What is the role of oligarch Kolomoisky and his private army in the shot down of MH17?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Ukraine is a hard to understand country for people not living there or following the news closely using several sources.

It is well known the central government in Kiev is supported by several  private army’s. These army’s are often financed by ultra-rich businessman and not under control of Ukraine armed forces. Often the businessman got their money from natural resources like oil. The central power is a complex eco-system with various relations between politicians, oligarchs and military people.

Ihor Kolomoyskyi  (also spelled as also spelled as Igor/Ihor Kolomoyskyi/Kolomoysky/Kolomoisky/Kolomoiskiy/Kolomoyskiy) is such an example of someone with lots of power.

He was a  former governor of the eastern industrial region Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoyskyi, a banking, energy and media tycoon with a fortune that Forbes put at $1.8 billion last year, has been a valuable ally to the Kiev government in arming and financing militia groups and volunteer battalions there to hold off pro-Russian separatists. On March 25, 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree dismissing Kolomoyskyi  from the post of Dnipropetrovsk RSA Head

Little we know about the possible involvement of Kolomoyskyi’s army and the shot down of MH17.

Kolomoisky has  passports of Ukraine, Cyprus and Israel. Israel started a ground offensive in the Gaza strip at July 17, 2014. We will never know if there is a connection between these two events. Lets us just remember these two events.

There is one video in which Kolomoisky states that MH17 was shot down by mistake by amateurs. The video has english subtitles.

Let us have a closer look at his army.

In this video released by the TV station of the Ukraine army we see a couple of BUK TELAR vehicles parked somewhere in Eastern Ukraine. According the Ukraine Army the place this video was made was Kramatorsk airbase. This has not confirmed by independant sources.

At 05:05 in the video we see a couple of interesting things:

  1. A white Volkswagen van with green strips and a small window just behind the driver (indicated in green circle)
  2. Two man wearing military uniforms with their badge on the left arm blurred. The viewer is not allowed to see to which unit these men belong.

white-van-green-stripegreenstrip

This type of Volkswagen Transporter is used in Ukraine by banks to tranfer money. These are armoured vehicles.

vw-white-green

Two similar looking white Volkswagen Transport vans with a green stripe on the side and small window behind the driver seat are seen in this video.

This video is one of many showing members of the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist group Pravy Sektor which took part in a commando-style raid against the Donbass referendum at May 11 2014  killing two unarmed civilians in the town of Krasnoarmeysk, an investigation by Paris Match has found. Pravy Sektor is said the be paid by Ihor Kolomoyskyi.

Probably the same van can be seen on the lefthand side in this video (at 10:13)

French Paris match has the story about these killings by Pravy Sektor members here (in english)

Paris Match writes:

They arrived telling us they belonged to the National Guard, but we knew it was a lie » said Vitalik Naydiomov, a witness. “We all recognized the minivans they were driving, from PrivatBank”.  This bank has seen several of its branches burnt to the ground in eastern Ukraine. It belongs to local oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, one of the main backers of the current interim government in Kiev.

The video’s show two different coloured Volkswagen Transporter T5 vans:

  1. completely light green
  2. white with a green strip running on the side . Lefthand side has a small window. Righthandside does not have windows behind the frontseats. On the front of the van there is a green stripe as well.

green-van-2greenstripevan3

So who operates these Volkswagen vans?

According a comment on my website under this post:

White vans with a dark green stripe at the side (and two dark green stripes at front) are standard for Ukraine’s cash-in-transit services, both state-owned and several private companies.

However, Privat Bank, being the largest commercial bank in Ukraine, has its own cash-in-transit service which uses the bank’s trademark color, light green. So, every Privat Bank’s cash-in-transit armored van is not white but light green, with the same dark green stripes; most of them (not all) have also a clear Privat Bank brand name inscription.

Several dozen of Privat Bank’s light green armored vans have been stolen and used by the Russian-induced separatists in an occupied part of Eastern Ukraine.

This page provides a photo and some information on the armoured Volkswagen Transporter. It confirms the vehicle is used by banks to transport money.

Ukraine PrivatBank is owned by Kolomoyskyi. PrivatBank uses green Volkswagen Transporters to tranfer money. One of their vans can be seen in many photos on the Internet as it has some interesting sticker applied. The logo on the frontdoor matches the logo on PrivatBank .

privatbank-volkswagenprivatbank-volkswagen-2

The same coloured Volkswagen vans appears in this video. Mind the logo and the darkgreen stripe is missing.

greenvangreenvan2

Kolomoisky and use of armed groups to get things done

It was Battalion “Dnepr-1” that occupied state-owned company “UkrNafta” in March 2015 on command of Kolomoisky. This artice provide some insight in the relation between Ihor Kolomoisky who is now in a  serious conflict with the country’s president, Petro Poroshenko. The article describes how Kolomoisky delivered  security in Dnipropetrovsk which was under attack from separatists.

Kolomoisky made another controversial appearance March 22 2015 , this time at the headquarters of the oil and gas behemoth Ukrnafta, where he held a now-insufficient 43 percent stake. Kolomoisky claimed, once again, that he had traveled there to protect his business interests from a raider attack. He said that the 40 or 50 men who accompanied him were, in fact, the company’s own private security forces.

Conclusion

It appears that millitia are using formerPrivatBank vehicles to disturb the Donbass referendum. A Volkswagen Transporter used by an unknown bank was seen at a military operation using BUKs.

No proof yet for any involvement but interesting to do some more research.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

50 Comments on What is the role of oligarch Kolomoisky and his private army in the shot down of MH17?

  1. OK, it’s a useful trend: if a Paris Match investigation implies a Russian guilt, proclaim it to be a fake; if the same journal finds something that may be unpleasant for some Ukies, make it your banner!

    So, what we actually have:

    The so-called Krasnoarmeysk (Rus.) / Krasnoarmiisk or Chervonoarmiisk (Ukr.) incident shows an attempt by a badly identified (‘Pravyi Sector’, according to Paris Match) armed formation to safeguard the Ukrainian law and Constitution and to prevent a Russian-inspired, illegal and anti-Constitutional so-called “referendum” in this town that was not under Kyiv control at the time;

    The pro-Ukrainian militia acted very unprofessionally and, as could be seen from various video accounts of the incident that were abound back in May 2014, shot under a direct threat of being overpowered (and looking rather scared). I would suggest a more professional armed force would have shot in the air earlier and, either without the civilian losses or with them, prevented the “referendum” and restored full Ukrainian power in the town but not just withdrawn after effectively losing under the separatists’ pressing;

    Several bank cash service armored vans are seen in the videos, probably (but not definitely) used by Ukraine’s volunteer protectors, two of the vans in the colors of PrivatBank (though we cannot see if these vans were armored as well; it is possible — but the dark green stripes designating a “special service car” were missing);

    It’s rather well known that at the initial stages of the conflict, before Russia made a direct incursion and Ukraine began reforming its Armed Forces, the captured bank armored vans were widely used by both sides of the conflict, the Russian-incited separatists and the Ukrainian volunteer formations (the latter, as distinct from the Russian-supported anti-Ukrainian forces, first had practically neither arms nor the armaments except from what they had actually captured in combat — or sometimes just stolen);

    While PrivatBank, as the largest Ukrainian commercial bank with its own cash-in-transit service, had lots of armored vans, it’s rather understandable that many of the vans captured by both sides were in its light green colors and not in the standard white-and-green-stripes version.

    And now, to other points:

    > It is well known the central government in Kiev is supported by several private army’s. These army’s are often financed by ultra-rich businessman and not under control of Ukraine armed forces.

    — Correct as of 1,5 years ago, completely wrong as of now. There are still several dozen, or even several hundred (doubtfully) men who claim allegiance to the ‘Right Sector Corps’ on the so called ‘OUN Battalion’ but have not yet been integrated within regular armed formations, i. e. the Armed Forces, the Ministry of the Interior policing forces or the same ministry’s National Guard, very much different from the U.S. National Guard (when there’s no direct warfare, their main task is the policing near the front line). Most people who had previously fought as part of the ‘Right Sector Corps’ or the ‘OUN Battalion’ (that used to be more like a company; ‘OUN’ standing for the Ukrainian acronym for the ‘Ukrainian Insurgent Army’ that fought the Nazis and then the Communists in the WWII and even after the war officially ended) are now part of the regular and state-controlled armed formations;

    > the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist group Pravy Sektor

    — They are not ultra-nationalist as a group though individual members of theirs might be; would you think Kolomoiskyi, a practicing Jew and a well-known Ukrainian Jewish leader, would support “ultra-Nationalists” or “neo-Nazis,” as they are also sometimes called?

    > In this video released by the TV station of the Ukraine army we see a couple of BUK TELAR vehicles parked somewhere in Eastern Ukraine. According the Ukraine Army the place this video was made was Kramatorsk airbase.

    — Wrong. Nowhere in this video could you find any statement about Kramatorsk. In fact, it’s just stated the pictures were taken “in the zone of the Anti-Terrorist Operation” which is a rather large territory. Besides, it’s not known WHEN the pictures were actually taken;

    > in the video we see a couple of interesting things:

    A white Volkswagen van with green strips and a small window just behind the driver

    — So what? Can’t you think of the simplest thing: a bank van has just brought payment to the soldiers?

    > There is one video in which Kolomoisky states that MH17 was shot down by mistake by amateurs

    — While he seems to speak in his trademark cynical style, the words ascribed to him have just told what most people were thinking at that time: that MH17 had been shot down by the separatists / Russians while being mistaken for a Ukrainian military plane (nowadays, a version about a deliberate Russian / separatist shooting to put the blame on Ukraine is also widespread).

    • “if a Paris Match investigation implies a Russian guilt, proclaim it to be a fake; if the same journal finds something that may be unpleasant for some Ukies, make it your banner!”

      That was a very funny example of lack of self-reflection. Amazing. Paris-Match is the corner stone of rebel BUK story. Are you ready to dump it to prove your point? That will be nice.

    • “armed formation to safeguard the Ukrainian law and Constitution ”

      I’m sure you’ve read the constitution of Ukraine, particularly the clearly defined procedure for president impeachment.
      The role of this particular “armed formation ” in this sense is quite striking.

      You can’t be half-pragnant, my friend. Don’t even try

    • “Besides, it’s not known WHEN the pictures were actually taken”

      Wow. Your post is becoming more and more priceless in showing hypocrisy. Unless you started considering that unconfirmed dating of photos/videos of rebel BUK makes that evidence useless at this moment.

    • “while he seems to speak in his trademark cynical style,”
      Speaking cynical is a dangerous thing. Can be easily misquoted. Remember how human garbage Barroso claim on Putin’s threat that he would take Kiev in 2 weeks. Not one unrespectful western MSM missed that claim. Just few of them published about EU withdrawal of the claim.

    • Don’t be ridiculous. Of course if you base your worldview on a single source, you are doomed to failure, be that source Paris Match, RT, Wikipedia, or whathappenedtoflightmh17.com. It’s always a good idea to think for yourself, and check sources.

      Nobody has accused Paris Match of faking the Donetsk Buk photos. It appears they were offered “exclusive” material, and used it. After all, they want to make money, and the best way to do that in this business is to be the first on a story. Unfortunately it turned out the photos were from a source near to the infamous Ukrainian KGB follow-up named SBU, and are probably fakes.

      The incident at Krasnosnoarmeisk (and yes, it’s okay to call it that way like 60% of its population do – it’s exactly the Junta’s insistence of calling it Krasnoarmiisk that sparked the whole crisis) is a different matter: there Paris Match had its reporter there who would relate what he saw with his own eyes and gathered from witnesses. And that does not happen to be be in favour of those who consider the “Right Sector” those who uphold law and constitutional order in the Ukraine, but reinforces what was known about them since the 1990’s, that they are Nazi terrorists.

      That a president of a country is forced to flee from bandits is not something that people expect to happen in 21st century Europe, I completely agree with you on that. But this would be a case to fire those responsible for the president’s security, not the president himself.
      The constitition of the Ukraine clearly states under which conditions a presidents term may end prematurely. And none of that happened: Yanukovych did not step down, did not die in office, was not incapable of doing his duty for medical reasons, and was not impeached in a proper way. So his term ended in march 2015, and we also agree that his chances of being re-elected would have been slim, given the way he behaved as a cleptocrat.

      But would it really have been that bad to support him for another 12 months? True, Crimea would still belong to the Ukraine, but there would have been no war in the Donbass, and Flight MH17 would have landed safely in Kuala Lumpur that fateful day.

      • > That a president of a country is forced to flee from bandits — Athomas, are you kidding??? A president of a country is forced to flee by several dozen of “bandits” with hunting rifles and all the king’s men cannot defend him???

        > The constitition of the Ukraine clearly states under which conditions a presidents term may end prematurely. And none of that happened — Yes! And up till now, the Ukrainian Constitution still does not have a clause on what to do when the president refuses to fulfill his/her constitutional duties and flees the country!

        > So his term ended in march 2015 — And, as the result of the international mediation, Yanukovych agreed to cut his term for just one month (holding the elections no later than in December 2014 instead of January 2015) and the protesters agreed to stop their protests and tolerate him for another 11 months. However, it was the president, not the protesters, who broke the deal when he expressly refused to sign it into law and fled leaving the country without any president, either “good” or “bad.” (The text of the deal is here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/ukraine-crisis-president-claims-deal-with-opposition-after-77-killed-in-kiev?view=classic#block-5307624ae4b0b08ea9f4a437 )

        > True, Crimea would still belong to the Ukraine, but there would have been no war in the Donbass — And that is very much doubtful as it would depend on Putin only. The “best” thing from his side would be to just postpone the invasion and occupation for another year, until a new Ukrainian president; the Ukrainian crisis only made him act quicker but he could not just let Ukraine go on its own anyway and would do everything to make as much damage for Kyiv as possible as soon as the government there would feel less dependent from the Kremlin.

  2. > That was a very funny example of lack of self-reflection

    — On the side of Kremlin stooges.

    First you say “Paris Match are liars” when they tell you of a Russian ‘Buk,’ then you say “believe Paris Match!” when they have something against Ukraine.

    > I’m sure you’ve read the constitution of Ukraine, particularly the clearly defined procedure for president impeachment

    — Sure. What I have not read there was the (missing) clause on what to do when the president flouts the Constitution and flies from the country. Do you know any Constitution that has such a clause? Would you still call the replacement of a missing president a “coup”?

    > makes that evidence useless at this moment

    If you think so in the case of the Russian ‘Buk’ why do you still rely on undated pictures in your labors to find a “Ukrainian ‘Buk'”?

    >claim on Putin’s threat that he would take Kiev in 2 weeks
    >published about EU withdrawal of the claim

    Aw, was there any “withdrawal”?

    As I know you read Russian, here is one of the most pro-Kremlin propaganda outlets, “Vzglyad” (in Rus.): http://www.vz.ru/news/2014/9/5/704132.html

    What the EC spokesperson said was “part of Barroso’s words were taken out of context” — she never said the words were wrong!

    Moreover: the Kremlin did not deny such Putin’s words but only called them, again, “taken out of context” and “having had a different meaning”! http://vz.ru/news/2014/9/2/703496.html

    What other meaning could you ascribe to the menacing to conquer another part of another state?

    • “First you say “Paris Match are liars” when they tell you of a Russian ‘Buk,’ then you say “believe Paris Match!” when they have something against Ukraine.”

      You are still oblivious of the issue. Not surprising. But let me simply again for you. Let’s declare everything from Paris Match as fake. You save your Kolomoiskii but I get a crumbled case of “rebel BUK”.

      “what to do when the president flouts the Constitution and flies from the country.”

      Impeachment procedure did not require President’s presence. You could still just follow them through.

      “why do you still rely on undated pictures in your labors to find a “Ukrainian ‘Buk’”

      Some of the photos of Ukrainian BUKS inside the ATO and very close to the front line are quite specifically dated. Which confirms that Ukr army deployed those systems in such circumstances. Undeniable fact. What we are looking for is the dated photo/video of Ukr BUK in the area close to Southern sector of fighting. Hence, interested of ungeolocated photos/videos are of great interest. Nothing wrong with it

      • > Let’s declare everything

        — You are free to declare anything you want. But just be consistent in your claims. If you state one should not believe Paris Match — do not rely on them in other things when they are pleasing to you. If you state the pictures of the Russian ‘Buk’ are undated and thus irrelevant — please don’t construe your cause from undated pictures of Ukrainian ‘Buks.’

        > Impeachment procedure did not require President’s presence. You could still just follow them through

        — Yes; No.

        Impeachment in Ukraine is only possible for some criminal acts perpetrated by the President. You cannot legally “impeach” a President who has just ceased to function, left his post and fled away.

        In Ukraine the President was not “impeached,” “deposed” or anything. He “self-deposed himself,” by his own free will, however strange it might sound. The legally elected and functioning parliament only had to acknowledge this fact, which it did when announcing snap presidential elections. There is no constitutional procedure to catch running Presidents.

        • Again. My friend. Embrace self-reflection, even if it is impossible for you. If you praised Paris-Match for providing “proof” of rebel BUK, now it is strange for you to discredit it when you don’t like it. From my side perspective, although I have no relation to Paris-Match link and just interested in exposing maidawns, using Paris-Match link is logical as you would be dismissing with usual arrogant aplomb sources by RT. So dismissal of Paris-Match now just shows your Logic problems and noone else.
          “however strange it might sound”
          It is only strange because you are lying. I hope you will not dismiss this source http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14220

          This is his statement after the illegal actions in Rada took place.
          ” I am absolutely confident that this is an example, which our country and the whole world has seen, an example of a coup. I’m not going to leave Ukraine or go anywhere. I’m not going to resign. I’m a legitimately elected president. I was given guarantees by all international mediators who I worked with that they are giving me security guarantees. I will see how they will fulfill that role.”

          • > So dismissal of Paris-Match now just shows your Logic problems and noone else

            — Oh, no. Not MY problems. It was not me who had first been dismissing Paris Match as a reliable source and then, to the opposite, began relying on it, depending on how PM findings fit (or did not fit) in an “it-was-not-Russia” version.

            > It is only strange because you are lying. I hope you will not dismiss this source

            It’s not me who’s lying. It’s the “source,” as you call the running President.

            > “I’m not going to leave Ukraine or go anywhere. I’m not going to resign”

            — That’s what Yanukovych said after leaving Ukraine and going to hide in Russia, after effectively resigning from his constitutional presidential duties in his deeds if not in words.

            > “I was given guarantees by all international mediators who I worked with that they are giving me security guarantees. I will see how they will fulfill that role”

            — That’s what Yanukovych said but just “forgot” that the deal with mediators had his part to fulfill: to sign into law an internationally mediated bill to stop the crisis. He has expressly refused to sign it after he had fled, so he could hardly wait for any international help after that.

            > I’m a legitimately elected president

            — Oh, and that’s finally was true! However, no one has denied that.

            He really had been legitimately elected — but it was finally Yanukovych himself who has deprived him of the presidential legitimacy. The parliament only had to acknowledge that fact for the lack of any President in the country, either “legitimate” or not.

          • Total lack of absorption of information. Let me try again, if RT was used as a source of information you would not even need to do any effort. You would just kill the messenger. That is why use of the source which your sect adores is logical. What is not logical is for you to attack the source that is so critical for “rebel BUK” story, instead of making an effort of explaining the issue in hand.
            QUOTED Statement from Yanukovitch was from the time he was still in Ukraine. He appears I’m Russia only on Feb 28th. But even if he is not in Ukraine, his statement ruins your interpretation. And you had to follow proper constitutional procedures to impeach him. Not a very difficult action, assuming that your actions are legal. More importantly criminal act by Ukrs, which is different from Ukrainians, caused a civil war. If you allowed proper course and just held agreed on presidential election in November, there will even be Ukraine with Crimea now. But nothing new. The same breed of Ukrs collapsed Soviet Union, claiming that they feed the whole SU and with independence they will start to live, like in France. When will you live at least like during Yanukovitch times? What was Saakashvilli prediction?

          • Prosto Tak // December 25, 2015 at 2:52 am //

            > And you had to follow proper constitutional procedures to impeach him

            — You must have missed what I’ve said but no one was going to impeach him at the time. The President has just fled, and the country had to something with this unconstitutional act of him.

            > If you allowed proper course and just held agreed on presidential election in November

            — You still don’t understand what has happened. It was not “me” — it was Yanukovych who refused to sign into law the internationally mediated deal to have the elections in November (to which the rest of the country had agreed).

            > caused a civil war

            Do you still believe in the Kremlin tales of a “civil war”? Between the Ukrainians and the Buryats from Russia’s Baikal region? Or do you still think the USSR is alive?

          • Prosto Tak:

            “Yanukovych who refused to sign into law the internationally mediated deal to have the elections in November”

            And what gave the right of any international parties to force a change in the constitution and election schedule of Ukraine? Why should Yanukovich sign it? If Yanukovich was so bad and everyone really was against him, Ukrainians could have waited like normal democratic citizens they claim to be for the election 18 months later and voted him out. Then Crimea and Donbass would still be part of Ukraine, no one would have died in the civil war, especially not the travellers on MH17.

            The blood of MH17 victims and the victims of east Ukraine and Maidan is on the revolutionaries on the Maidan who turned to violence instead of the ballot box.

            Interesting contrast that the people in Donbass turned to the ballot box and held a self-organized referendum to reject the new Ukraine.

            “(to which the rest of the country had agreed).”

            I and others must have missed the news of the national referendum which endorsed this course of action.

            Supporters of the revolution have this ridiculous and childish shorthand way of speaking which conflates their own personal political preferences with the will of the people in the whole country, as if they are somehow an oracle or actually representative of everyone.

            “The President has just fled, and the country had to something with this unconstitutional act of him.”

            Its unconstitutional for the Ukrainian president to leave the country? Really? Poroshenko has violated that as well then, hasn’t he? What do you mean by “fled”? You mean he left the presence of the Maidan mob in Kiev and refused to wait around to be apprehended by the violent rabble as they gained control of the city after seizing and deploying heavy weaponry from military armories in Lviv Oblast? Because you aren’t claiming he resigned, right?

          • Prosto Tak // January 5, 2016 at 3:21 am //

            “Ukrainians could have waited like normal democratic citizens they claim to be for the election 18 months later and voted him out” — and that’s exactly what happened. In a compromise decision, the opposition agreed to stop their protests and Yanukovych agreed to cut his term by only one month. And it would have been so if he would sign the laws on this and not flee and decline to sign them thus unconstitutionally resigning from his duties.

            “no one would have died in the civil war” — sure, as there is no civil war, it’s Russia’s proxy war against Ukraine.

            “The blood of MH17 victims and the victims of east Ukraine and Maidan is on the revolutionaries” — sure, Russia invaded Ukraine and shot down MH17 but Ukraine is to blame.

            “Interesting contrast that the people in Donbass turned to the ballot box and held a self-organized referendum” — actually, there was no “referendum.” There was something strange and illegal, with no voter rosters, no regular ballots, no real vote counting, no legal approval by anyone, even Russia.

            “Its unconstitutional for the Ukrainian president to leave the country?” — No, it’s not. It’s unconstitutional to stop performing the president’s constitutional duties, even if a president is still within the country. Can you really see no difference?

            “after seizing and deploying heavy weaponry from military armories in Lviv Oblast” — who told you such bullshit? What was seized were pistols and Kalashnikov automatic rifles — most of them (not all) were promptly returned after the bloodbath in Kyiv stopped (and that means most of the seized weapons remained in Lviv). Do you call that “heavy weaponry deployed in Kyiv to gain control of the city”? Why do you lie so blatantly?

          • Prosto Tak:

            ““after seizing and deploying heavy weaponry from military armories in Lviv Oblast” — who told you such bullshit? What was seized were pistols and Kalashnikov automatic rifles — most of them (not all) were promptly returned after the bloodbath in Kyiv stopped (and that means most of the seized weapons remained in Lviv). Do you call that “heavy weaponry deployed in Kyiv to gain control of the city”? Why do you lie so blatantly?”

            Please see picture posted here on 2/19/14.

            https://twitter.com/noclador/status/436299886682591232

            Doesn’t look like pistols and rifles to me. Additional military hardware of this type was being dragged to Kiev on 2/21/14 when Yanukovich left the city and the Berkut riot police suddenly retreated.

            And I don’t think Igla MANPADS qualify as rifles and pistols either.

            http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/253733

            Need I go on?

            “And it would have been so if he would sign the laws on this and not flee and decline to sign them thus unconstitutionally resigning from his duties.”

            He never resigned. We all know exactly what happened. Power was seized by the politicians behind the mob, and they began hunting Yanukovich to kill him. Refusing to sign an agreement is not a formal or tacit form of resignation. A little honesty goes a long way.

          • Prosto Tak // January 5, 2016 at 11:00 am //

            “Please see picture posted here on 2/19/14” — exactly, on 2/19/14. Not on February 22 when Yanukovych was “so scared” to flee, but on February 19 when people were being killed in dozens by the special police in Kyiv.

            And the picture was taken in Lviv, about 280 miles from Kyiv — not in Kyiv as you claim. A couple of old rusty D-44 guns of 1940s, possibly from some museum — you could not have captured them in a military unit as they had been taken out of service in Ukraine back in 1990s. Would you ever try to shoot an artillery piece from such a “position” as you see in the picture? No, they were there as “psychological warfare” only, to assure the protesters on this barricade they would not be killed as in Kyiv (though the guns were obviuosly unfunctional — would you place a tire on the barrel and shoot?).

            “And I don’t think Igla MANPADS qualify as rifles and pistols either” — And I don’t think the Russian First TV propaganda outlet is a source of information (and you know this as well), as this statement of theirs was a total lie, there was absolutely no confirmation.

            “He never resigned” — Yes, he never submitted any formal letter of resignation. What he did was… he did nothing he had to. He refused to fulfill his constitutional duties in a situation when the country needed the president, at least to enact the internationally mediated laws, and fled. That’s not what a president is entitled to do.

            And he could have signed them and enjoy 11 more month of his power, having enough time to destroy all the evidence against him and to safely evacuate all his riches… but he chose to step aside. That was his own choice. The members of the parliament who represented the whole Ukraine made another choice.

  3. > What I have not read there was the (missing) clause on what to do when the president flouts the Constitution and flies from the country. Do you know any Constitution that has such a clause?

    – Impeachment?

    • The Ukrainian impeachment procedure may take as long as more than a year. Generally, that means the president is still there and does his/her duties. And if there is physically no president in the country any more because he/she has fled?

      • Bullshit. It would have taken max. 2 hours for a “commission” to find that the president has committed a serious crime, and a corrupt judge to sign a piece of paper declared “judgement”.

        That a president has to flee in order not to be murdered by bandits truly is something that has no place in 21st century Europe, but that shows more about Ukraine’s aspirations to be a European country than about Yanukovych.

        • Athomas, sorry, but while you might be an expert in some areas (which I am not sure) you are a complete ignorance in Ukrainian matters (which I am now absolutely sure of).

          First, impeachment in Ukraine is only possible for high treason or serious crimes by the president. None was judicially alleged to have been committed by Yanukovych at the time.

          Exactly on the contrary, the internationally mediated agreement passed by the parliament retained him as President while only reducing his term for about one month, as a compromise for the opposition to stop their actions.

          That was the bill Yanukovych had taken an obligation to sign into law. However, he fled and explicitly refused to sign it. In this situation, the legally elected and functioning parliament, for the actual absence of the President of Ukraine, had to acknowledge that Yanukovych had effectively resigned from his powers by himself in his deeds, albeit not in his words.

          Second, and if he even were to have been judicially accused of crimes before the agreement and before his flight, the procedure is very lengthy in Ukraine.

          First, more than half of the MPs (at least 226 out of 450) shall vote to initiate the whole impeachment procedure.

          Second, the parliament shall form an ad hoc inquiry commission to investigate the criminal charges against the president.

          Third, after the commission has finished its investigation, it shall present the results for a parliamentary hearing.

          Fourth, if the findings are deemed valid not less than two thirds of the MPs (at least 301) shall vote to indict the president.

          (And here, don’t forget the parliamentary majority then was in the hands of the president’s own Party of Regions — which makes sure at least this point was guaranteed to be impassable.)

          Fifth, the Constitutional Court shall decide on the constitutionality of the whole impeachment process.

          Sixth, the Supreme Court shall confirm that the president has indeed committed high treason or another crime.

          Seventh, not less that three fourths of the MPs (not less that 338) shall finally vote for the actual impeachment. (And see note for p. 4.)

          And until the positive vote on this, the President of Ukraine shall retain his/her post and powers in full for the whole duration of the impeachment procedure.

          And what shall a country do if there is physically no president in the country any more, either to rule or to be legally impeached?

          And more: can a president whose well-equipped security forces numbering several hundred thousand men have just murdered a hundred protesters be afraid to be killed by several dozen “bandits” with hunting rifles?

          Are you serious or just kidding?

          • Antidyatel // January 2, 2016 at 9:32 am //

            You are so desperate and pathetic in your lying that it is not even funny. And I’m tired exposing you. Let’s just give you the Kremlin propaganda from Wikipedia. See section “Deal’s aftermath” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution

          • Prosto Tak // January 2, 2016 at 8:09 pm //

            Antidyatel, I understand you are so persistent in indulging in everything you can to see what you want to see. I may understand you like the Kremlin position more but it does not stand to reality. You may use swear words to me but it just shows your intellectual level.

            In this case, it’s hard to understand what exactly you wanted to state with your link. What have you find there that was inconsistent with my words?

            On the contrary, the article confirms that the internationally mediated compromise deal between the president and his supporters, on one side, and the political forces opposing him, on the other, was very much pro-Yanukovych, up to the point that part of the opposition said they did not accept it. However, it has been already passed by the mostly pro-Yanukovych parliament, and after the president would sign it into law it would be finally binding for everyone.

            As you can read in the article, the flight of the president and the riot police from Kyiv was not part of the agreement. And the president’s subsequent explicit refusal to sign the agreement into law was the reason for the parliament (pro-Yanukovych, I would remind you) to acknowledge his self-resignation from power.

            So, you have just exposed yourself.

          • Antidyatel // January 3, 2016 at 2:29 am //

            Pathetic as usual.
            As such it is enough to say that agreement was giving 48 hours for implementing the return of 2004 constitution. Turchinov was assigned as acting president before that deadline, so already here we can finish arguing.
            But let’s continue. Neo-nazi from opposition didn’t accept the agreement and openly threatened to kill Yanukovitch. Within hours the coup really happened and security forces were removed from presidential palace. So it was reasonably for Yanukovitch to focus on saving his life first as the opposition and European representatives were not going to abide by agreement, but instead just kill him.
            The only thing that Yanukovitch refused to sign was his resignation, which was not part of the agreement.
            And finally Yanukovitch was accused of ordering killing of protesters and embezzlement of large funds. Enough reasons to call for impeachment and follow the due process. But you just couldn’t wait. More to this illegal usurpers of power went further and dismissed the supreme Court, eventhough parliament doesn’t have such power. But illegals were afraid that Europeans would still force them to follow constitution. However, Europeans have no shame when it comes to geopolitics.
            But you see, if you dismiss the supreme law, you can’t complain for others not following it anylonger. It’s a two way road and for you it is downhill. Enjoy the role to the bottom

          • Prosto Tak // January 3, 2016 at 6:41 am //

            Antidyatel, you are constantly sticking to the Kremlin’s point of view but as much as you like it it’s not true to the fact.

            The agreement was broken by no other person than Yanukovych himself who clearly stated he would not sign it. And in a situation of the fleeing president, the parliament had to act.

            “Within hours the coup really happened and security forces were removed from presidential palace” — quite the opposite. What the Kremlin and you you call “the coup” only began to unfold after the protesters realized the security forces were removed and the top government official were fleeing. And the change of power was the only thing left when it became clear later that the country has no functioning president any more.

            “And finally Yanukovitch was accused” — yes, “finally,” and much later — after it became possible to look into what he had actually done. Would he not flee and remain in power, no one would still know it at the time. And even if the impeachment procedure would somehow be initiated (though it would have been a breach of the agreement) Yanukovych’s term would have ended far before the procedure.

            Have you thought about the fact that no country in the world have ever called the Ukrainian events a “coup” — except from Russia? (Well, maybe also some Venezuela or the Syrian regime, the truthful Kremlin stooges.) You must know the Russian saying about being the only one who keeps step while everyone else is out of step 🙂

          • Antidyatel // January 3, 2016 at 12:40 pm //

            We are really far from the topic. So I’ll keep it simply to Kremlin propaganda from BBC
            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26312008
            And this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26306886
            All his refused to sign was the demand for resignation. While he obviously signed the agreement with opposition that outlined the reforms, which in no way had to be implemented immediately. Only the process had to start. So no. My friend, you should remove the rosy glasses of Maidan mythology and admit the unlawful usurpation of power.

          • Prosto Tak // January 3, 2016 at 8:12 pm //

            Antidyatel, I know you and the Kremlin are great specialists in shifting the discourse in the direction you want. But now you failed.

            What have you found in those BBC stories? Maybe some misunderstandings which most media used to have those days, even the Ukrainian ones.

            First, there was no “dismissal” of President Yanukovych, the parliament only had no other choice but to acknowledge his own actual unconstitutional self-resignation from presidential duties.

            Second, there was no “lowering the official status of the Russian language.” Russian has never had any official status in Ukraine, and voting to cancel a new language law that had been adopted in clear breach of the parliamentary rules only meant the return to the previous, Soviet-time language law of 1990 that was very much generous to Russian.

            “All his refused to sign was the demand for resignation” — Who on Earth has told you that? Mr. Lavrov?

            It was Yanukovych who refused to sign into law all the bills that were promptly passed by the parliament to fulfill the internationally mediated deal. Thus, he was the one that effectively killed the whole deal. And no one can deny that, even if the Kremlin tries to.

            Would he sign the bills into laws, he would have remained President until the end of his term minus one month. Even if anyone would try an impeachment against him, it would be doomed.

            So, no one can “admit the unlawful usurpation of power,” however much you’d want to.

          • Antidyatel // January 4, 2016 at 3:47 am //

            PROSTO, you really become a Ukr version of Boggled. Proclamations without substance with hint of arrogant aplomb.

            Let’s make it simple. Give me a source where Yanukovitch refused to sign. What was the deadline when he had to sign it?
            Then answer simple question if his life qas threatened and the threat was amplified when someone ordered security forces to leave his residence (even Sikorski was surprised in that action)?

          • Prosto Tak // January 4, 2016 at 11:08 am //

            Antidyatel, while I give you undeniable facts you give me pro-Kremlin propaganda.

            Where did Yanukovych refuse to sign the laws passed by the parliament as part of the internationally mediated agreement? — In his well-known televised statement on February 22, 2014: “I will not sign ANYTHING!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUkEG0yit-A&t=5m41s

            That was the last reason for the legitimate parliament to pass the only possible decision later: to acknowledge his self-removal from power.

            The timeline of the day: a report on Yanukovych statement – 16:07, a report on his “dismissal” by the parliament — you can see even the Ukrainian media did the mistake — at 17:13; in Russian: http://korrespondent.net/all/ukraine/politics/2014/february/22/p3/

            Was his life threatened? Hardly so. Though he might have felt that way, being extremely frightened to lose power. Don’t forget no one has actually done anything to Yanukovych while he, not president any more, was fleeing through different parts of Ukraine — no one even tried to stop him because he was not legally accused of anything at the time so the security forces had no legal reason to detain him. In this case you can see how Yanukovych’s adversaries acted perfectly legally to deal with their political foe even as they actually let him flee from responsibility.

            And who could order the security forces to leave but the president himself or his own ministers — at a time when he was still in full power? Have you ever thought of that?

          • Antidyatel // January 4, 2016 at 11:52 am //

            Much better. Much better. If only you have provided the whole interview instead of cutting it the way you want. The original interview is here. https://youtu.be/VsoGnOe_Wos
            The full statement is that the parliament members are threatened with guns and are beaten with stones (which was true), hence the laws presented are illegal and he WILL NOT SIGN THEM in such circumstances. Perfectly logical and correct decision. In the same interview he already talks about the laws signed based on the agreement. You were so close and still so wrong.

          • Antidyatel // January 4, 2016 at 12:19 pm //

            Regarding being afraid for his life, when you hear something like this “Either he resigns, or we take him away”, and then someone without your knowledge ordered security forces from your residence, the conclusion is obvious

          • Prosto Tak // January 5, 2016 at 2:58 am //

            If you had enough intelligence you could just move the slider to the left on the full video I linked to — and enjoy the golden words (lies) of your beloved Yanukovych once again 🙂

            And you’d listen again to his lies about “the parliament members being threatened with guns and beaten with stones” which you like so much.

            However, even Yanukovych’s true comrade, former parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Rybak had to dismiss Yanukovych’s lies from the same February 22 statement. He clearly called “an absurd” and “a fabrication” Yanukovych’s words that Rybak had been “beaten” and that Rybak’s car had been “shot at” — in Russian, with a video: http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/23/7015967/

            So, Yanukovych has created his own universe of lies for himself and then said all the laws enacted according to the internationally mediated agreement are “illegal” so he would not sign them. And exactly that, together with his flight, amounted to his flouting his constitutional duties which had to be simply acknowledged by the legally acting parliament.

            “In the same interview he already talks about the laws signed based on the agreement” — actually, he spoke on the agreement itself which he did sign. As for the laws, he did not sign them. He clearly refused to sign them which was his international obligation. Again, you were “so close and still so wrong” — as usual.

            “and then someone without your knowledge ordered security forces from your residence” — oh, who it might be? Parasiuk??? No! It were Yanukovych’s own personally chosen ministers if not himself — we already know Yanukovych had been packing things and getting ready to flee since February 19, and it’s in the recordings of the security cameras of his country residence. So maybe he knew from the very beginning he would not sign any laws…

          • Antidyatel // January 5, 2016 at 5:03 am //

            Nearly there. One problem Paet acknowledged that his intercepted phone call with Ashton is genuine. And what we hear there: “Regions Party was absolutely upset, they say that well they accept this now, that there will be new government and there will be external elections, but there is enormous pressure against the members of parliament , that there are uninvited visitors during the night, to Party members, well, journalists, some journalists who were with me, they saw during the day that one member of parliament was just beaten in front of the parliament building, by these guys with the guns on the streets”

            You see, how interesting it is to actually analyse the sources instead of consuming propaganda

          • Antidyatel // January 5, 2016 at 5:17 am //

            Ryibak story is quite simple. He ditched his boss to save his own life and future. Although it not clear if he went back on previously agreed story line of defence with Yanukovitch or he lied to Yanukovitch about the beating and shooting. The second option seems to be not the first incident, and it is Yanukovitch problem that he surround himself with such people :http://www.unian.net/politics/762804-vlasenko-podozrevaet-chto-yanukovicha-obmanul-portnov.html
            So it is likely that Yanukovitch was believing that he is telling the truth because he just relied on what Ryibak told him.

          • Antidyatel // January 5, 2016 at 5:41 am //

            Let me give you another Kremlin propaganda on who ordered removal of troopshttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html?referrer&_r=3&referer=
            “Inna Bogoslovskaya, a longtime ally of Mr. Yanukovych who broke with him over his November decision not to sign the trade deal with the European Union, said the retreat was merely a response to a resolution adopted late Thursday that week by the Ukrainian Parliament that ordered all Interior Ministry troops and police officers to return to their barracks.”

            It is Yanukovitch fault that he surrounded himself with such people or betrayed them. Doesn’t matter. What is important here is that he is not responsible for the order. Hence, in combination with threats from maidawns to kill him, the disappearance of security forces from his residence was promising only one end for him. And European double faced politicians has demonstrated that they will great his violent death a la Qadaffi. Excuse will that he is a monster. While maidawns are just angry children

          • Prosto Tak // January 5, 2016 at 12:01 pm //

            “how interesting it is to actually analyse the sources” — oh, yes, it’s very interesting to ANALYZE the sources and not just to post them without thinking. What Paet said were the rendered words of the Party of Regions members — who, as you yourself say in the Rybak story, tended to lie those days. It may be true some party members had been intimidated but there were no information (information, not propaganda) of any mass intimidation of the top party members and their MPs.

            “another Kremlin propaganda on who ordered removal of troops” — you are right, it’s a “Kremlin propaganda” — by Bohoslovska, not by NYT. The parliament did not adopt any resolutions that ordered ALL Interior Ministry troops and police officers to return to their barracks. On the contrary, the resolution adopted on February 20 clearly ordered the removal to barracks only of the troops that were not taking part in the safeguarding of the state institutions. I only have the text in Ukrainian, p. 5, it. 2) http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/740-18

            And when the security forces that, according to that resolution, were guarding the state institutions have finally mysteriously disappeared the parliament had nothing to do with it.

            “the disappearance of security forces from his residence was promising only one end for him” — but that happened after he had already fled from Kyiv in the evening of February 21.

            “his violent death a la Qadaffi” — maybe there were people wanting his death without taking him to court for his crimes — but the reality was absolutely different: in an exemplary way of abiding the law, no one has even tried to detain Yanukovych while he, not a president any more, was fleeing through parts of Ukraine for a couple of days before finally going to the occupied Crimea and from there to Russia. No one tried to detain him, as much as one might want to, just because it would have been illegal at the moment, as there were no criminal indictments against him at the time, so he was left to flee freely.

          • Antidyatel // January 5, 2016 at 9:13 pm //

            Paet is talking about journalists. You know free press and other fun things of Europe
            “Yanukovitch left after police has dissapered from his residence. By late Friday afternoon, just as the European diplomats were leaving the presidential offices after the signing of the peace deal, police officers at the most sensitive positions around Mr. Yanukovych’s office compound and the Cabinet of Ministers building were withdrawing.”http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/world/europe/as-his-fortunes-fell-in-ukraine-a-president-clung-to-illusions.html?referer=
            So again your information is wrong. First police left and then Yanukovitch run. So you are either lying or wilfully misinformed.
            The link is also talking about the weapons from Lvov that you and Andrew are bickering about. “But Andrei Levus, deputy head of the Maidan “self-defense” forces, the umbrella organization of militant activists fighting the government, knew he had reinforcements on the way. Protesters in Lviv had overrun an Interior Ministry garrison and were en route to Kiev with the captured military weapons.”
            So.again your information is wrong. But it is funny that you know what was taken from arsenal, while nobody knows the inventory of Ukrainian arsenals after years of illegal weapons trade. You even don’t know where are all your BUK missiles, just to confirm that none of them was used against MH17. And there you have less than 1000 units. Should have been easy to present but you cannot.
            Bohoslovska is a Kremlin agent? You are really funny.

          • Prosto Tak // January 6, 2016 at 1:17 pm //

            Antidyatel, thank you. Finally, after so many mistakes of yours, you’ve found a mistake of mine! I was wrong in counting days, I already forgot the exact hour-by-hour and day-by-day sequence as it was unfolding.

            So, let’s celebrate that and re-construct the events with your kind correction.

            It’s late Friday afternoon, February 21, about 4 pm: The internationally mediated agreement is signed. It provides for the quick vote, enactment and putting into force — all that within 48 hours — of some laws that should mean Yanukovych’s term is now one month shorter than before but he remains in power under international guarantees, and the opposition has to disarm, stop their protests and tolerate Yanukovych for 11 more months, or otherwise it would lose all Western support.

            Still earlier, on February 20, the parliament passed a resolution that ordered the Ministry of the Interior headed by a Yanukovych true ally to move back to barracks all their armed men — but except for those guarding the state offices.

            And back on February 21, after the agreement was signed and Yanukovych departed for his out-of-town residence, the security forces withdraw from the buildings of the presidential and the government offices, which was not part of the deal.

            Who might have ordered them to do so? Obviously not the then opposition. It could have been either Yanukovych himself or someone of the security ministers for his behest. You must understand any such “voluntarism” was simply impossible in Yanukovych’s Ukraine which still existed at the moment.

            As we now know Yanukovych had been actively packing his belongings and cash in his country residence for two days already, since February 19, thanks to security camera recordings.

            So the only reasonable explanation is that Yanukovych knew he would not need the guards in his office any more. When signing the deal he already knew he would not heed to it and flee.

            That very night, the parliament dominated by Yanukovych’s allies but bound by the deal signed by him, did its part and voted for the necessary laws.

            But by the end of the day on Friday, within hours after signing the agreement, at 10:40 pm Yanukovych was already in his plane flying/fleeing to Kharkiv and so on.

            On Saturday he declined to enact the laws that were part of the deal signed by him in the ill-famous video statement. In an hour and a half from the time of this statement, the parliament voted to acknowledge his unconstitutional self-dismissal from the presidential duties.

            By the way, the guards of Yanukovych’s country residence only fled on Saturday morning.

            And now, to those arms. Protesters in Lviv overran an Interior Ministry garrison (unit 4114) in the night of February 18-19 — but Mr. Levus was wrong. It was not there the arms were taken. Several hundred pistols and Kalashnikovs were captured that very night in several police precincts in Lviv. “Nobody knows the inventory of Ukrainian arsenals after years of illegal weapons trade” — but these were taken not from military arsenals but from regular city police precincts.

            It’s possible they might have planned to bring the arms to Kyiv. However, they did not. No arms were moved from Lviv to Kyiv en masse. (Though maybe a pistol or two were.)

            That night, February 18-19, signified the fiercest clashes on the Maidan square in Kyiv itself, and the protesters were almost subdued. However, they withstood. This and the next day, the police were stopping every train, bus or car moving to Kyiv from West Ukraine. And after that, there was no need to move arms for the protesters any more.

    • Sobbed progressed from “What I have not read there was the (missing) clause on what to do when the president flouts the Constitution and flies from the country. ”

      So now the president was still in the country. The only thing that he refused to do is go by the agreement signed the day before based on his perception that the opposition party was breaking it in his opinion. And he has right to his opinion. That agreement was not related to constitution and he was not elected to enforce it. He was elected to enforce constitution. He failed it but not for the reasons you claim.
      The 48 hour deadline was only in regards returning to constitution of 2004. He provided his reasons. You can disagree with them but it is irrelevant. There were no conditionals attached to the agreement in case deadline is not met. But We also established that Turchinov took post of acting president well before the 48 hours deadline.

      So all in all we have unconstitutional capture of power by a group of armed men with international backing and financial support – coup. Case closed

      • Wrong.

        He put his signature under an internationally mediated obligation to do something. He fled and stated he now did not want to heed to his obligations. That’s not what a president is constitutionally supposed to do, especially in a crisis. So, what we have was a change of power in a situation not described in the Constitution made by the legitimate parliament with a pro-presidential majority, and this change of power was recognized by most actor countries and international organizations at once — except Russia. “Only Baba Yaga was against it,” as a Russian saying goes (Baba Yaga is an ugly scary humpback witch from the Russian folk tales).

        • What is this creation of laws as you write. A group of individuals cannot randomly remove president from power just because they don’t like him. There was no description in the agreement on what are the consequences if deadline is not met. Plus it should have been international mediators determining if agreement is fulfilled or not. They could not legally do it as the deadline was still not over. They accepted the new status quo (illegal usurpation of power) post factum as everthing was developing better than they expected (at least they thought so at that moment). Your attempts to justify illegal capture of power is worthless. Every revolution is illegal. Why are you even trying?

          • Prosto Tak // January 7, 2016 at 11:46 am //

            Revolution? Where can you see any revolution?

            The same parliament that is the primary legal power in the country remained in power — no one has captured power from anybody. The parliament only had to change the country’s top official who broke the public contract with the people for which he had been elected. The move might have been controversial due to the exceptional actions perpetrated by the president, but not illegal.

            After Yanukovych’s flight and a clear promise not to ever sign the laws, waiting for the 48-hour term to end would be in wain. Or do you think he lied again and would have still signed the laws in time? I think it would hardly be this way.

            What the parliament had to do (and did) was not to wait to see the whole agreement break down but to try to save at least part of it. If they would not have done so, the most probable outcome would really be a violent revolution. You’d like to have it happened, wouldn’t you?

            Antidyatel, you think you know how the US SBIRS satellites work and what missile launch movies they produce. Please tell us about that, you seem to know their secrets. We all would say thank you so much. But please don’t mess into affairs of Ukraine of which you, as it is absolutely clear, understand nothing and know nothing except from what the Russian TV has told you. Kremlin’s lies in your rendering do not become truth.

  4. Denis Cashcov // December 23, 2015 at 3:28 am // Reply

    It seems that Kolmoyski knows who did it. One wonders why there is no effort to talk to him if they want to know who is responsible

  5. Liane Theuer // January 1, 2016 at 11:12 pm // Reply

    In the Krasnosnoarmeisk videos a yellow Van is to be seen, too.
    This yellow Mercedes-Sprinter with the polish number plate LCH 28324 belongs to the twins Alexej and Oleg Butorin from Right Sektor.
    Number plate of the white VW with green stripes is AE 9004 BC.
    Number plate of one of the light green VW-Vans is AH 0386 IB
    In this video you can read the number plate of another green van : AH 8221 HX
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3TwXWdj6hA
    A black KIA is involved too. Number plate AH 3328 HX
    A lot of cars were involved, as to be seen here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9J_ADUm5KM

    In this video at 1.12 and 5:20 the man from the City Executive Committee Krasnosnoarmeisk says twice „It´s battalion DNEPR“.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44I2a8jbOQ
    (Prost Tak : Listen carefully to him !)
    Boris Filatov denied this :
    http://censor.net.ua/news/284865/dnepropetrovskaya_oga_oprovergla_uchastie_batalona_dnepr_v_sobytiyah_v_krasnoarmeyiske_ego_v_gorode

    About Andrey Denisenko, who was seen in Krasnosnoarmeisk :
    When Ihor Kolomoisky was appointed as the new governor, the leader of the right sector in the Dnepropetrovskaya Oblast, Andrey Denisenko, gave the oligarch the so-called “town key”. Also in the subsequent press conference Denisenko sat next to the new governor.

    It was Battalion “Dnepr-1” that occupied state-owned company “UkrNafta” in March 2015 on command of Kolomoisky.

    Ukraine International Air­lines (UIA) belongs to Kolomoisky. So he has good connections to DNIPRO Control.

    So there are a lot of links to Ihor Kolomoisky, battalion DNEPR in Krasnosnoarmeisk, the armored vehicles and the ukrainian BUK.

    • Liane Theuer, sorry, you have just produced a big mess.

      Why do you publish the license plate numbers of the vans? How can it help you?

      So what if an unknown man in the video (I’d say he was one of the armed men, not a local official, as I could judge from the video) tells about a mythical “Battalion Dnepr”? There was no “Battalion Dnepr” (in Russian), or “Battalion Dnipro” (in Ukrainian): there were two very different battalions with the name but numbered 1 and 2, and it’s essential.

      Battalion “Dnipro 1” (now it’s a regiment) is an official part of the Ministry of the Interior, and they deny their people were in Krasnoarmiysk. Besides, there was no “Dnipro 1” at “UkrNafta” incident, again some unknown people (possibly some Kolomoyskyi’s thugs) used the name.

      On the other side, there existed an unofficial “Battalion Dnipro 2” at the time, before June 2014, and it was a structure of “Right Sector.” For the unprofessional behavior of the men in the Krasnoarmiysk incident, I tend to think it might have been them, though I have no evidence. At that time, they acted much as the separatists did, i. e. under a “revolutionary (il)legality,” so the cars they used might have been simply stolen.

      However, even if we speak of some support Kolomoyskyi provided to “Right Sector” as a patriotic Ukrainian force that wanted to defend Ukraine against the Russian aggression, we cannot hold him personally responsible for every fart of every “RS” man.

      As for “Dnipro Control,” your suggestion is absolutely irrelevant. The “Ukraine International Airlines” main hub is not a small Dnipropetrovsk airport but Kyiv Boryspil, the biggest Ukrainian airport. And one of the Ukrainian air traffic control stations in Dnipropetrovsk has nothing to do with Kolomoiskyi (when you own an airline, you don’t need to have any personal relations with air traffic control: it’s much better to have such relations with the airports which is a very much different thing).

      And why did you mention the ‘Buk’? I can see no connection with all the previous text.

  6. Liane Theuer // January 3, 2016 at 11:26 pm // Reply

    I would like to highlight this important 79-page study by the University of Ottawa :
    The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine
    https://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine

    One can span an arc from Maidan massacre to Ihor Kolomoisky (and others). And may be MH17 was a false flag, too.

    Some excerpts :

    „This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland.
    The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. (..)
    The dominant representation of the massacre by governments and the media in the West and Ukraine is a part of the narrative presenting “Euromaidan” as a democratic, peaceful mass-protest movement and a revolution led by pro-Western parties. The role of far-right parties and organizations, such as Svoboda and the Right Sector, is regarded as marginal.“ (..)

    „While the Ukrainian Parliament asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the massacre and other cases of violence during “Euromaidan” following the overthrow of Yanukovych, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Office reportedly informed the court representatives in the fall of 2014 that Ukraine was not interested in assisting such an investigation.“

    Falsification of the date by the SBU (usual practice?) :

    „The SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko was a source of such misleading information during a joint press conference with the police and Prosecution General Office heads because he implied that the positions of SBU snipers on Kostelna Street and on Ukrkoopspilka building on Khreshchatyk referred to February 20 and not to February 18.“

    Parallels to MH17 :

    „The US President and Vice-President publicly blamed the government forces for the massacre of the protesters immediately after it happen, but the US government did not disclose any evidence that they had about this mass killing.“

    There is a direct connection between the maidan massacre and the Dnipro (Dnepr) battalion :

    „Volodymyr Parasiuk, a special Maidan company commander, confirmed that his unit which included armed protesters with experience fighting in armed conflicts – was based in the conservatory building at the time of the massacre. He de facto admitted in his various that his unit shot at the police.
    However, the presence of such a large armed unit at Maidan could not be possible without its subordination to the Maidan Self-Defense or one of the political organizations of the Maidan opposition, and there is varied evidence of such links.
    Parasiuk admitted that his company was formed following negotiations with the Right Sector and that he later talked with representatives of Klychko’s UDAR party.
    After playing a keyrole in the overthrow of the Yanukovych government, he served as a company commander in the Dnipro battalion, which was organized with the direct involvement of the Right Sector. Another above-mentioned shooter, who identified himself by name, also joined this battalion.“

    „Videos show Svoboda members of the parliament, such as Ruslan Koshulynsky, Oleh Pankevych, Yuri Syrotiuk, Iryna Stekh, Iryna Farion, Oleh Osiatynsky, Ihor Shvaika, and Anatolii Vitiv, witnessing the arrival and exit of members of the armed Parasiuk group or being at the first floor and near the hotel during the massacre, in some cases from the very start.
    Most members of Svoboda faction had being provided Hotel Ukraina suits to live after the 2012 elections. But they have not publicly mentioned presence of Maidan shooters in the hotel, and the Prosecutor General from Svoboda did the same.
    A German TV video shows Parasiuk retrieving his company members from the same room of the Hotel Ukraina on the 14th floor during the massacre in presence of several journalists at 10:22am.
    The ZDF correspondent said that these protesters broke into their room and then were shooting. Ruslan Koshulynsky, deputy-speaker of the Ukrainian parliament from Svoboda, was filmed with this group of armed shooters both in this video and in the Ukraina TV video showing the entrance of the Parasiuk’s company members, and then Koshulynsky follows them to the elevator. The exact time and the location of this group and the matching clothing and appearance indicate that a protestor, who accompanied this group and was filmed in the cited Ruptly video with a Glock handgun and in the ZFD video following the Parasiuk group, was Koshulynsky.“

    „Volodymyr Parasiuk, the same special combat company commander whose snipers shot at the police from the Music Conservatory building and then at both the police and the protesters from the Hotel Ukraine, called from the Maidan stage in the evening of February 21, 2014 to reject a signed agreement, which was mediated by foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland and a representative of the Russian president.
    The agreement called for investigation of the Maidan massacre with international help. Parasiuk issued a public ultimatum for President Yanukovych to resign by 10:00am of the next day. He justified his ultimatum by blaming Yanukovych for the massacre, while coffins of killed protesters were carried out in front of the stage and some of the members of the Parasiuk-led company, who were seen along with him in the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre, standing in front.
    Parubii said that this ultimatum announced by Parasiuk was a decision by “institutional bodies of the Maidan” and that it was adopted by a military council set up by the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector on February 21, 2014.
    A similar statement was issued from the Maidan stage by Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Right Sector, who said that he told the same Yanukovych personally when then President requested Yarosh to meet with him on February 20 after the massacre was mostly over. The Yarosh statement contained reference to arms that the Right Sector could use.“

    „Parasiuk also admitted that members of his company forced an undisclosed number of members of the parliament to participate in the votes that led to removals of Yanukovych and members of his government from power and elected the former Maidan leaders in their place. Yanukovych fled from Kyiv to Eastern Ukraine in the evening of February 21 soon after this ultimatum was issued.“

    Volodymyr Parasiuk´s famous ultimatum to Yanukovych :
    http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3836

    Volodymyr Parasiuk became company commander in the Dnipro battalion, which prevented the referendum in Kras by force on 11 May 2014th.
    The defaced emblems of the Buk unit could be the ones of Dnipro (Dnepr) battalion.

    Have a look at this site and you realise, that he is not interested in MinskII :
    http://euromaidanpress.com/author/parasyuk/

    Volodymyr Parasiuk was elected to the Verkhovna Rada (like Andrey Denisenko). In parliament he joined the inter-factional group Ukrop. It includes non-faction MPs Dmytro Yarosh (former leader of Right Sector) , Andriy Biletsky (military commander of Azov Battalion) , Boryslav Bereza (Right Sector), Borys Filatov (now Mayor of Dnipropetrovsk). I think, everyone is on Kolomoisky´s payroll.
    Volodymyr Parasiuk still solves problems with violence :
    http://webuserblog.com/?p=3674

    Connection Volodymyr Parasiuk – Boris Filatov (now Mayor of Dnipropetrovsk) :
    http://maidantranslations.com/2014/09/02/the-incredible-story-of-volodymyr-parasyuks-salvation/

    The deeper you dig the more you look into the abyss…

    • You’d better write on the US astronauts not having been on the Moon…

      • Prosto, you are so toothless, it is really not funny anymore. You are given an analysis with sources that are so “pro-kremlin”, that you can’t just brush it away based on the source. I know it is hard, but try to provide evidence to your claims with relevant sources. At least sometimes

        • Do you call that an “analysis”? I call that a heap of words and links that may tell us anything, especially on that zero idiot Parasiuk with his angry but hollow statement — but nothing on the suggested topic, “What is the role of oligarch Kolomoisky and his private army in the shot down of MH17?” And you know why: because there is no such role. You can find Kolomoiskyi’s links to many events in Ukraine but he obviously did not command any ‘Buks” 🙂

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*