The displacement of Yanukovych led not to a power coup, but a panic in his environment, American journalists say

Journalists of The New York Times Andrew Higgins and Andrew E. Kramer published the results of their own investigation of the events preceding Viktor Yanukovych from Kiev. They argue that the change of power did not occur as a result of a power coup, behind which the West stood, but the weakness of the encirclement of the Ukrainian president and the betrayal of the security forces.

At the time when Yanukovych, hesitating, signed the agreements on February 21 and hoped that they would retain his power for at least several months, deputies from among his supporters, as well as the leaders of police units and special services in a panic, appealed to the opposition, worrying about personal security more than about the government’s position, the publication claims.

Russia insists that Yanukovych’s resignation led a “neophastic” coup, which was supported and stored by the West under the guise of a popular uprising. The Kremlin gives this statement along with historical connections as the main excuse of the annexation of Crimea in March and the subsequent support of the uprising of pro -Russian separatists in Ukrainian industrial centers in the east of the country, reminds The New York Times. “Outside the bubble of the bubble, which was inflated by the Russian propaganda, the Kremlin’s line was seriously perceived. But now, almost a year after the fall of the Yanukovych government, questions remain about how and why he has lost power so quickly and irrevocably,” the article says, the translation of Inopressa offers.

American journalists prove that the President of Ukraine was abandoned to their fate by his allies, and Western officials were surprised by the resulting political crisis almost stronger than anyone else. Shock and panic became the result of bloodshed on the Maidan - the worst since the end of the Second World War, the publication claims. This was the reason for the mass betrayal of the president’s supporters in parliament and prompted Yanukovych to negotiations with the opposition.

Employees of law enforcement units, stated, said in an interview that they were afraid of talking about a truce, because they were afraid that Yanukovych would renounce those people who defended him, especially from the lower ranks who carried out the whole severity of street battles. “The minister disappeared, and no one answered calls,” said Nekto Vladimir from the Sumy detachment of Berkut. Alexander Khodakovsky, who in February commanded the Alfa unit, and for some time he served as the Minister of Security for some time, claims that at that moment it was clear - there was no central government, it fell apart. “We realized that the mediation of Europeans will not lead to anything,” he explained.

Weapons captured by protesters in Lviv became a decisive argument

In the ranks of the security forces, rumors about the capture of hundreds of weapons on the night of February 18 in Lviv also contributed to panic in the ranks of the security forces. This arsenal was transported to Kyiv to add to hunting rifles, pistols, bottles with incendiary mixture and metal batons. The head of the Lviv police Dmitry Zagaria said that a total of 1,200 weapons were stolen, mainly pistols and Kalashnikov assault rifles. However, it clarifies The New York Times, there is no evidence that this weapon was used in Kyiv.

Representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany, Poland and France on the evening of February 20 met with Viktor Yanukovych to agree on a truce. Simultaneously with the head of the security forces of the Maidan Andrei Parubiy, negotiations were underway to prevent the delivery of weapons from Lviv to Kyiv. “We told him - do not let this weapon get into Kyiv. If this happens, it will change the whole situation,” said the American ambassador to Kyiv, Jeffrey Payet.

In a recent interview, Parubiya denied the information that weapons from Lviv got into Kyiv, but agreed that the captured arsenal gave Euromaidan a powerful lever of pressure on Yanukovych and Western countries.

On the evening of February 21, while the diplomats gathered in the administration at the signing ceremony, the security forces and deputies from the Yanukovych camp began to call the opposition representatives with a request to provide them with the opportunity to leave the city and give guarantees of security.

Mikhail Dobkin from the Party of Regions, who worked in close contact with Yanukovych for many years, said that the president was completely not ready to disappear the security forces that he did not know anything about the betrayal of the Allies and did not give them an order to flee from Kyiv.

As Dobkin points out, he discussed his upcoming flight with Yanukovych, and he asked to organize a visit to several factories in the Kharkov region in order to "maintain decency." “He thought it would be temporary difficulties,” says the former candidate for the president of Ukraine and the ex -head of the Kharkov administration. “When a leader ceases to be a leader, people from his environment also disappear. This is a rule,” he added.

Also, American journalists say, Vladimir Lukin, plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation, who put his signature under a peace agreement disappeared from Kyiv. When the European diplomats who participated in the ceremony left the building of the presidential administration, hundreds of policemen crowded at the buses, intending to leave.

The head of the Polish Foreign Ministry, Radoslav Sikorsky, recalls that the security forces left other government buildings. Subsequently, in a conversation with Russian colleague Sergei Lavrov, he insisted that the events in Kyiv were not a coup, since the police, seeing the lack of power and fearing revenge for shooting on the Maidan, simply left.

According to The New York Times, a wave of violence in Kyiv abruptly went to the decline with Yanukovych’s departure. Protesters entered the building of the Presidential Administration and other government buildings across the front gate. A few hours later, Yanukovych, in television circulation, said that his car was sheated, and accused of some traitors, refusing, however, to call them.

Yanukovych says he left, refusing to unleash the civil war

Recall that at the end of December 2014, the disgraced President Viktor Yanukovych told his version of the February events in detail. According to him, he did not expect a peaceful protest to grow into an armed confrontation. According to the former head of Ukraine, there were no reasons for the development of those events - the traffic in the EU was not stopped, and the signing of the agreement was only postponed. “However, real directors of this action already approved their plan - to shake the country and make it weak and accommodating. For this, first of all, they needed to overthrow the president,” Yanukovych is sure.

According to his version, on the Maidan everything was done in the best traditions of revolutions in the Middle East - when the energy of protesters dried up, there was a provocation that gave rise to a new wave of indignation. When these measures became not enough, the first victims appeared on the Maidan. According to Yanukovych, he has evidence that two young guys who were allegedly killed on Grushevsky Street actually died in another place.

According to the ex-president, it was important for his opponents to find one of the four constitutional methods of removal from the authorities. “I didn’t succeed in impeachment. I will recognize me as legally incompetent when I am alive and healthy - it is unrealistic. Two more ways remained: voluntary resignation or death,” he explained. After refusing to resign, "specific actions began, which threatened me and the people who accompanied me," said Yanukovych. “According to the information that I received, and, most importantly, for attempts at attempts, I clearly understood: they decided to kill me,” Yanukovych added in an interview. He abandoned the idea of ​​unleashing the civil war, trying to restore the constitutional order by force, and left the country.

We add that an investigation about the death of protesters and police officers on the Maidan during the confrontation was never completed. According to Newsru.ua , in December, the investigation period was once again extended. A few days later it became known that a new evidence appeared in the case - a bullet extracted from the body of one of the victims. As the media noted, according to the main version, the cause of most deaths and wounds was the pumping rifles of Berkut and Kalashnikov assault rifles. Earlier, versions of "sniper shooting" from self -loading carbines Simonov were also voiced.

The Prosecutor General of Ukraine Vitaly Yarema rejected the help of the Hague Tribunal in the investigation of the case about the events on the Maidan, believing that its department is quite effective. This was announced on Facebook by the deputy from the Bloc Poroshenko Vitaly Kupriy. Soon after, from the side of the adviser to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Anton Gerashchenko , charges against the prosecutor’s office of delaying the investigation followed.