Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard

19:10:50
28/11/2016

rusvesna.su

Very few Ukrainian politicians are so deeply familiar with the subject of the secret springboards of Maidan as the ex-Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Oleg Tsarev is. Today, he spoke about how significant the information is that can be sounded by Yanukovych during the court hearing on the case of the mysterious snipers.

The interrogation of Yanukovych as a witness at the hearing, where the “Berkut members” are accused of shooting people on Maidan, is absurd in itself.

There is a paradoxical situation when the organizers of a crime themselves use as a witness the person whose duty and obligation it was to stop the crime and who didn’t do this, while the ones who are prosecuted are those from the participants in this process who fully performed their duties, were faithful to the oath until the end, and in no way violated the law.

I say “organisers of crime” because there is every reason to believe that the current leadership of Ukraine not only knew about the impending murder of people on Maidan, but directly participated in the organization of these murders.

This is the theater of the absurd. On one side of the screen are the de-jure impostors in the guise of the prosecutors and de-facto the leaders of today’s Ukraine. On the other hand – the legitimate de jure President of Ukraine as a testifying witness.

I have written many times about why Yanukovych, whilst he is still alive, is the current de-jure President of Ukraine, and he is the legitimate President until he signs the law of the Verkhovna Rada on elections of the next President. It’s not an accident that I highlight the word “still alive”. It is precisely for this reason that the representatives of the current Kiev authorities had a vested interest in the death of Yanukovych.

All of today’s Ukraine is involved in this judicial process. I understand that they would like to show at least some “successes” of the current government: the interrogation of Yanukovych, the condemnation of “Berkut members”. But why be so inconsistent?

If they were afraid that Yanukovych would transform his interrogation into a judgment of the current authorities, why did they find it necessary to agree to video-interrogate Yanukovych? They could have avoided this by insisting on the arrival of Yanukovych in Kiev. Why, having agreed to a video interrogation and gathered journalists, did they disrupt the hearing so stupidly, not bringing “Berkut” into the hall? Isn’t the reason in the fact  that information contained in the four “folders of Yanukovych” was leaked to the administration of Poroshenko?

I think it’s not a secret for the organizers of Maidan that the evidence that they are behind the shootings on Maidan is collected and documented in detail.

Yes, the chestnut trees in the center of Kiev were cut down, in order to not leave behind any evidence of where the snipers were shooting from. But they didn’t succeed to destroy everything. Names, photos, videos, schematics, eyewitness accounts, including direct participants in the events — everything has been assembled already for a long time.

The main intrigue surrounding the interrogation is will Yanukovich be allowed to announce all of this during his interrogation? Will he be given the  opportunity to speak, or will another court hearing be disrupted? And what next time will be the reason for the disruption of the hearing? It would be completely funny if Avakov will again send a political wing of “Azov” to block the prison gates under the guise of “Right Sector”?

And what will Kiev come up with next time to divert the media and public’s attention from the disruption of the hearing with the participation of Yanukovych? A missile in the sky of Crimea has already been announced, what’s next? Will they stage it for real, knocking down a civilian aircraft that will inevitably be the cause of war between Ukraine and Russia, and possibly a Third World War?

It’s possible to disrupt the next hearing, but who can guarantee that after another failed hearing Viktor Yanukovych will not sound the contents of his four folders at the follow-up press conference after the hearing? He  already announced in advance that such a press conference will take place regardless of anything. And where is the guarantee that he will not release the material in open access on the Internet and will not send these materials to the leaders of the “G7”?

I think it would be interesting for Trump to obtain these materials as a minimum, because amongst the three groups of snipers that were working on Maidan, one of them for sure had relations with the United States.

The leader of the American group and curator of the entire operation is Audrius Butkevičius from Lithuania. He was denied entry to the territory of Ukraine because he was accused of leading in a similar situation snipers in Vilnius (he repeatedly bragged about it), Kyrgyzstan, and PMCs in Georgia during the “Rose Revolution”. His group drove into the territory of Ukraine for a short period of time. He did his affair – and flew away.

It was a high-ranked SBU member who lifted the ban on entry of Butkevičius, hiding it from his colleagues, and who, for obvious reasons, has maintained his post to this day.

The second and third group were directly supervised via Avakov, Parubiy, Pashinsky, Shkiryak, Nalyvaychenko and General Gvozd. There is a lot of information in the media about these guys of these groups. I stress once again – the actions of all these groups were coordinated.

The first murders on Maidan were done by the Security Service of Klitschko. I think many of the protesters remember how athletic, fit people, dressed in uniform appeared on Maidan. These guys kept themselves to themselves and were subordinate to Jean (Evgeny Odintsov) and Medved (Zhernovoy Anatoliy). Medved is from Krivoy Rog. Jean is originally from Sumy.

There are still witnesses who know how and who of these persons were receiving information about the first victims. Remember how the first victims were Belarusian and Armenian? The first sacral victims were chosen from non-ethnic Ukrainians in order to give the tragedy an international status.

Poor Sergey Nigoyan, his fate was decided by a video where he solemnly reads the poems of Shevchenko. He suited the role of a victim perfectly. His family lives in a village in my constituency in the Dnipropetrovsk region. I think that his parents need to know who gave the order to kill their son. Where he was killed. Which doors and corridors was his body carried through. I would like them to learn this information from the media, and I would not have to return to Ukraine to tell it in person.

A huge amount of information about the so-called case of snipers was gathered already during Yanukovych’s presidency. Work on the gathering of information was continued already by other people until recently. You can’t even begin to imagine how many materials were collected on this case.

I understand that this information is still not published out of fear that criminals will start to destroy traces of the crime. But where to present accusations and proof, if not in court? In addition, there’s so much evidence and so many witnesses to the crime that to destroy all and everything is simply impossible.

There are still people who refused to shoot at their own. They are alive. Their names are known, and under certain conditions they will agree to testify. The fact that the snipers were shooting at protestors at the order of the organizers of Maidan is known by so many people that nobody will succeed in keeping it a secret.

A crime and lie are at the heart of every Maidan and every color revolution. At the heart of the orange Maidan is the false poisoning of Yushchenko. At the heart of the most recent one is the shooting of the heavenly hundred.

Yushchenko had an agreement with Yanukovych in exchange for the support of the latter in presidential elections: the deception about his poisoning will not be revealed. But in the case of snipers on Maidan, I’m sure it will be revealed. So, in summary, in reality there is nothing to reveal. There is a need to just publish the testimony, evidence, photos, and videos. I think that Yanukovych will do it. Nothing prevents him from name the perpetrator, without naming the curators. There is no risk for him to do it.

Those who can’t understand the logic of appointments in Ukraine right after Maidan have to draw their attention to those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid of power. Those in power are tied between them by blood. By the blood of the perished policemen and protesters. Blood and destruction will not stop in Ukraine while these people still lead the country.

Remember how the events on Maidan unfolded. On 20th February, 2014, “Berkut” was standing in a cordon. Snipers started to shoot at the police to provoke return fire. But how were they to know that the government, despite everything, did not allow the distribution of firearms and ammunition to the police. 17 policemen were killed by the bullets of snipers, while there was practically no answer from the policemen in the direction of unarmed protesters.

“Berkut” retreated, realizing that being in an open space they will not be able to suppress the sniper fire. The aim given by the curators – to provoke the shooting by the police towards the side of the protesters – was not achieved.

Then snipers start shooting at protesters. When protesters retreat to Maidan to hide from bullets, Parubiy calls for an offensive. People again fall under the bullets. A vast number of victims on Maidan died at the hands of mercenary-snipers.

The next day, 21st February, Yanukovych agreed to all the demands of the West and the opposition, thus effectively cornering the opposition and the West.

Firstly, all crimes committed on Maidan should be impartially investigated by an independent commission with the participation of representatives of Yanukovych, Europe, and the opposition at the time. We can imagine the “enthusiasm” of the West and their opposition because the case of the snipers will be objectively investigated.

Secondly, there was supposed to be elections. Legitimate elections. In which, for example, Volga, Buzina, Montyan, anyone else, and most importantly, Yanukovych himself, were free to participate. That was unacceptable to the organizers of the coup — elections in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. It is precisely for this reason that the next day all the agreements were crossed out, and the Presidential Administration was seized.

It was the latest bifurcation point where the vector of historical development of Ukraine, after some hesitation, turned towards chaos, bloodshed, and civil war.

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.