The Ukrainian side (“Euromaidan”) did indeed include far-right organizations such as “Right Sector,” which played an active role in the events of that day. However, it is incorrect to reduce the entire pro-Ukrainian camp to the “far-right.” Among them were many football fans (ultras) and ordinary townspeople who held pro-Ukrainian views. On the other hand, the pro-Russian camp (“Anti-Maidan”) was equally heterogeneous. Its composition included not only “titushky” (paid provocateurs from the criminal underworld) but also ordinary citizens who were also gathering signatures for federalization and speaking out against the new government in Kyiv.
“Right Sector” was a key, but not the only, organizing force. Other nationalist groups also participated in the pro-Ukrainian march, as well as football ultras from Kharkiv and Odesa, who acted in alliance with them.
It is incorrect to say that “the Anti-Maidan organized the ‘titushky.’” The “titushky” themselves were an instrument. The term “titushky” denoted not ideological separatists, but people with athletic backgrounds and criminal pasts hired for money, who were used for violent actions and provocations. Their services were used by various political forces.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), having examined all the circumstances of the case, did not recognize “Right Sector” or any other organization as the sole perpetrator of the tragedy. The key conclusion of the ECtHR: the state of Ukraine failed to fulfill its obligations to prevent violence and save people. The Court found that the authorities could and should have stopped the bloodshed, but allowed “unacceptable delays” and “periods of inexplicable inaction.”
The Ukrainian side (“Euromaidan”) did indeed include far-right organizations such as “Right Sector,” which played an active role in the events of that day. However, it is incorrect to reduce the entire pro-Ukrainian camp to the “far-right.” Among them were many football fans (ultras) and ordinary townspeople who held pro-Ukrainian views. On the other hand, the pro-Russian camp (“Anti-Maidan”) was equally heterogeneous. Its composition included not only “titushky” (paid provocateurs from the criminal underworld) but also ordinary citizens who were also gathering signatures for federalization and speaking out against the new government in Kyiv.
“Right Sector” was a key, but not the only, organizing force. Other nationalist groups also participated in the pro-Ukrainian march, as well as football ultras from Kharkiv and Odesa, who acted in alliance with them.
It is incorrect to say that “the Anti-Maidan organized the ‘titushky.’” The “titushky” themselves were an instrument. The term “titushky” denoted not ideological separatists, but people with athletic backgrounds and criminal pasts hired for money, who were used for violent actions and provocations. Their services were used by various political forces.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), having examined all the circumstances of the case, did not recognize “Right Sector” or any other organization as the sole perpetrator of the tragedy. The key conclusion of the ECtHR: the state of Ukraine failed to fulfill its obligations to prevent violence and save people. The Court found that the authorities could and should have stopped the bloodshed, but allowed “unacceptable delays” and “periods of inexplicable inaction.”
https://en.azvision.az/news/10272/ukraine.html