- The aftermath of Euromaidan has left Ukraine navigating a complex web of geopolitical, economic, and societal challenges.
- Post-Euromaidan, Ukraine found itself facing a myriad of challenges on multiple fronts with economic struggles, allegations of political repression, and the rise of far-right ideologies emerging as critical issues.
- Despite increased military spending, Ukraine’s economic challenges persisted as the country underwent deindustrialisation, marked by the closure of key factories.
As we mark the tenth anniversary of Euromaidan on November 21, 2023, a profound examination of the events that unfolded in Ukraine during 2013-14 becomes imperative. Euromaidan, a movement initially sparked by President Yanukovich’s decision to suspend the EU Association Agreement, evolved into a watershed moment in Ukraine’s history, raising fundamental questions about the nature of the uprising, its motivations, and the subsequent trajectory of the country.
The genesis of Euromaidan can be traced back to a social media call initiated by Ukrainian blogger Mustafa Nayyem on that fateful November 21. What began as a seemingly spontaneous gathering under the Independence Monument quickly evolved into a multifaceted movement with political implications. The involvement of Mustafa Nayyem, an opposition blogger, and students soon transcended into a broader participation of political heavyweights, giving the protests a more organised and strategic dimension.
Central to the Maidan protests was a geopolitical struggle reminiscent of today’s broader Russia-NATO tensions, with certain Western governments, notably the United States, aiming to isolate Russia. This objective involved supporting the integration of peripheral regions of the former Soviet Union into European and Atlantic institutions. Moscow, interpreting this as an encroachment on its sphere of influence, fiercely resisted.
In 2014, Viktor Yanukovych found himself navigating these geopolitical tensions while seeking a second term as Ukraine’s president. His earlier ousting in the aftermath of the 2004 Orange Revolution, sparked by allegations of vote-rigging during his initial rise to power, had prompted him to spend six years rebuilding his political standing. This effort resulted in Yanukovych emerging as the most trusted politician in the country before making another bid for the presidency.
Genesis of the Euromaidan Protests
The Revolution of Dignity transcends a simplistic dichotomy of liberal inspiration or far-right coup, encapsulating nuanced geopolitical manoeuvring and historical grievances. It marked a period when Ukraine stood at the crossroads of divergent political and cultural influences, and Yanukovych found himself navigating these intricacies. This period played a pivotal role in shaping Ukraine’s complex relationship with both the West and Russia, and understanding this multifaceted backdrop is essential for making sense of the ongoing geopolitical dynamics in the region.
By the year 2010, international monitors had bestowed upon the latest election in Ukraine the esteemed label of being free and fair—an accolade tantamount to an impressive display of democracy. However, once in power, Viktor Yanukovych’s governance was marred by a pervasive tapestry of corruption, authoritarian tendencies, and a somewhat discomforting affinity toward Moscow, which had openly supported him in the preceding election. The intricate fabric of Ukrainian society, sharply divided between the West and a Center favouring closer ties to Europe and an East with a more pro-Russia inclination, mirrored the very fault lines that determined the election outcome, adding an extra layer of complexity.
Yanukovych found himself in a delicate position, attempting to navigate the intricate balance between Ukraine’s dependence on affordable Russian gas and a populace, albeit not an absolute majority, yearning for European integration. Complicating matters further, the political landscape reflected a dual allegiance: Yanukovych’s party formally allied with Vladimir Putin’s United Russia, aligning with the pro-Russia sentiments of his base, while the oligarchs propelling him to the presidency were financially entangled with the West. These influential figures feared potential competition from across the Russian border.
Throughout his four-year tenure, Yanukovych skillfully walked a tightrope, catering to his pro-Russia base through symbolic gestures and cultural measures, such as discussions of unity and collaboration with Moscow in key industries. Concurrently, he took more substantive steps like declaring Russian an official language, renouncing NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor’s decision to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.
A significant concession to Moscow occurred early in Yanukovych’s term when he brokered a deal allowing the Russian Black Sea Fleet to use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. The swift passage of this agreement was marked by tumultuous scenes, with fistfights and smoke bombs erupting in the Ukrainian parliament.
Yanukovych found himself in a delicate position, attempting to navigate the intricate balance between Ukraine's dependence on affordable Russian gas and a populace, albeit not an absolute majority, yearning for European integration.
In this intricate dance between Moscow and the West, Yanukovych sought to maintain equilibrium, capitalizing on geopolitical cleavages within Ukraine. This delicate manoeuvring aimed to prevent an outright tilt toward either Washington or Moscow, as both global powers sought to assert their influence over the country.
Despite persistent accusations that he danced to the Kremlin’s tune, Viktor Yanukovych’s pivot towards the East had its limitations. His reluctance to commit to joining a Russian-led customs union of former Soviet republics, even in the face of Putin’s tempting offer of more economical gas prices, irked Moscow. Additionally, Yanukovych outright rejected Putin’s proposal to merge the state-owned gas giants of both nations, a move that would have granted Moscow control over the Ukrainian pipelines critical for ferrying its gas exports to Europe. Moscow, in response, adamantly refused to renegotiate the contentious 2009 gas contract between the two nations, a deal widely criticized in Ukraine.
Simultaneously, Yanukovych actively collaborated with and publicly endorsed Western assistance in modernizing Ukraine’s natural gas infrastructure. He repeatedly emphasized that “European integration is the key priority of our foreign policy,” while steadfastly working toward European Union membership. To achieve this goal, he pursued a free trade agreement with the EU and accepted an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan, complying with Western recommendations. However, this financial lifeline came with the well-known price tag often attached to Western bailouts—elimination of tariffs, a freeze on wages and pensions, spending cuts, and the termination of gas subsidies to Ukrainian households. Despite the visible consequences of such Western-imposed austerity, exemplified by Greece at the time, Yanukovych deemed it a worthwhile trade-off to keep Moscow at arm’s length from Ukrainian affairs.
In a bid to arrest Ukraine’s drift toward the West, Putin employed a one-man good-cop, bad-cop routine. He extended a no-strings-attached loan equal to the IMF’s offer while simultaneously applying pressure through a quasi-trade blockade. Faced with the EU’s inability to offer alternatives that matched the catastrophic trade loss with Russia, Yanukovych strategically opted for Moscow’s offer. In a sudden about-face in November, he reneged on the EU deal, triggering the protests that eventually led to his ousting from power. This decision reflected Yanukovych’s calculated choice to prioritize Moscow’s offer over the potential consequences of turning away from Russia.
Unscrupulous Role of the US in the Euromaidan Protest
Over the span of decades, Washington and its allied governments have pursued their strategic and economic interests, often cloaked under the banner of promoting democracy and liberal values abroad. This approach has manifested in diverse ways, ranging from channelling financial support to groups with violent tendencies, as witnessed in the case of the Nicaraguan contras, to backing ostensibly pro-democracy movements, such as those observed in Ukraine.
“The shaping and bolstering of civil society in Ukraine have long been influenced by external actors,” noted Ukrainian scholar Iryna Solonenko in 2015. She highlighted the pivotal roles played by the European Union and the United States, facilitated through agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Interestingly, the physical proximity of these agencies, with their Kyiv headquarters situated within the same compound as the US embassy, underscores the depth of external involvement in Ukraine’s civil society. Solonenko argued that without this external support, which has served as the primary source of funding for Ukrainian civil society since gaining independence, it might not have evolved into its current form.
A striking precedent for this foreign influence unfolded during the 2004–5 Orange Revolution. While foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may not have brought about substantial changes to Ukraine’s corruption and authoritarianism during this period, they did achieve a crucial objective—steering Ukraine’s foreign policy in a Western direction. Reflecting on this, the liberal Center for American Progress in that era articulated the transformative impact of these efforts.
This intricate interplay between external actors and Ukraine’s domestic landscape highlights the nuanced nature of foreign influence, where the promotion of democratic values intertwines with strategic geopolitical objectives. The external support for civil society becomes not just a financial lifeline but a key factor in shaping the trajectory of a nation’s political evolution.
US officials, dissatisfied with the abandoned EU deal, perceived an opportunity in the unfolding Maidan protests. Just two months before the protests erupted, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) noted the considerable opportunities presented by Yanukovych’s European outreach, stating that “there are important ways Washington could help.” In practical terms, this translated into financial support for groups like New Citizen, acknowledged by the Financial Times for playing a significant role in initiating the protests and led by a pro-EU opposition figure. Investigative journalist Mark Ames revealed that the organization had received substantial funding from US democracy promotion initiatives.
As the turmoil gained momentum, Washington took an even more direct role. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy met with the leader of Svoboda, a far-right group, publicly expressing their support for the protesters. Simultaneously, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was on the ground distributing cookies to protesters. The provocative nature of these actions becomes apparent when juxtaposed with the establishment’s outrage over the mere suspicion of Moscow utilizing troll farms to express support for Black Lives Matter protests. Subsequently, a leaked phone call exposed Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine orchestrating efforts to shape the post-Euromaidan government. In a candid moment, Nuland dismissed the EU’s less assertive intervention with a forceful “Fuck the EU,” and she championed opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the economic expert essential for the post-Maidan government. Unsurprisingly, Yatsenyuk assumed the role of prime minister in the ensuing interim government, supporting the neoliberal policies demanded by the West.
The aftermath of Yanukovych’s ousting saw key figures from the far right, instrumental in the president’s downfall, assume prominent roles in the ensuing interim government. Parubiy and others found themselves in influential positions, while the winner of the 2014 snap presidential election, Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s seventh-richest individual, brought with him a history tainted by corruption. Poroshenko’s interior minister further integrated the Azov Regiment, a neo-Nazi militia, into Ukraine’s National Guard, turning the country into an unexpected magnet for far-right extremists worldwide. This included Russian white supremacists who, ironically, sought refuge from Putin’s persecution.
A leaked phone call exposed Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine orchestrating efforts to shape the post-Euromaidan government.
Despite far-right parties losing parliamentary seats, ultranationalist movements managed to push Ukraine’s politics to the extreme right. Poroshenko and other centrists supported measures marginalizing the use of Russian and glorifying Nazi collaborators. Far-right candidates entered Parliament through non-far-right tickets, and former Azov commander Andriy Biletsky secured high-ranking law enforcement positions. Far-right vigilantism spread, endorsed by Poroshenko, who granted citizenship to a Belarusian neo-Nazi, displaying shades of borderline anti-Semitism.
Under both Poroshenko and the current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, elected as a change agent in 2019, little has changed regarding Ukrainian corruption or authoritarianism. Each governed with autocratic tendencies, targeting political opponents and stifling dissent, embroiled in personal enrichment scandals endemic to Ukraine’s political class.
Despite these issues, both leaders received support from Washington. The current US president’s family became entangled in a major corruption scandal involving Ukraine, and a notably corrupt prosecutor general was appointed. Meanwhile, Ukraine found itself embroiled in a mini-civil war after the Maidan events, with pro-Russian separatists mobilizing in the east, countered by armed forces sent by the interim government and later Russian troops.
A crucial shift occurred post-Yanukovych, with the interim government and Washington’s chosen prime minister signing the EU deal initially rejected. This solidified Ukraine’s westward move, accompanied by harsh austerity measures demanded by the IMF. Privatization, pension age increases, and gas subsidy cuts followed, endorsed by then-Vice President Joe Biden, contributing to the discontent that led to a subsequent electoral upheaval.
Further, post-Euromaidan Ukraine found itself facing a myriad of challenges on multiple fronts. Economic struggles, allegations of political repression, and the rise of far-right ideologies emerged as critical issues. The glorification of historical figures associated with Nazi collaboration, coupled with accusations of neo-Nazi connections, drew international concern. Reports of Ukraine becoming a hub for white supremacy extremism, attracting foreign fighters, further added to the geopolitical complexities.
Despite increased military spending, Ukraine’s economic challenges persisted. The country underwent deindustrialization, marked by the closure of key factories, including the Lviv Bus Factory, the Zaporozhskiy Automobile Building Plant, and the Nikolayev Shipyard. The once-prominent Antonov aircraft manufacturer faced a period of inactivity, and Yuzhmash, a large aerospace and rocket factory, struggled to stay afloat.Living standards in Ukraine experienced a downward trajectory, with utility rates rising and a mounting utility debt driven by International Monetary Fund (IMF) requirements. The termination of gas supply contracts with Russia left Ukraine grappling with an energy crisis, further exacerbated by higher gas prices than EU countries.
In a paradoxical twist, Ukraine, once known as the “granary of the USSR,” witnessed an increase in food imports, reaching $8 billion in 2021. The transformation from an industrial and agricultural country into a raw materials supplier raised questions about the sustainability of such economic shifts. The demographic landscape witnessed a significant outflow of Ukrainians seeking better opportunities abroad. In 2020, over 600,000 individuals received EU residence permits, and migration patterns continued in subsequent years, posing demographic challenges for the nation.
Hence, the 2014 Maidan Revolution defies simplistic categorization, presenting a messy interplay of liberal, pro-Western protesters with legitimate grievances partnering, albeit temporarily, with the far right against a corrupt president. The tragic outcome was the empowerment of literal neo-Nazis, serving the geopolitical goals of opportunistic Western powers. This narrative, often oversimplified or dismissed as misinformation, mirrors a tragically common post–Cold War European story, where political and social divisions are exploited in the realm of great power rivalry. The Western failure to grasp this complexity has led to reckless involvement in a region rife with shadowy motives, shifting allegiances, and a reality often obscured beneath the surface.
(The author is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Kalinga University, Raipur. Views and opinions expressed are the author’s own)
Dr. Niranjan B Poojar 
Bhagyashree Gupta 
Balaji Subramanian