims, witnesses), there were no individuals who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented.

Considering the dynamics of the events on the Maidan on the morning of February 20, 2014, among the victims at the time of their injuries were:

- participants in the attack (assault, breakthrough, attack) on law enforcement officers from ADDRESS_46 in the period from 08:58 to 09:00 ( PERSON_481 , PERSON_1173 , PERSON_1184 , PERSON_1047 ), among whom PERSON_1047 was in the front group of activists who, not reacting to restraint by police officers through the use of special means, committed specific actions that posed or could be assessed as posing a real threat to the life or health of law enforcement officers;

- participants in the pursuit with elements of an attack by law enforcement officers on Instytutska Street in the period from 09:00 to 09:09. ( PERSON_491 , PERSON_1233 , PERSON_490 , PERSON_1242 , PERSON_1249 , PERSON_973 , PERSON_985 , PERSON_1258 , PERSON_1244 ), among whom PERSON_491 , PERSON_1249 , PERSON_973 , PERSON_985 , PERSON_1258 were in the front group of activists who, not reacting to the restraint by the police officers through the use of special means, committed specific actions that posed or could be assessed as posing a real threat to the life or health of law enforcement officers;

Indeed, as the prosecution noted and not disputed by the defense, in many episodes of deaths and injuries of activists, the place of the victim’s injury, the position of his body in space at the time of the injury, forensic data on the nature and localization of the gunshot wound itself were accurately established. However, this information during the pre-trial investigation remained unexamined by ballistics specialists in order to draw incredibly simple conclusions on the spot based on such initial data regarding the specific sector of the shooting at the victim. A long (more than a year) procedural opportunity that was created for this purpose by the court during the trial.in the form of a direct court mandate to conduct a comprehensive investigative experiment remained unimplemented by the prosecution.

At the same time, there is no data regarding PERSON_29 on his receipt and execution of clearly criminal orders, or on his reaching a preliminary conspiracy to commit crimes. The evidence examined during the trial did not establish his direct involvement in directly causing harm to the victims’ health. There is also no data that PERSON_29’s intent included specific socially dangerous consequences that occurred as a result of the use of firearms by the person with whom he tactically interacted.

The jury, despite the limited working hours, created appropriate conditions for all participants in the proceedings to exercise their rights, but this did not always contribute to the judicial proceedings. For example, on April 26, 2018, at the request of the representative of the victims PERSON_657, a time-consuming procedure was initiated to open, using the court’s technical means, materials of video reconstruction of certain events, namely a computer program for visualizing the situation and circumstances of obtaining PERSON_475, PERSON_393 and PERSON_1791, which continued in the courtroom with the participation of the accused and defense attorneys on May 31, June 12 and 14, and July 17, 2018. However, after the completion of this procedure, its initiator did not file a motion for the court to examine such materials.

- on the fact of a violent attack on the presiding judge in this case, PERSON_2590, on September 14, 2018, information was entered into the ERDR No. 12018100080007412 on the grounds of a crime under Part 4 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On the basis of a statement on this fact by PERSON_2590 himself, on September 15, 2018, information was entered into the ERDR No. 12018100080007455 on the grounds of a crime under Part 2 of Article 377 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, the court proceedings under the indictment, which was received on July 2, 2019, by the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv in criminal proceedings ERDR No. 12018100080007412, still remain unexamined due to the procedural behavior of the prosecutor, in connection with which a statement was filed regarding the fact of the state, represented by the prosecution, leveling the guarantees of the participants in the process for a trial within a reasonable time. Criminal proceedings ERDR No. 12018100080007455 were secretly closed with a gross violation of the procedural rights of PERSON_2590 as a victim, which was confirmed by a separate court decision (resolution of the investigating judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv dated August 19, 2020, un. No. 759/9808/20, source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/91112846). After the cancellation of the decision to close the specified proceedings, his fate is still unknown. In this particular case, unfortunately, all the judge’s appeals were actually ignored or remained unresolved beyond a reasonable time;

- as an unproven reference to PERSON_376 receiving, between February 18 and 20, 2014, an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to prepare for a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and his consent to the execution of such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters;

- as an unproven reference to the receipt in the period from 08:30 to 09:00 on February 20, 2014 by PERSON_376 of a criminal order by the RSP forces, who were on Instytutska Street, to commit premeditated murders in a generally dangerous manner of the largest possible unspecified circle of activists in order to intimidate them in order to completely stop the protests, as well as the fact of prior coordination with the PMOP commander of the tactics of actions of the RSP fighters for this purpose, a reference to the execution by PERSON_31 of the specified order, when he began on February 20, 2014 at approximately 08:50 to coordinate the withdrawal of units and special vehicles;

- as an unproven indication that all the accused, during the period of February 18, 19 and until 08:30 on February 20, 2014, in execution of a clearly criminal order, exceeded their authority and official powers, participated in committing a terrorist act, committed the intentional murder of two or more persons, attempted such murders, or were preparing for such actions;

- as an unproven reference to the purpose of PERSON_376 giving a clearly criminal order to subordinate RSP fighters on the morning of February 20, 2014, specifically to commit a terrorist act.

- in the period from approximately 09:05 to 17:00, PERSON_23, PERSON_20, PERSON_19 and PERSON_21, each being an employee of a law enforcement agency, committed an abuse of power and official authority while performing their official duties, and PERSON_20 and PERSON_19 - also in execution of a clearly criminal order, which was accompanied by the use of firearms;

- in addition, PERSON_23, PERSON_20 and PERSON_19, starting at 09:17 a.m., each, using a firearm, committed in a manner dangerous to the lives of many persons, by prior conspiracy by a group of persons, and PERSON_20 and PERSON_19 - also in execution of a clearly criminal order, the intentional murder of two or more persons and a completed attempt to commit the intentional murder of two or more persons.

Also, the court, citing the reasons for its decision (Section 7 of the verdict), excluded from the indictment as unproven:

- the fact that the defendants, during their arming on February 18, 2014, demonstrated their readiness to carry out the order of the leadership to indiscriminately use firearms against an unspecified group of activists with the aim of committing a terrorist attack;

- the fact that a detachment of RSP fighters, including the accused, was in reserve from the night of February 19 to the morning of February 20, 2014 with the special purpose of providing assistance to other units in the event that they stormed the “Maidan” and carried out tasks to disperse it by force, as well as the facts of someone setting and receiving such tasks by them, and accordingly, expressing consent to their execution;

- the fact that PERSON_376 received an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on February 18-20, 2014, to prepare for a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and that he consented to perform such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters;

- the fact of receiving in the period from 08:30 to 09:00 on February 20, 2014 PERSON_376 a criminal order to carry out the intentional killings of the RSP forces in a generally dangerous manner of the largest possible number of unspecified activists in order to intimidate them in order to completely stop the protests, the latter’s coordination with the PMOP leadership of the tactics of the RSP fighters’ actions for this purpose, as well as the fact of his execution of the specified order, when he began at 08:50 to coordinate the withdrawal of units and special service vehicles;

- the fact of abuse of power and official authority, which led to grave consequences, participation in the commission of a terrorist act, intentional murders of two or more people, attempts at such murders or preparation for such actions by the accused during the period of February 18, 19 and until 08:30 on February 20, 2014, in execution of a clearly criminal order.

The prosecution did not submit any evidence to confirm these factual circumstances (the specific purpose of arming and keeping the RSP fighters in reserve, receiving the aforementioned task, and subsequently the criminal order and its alleged execution, etc.), among the persons questioned by the court, there were no persons who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented.

The facts documented on video and photos of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them, victims of such and other violent actions, were recognized by the court as incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle.

- the armed attack on law enforcement officers on the morning of February 20, 2014, with the use of firearms to kill, as stated in the indictments themselves, and the subsequent attack by activists on law enforcement officers with elements of attack and persecution, and individual activists with objects that, with all obviousness, resemble firearms of various types in their external features, and their targeted use in the direction of law enforcement officers;

From November 24, 2013 to January 19, 2014, the Maidan was an exclusively peaceful protest. The presence of individual, even trained, aggressive groups among peaceful protesters during the protests, the commission of violent offenses by such groups, as well as individual local clashes between protesters and law enforcement officers, was recognized by the court as insufficient evidence that such protests had lost their peaceful nature, since other goals were not publicly declared by its organizers, and the aforementioned clashes did not become an integral part of the protest itself.

The increase in violence during the protests on the Maidan in the period from January 19 to 26, 2014 (the active events of the “bloody Epiphany”) was obvious, as was its duration, which in the aggregate and against the background of previous outbreaks of violence, which were short-term (up to a day), gives this circumstance a certain tendency, that is, there is a variation in the nature of the protest. The sporadic appearance of a firearm component was also recorded in these events. Analyzing the documented facts, which, in the opinion of the defense, are the most convincing, the court in this case also did not find valid grounds on their basis for concluding that the protest had lost its peaceful nature. At the same time, the dynamics of events, the sudden escalation of the confrontation by organized groups of activists, the involvement of an increasing number of people in it in conditions of increasing crowding became the factors under which violent confrontation was inevitable, and the loss of such a peaceful nature of the protest became less and less illusory, and clashes increasingly became an integral part of the protest itself.

The unprecedented sharp increase in violence during the protests on Maidan on February 18, 2014, and the severity of its consequences due to the significant number of gunshot wounds sustained by participants in the confrontation on both sides, combined, make it absolutely questionable whether such a protest at the time of the events was peaceful. The actions of activists documented on February 18, 2014 cannot be called peaceful gatherings, rallies, street marches, or demonstrations.

February 18, 2014 - bodily injuries of varying severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns) to 398 law enforcement officers, 8 of whom died from gunshot wounds (military personnel of the Armed Forces military unit NUMBER_72 PERSON_2335 and PERSON_2336 (4:40 p.m. near the Trade Unions building), military unit NUMBER_202 PERSON_2337 and PERSON_2338 (4-5 p.m. near the Zhovtnevy Palace), employee of the Berkut special unit of the Main Department of Internal Affairs of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea PERSON_2509 (9 p.m. near the flower clock), employee of the PMOP PERSON_2349 (9-10 p.m. near the Globus shopping mall), military personnel of the Armed Forces military unit NUMBER_206 PERSON_2339 (22 h. 30 min. near the Zhovtnevy Palace) and PERSON_2340 (23-00 on the stairs near the Independence Stella), and a total of 133 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds.

According to the location, it was established that in the period from 08:00 to 23:50 on February 18, 2014, law enforcement officers were injured: in the territory of Mariinsky Park - 9 people; at the intersection of Instytutska and Shovkovychna streets - 48 people, 14 of whom were shot; on Shovkovychna street - 6 people; on Lypska street - 5 people, 4 of whom were shot; at the intersection of Instytutska and Sadovaya streets - 1 person was shot; on Sadovaya street - 1 person; at the intersection of Instytutska and Bankova streets - 6 people were shot; on Bankova street - 1 person; on Instytutska street - 114 people, 25 of whom were shot; near the Zhovtnevy Palace - 5 people were shot; on Hrushevskogo - 115 people, of whom 25 - firearms; on Muzeyny Street - 2 people - firearms; on European Square - 2 people - firearms, on Tryohsvyatitelska Street - 1 person - firearms; on Khreshchatyk Street - 50 people, of whom 35 - firearms; at the intersection of Instytutska Street and Khreshchatyk Street - 5 people, of whom 3 - firearms; on Maidan Nezalezhnosti - 19 people, of whom 2 - firearms.

On February 18, 2014, 771 activists were also injured to varying degrees, 19 of whom died, 12 of them from gunshot wounds, and a total of 120 activists received gunshot wounds.

On February 19, 2014, 105 law enforcement officers were injured to varying degrees of severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns), 1 of whom died from a gunshot wound, and a total of 14 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 156 activists were also injured to varying degrees of severity, 6 of whom died, 3 of whom were from gunshot wounds, and a total of 20 activists received gunshot wounds.

On February 20, 2014, 113 law enforcement officers were injured to varying degrees of severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns), 4 of whom died from gunshot wounds, and a total of 63 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 233 activists were also injured to varying degrees of severity, 49 of whom died, 48 of whom were from gunshot wounds, and a total of 172 activists received gunshot wounds.

The jury’s conclusions about the documented nature of the facts of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18-20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and individuals who used them, which is incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle, were additionally confirmed during the investigation in compliance with the procedure for opening additional photo materials (Part 11 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). These include, in particular, 46 photos, provided by the defense attorney of PERSON_678 (vol. 93 a. 122-167) and 12 photos, provided by the defense attorney of PERSON_679 (vol. 174 a. 2-13), examined by the jury both as a whole and during the interrogation of individual victims and witnesses, which show more than 25 different objects, which, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms such as rifles of various types, including those with optical sights, pistols of various types and systems, and the same number of different shooters with these objects among the Maidan activists who moved freely around the Maidan territory, felt protected on it, and who in most cases were covered and accompanied by other activists, which indicates the falsity of the arguments about the fundamental separation of the Maidan from such persons.

The information documented from the activist-controlled territory in the central part of Kyiv about the presence of firearms among the Maidan activists, and the number of such shooters is counted in the dozens, is incompatible with the concept of forms and means of peaceful protest in principle.

In addition, the indicated data fully prove that the premises of the “Ukrainy” hotel were the object of massive shelling with firearms of various calibers, in particular, with cartridges of 7.62x39 mm (the absolute majority), 7.62x51 mm or .308 Winchester (room No. 926), 7.62x54R mm (hotel kitchen premises) and from various directions, including: from the direction of the top of the street. Instytutska and near the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station - according to the examined photo and video materials, the area that was under the exclusive control of law enforcement and where the RSP was located (damaged from this direction are rooms No. 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 312, 313, 520, 544, a utility room on the 6th floor, rooms No. 926, 1126, staircases between the 4th and 5th, 13th, 14th and 15th floors); from the edge of the Kinopalats building - according to the examined photo and video materials, the area that passed under the control of the “Maidan” from the law enforcement (rooms No. 308, NUMBER_56, 1136); from the side of the Conservatory - according to the examined photo and video materials, the territory controlled by the “Maidan” (room No. 825); from the side of the Main Post Office - according to the studied photo and video materials, the territory controlled by “Maidan” (room No. 925), - and there was also shooting in the opposite direction from the premises of the “Ukraine” hotel - in the parking lot from above from the hotel windows (car), towards the top of Instytutska Street (covered by snow and concrete barricades) (from room No. 1116).

According to the incident scene inspection report dated February 25, 2014 with annexes in the form of a photo table (vol. 150 a. 71-70), during the inspection with the participation of a forensic specialist of room No. 1136 on the 11th floor of the “Ukraine” hotel building (Kyiv, 4 Instytutska St.), gunshot damage in the form of a hole was found on the window facing the Kinopalats building; no items of significance were found or seized.

According to the incident scene inspection report dated February 26, 2014 with annexes in the form of a photo table (vol. 150 a. 215-223), during the inspection with the participation of a forensic specialist of room No. 1116 on the 11th floor of the “Ukraine” hotel building (Kyiv, 4 Instytutska St.), a through-fire damage was found on the glass section of the metal-plastic door to the balcony in the form of an opening in the direction outward (the initial one is photo No. 5 on a. 223), that is, from the hotel towards Instytutska Street (the area covers both sides of Instytutska Street, the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station, snow and concrete barricades), no items of significance were found or seized.

The totality of the indicated data on trace information of the damages and the direction of their infliction has proven with all due accuracy that the area on Instytutska Street from the Hotel “Ukraine” to its intersection with Olhynska Street was the object of massive shelling from various directions, including:

A) towards the Hotel “Ukraine” and conditionally towards Maidan Nezalezhnosti, -

B) in the opposite direction towards the government quarter, -

- from the side of the October Palace - according to the researched photo and video materials, the area that passed under the control of the “Maidan” from the law enforcement forces;

- from the Independence Square - the sighting of gunshot damage from the Independence Square is consistent with the video footage, which shows people with rifles and pistols among the activists near the “INFORMACIYA_161” hotel building and near the green fence on the alley from the Zhovtnevy Palace.

These data, taken together, correlate with the previously provided information about the directions of shelling of the premises of the Ukraina Hotel building, especially regarding the direction of fire from the top of Instytutska Street and from the area near the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station, as well as the direction of fire from the premises of the Ukraina Hotel towards the snow and concrete barricades placed at the top of Instytutska Street across its carriageway.

Regarding the time of the injury of the victim PERSON_967, during the examination in the court session of the video recording entitled “MVI_2768” (the so-called Mustang video), placed on the TDK DVD-R disk ...2248 (vol. 17 a. 122), the victim PERSON_968 showed the middle floors of the hotel “INFORMATION_161”, where from afar he saw a person in black clothes with an object resembling a weapon, and also admitted that the events recorded on the video near the bridge occurred later in time than the time of his injury...

The above testimonies of the victim PERSON_832 were generally confirmed during the court’s examination of the certificate of the volunteer of the “Maidan” Self-Defense Force No. 1246 for the victim, who was a member of the hundred No. 28 (vol. 72 a 109ob.), the appendix to the protocol of his interrogation dated April 17, 2015, where on the diagram under the number No. NUMBER_149 he marked, as he believed, analyzing all the information received from other activists and from the scene, the locations of the “snipers” - the CMU building, the “Ukraine” hotel, the “Arkada” bank, the CMU club, etc. (vol. 72 a. 14).

However, among the sectors most frequently mentioned by the victims, from which, in their opinion, the shelling of the activists was carried out, a special place, in addition to the actual locations of the armed RSP fighters visualized in the video recordings (first in front of the October Palace, then in the alley from it during their retreat, then behind the snow and finally behind the concrete barricades), was the upper floors of the “INFORMACIYA_161” hotel building, which the defense side used, casting doubt on the firing of shots by RSP fighters in the direction of the victims.

Snipers as observers took up their positions for observation and discovered several possible points of fire in their direction from the side of the hotel “INFORMATION_161”, other fighters were in cover behind the fence, behind trees, some in small groups and he moved with them to the territory of the CMU club, the rest of the personnel was in reserve at the intersection of Bankivska and Luteranska streets, the main one there was the deputy commander of “INFORMATION_285” for assault training.

The sniper was informed about the presence of long-barreled weapons by the activists closer to the hotel “INFORMACIYA_161”. Being on the third floor of the club, after the windows were opened, the positions of his snipers were fired at approximately from the 5-7th floors of the “Ukraine” hotel and the attic of the Zhovtnevy Palace, the bullets fired at the snipers were not removed by them, 5-7 shots were fired around the perimeter of the window, most likely they were firing to make observation impossible. The fire was conducted from deep inside the room professionally, so it was not possible to accurately identify the positions of the shooters.

According to reports, he knew that the shooting at law enforcement officers was being conducted from the “INFORMATION_161” hotel, and after the activists occupied the October Palace, then from the attic of the palace, snipers also reported movement at the construction site near the “Dnipro” hotel, all its sources named the “INFORMATION_161” hotel as the point of fire in terms of intensity, then the October Palace and only then the construction site near the “Dnipro” hotel, snipers reported that in the area of the “Ukraine” hotel down the street there were also people armed with long-barreled firearms, it could have been used from that place to kill…

On February 20, it was also impossible to detain the people who were firing at law enforcement officers; it was only possible to clear the Ukraina Hotel or the Conservatory if the organizers of the mass events would have provided passage there, and his squad was ready for this. As far as he knows, such requests were made by the leadership of the Alpha unit, but the response was a refusal. In the operational situation that developed, the leadership of the Maidan, with its influence on hundreds (squads) and if there was a desire, could have organized an access corridor for special forces to the hotel building; law enforcement officers could have done this on their own only through an assault and clashes with the possible use of weapons again, which would have resulted in additional casualties. Analyzing the situation that he saw personally, he cannot say that the groups of snipers from the activists were coordinated with other groups of protesters. His men were probably fired at with a weapon of at least 7.62 caliber, it could also be a hunting rifle, given the analysis of hits in the CMU club, where his subordinates were, the fire was fired from one level, most likely from the 5th-7th floors of the Ukraina Hotel, there was no return fire, since the snipers did not see the shooter.

Evaluating all the video recordings and photo materials examined during the trial in the context of the charges brought, the jury found that they documented in detail, from various angles, information about the situation of the confrontation between activists and law enforcement officers on February 18-20, 2014, in particular: the nature of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18-20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them, were recognized by the court as incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle; dynamics of the changing situation on the morning of February 20, 2014 (chaotic retreat of law enforcement officers, which was accompanied by an attack (attacks and persecution) by activists, and some with objects that, with all obviousness in their external signs, resemble firearms of various types, protection by law enforcement officers, as the retreating party, with the use of all available special means, including water cannons, and only then the open use of firearms by law enforcement officers; movement and displacement of the opposing parties from the occupied positions (law enforcement officers - up Instytutska Street with a delay associated with the evacuation from the Zhovtnevy Palace building, further behind the snow and concrete barricades, and activists - gradual movement in waves in the direction of the law enforcement officers to the edge of the snow barricade).

The video “2014-02-20-01” records the circumstances of the stay of a public figure - activist PERSON_834 precisely in the Conservatory building, where the activists were actually housed.

In some details, the testimony of witness PERSON_2447 is generally consistent with other evidence examined by the court, namely in terms of the morning firefight of law enforcement forces on Independence Square on February 20, 2014, one of the sources of such fire - the building PERSON_1174, the presence of people with weapons among the activists on the “Maidan”, and among them a publicly known person - PERSON_834...

February 18, 2014 - bodily injuries of varying severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns) to 398 law enforcement officers, 8 of whom died from gunshot wounds (military personnel of the Armed Forces military unit NUMBER_72 PERSON_2335 and PERSON_2336 (4:40 p.m. near the Trade Unions building), military unit NUMBER_202 PERSON_2337 and PERSON_2338 (4-5 p.m. near the Zhovtnevy Palace), employee of the Berkut special unit of the Main Department of Internal Affairs of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea PERSON_2509 (9 p.m. near the flower clock), employee of the PMOP PERSON_2349 (9-10 p.m. near the Globus shopping mall), military personnel of the Armed Forces military unit NUMBER_206 PERSON_2339 (22 h. 30 min. near the Zhovtnevy Palace) and PERSON_2340 (23-00 on the stairs near the Independence Stella), and a total of 133 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds.

According to the location, it was established that in the period from 08:00 to 23:50 on February 18, 2014, law enforcement officers were injured: in the territory of Mariinsky Park - 9 people; at the intersection of Instytutska and Shovkovychna streets - 48 people, 14 of whom were shot; on Shovkovychna street - 6 people; on Lypska street - 5 people, 4 of whom were shot; at the intersection of Instytutska and Sadovaya streets - 1 person was shot; on Sadovaya street - 1 person; at the intersection of Instytutska and Bankova streets - 6 people were shot; on Bankova street - 1 person; on Instytutska street - 114 people, 25 of whom were shot; near the Zhovtnevy Palace - 5 people were shot; on Hrushevskogo - 115 people, of whom 25 - firearms; on Muzeyny Street - 2 people - firearms; on European Square - 2 people - firearms, on Tryohsvyatitelska Street - 1 person - firearms; on Khreshchatyk Street - 50 people, of whom 35 - firearms; at the intersection of Instytutska Street and Khreshchatyk Street - 5 people, of whom 3 - firearms; on Maidan Nezalezhnosti - 19 people, of whom 2 - firearms.

On February 18, 2014, 771 activists were also injured to varying degrees, 19 of whom died, 12 of them from gunshot wounds, and a total of 120 activists received gunshot wounds.

On February 19, 2014, 105 law enforcement officers were injured to varying degrees of severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns), 1 of whom died from a gunshot wound, and a total of 14 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 156 activists were also injured to varying degrees of severity, 6 of whom died, 3 of whom were from gunshot wounds, and a total of 20 activists received gunshot wounds.

On February 20, 2014, 113 law enforcement officers were injured to varying degrees of severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns), 4 of whom died from gunshot wounds, and a total of 63 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 233 activists were also injured to varying degrees of severity, 49 of whom died, 48 of whom were from gunshot wounds, and a total of 172 activists received gunshot wounds.

Ivan Katchanovski's Substack on Ukraine

My personal Substack

I am a Ukrainian and Canadian political scientist. I specialize in researching comparative politics, conflicts, and far right in Ukraine. My academic publications include 7 books, 13 book chapters, and 22 articles in refereed journals. I am one of the most cited political scientists, who specialize primarily in politics and conflicts in Ukraine, with over 2,100 Google Scholar citations and H-index of 25. My publications, interviews, and comments appeared in over 4,000 media reports in more than 85 countries.

I teach at the University of Ottawa. Previously, I was Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Politics at the State University of New York at Potsdam, Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and Kluge Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. I received my Ph.D. from the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University

Everyone interested is welcome to subscribe for free.

Share

Share Ivan Katchanovski's Substack on Ukraine

Subscribe now