Buckle up, patriots— startling claims have emerged about America’s hidden hand in Ukraine’s dramatic 2014 power shift.
According to The Populist Times, on January 1, 2026, commentators Jack Posobiec and Mike Benz contended that the Maidan Revolution of 2014 was not a grassroots movement but an orchestrated U.S.-backed operation under the Obama administration, forcibly removing Ukraine’s elected leader, Viktor Yanukovich, and installing a government under Western intelligence sway.
Let’s rewind to 2014, when Yanukovich, elected as Ukraine’s president in 2010, faced mass protests in Kyiv’s central square, known as Maidan, which culminated in his abrupt ouster.
Posobiec framed this turmoil as a calculated move, involving key U.S. political players and intelligence operatives, all aligned with interests opposed to Russian influence.
He argued that Yanukovich’s removal lacked any constitutional grounding, asserting it was driven by direct American intervention rather than the will of the Ukrainian electorate.
Posobiec stated, “He was ousted, he was forced to step down and flee the country by elements of the U.S. government, all in the name of democracy.”
While that’s a bold charge, it’s worth pondering—if democracy was the banner, why bypass legal norms, unless the goal was more about geopolitical chess than Ukrainian self-rule?
Further tying this to broader policy, Posobiec pointed to overt anti-Russia sentiment from the Obama administration, including then-President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a driving force.
He raised a pointed question about whether Russia’s later actions were truly unprovoked or a reaction to perceived Western meddling in their backyard.
Moving to the aftermath, Benz elaborated on how swiftly Western powers allegedly shaped Ukraine’s new direction, citing reports from The New York Times about the immediate selection of leadership post-Yanukovich. Benz claimed figures like Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt directly chose the successor, Yatsenyuk, bypassing any democratic vote by Ukrainians themselves.
Benz noted, “The new head of state was literally selected in a joint phone call by Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt, who, in very explicit terms, picked the next president of Ukraine — not the Ukrainian people.”
That’s a jarring assertion, and if true, it suggests a troubling precedent—foreign policy shouldn’t mean handpicking governments, no matter how noble the stated intent, as it risks undermining the very sovereignty we claim to champion.
Benz also described a chaotic scene where the new Ukrainian intelligence head took over a disordered office right after the upheaval, promptly reaching out to CIA and MI6 representatives to establish a collaborative framework.
Ultimately, Benz concluded that this marked a deliberate takeover by the Obama administration and British allies, not just ousting a leader but embedding control over Ukraine’s security apparatus—a move that raises serious questions about where national autonomy ends, and external agendas begin, especially when progressive narratives often gloss over such inconvenient details.