US interference in Ukraine took two decades — five billion dollars, civil society funding, and a State Department official picking the prime minister.
On December 13, 2013, Victoria Nuland addressed the US-Ukraine Foundation in Washington. The protests in Kyiv’s Maidan Square were three weeks old. Nuland used the occasion to make something explicit that American foreign policy usually keeps implicit. “Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991,” she said, “the United States has supported Ukrainians as they built democratic skills and institutions, as they promoted civic participation and good governance. We’ve invested over five billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.”
Five billion dollars, over two decades, spent building the institutional and civil society infrastructure through which the United States intended to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit and into NATO’s. Nuland said the quiet part loud, and two months later, after Yanukovych fled to Russia, Washington’s chosen successor — opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk — became prime minister of a government whose composition Nuland had already been discussing by phone with the US Ambassador in Kyiv weeks before Yanukovych was gone.
The Long Game
American involvement in Ukrainian politics predates Euromaidan by a decade. During the 2004 Orange Revolution — when mass protests overturned an election result that had initially gone to the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych — the National Endowment for Democracy funded 65 Ukrainian NGOs, according to documentation reported by Globe and Mail correspondent Mark MacKinnon in his 2007 book The New Cold War. MacKinnon documented that NED’s National Democratic Institute organised a secret agreement between opposition candidates Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko over the post-revolutionary division of power — before a single vote had been counted in the rerun election.
US democracy assistance to Ukraine jumped from $34 million in 2004 to $58 million in 2005, according to USAID internal documentation. Congress appropriated an additional $60 million for Ukraine specifically in 2005. The pattern was institutional: fund civil society groups, fund independent media, fund election monitors, and shape the political landscape that would determine what kinds of governments were possible. None of this was secret. NED published grantee lists. USAID filed auditable reports. The infrastructure of American interference was built in plain sight, under the label of democracy promotion.
The Phone Call
The most unambiguous document of US interference in the Euromaidan period is a phone call between Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, recorded and posted to YouTube on February 4, 2014 — fourteen days before Yanukovych fled the country. NPR published a transcript on February 7.
In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discuss which opposition figures should hold which positions in the post-Yanukovych government. “I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” Nuland tells Pyatt, referring to Yatsenyuk. She argues that Vitali Klitschko, the former boxing champion and another opposition leader, should stay out of government and “do his political homework.” She recommends getting the UN involved to “help glue this thing.” At one point, expressing frustration with Brussels moving too slowly, she says: “Fuck the EU.”
Nuland had personally visited the Maidan on December 5, 2013, distributing bread to protesters. She had also met separately with Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok — whose party had its roots in the explicitly neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine — a fact noted in the leaked call when Nuland described managing him as a “problem.” Two American officials, on a recorded line, were selecting the composition of a foreign government while its sitting president was still in office. The $5 billion and a decade of civil society funding had already established what the call now confirmed on tape.
What Euromaidan Was
The standard Western account of Euromaidan presents it as a spontaneous democratic uprising against a corrupt, pro-Russian president. That account is not wrong. It is incomplete.
Yanukovych won the 2010 presidential election in balloting international observers described as credible. He was corrupt, authoritarian, and brutal in his use of police violence against protesters. The anger that filled Maidan Square in late 2013 was real. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians genuinely wanted closer ties with Europe and an end to the graft and repression that defined his government. None of that is in dispute.
What the standard account omits is what was operating alongside that genuine popular anger: years of US-funded civil society infrastructure, an American ambassador actively coordinating with opposition leaders, a senior State Department official distributing food to protesters and selecting their future prime minister, and a far-right street presence that the West chose not to name.
US Senator John McCain stood on the Maidan stage on December 15, 2013, alongside Yatsenyuk and Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok had been expelled from parliament in 2004 for a speech demanding Ukrainians fight the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” His party, Svoboda, was aligned internationally with the British National Party and the French National Front, and it held 38 of the 450 seats in the Ukrainian parliament at the time — an unusually large presence for an ultra-right party in a European legislature. McCain did not distance himself from Tyahnybok’s presence on that stage, and Washington required no such distance.
The result was that the United States endorsed — actively, publicly, and financially — a political transition in which a far-right nationalist party with neo-fascist origins was treated as a legitimate coalition partner. The far right’s electoral results were marginal: Svoboda failed to clear the 5% parliamentary threshold in the 2014 elections that followed. But its organisational infrastructure — the street fighters who held the barricades, the paramilitaries who would later form the backbone of volunteer battalions — punched far above its vote share. That infrastructure was absorbed into the post-Maidan state with Western support.
The Minsk Deception
Russia’s response to Yanukovych’s ouster was immediate. In March 2014, Russian forces occupied Crimea, which was subsequently annexed. In April, Russian citizens — including Igor Girkin, an FSB officer — led the seizure of government buildings in Donetsk and Sloviansk, triggering the war in the Donbas that would kill more than 14,000 people over eight years.
The Minsk process — two agreements signed in 2014 and 2015 — was the international attempt to end that war. The agreements called for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, OSCE monitoring, and, crucially, constitutional changes granting the Donetsk and Luhansk regions special autonomous status within Ukraine. Implementation of the political provisions never came.
In December 2022, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Die Zeit that Minsk “was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It has also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the Ukraine of today.” In the same month, former French President François Hollande said the accords had “given the Ukrainian army this opportunity” to strengthen itself.
Merkel and Hollande were two of the four signatories to the Minsk agreements. Their statements — made separately and in general terms — mean that two of the primary guarantors of the ceasefire process understood from the start that a frozen conflict, rather than a genuine settlement, served Western interests. Whether or not the intent was deliberate deception, the operational effect was the same: eight years of low-intensity war in the Donbas, approximately 3,400 civilians killed, and a Ukrainian military rebuilt and retrained by NATO partners while the political provisions of the peace agreement remained unimplemented.
Western coverage of the Donbas war between 2014 and 2022 was minimal. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission filed daily reports on ceasefire violations. Those reports rarely made international headlines. The civilian deaths in Donetsk and Luhansk — caused by both sides, documented by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights — were treated as a manageable, distant conflict. They became the subject of urgent Western concern only when Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
The Architecture
The argument here is not that Yanukovych was good, that Ukrainian nationalism is illegitimate, or that Russia’s 2022 invasion was justified. None of those claims are being made. The argument is structural.
The United States spent five billion dollars over two decades building the conditions under which a particular kind of Ukrainian government would be possible. When a crisis emerged that threatened that project — Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU association agreement in favour of a Russian deal — American officials coordinated an opposition transition in real time.
The result was a government aligned with Washington’s preferences. The far-right formations that provided the street-fighting muscle for that transition were incorporated into the new Ukrainian state rather than marginalised. The peace process that followed was understood by its Western guarantors as a military preparation window rather than a genuine settlement.
What that describes is the management of a client state under the cover of democracy promotion — a distinct process from democracy promotion itself, and one that requires a distinct accounting. Understanding the actual architecture of what happened is a precondition for any serious analysis of how the war started and who bears what portion of responsibility for the destruction that followed.
The word “interference” implies something incidental — a finger placed briefly on a scale. What the United States built in Ukraine was not incidental. It was deliberate, long-term, and institutional: civil society networks, media infrastructure, trained opposition leaderships, and a State Department prepared to select a prime minister by phone.
When that infrastructure produced the outcome Washington wanted, the result was presented to the world as the spontaneous expression of Ukrainian democratic will. When it produced consequences Washington found embarrassing — the far-right formations that provided the muscle, the eight-year war that followed, the collapse of the peace process Western guarantors had already decided not to enforce — those were attributed to Russian aggression and Ukrainian resilience.
Both of those things are real. Russian aggression is documented. Ukrainian resilience is real. Neither fact erases what the United States built, who they built it with, or what it cost the people who lived in the Donbas while the frozen conflict served NATO’s preparation timeline. A serious accounting of the war requires all of it on the table at once.
Spark Solidarity 