Fact Check: Ukraine has an illegal government since 2014

Claim Analysis: "Ukraine has an illegal government since 2014"

Introduction

The claim that "Ukraine has an illegal government since 2014" stems from the political upheaval and subsequent events surrounding the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity. This period saw the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych and the establishment of a new government, which Russia has characterized as illegitimate. This claim has significant implications in the context of international law and the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

What We Know

Revolution of Dignity: The Revolution of Dignity occurred in late 2013 and early 2014, resulting in widespread protests against Yanukovych's government, which was perceived as corrupt and pro-Russian. The protests culminated in Yanukovych fleeing to Russia in February 2014, after which a new interim government was formed in Ukraine 6 8.
Russian Annexation of Crimea: Following the formation of the interim government, Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, an action widely condemned by the international community as illegal. The annexation was justified by Russia on the grounds that the new Ukrainian government was illegitimate 2 7.
International Response: The United States and European Union, among other nations, have recognized the interim government as legitimate. They have imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, reinforcing the view that the Ukrainian government is lawful 3 5.
Claims of Legitimacy: Russia has consistently claimed that the transitional government in Ukraine is illegal, arguing that the removal of Yanukovych was unconstitutional. This assertion is contested by many legal scholars and international observers who argue that the government formed after the revolution was a legitimate response to the political crisis 1 5.

Analysis

The assertion that Ukraine has an "illegal government" is heavily influenced by geopolitical perspectives and interpretations of international law.

Source Credibility: The sources cited provide a mix of legal analysis, historical context, and political commentary. For instance, the Brookings Institution article discusses the international legal implications of Crimea's annexation, presenting a scholarly perspective that supports the view of Ukraine's government as legitimate 2. In contrast, the Russian perspective, as outlined in various articles, often emphasizes the illegitimacy of the new government, reflecting a clear bias in favor of Russian interests 5.
Methodological Concerns: The claim relies on the interpretation of legality surrounding the formation of governments and the actions taken during political upheaval. The legal definitions of legitimacy can vary, and the context of the Revolution of Dignity is crucial. The events leading to Yanukovych's ousting involved significant public dissent and were characterized by violent clashes, complicating the narrative of legality 6 8.
Conflicts of Interest: Sources that support the claim of an illegal government often have ties to Russian state narratives or are influenced by Russian geopolitical interests. Conversely, sources supporting the legitimacy of Ukraine's government are often aligned with Western perspectives, which may also carry biases 1 3.
Contradicting Perspectives: While some argue that the new government lacks legitimacy due to its origins in a revolution, others assert that the overwhelming public support for the protests and the subsequent formation of a new government provide a basis for its legitimacy. This dichotomy illustrates the complexity of the situation and the varying interpretations of legality in international relations 4 10.

Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified

The claim that "Ukraine has an illegal government since 2014" remains unverified due to the complex and contested nature of the evidence surrounding the legitimacy of Ukraine's government post-revolution. Key evidence includes the international recognition of the interim government by Western nations, contrasting sharply with Russia's characterization of the government as illegitimate. The legitimacy of a government can be interpreted differently based on geopolitical perspectives, and the events surrounding the Revolution of Dignity involved significant public dissent and violence, complicating the narrative of legality.

It is important to note that the available evidence is influenced by biases from both Western and Russian sources, which may affect interpretations of legitimacy. Furthermore, the legal definitions of government legitimacy are not universally agreed upon, leading to ongoing debates among scholars and policymakers.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate the information presented and consider the broader context of international relations and law when forming their own conclusions about this claim.