Connect with us
// (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


YANUKOVYCH: Ukraine’s last legitimate President speaks out in defence of his security services

Viktor Yanukovych is a flawed man and behaved cowardly in 2014. His security services by contrast were impeccable in their standards of professionalism against tremendous odds. Now their former President is trying to clear their name.




The legacy of Viktor Yanukovych is a deeply controversial one. Viktor Yanukovych was the last legitimate President of Ukraine who was illegally overthrown in a western backed coup in February of 2014. Prior to that, Yanukovych was seen by many as a unifying candidate, the best choice of a bad lot who could hold the fragility of Ukraine’s totally artificial borders together in spite of tremendous historical odds.

In many ways Yanukovych never got the chance to be the unity candidate he pledged to be. He was constantly being undermined by sectarian forces including neo-Nazi elements who could not tolerate a man who preached tolerance and practised it, however limply. When the latent fascist elements in the historic Galacia region knew that the US and EU would back them, they came out of the woodwork and pounced. They began to launch an insurrection which led to a coup, in popular lore it is known as The Maidan or Euromaidan.

When Yanukovych’s fascist opposition conspired to overthrow him, many of his allies were either too frightened or too uninspired to come to his side, even though Ukraine’s former security service/special police, The Berkut did attempt to preserve law and order in spite of physical violence being thrown at them from heavily armed domestic terrorists and foreign mercenaries. To understand what the Berkut were up against, ordinary police in America often use automatic firearms in such situations, American police often use firearms in far less severe situations for that matter. The Berkut by contrast did not use or hold lethal weapons in spite of being fired on by all variety of lethal weapons including guns.

Unlike the current regime, not even Yanukovych’s opposition ever accused him of committing genocide or starting a war, he objectively did neither. His administration was corrupt but so too has every Ukrainian political leader’s faction been corrupt. Later allegations that his security services harmed civilians was known to be false at the time although the western media has failed to clarify this reality.

Yanukovych was however guilty of cowardice. As the legal President of Ukraine, he could have and should have remained in the country, gathered law enforcement and if needed, call on his allies in Moscow and Minsk to help restore law and order. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria called on his allies to help fight terrorism and  Yanukovych could have done the same.

He did not exercise this legal right, instead he ran away in the night and never returned.

Since the coup, Yanukovych has tried to restore his name, something which at best will be a half-way success. When he correctly sates that his security services, the Berkut behaved impeccably and lawfully under the most horrible of circumstances, he is telling the truth, one that has been whitewashed by the western media even though Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet confirmed that  Yanukovych is correct during a leaked phone call with Catherine Ashton, a former British EU official whose remit covered foreign affairs.

Now, Viktor Yanukovych has spoken to the press about trying to clear the good name of his security service as well as his own.

He stated the following,

“The authorities are doing everything to make sure the truth is not established. In the past years, they did everything to destroy the evidence proving that it was the foreign mercenaries and those who controlled Maidan that were behind snipers’ shooting at Berkut (Ukrainian security service/special police) troops as well as at fighters at Maidan. It was a provocation targeted at blaming law enforcement officers and the Ukrainian government for everything bad.

Eyewitnesses, participants, victims — today many  realise that shots were fired from the buildings controlled by Maidan. It means that (there were) organised groups of snipers (who aimed) to provoke clashes. This is the truth that will be established, there are many documents to prove that.

We have started the process of applying to various authorities which would raise the level of responsibility of these countries and individual leaders who participated in the signing of this agreement during that period. Of course, it is their political responsibility… But as for the legal and material (sides of the issue), including because the damage was caused to the state by the passivity of these countries, the question of their liability will be determined in the near future”.

Viktor Yanukovych’s Berkut officers were loyal to their President and upheld their duty to protect and restore the peace. It is a shame that Yanukovych ran away rather than stand by his officers. At least now he is doing something to help them to restore their good name.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement // (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Trump Has Gifted “No More Wars” Policy Position To Bernie Sanders (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 148.

Alex Christoforou



RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss how US President Donald Tump appears to have ceded his popular 2016 ‘no more wars’ campaign message and policy position to Bernie Sanders and any other US 2020 candidate willing to grad onto a non-interventionist approach to the upcoming Democrat primaries.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Is Bernie Stealing Trump’s ‘No More Wars’ Issue?” by Patrick J. Buchanan…

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016.

“The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars… I agree with that,” Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday’s town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Then turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added:

“Mr. President, tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: Sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country.”

Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.

Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of the GOP led by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.

But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities.”

With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump’s veto, that should be the end of the matter.

It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the “no-more-wars” theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president?

Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing “Trump’s endless wars” in the Middle East? Because that is where he is headed.

In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia, lost.

Yet, in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq War and an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and get out of these Middle East wars.

Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker — not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.

Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.

He declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which Iran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.

Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. Embassy there, closed the consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi Netanyahu’s threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and castigating the “right-wing” Netanyahu regime.

Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the troops are still there.

Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 INF treaty that outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Caracas — ostensibly to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts — Trump, drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to “get out.”

Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the left wing of his party, and by Sanders, who voted “no” on the Iraq War that Biden supported.

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.

And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new bipartisan majority.

Prediction: By the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have captured the “no-more-wars” political high ground that Candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Over 200 killed, hundreds injured in series of blasts at Sri Lankan hotels & churches

A series of bombings hit churches and hotels across Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, killing more than 200 people.





Via RT…

A series of eight explosions rocked Catholic churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka as Christians began Easter Sunday celebrations, with over 200 killed and hundreds injured, media reported, citing police.

The blasts started at around 8:45am local time at St. Anthony’s Church in Colombo and St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, a Catholic-majority town outside of the capital. The Zion Church in Batticaloa on the eastern coast was also targeted. At around the same time, the Shangri-La, Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury five-star hotels were also hit, police confirmed.

Two more explosions happened later in the day, targeting two more locations in Colombo. All attacks appear to have been coordinated.

At least 207 people were killed, Reuters reported, citing police. More than 450 were injured in the attacks.

Alleged footage of the aftermath, shared on social media, showed chaos and large-scale destruction inside at least one of the churches.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Mike Pompeo reveals true motto of CIA: ‘We lied, we cheated, we stole’ (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 147.

Alex Christoforou



The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at a Texas A&M University speech, and subsequent interview, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The former CIA Director admitted, ‘as an aside’ to the question asked, that the Intelligence agency he headed up before being appointed as the top US Diplomat had a motto “we lied, we cheated, we stole”…which, according to Pompeo, contained entire CIA training courses based on ‘lying, cheating and stealing.’

Pompeo finally speaks some truth.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter