By Gillian Schutte
When a family member shared Doug Saunders’ article, The toxic myths of Ukraine in 2014 continue to poison the country’s post-2024 future, November 15, 2024, I was flummoxed. In the opening paragraph Saunders’ declares: “Your View of Ukraine After 2024 Depends on What You Believe Happened in 2014”. Published in Canada's The Globe and Mail, I felt that this article was shared with me presumably as a “truth” I needed to confront. The idea that this shallow reversioning of a complex geopolitical war could serve as a corrective to my Left views on US hegemony, NATO warmongering, and the West’s destabilising interference in sovereign nations, left me mystified. It was not shared maliciously, but earnestly, as the ultimate antidote to what some consider my “misguided” thinking, yet it read more like a basic manual in weaponised propaganda. Such myths demand dismantling, and I was compelled to reveal to my family member and other mainstream media consumers, the dangerous fallacies festering in this journalist's toxic web of gross untruths.
Saunders' opinion piece, a masterclass in propaganda, aims to debunk what he calls the three “malicious fictions” about the 2014 Maidan protests. The first element he declares is a fiction is that NATO played a significant role in triggering the unrest. The second point he asserts is a fiction is that the events that unfolded constituted a coup rather than a democratic movement. The third factor he claims is a fiction is that the United States heavily interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs. Saunders instead frames the protests as an organic uprising motivated by Ukrainian aspirations for European Union (EU) integration and asserts that Ukraine’s trajectory was driven by its own people rather than external forces. His article ultimately presents a narrative in which Western powers acted as neutral observers, while Russia bears full responsibility for destabilising Ukraine.
NATO
This interpretation collapses when examined against the historical record. NATO’s involvement in Ukraine predated 2014 and was far from negligible. The 2008 Bucharest Summit declared that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO, a decision that increased tensions with Russia (John Mearsheimer, Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”). NATO’s cooperation with Ukraine deepened over the years, including joint military exercises, which signalled a clear intent to integrate Ukraine into its security framework. Russia rightly viewed these moves as direct threats to its security, which shaped its actions in Crimea and Donbas. Saunders’ claim that NATO was irrelevant fails to engage with these dynamics. It is a toxic lie.
The Coup
The Maidan protests themselves followed the pattern of colour revolutions, (Engineered Cultural Coups) where external support and funding empower opposition movements to enable regime change. In Ukraine, organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID channelled resources into civil society groups aligned with the opposition. Carl Gershman, NED’s president, openly referred to Ukraine as “the biggest prize” (The Guardian and The Grayzone), making it clear that the protests had a geopolitical dimension. Far-right nationalist groups like Svoboda and Right Sector also played prominent roles, escalating violence and complicating the notion of a peaceful democratic uprising.
Saunders dismisses claims of U.S. interference, but Victoria Nuland’s leaked phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt (The Nation) directly contradicts this narrative. Her infamous remark, “Yats is the guy,” reflected Washington’s preference for Arseniy Yatsenyuk to lead Ukraine post-Maidan. Nuland’s visible presence at Maidan, distributing food to protesters, was a symbolic endorsement of the opposition. This was not neutrality. It was active involvement in shaping Ukraine’s political future.
The European Union
The EU association agreement, central to the Maidan protests, is another area where Saunders’ narrative falls apart. While the agreement was presented as a step toward integration and progress, it came with harsh economic conditions: austerity measures, privatisation, and deregulation. These policies hit Ukraine’s working class the hardest while benefiting oligarchs and Western corporations (David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism). Yanukovych’s decision to accept a $15 billion aid package from Russia rather than the EU deal was a pragmatic choice to protect Ukraine’s economy. Yet this decision was weaponised against him, leading to his removal. Samir Amin’s analysis of dependency highlights how peripheral economies like Ukraine are often reshaped to serve dominant global powers, with Maidan serving as a clear example.
The aftermath of Maidan reveals these contradictions. The removal of Yanukovych paved the way for Western-driven economic reforms that prioritised elite interests over the needs of ordinary citizens. Nearly a decade later, Ukraine remains burdened by debt and worsening inequality, with EU membership still out of reach. Harvey’s critiques of neoliberalism explain how such policies create cycles of economic dependency and deepen inequality—an outcome Ukraine has not escaped. Saunders omits these realities, leaving his analysis incomplete.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy's election in 2019 further complicates this narrative. His campaign promises to fight corruption and bring peace to the Donbas region reflected public dissatisfaction with post-Maidan governance. While initially positioning himself as a reformist and unifier, his alignment with Western interests and increased collaboration with NATO continued policies that exacerbated tensions with Russia. Moscow correctly viewed Ukraine’s growing military and political alignment with NATO as a direct threat, further entrenching its perception of Ukraine as a strategic battleground. Russia’s responses, including its actions in Crimea and Donbas, were shaped by these escalating threats to its security. Saunders’ article sidesteps this context entirely.
Ukraine in 2024
Doug Saunders asserts that our view of Ukraine in 2024 depends on what we believe happened in 2014 and then proceeds to spin a most misleading partisan narrative about the West's benevolent hands-off role in the mess it has become. His attempt to disguise this propaganda by invoking Donald Trump’s rhetoric as a distraction does nothing to make his narrative more credible. Linking legitimate critiques of NATO and U.S. interference to Trump’s self-serving remarks is a weak attempt to dismiss dissenting voices as partisan or conspiratorial.
The answer to Ukraine’s future does not lie in believing Saunders’ blatant propaganda. It lies in addressing the root causes of the crisis: NATO expansionism, Western economic exploitation, and the corporate-driven economic policies that hollowed out Ukraine’s sovereignty and social fabric. Rebuilding Ukraine’s economy through public ownership of critical industries, equitable land reforms, and investments in public welfare will be crucial to ensuring stability.
Equally important is recognising Russia’s role. Military escalation must give way to diplomacy that balances Ukraine’s sovereignty with Russia’s legitimate security concerns. Sanctions harming ordinary citizens on both sides must be replaced by agreements grounded in mutual respect and a shared interest in regional stability. Reducing NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe is vital to breaking the cycle of conflict and rebuilding trust.
Saunders’ own question about Ukraine’s future cannot be answered without acknowledging the destructive impacts of Western interference and NATO expansion. True stability will only come when Ukraine is freed from its role as a pawn in geopolitical rivalries and allowed to focus on the needs of its people. The solution lies not in perpetuating the narratives of division and blame but in dismantling the structures of conflict and exploitation that continue to plague the region.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.