The Prospect of Regime Change in Ukraine

So, reports indicate that president Trump’s team has met with key Ukrainian opposition leaders to discuss holding emergency elections to replace Zelenskyy. This is particularly because it appears that regime change may be the only path to peace avoiding a global war. Well, the US has a history of participating in regime change in Ukraine and it is in part a history that has fuelled the present conflict between Russia and NATO that is being fought in Ukraine. It is, therefore, paramount that discussions on regime change have a Ukraine centric approach – which is precisely what we’ll address further.
CONTEXT: THE U.S’S HISTORICAL ROLE IN THE VOLATILE REGIME CHANGE IN UKRAINE
A close examination of the US’s relationship with Ukraine over the years reveals a concerning picture. Far from protecting democracy, the historical role of the US in Ukraine reveals jarring extents of meddling that have resulted in political upheaval for both countries.
Over the last decade, Ukraine has been the battleground in a proxy war between the US (or more specifically, NATO) and Russia – a conflict massively escalated by the US insisting that the incumbent president, Volodomyr Zelenskyy not uphold the two Minsk Agreements with Russia, which were aimed at a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the conflict. But, before this proxy war erupted in 2022, the fight had actually long erupted in early 2014, when Biden and his team, then serving in the Obama administration, supported the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych.
What has then followed is that, through leveraging billions of dollars in US assistance, Washington has shaped the personnel and policies of subsequent Ukrainian governments, all while expanding its military and intelligence presence in Ukraine via the CIA and NATO. During this period, Ukraine has not become an independent self-sustaining democracy, but a “client state” heavily dependent on European and US support, which has not protected it from the ravages of war. In fact, I’m sure you’ve wondered why a nation that was once known as the breadbasket of Europe has become known for a president constantly pleading with American and European nations for aid. Well, it is not exclusively a consequence of Russia’s special military operation in the nation. This has been a concerted effort created through the US’s foreign policy. In fact, have a listen to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refer to Western intervention as the driver behind the coup that saw him being ousted as president.
THE U.S. WARMONGERS ALSO SANCTIONED THE 2014 COUP IN UKRAINE
But let’s talk further about the coup itself. Essentially, the Biden team’s path to influencing Ukraine began with the eruption of anti-government unrest in November 2013. That month, protesters began filling Kyiv’s Maidan Neza-lezh-nosti (which is the Independence Square) after then-President Viktor Yanukovych delayed signing a European Union (EU) trade pact. To members of what came to be known as the Maidan movement, Yanukovych’s decision was a betrayal of his pledge to strengthen Western ties, and a worrying sign of Russian allegiance in a country haunted by its Soviet past. HOWEVER, the reality was actually more complex. Yanukovych was hoping to maintain relations with both Russia and Europe – and use competition between them to Ukraine’s advantage. He also worried that the EU’s terms, which demanded reduced trade with Russia, would alienate his political base in the east and south, (which as we now know) is home to millions of ethnic Russians. In this period, the Yanukovych-supporting Ukrainians were concerned that the EU terms “would hurt their livelihoods, a large number of which were tied to trade and close relations with Russia.” This therefore tells us that, despite claims that the Maidan movement represented a “popular revolution,” reflections from that period instead showed that Ukrainians were evenly split on it, or even majority opposed.
Then, after an initial period of peaceful protest, the Maidan movement was soon co-opted by nationalist forces, which encouraged a violent insurrection for regime change. Leading Maidan’s hardline contingent was Oleh Tyahny-bok of the Svoboda party, who had once urged his supporters to fight what he called the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia running Ukraine.” Tyahnybok’s followers were joined by the Right Sector, which was a coalition of ultra-nationalist groups whose members openly sported Nazi insignia; which I believe makes you better appreciate Russia’s pursuit for the de-nazification of Ukraine.
But, (as you’ve just seen) figures in Washington took a different view of this issue in Ukraine: For them, the Maidan movement represented an opportunity to achieve a longtime goal of pulling Ukraine into the Western orbit. Given Ukraine’s historical ties to Russia, they saw its integration with the West as a means that could also be used to undermine the rule of Russian President Vladimir Putin. And so, seeking to capitalise on the unrest, US figures including Nuland, Republican Senator John McCain, and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy visited Maidan Square. In a show of support for the movement’s hardline faction, which at that point went beyond supporting the EU trade deal to even demand Yanukovych’s ouster, the trio met privately with Tyahny-bok (who we established was the Maidan Movement’’s hardline contingent) and appeared with him on stage. But, ultimately, this then culminated in a coup that ousted then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
Ultimately, the coup was the temporary culmination of long-standing efforts by US imperialism to install a puppet regime on the borders of Russia and brought the world a major step closer to a war between the largest nuclear powers, the US and Russia. The regime change prompted the outbreak of an ongoing civil war in the east of Ukraine, between Russian-backed separatists and the US-backed Ukrainian army, that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands and displaced millions.
In the US, the coup was a catalyzer for an ever more aggressive campaign against Russia and a significant shift to the right among layers of the upper middle class. US imperialism and NATO have funded the Ukrainian state and far-right forces with billions of dollars. The German ruling class also seized upon the coup as a pretext for aggressively stepping up its campaign to remilitarize and justify the crimes of fascist forces. For the first time since the end of World War II, representatives of a German government were seen in pictures with avowed Ukrainian neo-Nazis.
But, while former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych’s sentiments after he was ousted (which we just watched) were expectedly portrayed as the words of a bitter president trying to grapple at some level of political legitimacy after being ousted, have a listen as Russian president Vladimir Putin goes on to (essentially) detail and corroborate how the ousting of Yanukovych was a deliberate coup conducted by the US through paid operatives.
WHAT DOES THE U.S. NEED TO DO DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME AROUND?
So, having outlined this concerning history of US regime change in Ukraine, and how it was essentially part of the long-game of bolstering NATO’s proxy war with Russia, we then also ought to address what the US needs to do differently, if its role will be a constructive one. First, the US need not manufacture a crisis, like a coup in order to remove Zelensky. In fact, the status quo in Ukraine is enough reason for Ukrainians to see inherent value in a change in leadership – without these decisions being strongarmed by external parties.
Secondly, the US has to collaborate with interested parties like Russia and Belarus towards ensuring a free and fair election, where what matters is the votes of Ukrainians – as opposed to which figure or political party external parties think is best. This seems like an incredibly obvious thing to say, however, history is riddled with examples of governments that were placed by officials of the establishment to serve their agendas. And so, it is paramount that the people of Ukraine be given a government that they attribute political legitimacy and the responsibility of leadership to. This is also not difficult to accomplish seeing that not many leaders were genuinely happy with Zelenskyy. Including Biden himself at times.
ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE: A PANACEA TO MARTIAL LAW AND AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
Well, we then ought to establish why an election is necessary in Ukraine, and subsequently, why it would most likely have significant buy-in from Ukrainians themselves. And the broad answer is that Zelenskyy is a dictator who has weaponised martial law against his own country. The constitution of Ukraine establishes a fixed presidential term, which necessitates an election after that term. And yet, using martial law and the war as a pretext, Zelensky has not held the requisite elections, even while Russia had a presidential election in 2024.
But, looking at the more specific and nuanced reasons, Zelensky has also launched a war against press freedoms in Ukraine. Journalists and media groups have come under intense pressure from the Kiev regime, including spying and other forms of persecution during the conflict in Ukraine. In addition, reporters have been spied on and even presented with draft notices after exposing media restrictions imposed by President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government. In addition to Zelensky calling off elections and staying in power well past the end of his term, this is more evidence that Kiev is not the democratic bastion its Western military backers claim it is.
Essentially,  Zelensky nationalised the country’s media, among other authoritarian measures such as banning opposition parties. Ukrainian journalists mostly went along with the wartime restrictive measures that entailed prohibiting, among other things, the publication of locations where Russian missile strikes have taken place, accounts of military casualties, and reports on Ukrainian troop movements or positions.
Self-censorship has also become common, as journalists have been “holding back on critical coverage of the government to avoid undermining morale or to prevent reports of corruption from dissuading foreign partners from approving aid.” In addition to whitewashing the failures of Ukraine’s war, which it is fighting as a proxy for NATO, analysts say the pressure is “aimed at crimping positive coverage of the opposition and suppressing negative coverage of the government and the military.” Journalists were furnished with a list from their higher-ups, telling them which local elected officials and opposition figures were “undesirable” and thus should not be quoted in articles.
Then there was also media suppression that occurred in the Chernihiv region, where a local city council was disputing municipal spending with a governor that Zelensky appointed. The state news agency guided its reporters to not quote a council member, the acting mayor, because he was deemed an “undesirable.” In addition, in 2023, Ukraine passed a law giving Zelensky’s government direct authority to shut down media outlets that it deems unacceptable, bypassing any need for a court ruling. ALL of this is evidence of an autocratic regime.
You’d also recall that, as the war has progressed, Ukraine has been unable to replace its battlefield casualties with newly trained soldiers. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has adjusted to a wartime economy and has a larger number of young men to serve in the military, giving Moscow a distinct advantage as the conflict has become a war of attrition. While Kiev and Moscow have been tight-lipped about their own causality figures, estimates for both sides range in the hundreds of thousands. To fill its ranks, Ukraine has recently expanded its conscription laws and cracked down on those seeking to avoid the draft. The ex-head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, estimated the number of dead or seriously wounded Ukrainian soldiers was over 500,000 in early 2024. And it appears that this expansion of conscription laws is in part tied to the mandates that the West have placed on Ukraine.
However, society is pushing against this. We saw this especially in 2024, when Ukrainian mothers stormed the mobilisation office of the city after one of the kidnapped young men was tortured to death in the basements of the building. Sergei Kovalchuk, a young local was kidnapped of the streets and forcefully held in the basement of the Ukrainian mobilisation office, a few days later he was delivered to the hospital with a fracture of the base of the skull a broken jaw a punctured sternum, a cranio-cerebral injury, a linear fracture of the parietal bone, a right-sided intra-cranial hematoma and a pneumonia caused by aspiration of food or vomit. The beaten man spent 4 days on a ventilator and died without regaining consciousness. The Ukrainian government, it seems, has become the greatest threat to Ukrainian people.
Then, of course, the freedom to practise one’s faith has also been targeted under Zelenskyy. You would have observed headlines especially in the month of August revealing that Zelenskyy has banned the Church in Ukraine. Dozens of priests will be thrown to prisons! And it appears that this is in part being done in order to divide us Christians in order to continue the war!
THE URGENCY OF ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE: CURBING NATO’S THIRST FOR WAR
But, ultimately, I’d say, beyond Ukraine itself, the necessity of a change in leadership and regime in Ukraine that even affects the rest of the world, is that this is a means of curbing NATO’s threat for war. Despite the losses they have ensured from a Russia they undermined, NATO leaders are insisting on continuity of the conflict, based on assertions of Russia’s threat to the security in Europe. We saw this for instance with the objectively disingenuous and deceptive speech from French president Emmanuel Macron.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso