User:WavesOfAmur/Third Kiev Edit

Overview
On November 21, 2013 Kiev underwent a series of protests known as 'Maidan', a movement vying for political change and a pro-western attitude due to the government rejecting association with the European Union, and for choosing to pursue ties with Russia, instead. The mass demonstrations were likely named after the Ukrainian name for Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti). It was also dubbed 'The Revolution of Dignity' by some in Kiev.

Initial protests were geographically separated; various activists entrenched themselves in different parts of the city, with civic activists settling on Independence Square, while opposition party activists held themselves on the European Square. Eventually, however, the groups merged together.

The protests were observed closely by all of Europe, and even by the rest of the international community. Violent dispersal of crowds took place during the protest on and prior to November 30, 2013, with variations lasting between then and February 2014. The protests purportedly ended in March 2014. According to one of the citizens, however, life in Kiev 'returned to normal' only around April 2014. Subsequent protests and demonstrations took place in other parts of Ukraine after February 2014, particularly in Eastern Ukraine.

Yanukovych's decision and reasons for conflict
President Viktor Yanukovych was expected to have signed an agreement at the Third European Partnership Summit in Vilnius, which would solidify Ukraine's economic link with the EU, while distancing itself from Russia. Despite the expectations, Yanukovych had rejected signing the agreement a week prior, and decided to strengthen ties with Russia.

According to Canadian policy adviser and Political Scientist Mikhail Molchanov, Yanukovych's decision stemmed from "two poles of gravity" which had the same level of "pull": Russia, Ukraine's largest trading partner, and the EU, which promised "development, modernization and a potentially affluent future". Molchanov believes that Yanukovych simply chose to wait over the signing of EU agreement, rather than abandoning it altogether. Some studies suggest that this 'wait' was a political ploy inherited from the Soviet times, embracing ideas of "anti-Americanism" and hostility to Ukrainian nationalism, as means to gather popular, democratic, support. Other studies suggest that it may be part of building 'Russian stability', as hypothesized in the Orange Revolution of 2004. Other sources believe it did not inherently concern Yanukovych altogether, but relied primarily on geopolitical confrontations, i.e. Russia and the West. Ukraine, particularly Kiev, serves as a transit state for Russia's export of gas into Europe, which may help support the idea of a geopolitical conflict.

Nevertheless, the rejection to cooperate with the EU, and subsequently ending the strive toward a Ukrainian membership, were announced by then-Prime Minister of the Ukraine, Mykola Azarov. This resulted in demonstrations in Kiev. The demonstrations were initially peaceful, but after abuse by authorities, protests erupted into violence.

Protests over Yanukovych's decision
The protests initially started with only a small number of demonstrators on Independence Square, but gradually swelled to hundreds, thousands, and potentially millions. This is partly attributed due to "the heavy-handed and brutal tactics" used by the police and Berkut, which resulted in more people coming to protest. Due to the extreme level of force exhibited by the authorities, the protesters began to set up barricades at various different buildings and administrative sites.

The protesters would 'camp out for months', protesting against Yanukovych. Barricades were made out of "stones, containers, cars, burned buses, furniture, barrels, billboards, tires, and, during the winter, bags full of snow", essentially anything that was in reach of the protesters. By this point, the square had become almost an external part of the city, as its immediate surroundings became mostly independent from the government, with some of them even becoming self-governing.

Protesters and demands
Initially, the handful of demonstrators who came out onto Independence Square were purported to have been students. The "early joiners" also included journalists, and affiliated members of organizations and social movements. After witnessing the mass abuse by the police on these students, many different citizens also came to protest. Some of the groups participating ranged from "the liberal intelligentsia to hardcore nationalists". The barricades, which were erected after police efforts at dispersing the crowds (followed by subsequent abuse), were initially meant to be symbolic; according to anthropologists Mie Georgsen and Bjørn Thomassen, the barricades were meant to symbolize a breaking point between the authorities and the protesters, serving as an "act of secession". This act allowed for the Kievans to leave behind their daily lives to enter into a "symbolic space of struggle". Moreover, the symbolism meant that the people were breaking apart from the "previous status quo", separating them from the civil status and freeing them to struggle against oppression, as was wrought by the authorities. One study concerning the conflict cites the Russian media's description of the protesters as "extremists" and "neo-Nazis", particularly belonging to the Ukrainian nationalist militant group, Right Sector. Similarly, Vladimir Putin had described the interim government that followed Yanukovych's outsting as full of "nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites [employing] pogroms and terror."

Some interpretations of Maidan were dubbed revolutionary, while others say it was a necessary component of democracy. Political Scholar and Historian Mikhail Minakov finds the arguments of Maidan's participants to be wanting for "modernizing and antidemocratic political goals". According to Minakov, in most cases, it was difficult to tell whether the protesters belonged to "conservative, liberal, or some other kind" of political stance. Further on, Minakov finds that the protesters found themselves to be composed of multicultural backgrounds, finding themselves "alongside racists, liberal democrats alongside social nationalists, and entrepreneurs alongside left-wing activists". Moreover, according to studies by Olga Onuch, the average protester cared less about closer ties with neither Russia nor the EU, and cared more about economic problems, shady political motives, and the violent oppression in Ukraine. According to Volodymyr Ishchenko, the most significant political party which took part in the protests was the Svoboda party, a far-right "freedom party", while the most significant political sector was the Right Sector.

Violence
Maidan saw many different forms of violence, ranging from abduction of protesters, torture, molotov cocktail throwing, and usage of snipers to clear out protesters. More than one hundred protesters had been killed in the violence, as well as a number of police officers. During the protests, reports of "disreputable characters" during night time on the streets were observed. Reports of violence against religious people (Orthodox, Muslim) and icons in Kiev, Crimea, as well as eastern Ukraine, were also apparent after the start of the riots. During the protests, the Right Sector was attributed to have had the most participation in the resistance and violence exhibited by the protesters against the authorities.

Author Sophie Pinkham notes the term Lumpen, stemming from the German word Lumpenproletariat, which was used to classify "the dregs of the lower classes, the criminals and degenerates who would never achieve class consciousness," most likely a Soviet era concept. Pinkham attributes this term to these people that would be found on the streets at night, and also in Eastern Ukraine. Pinkham also describes most of the protesters as those who were unemployed, or who had "no kitchen garden to tend". Conversely, other studies show that the median protestor's employment status was "between 34 and 45 [years of age] with a full-time job", and that around 56% of all protesters were employed, potentially downsizing the claim that the only the unemployed aroused violence.

Clamor for Pro-EU membership and stance on Russia
The dilemma in Yanukovych's choosing the Moscow-led Customs Union over membership in the European Union resounded in a significant surge of votes for pro-EU membership. According to a September 2014 poll by Gallup (on behalf of the International Republican Institute), 59% of respondents voted in favour of membership within the EU, while only 17% voted in favour of being a part of the Customs Union. Similar sentiments continued after Maidan. According to a May 2016 Poll by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), approximately 49% of Ukrainians favoured membership within the European Union, as opposed to 16% who preferred the Customs Union.

Since the Crimean annexation by Russia, national attitude towards Russia became much more negative, with polls from February 2014 to May 2015 showing that only 30% of Ukrainians (nationwide) held positive attitudes towards Russia and the Russian government. By middle of 2016, positive regard climbed back to 42%, while by August 2016, just 8% of Ukrainians felt positive about a Russian leadership. Negative views about the Kremlin became widespread across the country by this time, even in the Russian-speaking southern and eastern regions.

Aftermath
The Maidan lasted until around March 2014. An estimated four million people participated in the protests from November 30, 2013 to March 2014. The mass demonstrations were the biggest in Ukrainian history, and were one of the most significant in European history. By the end of the movement, Yanukovych had fled to Russia in asylum, while an interim government appeared in Ukraine following Yanukovych's abdication of presidency. According to Professor Panagiota Manoli, the appearance of the new interim government is controversial, potentially responsible for causing further violence in Eastern Ukraine. Moreover, Dr. Julia Strasheim cited the post-Maidan Civil War as "Europe's worst armed conflict since the breakup of Yugoslavia". Strasheim also believes that violence witnessed in post-Maidan Eastern Ukraine is attributed to poor crisis management by Ukraine, Russia, and the West. Maidan movement is considered to be one of the starting points for the on-going Ukrainian crisis.

Oxana Shevel believes Maidan was a "triumph" which "raised many hopes both domestically and internationally". Despite the critical acclaim, she also believes that two and a half years later, many of the goals of the protest were still unrealized. Progress on the prosecution of corrupt politicans, judicial reforms, and measures for government transparency and accountability had been taken, while progress within the economic sector, and for European integration remained lacking. Nevertheless, the movement had resulted in a strengthened Ukrainian national sense of identity and paved new ways for Ukrainian legislature and lawmaking, citing both changes brought on by Maidan, and due to Russian aggression in regards to Crimea.