The Geopolitics of the Odessa Massacre

via Katehon

On May 2nd, 2014 Ukrainian neo-Nazis, with the direct connivance of the Ukrainian authorities, shot and burned to death more than 100 people in Odessa. According to some estimates the number of victims of the massacre included up to 300. Among the victims were women, children and the elderly. The Odessa tragedy predetermined the further escalation of the conflict in the East of Ukraine and the beginning of military operations in Donbass.

Pro-Western Coup: The First Blood

Before the events of May 2nd, 2014, Odessa was one of the centers of resistance to the coup d’etat in which the leaders of pro-EU street protests in the capital of the country, Kiev, came to power. Politicians who supported the West (EU and US) provoked clashes with the security forces in Kiev. As a result of such provocations, the first blood was shed. Unidentified snipers most likely subordinated to the head of the Maidan “defense forces”, Andrew Parubiy, provoked armed clashes in which more than a hundred people were killed. Neo-Nazi groups unified over the course of the events on the Maidan into the “Right Sector” organization actively participated in the coup. Dmitry Yarosh, the then head of Right Sector, was also assistant to the former head of the Ukrainian Security Service, Valentin Nayvaychenko, who is known for having close ties to the CIA.

The South-East Reacts

The new leadership of Ukraine decided to completely subjugate the country’s foreign policy to the West. The parliament, out of which deputies from the former ruling “Party of Regions” were squeezed, began to distribute ministerial positions to outspoken neo-Nazis. The law protecting the regional status of the Russian language and other languages of national minorities was abolished. As a result, the predominantly Russian-speaking majority of the South-East of the country, who consider themselves to be part of the Russian World, recognized the intentions of the government to be clearly hostile. Large-scale protests began across the South and East of Ukraine, and in March 2014 Crimea held a referendum on sovereign secession and then joined the Russian Federation, which could not dare leave this strategically important peninsula to an uncertain geopolitical future as part of Ukraine. In April 2014, rebels in the Donetsk region proceeded to form an armed resistance to Kiev. Odessa as well remained one of the most strategically important cities in which the majority of the population did not consider themselves Ukrainians and had no desire to live under the new, nationalist Ukraine.

The geopolitical significance of Odessa

The new Ukrainian leadership recognized that the loss of Odessa would mean a geopolitical catastrophe which would inevitably provoke, via domino effect, the collapse of the country. Such a prospect was realized given the facts of Odessa’s situation: since Spring 2014, pro-Russian forces in Odessa had actively called for the inhabitants of Odessa to repeat the Crimean scenario echoing the head of Russian Crimea, Aksenov.  In addition, Odessa was in close proximity to pro-Russian Transnistria which was home to a Russian military base and its own 15,000 strong military force. If necessary, Russia also could have transferred some of its troops to Odessa from Crimea.
At the time, Odessa remained the last major sea port of Ukraine, with the exception of Nikolaev and Mariupol whose fate at that moment hung in the balance. The Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet which had departed from now Russian Sevastopol was also based in Odessa. Thus, the loss of Odessa would have immediately entailed the loss of Nikolaev and the cutting off of Ukraine from the sea. These considerations explain why Ukrainian neo-Nazis were given a carte blanche to intimidate the population of Odessa, and they indeed took advantage of this. The agonizing death of more than 100 people, for which none of the perpetrators have been punished, was primarily a tool of intimidation. Following the massacre on May 2nd in Odessa, the pro-Russian movement was virtually destroyed.

The role of the Odessa events in the escalation of the conflict

However, the massacre in Odessa also bore some unforeseen consequences for its organizers. With this tragedy, the Ukrainian national idea had clearly demonstrated its monstrous, inhuman traits. The fact that a significant portion of Ukrainians joyfully welcomed the painful death of more than a hundred of their fellow citizens once again demonstrated the destructive, nihilistic character of Ukrainian nationalism. This contributed to the opposite side’s bitterness and ultimate split from the Ukrainian society. It was the tragedy in Odessa which in fact contributed to the growth of radicalism in Donbass and served as the main factor that inspired locals and most of the volunteers from other regions of Ukraine and CIS countries to take up arms. Organizers of the Odessa massacre temporarily retained Odessa, but lost parts of Donbass. For one part of Ukraine’s population, what happened in Odessa became a point of pride. For the other, it was a terrible crime which demonstrated that they would never be able to co-exist with the others in one country unless Ukraine would be de-Nazified.

The growth of anti-Ukrainian sentiments in Russia

The Odessa events and the ensuing war crimes committed by the Ukrainian side contributed to the isolation of Ukraine from Russia not only at the state level, but also at the level of society. For the first time in history, Ukraine is now perceived as something separate from Russia, and only in a negative sense. Earlier, the Ukrainian leadership could exploit remaining Soviet-era myths of the “friendship of peoples” and the proximity of the two countries, but following the events in Donbass and Odessa this mechanism no longer worked. The willingness of the Russian leadership to establish dialogue with Poroshenko as a “lesser evil” was complicated by Russian society’s newfound rejection of dialogue with Ukrainians. Thus, the memory of the Odessa massacre impedes the efforts of Russia’s sixth column to reintegrate Donbass into Ukraine.

Martyrs of liberal totalitarianism

From a global perspective, the massacre in Odessa is one of many episodes in which the West (Europe and the US) has committed the most brutal crimes for the sake of geopolitical forces and alliances. This is also paralleled by their support for violent thugs in Syria. This policy is nothing new, as the savage nature of such bloody crimes was exposed for the first time in anti-Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Overall, these crimes demonstrate the emptiness of all the “humanitarian” promises of European and American liberalism.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
East Texas
East Texas

God bless the heroes who stand against fascism. The neocons who dream of ruling a unipolar world are fools. Never happened, never will.
Not all in Ukraine want to kneel before the USA/NATO/EU. Those who do, well, you see what it gets you. Poverty, humiliation, and slavery. And for what? A few plastic trinkets. A capitalist lottery ticket. One wins, a million lose.

Oksana Rybalchenko

The Russians, keep away from us. Odessa – it is Ukraine!

Eurasia News Online

Reblogged this on Eurasia News Online and commented:
“From a global perspective, the massacre in Odessa is one of many episodes in which the West (Europe and the US) has committed the most brutal crimes for the sake of geopolitical forces and alliances. This is also paralleled by their support for violent thugs in Syria. This policy is nothing new, as the savage nature of such bloody crimes was exposed for the first time in anti-Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Overall, these crimes demonstrate the emptiness of all the “humanitarian” promises of European and American liberalism.”


Well written article. Kudos
For a ‘down under’ perspective, try

Its a 30 minute amateur video by Australian Martin John with pretty graphic pics.
Just in case anyone has forgotten what ‘Colour Revolutions’ actually entail


I’m not sure about Crimia, but I would be careful about believeing what pro-russians say as well. That guy in the documentary did not look like an ethnic crimian. Seems to have come from deep russia. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso. I would not trust the russians as well as the EU and USA on this matter. I will assume however, in this regard that russia is the lesser evil.


Well, at least for the Crimians.


There are no ethnic Crimeans as such, i.e. no such people exist.
In 2001, when the most recent census was done, “Russians comprised 58.32% of the population, Ukrainians 24.32%, Crimean Tartars 12.1%, Byelorussians 1.4%, Tartars 0.54%, Armenians 0.43%, Jews 0.22%, Greeks 0.15%. Few in number but still visible in their culture are Karaites and Kymchaks. About 77% of Crimeans claim Russian as their native language.”


The person I saw in the documentary above niether looked of slavic, turkic or of semitic descent. In the Vice Documentary, and the ‘Crimia… What really happened?’ documentary, there were people interviewed with disctintly asian features who were both in military/milita units. They looked closer to mongolians or people of mongolian descent (Oirats) then any of the ethnic groups above mentioned.
That said, in the link you gave me, it does say a number of crimians were deported by Stalin into central siberia. So it could be possible that those who survived emigrated back to crimia with children of mixed mongol descent. Crimia has also always been a melting pot, so there could be an influx of people from various places anyway. Especially after the soviet union fell. So it is possible that the person I saw in the ‘Crimia… What really happened?’ documentary was a native Crimian. But he looked radically diffrent to the above mentioned ethnic groups. Compare ‘Crimia… What really happened?’ at 14:22, to Vice’s Selfie Soldiers at 10:10.


The genetic background of the person interviewed in the video posted by David KNZ is irrelevant and immaterial. The ethnic Russians, like the ethnic Ukrainians, etc., in Crimea are all Crimeans — citizens of Crimea.


How is it ‘irrelevant’ or ‘immaterial’? Especially considering you replied to my last post with relevant statistics on the various genetic backgrounds. If we are going down the route that there are no ethnic crimeans, then we could also say there are no ethnic russians or ukrainians. Considering that they are regions which contain various mixes of cultures and genetic groups. It is supicious that someone who does not fit into any of the ethnic demographic of crimea, yet seems to fit the ethnic demographics of a russian ethnic group, who seems to be of a military faction, is there. Russia is, though multicultural, rather homogeneous. It’s not cosmopoliton like London or New York. People stick to their regions for the most part. The distance between the crimean ethnic groups and the mongolian looking guy in the documentary is massive. it is not close. I assume that Crimean’s have their own regional dialect, so if you could tell the dialect of the guy it would help. But why, when Russia has been shown to put troops into Ukrainian territory when it has denied so, do you think it is not possible that this could be an instance of it. The guy was anxious and kept saying he was russian and did not elaborate on anything. I do think, it is at least possible, that the guy was a part of the russian army in a suppousedly local militia.


” But why, when Russia has been shown to put troops into Ukrainian territory when it has denied so”
Every claim that Russia has put troops inside Ukraine has been either without any proof, evidence or substantiation — or false. You’re merely repeating propaganda claims which have been definitively refuted many times over.
Russia did have 16,000 troops in Crimea before the fascist coup in Kiev; according to the agreement it had with Ukraine, it was entitled to have 25,000 troops in Crimea at any one time. Following the fascist coup, it topped up the number of its troops in Crimea by a few thousand special forces — as provided by the legal agreement still in force at the time. Nobody has ever shown a single instance of a Russian soldiers legally posted in Crimea claiming to be a Crimean Russian.
You assume very many things, such as the existence of a local Crimean dialect, for example. You also assume that a man who identifies himself as an ethnic Russian (an ethnic group that makes up almost 70% of the population of Crimea) is most likely not who he claims to be but is much more likely to be a member of the non-existent Russian troops you believe are in Ukraine. You’re entitled to imagine whatever you like, but both sanity and elementary ethics require that we be willing to distinguish between what we assume/imagine and what is actually the case.


“Russia did have 16,000 troops in Crimea before the fascist coup in Kiev; according to the agreement it had with Ukraine, it was entitled to have 25,000 troops in Crimea at any one time.”
Why did you simply not say this in the beggining? This would have avoided a lot of confusion on my part. And why did you not think that this was merely speculation? I am well aware I am assuming a lot of things. I want to either by falsified if I am incorrect or are being mislead, or poke holes in potenial sources of information if I cannot be falsified or am incorrect. Also, why would I not be justified in assuming that Crimiea has a dialect (or perhaps many), when it if firstly relatively isolated from the mainland, has a bigger russian speaking population and seems to have a greater mix of cultures compared to mainland ukraine and has been the source of many conflicts. It has had much more influence from turkey compared to the rest of Ukraine, and due to its isolation geographically from the rest of Ukraine it has many of the necessary requirements for the development of a regional dialect.
And if you think accusations that Russia has put soldiers is false, then what are the problems with the vice documentary ‘Selfie Soldiers’? Is that simply propoganda? If your going to dismiss it as such, tell me how at least? Especially when the reporter has been beaten up and imprisioned by the very facists that you decry? I could equally dismiss the other documentary as a form of propoganda, as the range of evidence used is not very broad and is explicitly made to appeal to the viewers emoitions. Appeals to ‘what is actually the case’ is not helpful either, as anyone can claim this for any ideology. This is mere intuition. I can have reasoned assumptions and evidence to back them up, but if I were to claim I am factual or am reporting the truth, I would want everyone to treat me with suspicion.

East Texas
East Texas

Bravo salvogrixti ,
It is of course essential that facts are presented. It seems everyone has an agenda based on their perspective of right and wrong. Perspective is necessarily emotional as well as logical.
But what are the facts on the ground? Evidently the Ukrainian political sphere was hijacked by western unipolar neo-cold warriors, a coup if you please, paid for by many millions of American dollars. The swastika-wearing ‘fascists’, the rank and file of which may actually believe that Hitler was right, were simply used by Zionists and US neo-cons as shock troops to destabilize Ukraine. A gentle reeducation may serve them well. This is not 1943.
It is notable these ‘fascists’ serve Israeli interests. They are viewed as expendable ‘cannon fodder’ by their paymasters. May God have mercy on them. They will need it.
The people of Crimea overwhelmingly supported union with Russia, a viewpoint justified by subsequent developments.
How much I agree with you. Truth is the first casualty in war. But… there is truth and righteousness, and there is falsehood. Choose carefully, be guided by the Spirit as well as logic.
Is it not right to treat others as you would be treated? Is not the principle of self-determination part and parcel of Justice? The people of Crimea and Donbass have spoken. Let them live in peace.


Good article concise and well written. We need to keep telling others, some who might not know and others who chose to lie and forget about the violent Western geopolitical origins of this tragedy.


Excellent article, but it omits to mention the crucial involvement of the IMF. As this piece points out, Odessa was vital to Kiev’s hold on the country, and on May 1st Reuters reported the IMF’s threat to reduce financial aid to Ukraine if it lost control over the east. One day later the Odessa Massacre happened – with Kiev’s motive plain for all to see.
(Link to Reuter’s report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tVITa8wegQ )


The Odessa Massacre was announced — in posters distributed all over Odessa — on May 1, 2014.


Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin.