4 mins read
I’ll be honest—this was one of the most eye-opening conversations I’ve had on the Open Minds Podcast. I invited Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, a Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist, to walk me through what he calls the “Hollywood version” of Ukraine—one that Western media pushes hard. But what if that version is wrong? Or at least, dangerously incomplete?
Dr. Katchanovski’s work stands apart because it’s grounded in verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence. He’s not shouting into the wind with wild theories. Instead, he’s spent over a decade researching the political divisions in Ukraine, including its linguistic, regional, and historical fault lines. What he reveals isn’t convenient—but it’s necessary.
The biggest takeaway? Ukraine is not the unified, democratic underdog many Western outlets make it out to be. It’s a country long divided between east and west—linguistically, politically, and even ideologically. Before 2014, the eastern regions like Donbas and Crimea had strong pro-Russian leanings, not necessarily out of loyalty to Moscow, but from decades of historical ties and Russian-speaking populations.
But it’s the Maidan massacre that truly challenges the mainstream understanding.
On February 20, 2014, between 40 to 50 protesters were shot in Kyiv, most with deadly precision to the head, neck, or heart. The narrative that quickly followed was simple: Yanukovych’s forces fired on peaceful demonstrators. But Dr. Katchanovski’s analysis—based on hundreds of videos, ballistic forensics, and nearly 1,000 hours of trial footage—suggests something far more disturbing: many of the shots came from buildings under protester control, including Hotel Ukraina.
Let that sink in. Protesters being led into open fire by their own side. Snipers exiting buildings occupied by far-right opposition groups. Ballistic tests showing no match between police weapons and the bullets retrieved from victims.
These aren’t just academic footnotes. This was the pivotal moment that led to the violent toppling of a sitting president, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and ultimately, a prolonged and brutal war. Yet, these findings are rarely—if ever—mentioned in Western media.
Why?
As Dr. Katchanovski notes, “Truth is the first casualty of war.” Western governments, like their Russian counterparts, benefit from a simplified good-vs-evil narrative. And when there’s political consensus in places like Canada and the U.S., media often falls in line. It’s a sobering thought: if narratives are shaped more by strategic interests than truth, how can the public ever really know what’s happening?
There’s a cost to that silence. Zelensky was elected on a platform of peace, but quickly became—using Dr. Katchanovski’s phrase—“Poroshenko on steroids.” Rather than negotiations, he pursued military escalation, tightened language laws, and curtailed opposition, all while being lauded in Western parliaments as a modern-day Churchill.
But is he?
The fact that Canada gave a standing ovation to a former SS veteran during a Zelensky visit tells you something. We aren’t just passively supporting Ukraine—we’re actively rewriting history without asking enough questions.
And it’s not just about Ukraine. It’s about us.
How do we respond to uncomfortable truths? Do we dig deeper or double down on what’s familiar? Are we willing to accept that the world is messier than we’d like it to be?
I don’t have the answers. But that’s the point of Open Minds. I want to challenge you, not comfort you. To raise questions even when they’re inconvenient. Dr. Katchanovski’s research is free to read—open access. He’s not hiding it behind a paywall. So why are so many journalists, academics, and policymakers ignoring it?
Is it fear? Groupthink? Or just laziness?
When we talk about NATO, about sending billions in aid, about risking further escalation, we can’t keep pretending that this war started in 2022. It didn’t. And unless we’re willing to revisit the Maidan, we’re building foreign policy on a foundation of myths.
So here’s the question I leave you with:
What other conflicts do we think we understand—only to realize we’ve been watching the movie version all along?
11 mins read
A March 29 article on America’s involvement in the war in Ukraine in The New York Times by Adam Entous “reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” “Understood” is a euphemism. It means the American and global public were lied to.
2 mins read
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has admitted that his “hatred” of Russians is one of the driving forces propelling him to “keep going” in the conflict against Moscow.
2 mins read
In February, IPD USA organized a symposium where leading foreign policy experts examined how the Trump administration could broker a diplomatic settlement between Russia and Ukraine. Since then, President Trump has actively pushed to bring the Ukraine war to an end, resulting in some positive developments. While fighting continues, both Russia and Ukraine have verbally agreed to an immediate ceasefire. More significantly, there is now a real prospect for normalized U.S.-Russia relations, especially after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed the idea of a U.S. security guarantee or NATO membership for Ukraine. This essential step, later affirmed by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, removed a major source of tension between Russia and the West.
