Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Euromaidan in Ukraine was a right-wing coup to remove an elected government.
Executive summary
Claims that Euromaidan (Nov 2013–Feb 2014) was a right‑wing, Western‑engineered coup are widespread in Russian and pro‑Kremlin outlets, but mainstream Western histories and fact‑checking organizations describe it as a large, mostly grassroots protest triggered by then‑President Yanukovych’s rejection of an EU association agreement and by state violence against demonstrators [1] [2] [3]. Disinformation monitors and several analysts say narratives of a CIA‑backed neofascist takeover exaggerate the political weight of far‑right groups and were used by Moscow to justify aggression [4] [5] [6].
1. What actually triggered the protests — a policy choice, not a single shadowy plot
Euromaidan began after President Viktor Yanukovych suspended preparations to sign an Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU in November 2013; that policy reversal sparked large demonstrations across Ukraine that then broadened into calls for his resignation amid accusations of corruption and abuse of power [1] [2]. International institutions and observers documented police repression — notably the violent dispersal on 30 November 2013 — which intensified participation and political demands rather than being prima facie evidence of an external “coup” plot [2] [3].
2. Competing narratives: grassroots revolution vs. outside orchestration
Western and Ukrainian sources, and many independent scholars, characterise Euromaidan as a broad popular movement in defence of civic rights and European integration, not an unequivocal foreign‑engineered overthrow [3] [1]. By contrast, Russian state officials and pro‑Kremlin media frame the events as a Western‑sponsored “color revolution” or coup involving extremist actors — a narrative repeated in outlets such as Pravda and by Russian spokespeople [7] [8]. Both sides promote interpretations that suit geopolitical aims: Ukrainian and Western accounts emphasise popular agency and rule‑of‑law grievances; the Kremlin emphasises external meddling to delegitimise the post‑2014 Ukrainian state [1] [7] [5].
3. The role of right‑wing groups: visible but electorally marginal
Right‑wing and paramilitary groups (e.g., Right Sector) were present and sometimes prominent in street confrontations during the uprising, and journalists reported on their visibility at certain stages [9]. However, independent fact‑checking and EU‑monitoring work point out that such groups performed poorly in subsequent elections — for instance, Right Sector’s low vote shares — undermining claims that they led or imposed a lasting far‑right government [4]. Disinformation analysts stress that exaggerating the role of ultranationalists became a key Kremlin talking point used to justify later actions [4] [5].
4. Claims of CIA or Western orchestration: persistent but disputed
Pro‑Kremlin outlets and some commentators assert U.S. agencies and Western governments actively organized a coup; these claims are prominent in Russian statements and media reposts [7] [10] [11]. Journalistic investigations, academic writing, and disinformation trackers have found no evidence that Euromaidan was a U.S.‑run coup and describe such claims as disinformation that distorts the largely domestic origins of the protests [12] [4] [6]. The Foreign Policy explainer and Kyiv Independent piece trace how and why the “coup” narrative spread, including Kremlin incentives to deny Ukraine’s independent democratic shift [6] [12].
5. Why the competing stories matter today
How one frames 2013–2014 shapes legitimacy claims, policy choices, and public support for military or diplomatic measures: defining Euromaidan as a popular revolution supports Ukrainian sovereignty and Western backing narratives; defining it as a Western‑engineered coup supports Russian claims that intervention was a response to illegitimate regime change [5] [7]. Russian state messaging has repeatedly used the “coup” label to delegitimise post‑2014 Ukrainian governments and to justify subsequent policy and military actions [5].
6. Caveats and evidentiary limits in available reporting
Available sources in this bundle include mainstream encyclopedic summaries and reputable outlets that view Euromaidan as a popular uprising [1] [2] [3], plus pro‑Kremlin outlets and propaganda pieces that label it a coup [7] [10] [11]. Independent assessments and fact‑checks specifically refute the proposition that far‑right groups or the CIA ran a successful coup, citing electoral results and documentary research, but sources that make the coup claim remain influential in Russian discourse [4] [12] [9]. If you want deeper archival documentation or primary sources (e.g., leaked cables, internal agency records), available sources do not mention those materials in this set.
Bottom line: mainstream historical and journalistic sources characterise Euromaidan as a broad domestic protest movement triggered by Yanukovych’s policy reversal and state violence, while Russian and pro‑Kremlin outlets frame it as a Western‑led coup and stress far‑right involvement; independent fact‑checking challenges the coup narrative and highlights the marginal electoral power of extremist groups after 2014 [1] [4] [5].