Euromaidan, or the Revolution of Dignity, is the prehistory of a great war. Civil protests under the flags of Ukraine and the EU turned into a struggle for democracy and the right to choose, with Molotov cocktails and paving stones in their hands. The fallen protesters of the Heavenly Hundred became the first victims of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Ten years have passed since then, and Ukraine continues to pay a high price for European values.
At the beginning of the revolutionary events, the Kremlin was interested in exacerbating internal tensions in order to restore its influence in Ukraine. During the Revolution of Dignity, Russian propaganda spread the narrative that there was a “civil war” in Ukraine, that a coup d'état had taken place through the unrest of right-wing radicals, and that pro-Western politicians had come to power.
Photojournalist Roman Pylypii, who photographed the events of Euromaidan, posted the following on his Instagram account:
“Ukrainians, holding mobile phones with flashlights turned on, sing the national anthem during the celebration of the new year 2014 in a tent camp of pro-European supporters on Independence Square in Kyiv.”
However, pro-Kremlin forces staged provocations on the Maidan to discredit the protesters. Propaganda media covered EuroMaidan, distorting the context of events, twisting facts, and portraying protesters as criminals. Russia spread fake materials about EuroMaidan, illustrating them with photos taken by Ukrainian photojournalists who were documenting the clashes at the very epicenter of events.
“The revolution of false hopes”
According to Russian propaganda, the primary mistake that “led to political crisis and civil war” was “the desire of Ukrainians to join the EU.” The “hopelessly corrupt” Ukrainian authorities failed to unite society using the technologies of Euromaidan, which were also used by “Western structures.” “That is why the country did not choose the path of peaceful development.” According to propagandists, the biggest mistakes of the new authorities were ignoring the interests of nuclear Russia and repealing the law on regional languages.
“If the post-Maidan authorities had tried to unite the country instead of dividing and ruling it, it is quite possible that Ukraine would not have fallen apart as it has now and would not pose a threat to Russia.” Alexei Tokarev, leading researcher at the Institute of World Affairs at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. (Lenta.ru)
Russian propagandists call the Revolution of Dignity a “revolution of false hopes.” EU accession is presented only as “a way to improve the living standards of Ukrainians,” when in reality, European integration was only needed by the oligarchy. The severing of economic ties with Russia destroyed industry, and European markets never opened up, Lenta.ru continues to insinuate.
Propaganda insists that Yanukovych was not a pro-Russian politician, but rather advocated EU membership and sought to balance relations between Europe and Russia in order to gain advantages. According to Lenta.ru, Yanukovych was a “short-sighted politician” because he realized too late that EU membership would spell economic collapse and the destruction of industry for Ukraine. Moreover, he was unable to “suppress the protest movement, which was instigated from outside.”
The “European dream” became the framework for Ukraine's socio-political consciousness, firmly establishing a single path for the country—a break with Russia. In 10 years, it has brought the country nothing but blood and tears. (Lenta.ru)
Russia mirrored its own plans to launch military aggression against Ukraine, attributing to the West a desire to create tension on Russia's borders. Ukraine, they say, is forgiven for everything because the West's main goal is to prepare for conflict with Russia. No matter what the Ukrainian authorities did, the European Union always called the country “democratic and European” (Lenta.ru).
Here is how radio journalist Natalia Sokolenko describes her activities during Euromaidan in an article for Radio Liberty. In the early days of the revolution, she was the voice of Euromaidan and promoted EU accession:
“[...] It was very easy for me because at the “Center UA” I was involved in promoting the association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. And I didn't just say that we needed to join Europe! No, I talked about and showed infographics about our prospects from signing the association agreement between Ukraine and the EU, and about the prospects of the Customs Union. At that time, Medvedchuk and the communists were pushing us into the Customs Union. And I compared, gave arguments about how customs policy would change, how food prices would change, what access our entrepreneurs would get to the European market, and so on.
And then, when Maidan grew, I came up with another role for myself: I collected newspapers distributed by Medvedchuk's supporters and other pro-Russian figures, read them aloud, refuted their arguments, and explained where they were lying. That's how I worked as a voice on Maidan.”
“Radicals on Maidan”
Euromaidan is first and foremost about people — the main characters of those historic events and those who saw the revolution through the lens.
Through provocateurs who were probably operating on Maidan, the propaganda hoped to discredit the struggle of Ukrainians.
Military photographer Anatoly Stepanov told LB.ua about one of the episodes involving provocateurs. On February 18, 2014, he was filming the revolutionary events on the roof of a building at the intersection of Instytutska and Sadova streets in Kyiv:
"I took a few photos, but then the specialists pulled me away. Someone hit me on the back, I turned around and saw guys in black overalls without any insignia. I thought they were going to throw me off the roof, but they just looked at my ID and we went down together. Before that, I managed to capture a man, apparently a protester, throwing bottles filled with a mixture at the riot police. One of the bottles broke on the riot police's shields. A brawl broke out, and after a while I saw the police take the same protester away and let him wash himself. When this man saw that he was being filmed, he shouted, “Camera! Camera!” and put on a mask. Then the same police officers took this man aside while Berkut beat other protesters until they were bleeding and put them in a barred bus [...]”.
The beating of students, attempts to suppress protests, dictatorial laws, the abduction of activists, repression, and mass shootings of people on Instytutska Street intensified the protesters' anger.
Russian propagandists portrayed the shooting of peaceful protesters on Euromaidan as clashes between armed radical gangs and law enforcement agencies. Lenta.ru claims that “columns of protesters unexpectedly set out to seize government buildings, from where, according to agreements, security forces had been withdrawn.” Lenta.ru experts, Russian and Ukrainian political scientists and propagandists, point to the fact that Maidan was paid for, and that Yanukovych should have punished those who participated in it.
“No one can put this genie back in the bottle. We brought this whole gang to power ourselves and destroyed the country with our own hands.” (Lenta.ru)
The lack of facts established by the investigation, the theft of evidence, and the absence of those guilty of crimes contributed to the emergence of conspiracy theories that only reinforced pro-Russian narratives. At the same time, hostile propaganda attempted to create a “correct image of the terrible Bandera followers” to intimidate Ukrainians in the south and east.
As reported by Suspilne News, Professor Yevhen Bystrytsky said on Ukrainian Radio that Maidan was initially declared a non-political public action with a pro-European and pro-Ukrainian orientation.
"At the same time, Bystrytsky noted that there was no radical nationalism on the Maidan. Referring to a poll by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, he said that the language spoken on the Maidan was predominantly Ukrainian, ”although it is obvious that Russian was also spoken there, and no one paid attention to it at the time because everyone was fighting for freedom.” “This freedom was aimed not only at modern democratic values and the establishment of such institutions in Ukraine, it was aimed at defending ourselves as Ukraine,” writes Suspilne News.
Ukrainian photojournalist and author of the project Aftermath VR: Euromaidan Oleksiy Furman captioned his photo on Instagram:
“On February 18, special forces pushed protesters off Instytutska Street and ran after them, setting fire to the Trade Union House, which was the protesters' headquarters, and several of their tents. This photo was taken at 11:30 a.m. on February 19, the day of the most intense confrontation during the three-month revolution, because Berkut was so close that many believed it was the end.”
Representatives of the security forces claim that their task was to eliminate snipers who were allegedly shooting at protesters and police. It should be noted that the heads of the security forces under Yanukovych were Russian citizens.
"American experts from SITU Research and the Carnegie Mellon University's Center for Human Rights have created a virtual reconstruction of the shootings on Maidan on February 20, 2014, using three-dimensional visual effects technology. The investigation established the sector from which the shots were fired at the protesters—the Berkut killers were sitting behind a barricade on Instytutska Street, as established by the official investigation,” says the publication Zbruch.
During the Revolution of Dignity, 107 people died fighting for Ukraine's freedom, including three women. The youngest victim was 17 years old. Most of the people died from gunshot wounds to the head, neck, and chest, as well as from intentional bodily harm that was incompatible with life.
Oleksiy Furman spoke exclusively to UP.Life about his experiences on February 20, 2014:
“[...] We ran out of the Ukraine building. We started filming from the observation deck above the Globus shopping center just as the Black Company was leaving Zhovtneva Square.
If anything was clear, it was that the security forces had started using live ammunition — the sound of the shots was completely different.
We were filming near the glass cone.
Someone was being carried down Instytutska Street — I now know that it was Andriy Dygydalovych, who had been fatally wounded.
We ran across the pedestrian bridge under a hail of bullets. The wounded are carried down to Maidan along paths and stairs.
We enter Zhovtnevy together with the first Maidan activists. We film near Zhovtnevy for a while longer, then return to the hotel.During the hour or so that we were away, the hotel lobby had been turned into a field hospital, where the wounded were being treated. What happened on Instytutska Street that morning was an unprecedented tragedy in the history of independent Ukraine. People armed with wooden sticks and thin metal shields were shot with Kalashnikov assault rifles. This happened in the center of Kyiv. There are tens of thousands of photos and thousands of gigabytes of video [...].”
Photographer Vyacheslav Ratynsky photographed the Revolution of Dignity every day for three months starting on November 21, 2013. He saw many examples of human resilience and courage in extreme circumstances:
“I didn't sleep for two or three days. But I still got up quickly and went back to Maidan. I saw the bodies of the dead being carried away. Apart from the tragedy itself, I was impressed by the actions of the protesters. They didn't scatter — on the contrary, they built new barricades and rallied even more. Everyone had something to do. For example, I have a photo of a man who is simply picking up ashes from the asphalt — sweeping Maidan because he cannot stand idly by,” Ratynsky told UAPP about the first day of the shooting of the Heavenly Hundred.
Security forces also used violence against media workers who were not directly involved in the protests. Berkut severely obstructed coverage of the revolution despite the media workers' identification badges.
“[...] Before Maidan, we had never actually seen Berkut beating up the press, so we weren't afraid. A photojournalist must always take pictures. He has no right to stand aside when such things are happening in his country. At first, I didn't believe that this “rigid” system could be broken, but the unity of the people was inspiring. It's like burning all the bridges behind you and starting to build again,” Anatoliy Stepanov told LB.ua.
Vyacheslav Ratynsky was wounded twice in clashes with law enforcement officers. He told UAPP about his experience:
“Once, a flashbang grenade exploded at my feet, and a little later, a piece of a rubber bullet cut my nose. There were clashes at the corner of Shovkovychna and Instytutska streets, and I climbed onto the balcony of a residential building to get a better view and take pictures from above. When I was hit in the nose, I remember being really scared. After all, it was right next to my eyes. Although, of course, compared to the injuries sustained by activists that same day, my scratches were nothing.
The Institute of Mass Information published a list of media workers injured at Euromaidan, according to which 206 media workers were injured and two were killed.
Among the photojournalists mentioned in this list are Roman Pylypii, who was injured during clashes by a brick thrown by protesters; Oleksandr Ratushniak, who was shot through the leg; and Anatolii Stepanov, who had his head smashed with a baton and his arm broken by Berkut officers. Maksym Dondyuk and Mstislav Chernov were wounded by a flashbang grenade. Chernov was attacked several times by security forces, who inflicted bodily harm on him.
“Georgian snipers” on the Maidan
On February 14, the propaganda agency RIA Novosti published an interview with Georgian citizens who allegedly confessed that they were the ones who shot at protesters on the Maidan in February 2014. They said that the “Georgian snipers” were brought in by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a former adviser to former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who now heads the Georgian National Legion fighting in the Donetsk region.
Arriving in Kyiv before the new year in 2014, Georgians say they initially performed police functions: maintaining order and identifying provocateurs.
According to the propaganda outlet Lenta.ru, the “special task” of the “Georgian snipers” was to “create chaos on the Maidan, using weapons against all targets, protesters and police officers alike.” In Ukraine, they allegedly collaborated with opposition forces, who “together with mercenaries fired” on protesters. The training was conducted by a former American military officer. They fired from the Tchaikovsky Music Academy and the Ukraine Hotel. (Lenta.ru)
“On that day, Revazishvili went to Maidan and saw that people were very angry. Some believed that Berkut was shooting. Others, on the contrary, thought that the protesters had opened fire,” he said. (Lenta.ru)
Lenta.ru claims that this is not the only version of the “Georgian trace” on Maidan.
In 2017, a fake Italian film, Ukraine: Hidden Truths, was released about the events on Maidan and the “Georgian snipers.” Yanukovych's lawyers and Berkut officers have held to this version for many years.
In turn, the publication Babel reports that there are many discrepancies in the stories told by the “Georgian snipers” to the Italian director. The Ukrainian Border Guard Service reported that in January 2014, the Georgians mentioned did not cross the border. Mamuka Mamulashvili denied knowing the “Georgian snipers” who called him their supervisor. The results of the investigation did not confirm the existence of these “snipers.” There were no protesters killed or wounded at the Hotel Ukraine or the conservatory building.
The “counterrevolution” in eastern Ukraine
The spirit of protest that swept across the country during that historic winter was contagious. Despite existing stereotypes, residents of Donetsk and Luhansk participated en masse in protests in support of European integration. When protests in Kyiv began to subside, things were just getting started in Donetsk.
Nevertheless, propaganda refers to Euromaidan as the beginning of a split in society. In eastern and southern Ukraine, propagandists spread narratives that Ukraine is only for Ukrainians and those who speak exclusively Ukrainian.
They said that the new government had clearly demonstrated that if they did not like something, they would seize administrative buildings. If this was possible in Lviv, why not in Donetsk and Luhansk? The riots at administrative buildings and the seizure of weapons that took place on February 18–19 in western Ukraine and went down in history as the “night of rage” were manipulated to create even more tension in the squares and intimidate protesters from the east by Bandera supporters.
“Of course, people in the southeastern regions also saw that the country was gradually sliding into anarchy. That Viktor Yanukovych had fled and power in the country was being seized by people who wanted to deprive them of their language.” (Lenta.ru)
Such reports created an image of “Ukrainians who want to separate from Ukraine.” Paid anti-Maidan propaganda presented this as “the struggle of the Russian population of southeastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula for their rights,” which the illegitimate authorities are trying to suppress by military means. In this way, Russia masked its military aggression as a civil war.
“This is a major civil war involving external players. But I cannot say for sure that this is a conflict between two nations. Because both sides speak the same language, Russian.” (Lenta.ru)
Euromaidan activists in Donetsk immediately faced oppression from pro-Russian political forces. The people of Donetsk were unable to resist on their own, without support from the authorities.
Viktor Yanukovych, who fled Kiev via Crimea to Russia on February 21, asked Putin to send Russian troops to Ukraine to “restore peace.”
“Why didn't these people in the territories controlled by Ukraine fight for the right to speak Russian?
You know, it's very difficult to fight against “Tochka-U” with a volume of Alexander Pushkin and a dictionary by Ditmar Rosenthal.
It's no longer a question of which language to live in, it's a question of which language to die in.” (Lenta.ru)
During the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin created a false image that the Armed Forces of Ukraine were shelling the peaceful population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. They claimed that only Russia could ensure a peaceful life.
“Nostalgia for peace was very important.” (Lenta.ru)
During the full-scale invasion of Russian troops, State Duma Chairman Volodin presented his analysis of the political course chosen by Kyiv 10 years ago: “The result is Ukraine's loss of population and territory, the collapse of the economy and traditional values.” Volodin also hinted at a possible new Maidan, which is so desirable for the Kremlin.
“The beautiful slogans of the Maidan and the US State Department turned out to be a deception of the Ukrainian people,” Volodin emphasized. The country's authorities have led it into a dead end and, declaring the threat of a new coup, Volodymyr Zelensky has focused his efforts on preserving his personal power, he added. “Thereby bringing closer the inevitability of a new Maidan,” Volodin concluded. (Lenta.ru)
Russia did not understand then that ordinary people are willing to pay a high price for dignity and freedom.
According to Mstislav Chernov, the Ukrainian tradition of protest struggle shapes society's responsibility for the future of their country:
"Maidan is not just a protest. It is a symbol of the changes that society is ready for. Changes that come at a high price, but are worth fighting for. I saw people standing on Instytutska Street with both despair and faith. The war, the Revolution of Dignity, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian invasion of Donbas, and the full-scale invasion — all these are steps toward building unity and shaping a whole generation of people who understand that the fate of their country depends on them,” says Mstislav Chernov in one of his interviews.
Contributors:
Researcher, author: Yana Yevmenova
Image editor: Olga Kovaleva
Literary editor: Yulia Futey
Website manager: Vladislav Kukhar
.png)
