Kiev snipers, the regime and Yanukovych

The regime in Kiev says the snipers on 20th February 2014 belonged to the security forces. No surprise there. It also insinuates that the Russians were involved – a predictable but nonetheless fantastic allegation that will only serve to undermine its credibility on this issue.

The one interesting thing is that the regime seems to be putting the blame not on Yanukovitch but on the Interior Minister Vitaly Zakharchenko. This suggests that Yanukovitch’s repeated denials that he authorised the use of force are starting to gain credence. By the way I think it is inconceivable that Zakharchenko would have ordered the police to open fire without Yanukovitch’s permission. Had he done so Zakharchenko would have been perfectly aware that Yanukovitch would have blamed him for the consequences and left him to hang out to dry. Zakharchenko did authorise the police to use firearms (though only in self defence) on 21st February 2014 – undoubtedly with Yanukovitch’s permission – but by then it was too late. Importantly that order was publicly posted on the Interior Ministry’s website. Needless to say no written order authorising the use of firearms before 21st February 2014 (as would surely have been required – it beggars belief that the police would have acted with just an informal spoken order) has been produced. This must mean that no such written order exists since if one did the regime by now would surely have produced it.

On the subject of Yanukovitch’s reasons for refusing to authorise the use of force, I am starting to come round to the view that Yanukovitch’s claim that he did not authorise the use of force (though repeatedly urged to do so by his advisers) because of his own intense personal aversion to political violence is the true one. It is the only explanation for his otherwise baffling and ultimately disastrous behaviour that makes sense. It would not be the first case where a violent youth has resulted in a deep horror of violence. Of course the opposition (as it then was) and the regime (as it now is) and its western backers share no such inhibitions.

This whole subject of the Kiev snipers urgently requires an independent investigation by an impartial outside body. Of course that is not going to happen at least whilst the regime remains in power.

Alexander Mercouris is a former British barrister, international law expert.

OR’ NOTE:

Former chief of the Security Service of Ukraine Alexander Yakimenko.
Former chief of the Security Service of Ukraine Alexander Yakimenko.

The regime in Kiev totally ignores the evidence presented last month by the former chief of the Ukrainian Security Service Alexander Yakimenko, that unknown snipers killing both protesters and riot police on Feb. 20, were hired by the Western secret services and protected by  the commandant of the Self-Defense of Maidan, Andriy Parubiy, who was later appointed secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. Mr. Yakimenko said that shots were fired from the building of the Philharmonic Hall in the Ukrainian capital, which was under the full control of the opposition forces and Cmd. Parubiy in particular.

The documentary present below exposes numerous facts contradicting and questioning official version of the tragedy of Feb 20 in Kiev, which should be carefully investigated by an independent international inquiry commission to bring the real perpetrators to justice:

Earlier revelations from the Estonian minister of foreign affairs, Urmas Paet, about opposition-inspired sniper provocations on Euromaidan, are likely also cynically ignored by the new Ukrainian authorities.

As a matter of fact, the hastily announced by the interim Kievan “authorities” results of “investigation” lacking any significant proving evidence clearly indicate that the sniper issue represents a real Achilles’ heel of the regime which usurped power in February immediately after that provocation was carried out in Kiev.

One Comment

  1. Pingback: Global Strategic Trends 2014. | YERELCE

Leave a Reply