"Oliver Stone: The CIA's 'Fingerprints' Are All Over Ukraine" Topic

"Oliver Stone has harsh words for the CIA's Ukraine policy.

The Savages director wrote on Facebook on Tuesday that the Central Intelligence Agency contributed to the ouster of former president Viktor Yanukovych, whom Stone recently interviewed for the documentary he's directing about Russian president Vladimir Putin…"
Full article here
link

WAF???

Amicalement
Armand

Oliver has been an idiot for a while now.

In my book he only made one seriously good film (Salvador), and increasingly thereafter has proven subject to the voices in his head. Conspiracy nut jobs are just that, whether of the right, the left or (more rarely) the centre.

Isn't he that guy that was big into LSD?

Ah, yes.

Here's a quote from him:

""I've taken more dope then you probably dreamt about." Movie director Oliver Stone confesses to have used Cannabis and LSD in an interview for German …".

No wonder the guy is so crazy.

Don't forget that he directed 'JFK,' the holy grail of conspiracy theory movies.

Oliver Stone has done some good stuff. I thought Alexander was excellent. Platoon was a very good movie too. I haven't seen Wall Street since it was first on HBO when I was about 11 but I liked it at the time. Savages was decent.

JFK was a big steaming pile though.

He may be an idiot.

Doesn't make him wrong on this though.

Oliver Stone never met a murderous communist dictator he didn't love.

What a useless moron he is.

He gets the buttons right and the history wrong.

If he ever remade Battle of the Bulge, he would do it with Shermans and Tigers. Then the Soviets would ride to the rescue.

I'm afraid that the CIA's past record in destabilising countries would make it very difficult for them to ever convincingly deny their possible involvement.

Good lord.The CIA was designed to fight the Soviets.

Why does no one mutter darkly about the Russian Intelligence services propping up murderous governments and assassinating people? They have certainly done a LOT more and darker things than the CIA. Even now. Look at the body count of Putin ' s Critics.

The world is not a fairy land stained by the underhanded CIA. The world is a hard place packed full of bad actors willing to murder you and your family for just about any reason.

Good lord.The CIA was designed to fight the Soviets.

Well, duh!
Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

Possibility A: He is right and the CIA worked with anti-Yanukovich elements to out him from power.

Corollary: As Yanukovich was a Russian proxy that hold power in an area considered sensitive for US interests in Eastern Europe, there is nothing wrong or scandalous in the CIA acting on behalf of those interests. Therefore, Mr Stone outrage is just the angry utterings of an angry old man.

Possibility B: He is wrong and the CIA was caught as unaware as anybody else by Ukrainian anti-Yanukovich uprising.

Corollary: The CIA has its human and intelligence gathering resources stretched to the limit. It is a blunted weapon no matter how fond conspiranoics are of the thought that the Agency is the omnipotent and omniscient organization behind every single coup, revolution or uprising in the world. In that case, Mr Stone paranoia has got the best of him. He should close his Facebook account and devote his life to cultivate marihuana.

LOL Basil

I'm with Warlock and Basileus. Is the CIA guilty? Yes.
Is Russian intelligence (both Soviet and Putin-era)? Yes!
I wonder how much Putin is paying Stone for the puff-piece?

So Stone makes sensational comments about a hot topic related to a profit making venture of his, in which he makes a documentary based on a novel.

And anybody cares?

I'm with Warlock and Basileus too!

Amicalement
Armand

I'm with me, one day the CIA will destabilize 'The CIA'
As for 'out of it' jiggimogery try Ronald Raygun, he did a bit of decision making while medicated or so I have (conspiracy theory hush hush:) heard.
Actually this has the making of a really fun scenario somewhere.
Cheers and remember 'they're listening'

Why is that every conspiracy theorist has a conspiracy that involves the United States as the guy who wishes to do harm to Americans and their allies, but NEVER seems to involve any of the known bad actors who have a history of doing harm to America and their allies?

Makes for a bit a suspensful story telling when not used very often, but 'the butler did it' gets a little tired after a while.

A site named "Hollywood Reporter" wants to tell us what's really happening in Eastern European political developments?

I miss the old media.

If the CIA was really as all-powerful as Stone and other wingnuts want us to believe, do you seriously think you'd know about it, or moreover, live to tell the tale?

That's always been my thought, artaxerxes.

Nah… Even being not all powerful, all they need is for the nutjobs to discredit themselves. They make an outstanding work without external help.

I'm sure it will make a good movie … The media in all forms tend to go by that old Texas saying, " Never let the truth get in the way of a good story !" I bet they teach that at all the film schools !

Or as my father would say:

"Don't confuse the issue with facts."

Well- not a conspiracy theory and not really a conspiracy (if you think conspiracies have to be in secret)

The tapes of the US phone calls organising the post Yanukovych govt before it was 'post -Yanukovych', the serial removal of Yanukovych via the sponsoring of the Orange Revolution and the Maidan revolution and the cash flowing into the Ukrainian right wing coffers from the National Endowment for Democracy (set up specifically so the CIA wouldn't get the blame for channelling money to groups trying to overthrow those Washington didn't like) all leave a clear and unequivocal trail of massive US interference in the Ukraine which led (deliberately or not) to the overthrow of a democratically elected President.

So – yes its true. Whether you think that is a problem depends what you think about free and fair elections and under what circumstances they need to be set aside.

…organising the post Yanukovych govt…

Convenient though that may be to believe, a discussion of who they might prefer to be in power/find it easier to work with does not necessarily constitute organising. Klitschko had been on the political scene some 8 years before any of this kicked off, and Poroshenko had been part of the Rada since 1998. Both had political ambitions of their own and like any politician, when an opportunity arises… ;-)

The claim/accusation of direct US funding for the revolution first popped up on… Russian state sponsored RT. The $5 USDbn referred to by Nuland actually related to a wide variety of projects promoting peace and security over the last 20 years, including "military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction" and continued while pro-Russian Yanukovich was in power, so he had full control of those funds. In fact they probably paid for some of the work here:

While it may be politically convenient to think that the $5 USDbn was all supplied in the last 18 months directly to support regime change, as tBerry says "Don't confuse the issue with facts"

The NKVD (KGB) (FRD) have killed more people and destabilised more governments than the CIA ever has or will. Their finger prints (Hand prints really) are all over the Ukraine. Why does it suprise anyone that the CIA and all the other three letter agencies are involved? Or would the loss of any form of Ukrainian independance and the resulting subservience to Putin be better for them? Has Stone been selling you guys drugs or what?

I suspect both sides have been covertly interfering with just about any and all marginal nations since 1945…

The claim for US sponsoring of opposition groups in Ukraine does not need any RT speculation, the fact is (or certainly was a few months ago and I have no reason to think they would remove it) clearly displayed on the National Endowment for Democracy's website. Just go to the website and search through 'Where we work' for the donations to Ukrainian groups – some seem very worthwhile- there are others which are known front organisations for trouble making. They have parallels in the Russian groups the NED support.

And McCain repeatedly shared platforms with that nice old Mr Tyahnybok of the 'Freedom Party' (previously the 'Social/National Party', a neoNazi party) in December 2013.

The USA has its prints all over this one and its not so subtle interference pushed Putin into his hard line response – one wonders why they were so obvious about it all.

49 Mountain wrote

would the loss of any form of Ukrainian independance and the resulting subservience to Putin be better for them

The problem is the Ukraine was independent, had elected a pro Russian President in elections monitored independently and verified as free and fair and someone (not Russian) didn't like it. It doesn't really matter whether it was in their interests – that's what democracy is about the opportunity to make mistakes. The Ukrainians no longer have that option.

Ukraine… had elected a pro Russian President

By a 3% majority… it was a two horse race, and Tymoshenko had 45% to his 48%. That close is bound to keep dissatisfaction.

…elections monitored independently and verified as free and fair

Actually, there were considerable suggestions of vote rigging in Yanukovich's favour:
> 300,000 voters who voted but were not in the "Register of Voters of Ukraine";
> 1.3 million voters who "without right" voted in their homes;
> falsification in the election in the eastern regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv region, Crimea, etc)

…someone (not Russian) didn't like it

That would be the other 45+% of Ukrainians, mainly the younger (voting) population, who were getting pretty fed up with increased allegations of corruption, a move to give himself all-controlling Presidential powers (much like Putin) and not listening to the people's choice to make stronger alliances with the EU (which was seen as a back-pocket change of mind). The straw that broke it was when he brought in a law denying the right to protest as he wanted to clear the square to put up the Christmas tree.

…pushed Putin into his hard line response

He didn't take a hard line response against Ukraine. In fact he has continually denied any involvement in eastern Ukraine whatsoever. All he did was covertly annex Crimea to avoid having to provide cheap gas in return for keeping a naval base there.

The Ukrainians no longer have that option

They held elections. Yanukovich's party was represented by Dobkin, after Yanukovich withdrew and was expelled by his own party, which makes statements of his continued legitimacy as President somewhat strange.

Sorry Geoff – the appointed election observers said there were suggestions of some infractions but they were not sufficient to have altered the result and the evidence was not in any case conclusive.

Still a majority – and if the electors didn't like it – wait until the next vote- don't overthrow the elected President, with foreign help.

Putin had to look tough because he was being pushed to roll over. I have no idea why the US and some in Europe thought this was a good idea but they obviously did.
There is no reason to share a platform with people like this:

Yanukovych was overthrown by an illegitimate Parliamentary procedure by Ukraine's own constitutional rules. At the moment there is no legitimate government. It may be accepted but it is illegitimate by its own rules.

The elections were of parts of Ukraine only – yes because part was now back to being Russian but parts were in revolt and why? Because their (majority) opinion was ignored by western backed revolutionaries.

I'm not pro-Russian, nor anti-American, but pretending something else is happening other than naked self interest by both isn't helping preserve peace and democracy in Europe.

Putin is ex-KGB, as if you can really be "ex-KGB", so, he stirs the pot on his side, and we play the same game against him.

Putin and Gorby are just upset 'cause they lost the Cold War, and now want to re-write history, and reassemble the old Soviet Empire.

Putin's running around, reminding people all the time that Russia is a powerful nation which owns nukes, and slyly attempting to bully nations into his sphere of influence, again, and to remain relevant on the world stage. That's why all those Russian air and naval sorties are occurring too, since he wants to show his citizens how tough he is, but it is really just smoke and mirrors. As the illusionist tries to distract the audience, by saying "don't look there, look over here".

That appears to be backfiring on some fronts, but domestic approval is still at a real high, of over 80%.

I suspect, as the new ruble valuation paradigm sinks in, that will drop significantly over the next year, or two, especially if oil keeps plummeting in price.

He's committed there, and has to maintain, or accelerate oil production at the current level, since otherwise his economy will falter even more.

"What a useless moron he is"

I believe the proper term is 'useful idiot'

…suggestions of some infractions but they were not sufficient to have altered the result and the evidence was not in any case conclusive.

The result was so marginal that the suggested infractions could have reversed the decision, if found to be true. Unfortunately they proved almost impossible to support without calling for a full re vote (which Ukraine couldn't really afford, either financially or politically), but that doesn't make them non existent.

Yanukovych was overthrown by an illegitimate Parliamentary procedure by Ukraine's own constitutional rules.

Actually he abandoned the post and was legally removed by his own party. 'Legitimate' is a purely theoretical legal term. It is defined by law scholars and has no commonly accepted or even legally binding criterion. The Ukrainian constitution at the time did not cover the situation, and as such what took place was not illegal. What may be questionable is some of the decisions taken by the interim government prior to elections taking place, but once ratified by the legally elected Government they were fine.

The elections were of parts of Ukraine only – yes because part was now back to being Russian but parts were in revolt and why? Because their (majority) opinion was ignored by western backed revolutionaries.

Poll stations were not placed in Crimea, but Ukrainians living there were allowed to travel to the mainland to vote. It was rumoured that anyone travelling to the mainland would be prevented from returning by the Russian forces at the border. I don't know if it was true or not, and done certainly did vote, but it was a general perception that was circulated to discourage them from voting.

In Eastern Ukraine polling stations were attacked by separatists and forced to close, so we never really knew whose opinion there was in the majority as Russian backed separatists prevented voting from taking place. However that was only in two small regions and, had they all voted in favour of a pro-Russian candidate, he still would have lost based on the published votes.

The election observers made no such claims – these are claims that have been advanced by those who sought the overthrow of Yanukovych by any means.
Both sides made claims the other cheated and there were many problems – bringing into force recent election legislation part way through didn't help- but it worked both ways.

All the speculation about who would have voted for whom had revolutionary right wingers not broken up Ukraine by overthrowing Yanukovych is just wishful thinking and fantasy. Events completely changed the voting expectations and one cannot realistically extrapolate from a turbulent and illegitimate situation what would have happened in a legitimate election. The fact remains there was a democratically elected President who was illegally overthrown.

If there had been an impeachment and the constitutional procedure as laid down had been followed then there would have been no problem in subsequent elections. But there wasn't any adherence to correct constitutional procedure and everything else is illegitimate.

Of course those who want to legitimise the current government say the ex post facto removal was legitimate. The fact remains there was a constitutional procedure which was NOT followed. It was there, as most of these things are, to provide a system to follow when normality breaks down and to flag up when overthrow occurs. I would lay money that had a pro Russian coup occurred those who advance the argument against Yanukovych would not be saying those safeguards were advisory only.

That there was a constitutional procedure to follow but which was ignored is, as much as anything, the folly of what the west precipitated. A bit of patience and less gung ho stupidity could have achieved a legitimate repositioning of Ukraine. Which, again makes me wonder why the west allowed/encouraged such an apparently blundering takeover.

Who benefits from a reinvigorated cold war?

Sold any major hardware contracts lately?

…makes me wonder why the west allowed/encouraged such an apparently blundering takeover.

Again, you are assuming that it did, and in fact it was not all home grown, which I'd the much more logical explanation that fits the facts, but doesn't suit conspiracy theorists.

Who benefits from a reinvigorated cold war?

Currently it seems to be Putins popularity towards aggressive attitudes to neighbouring countries, thus distracting the people from their own internal issues and economy.

Somewhere I have the constitutional reason why what occurred was completely legal. It was messy, but legal.

The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7.

It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).

While we cannot know Yanukovych's intentions for certain, the dumping of his documents in the lake at his fancy Mezhigorie residence and the traces of hectic packing suggest that the president was indeed fleeing rather than just going to a meeting in Kharkiv, or otherwise leaving Ukraine on business, as he later claimed. His midnight disappearing act left the country effectively without a president and a government.

The immediate problem on the evening of February 21 was that the Yanukovych regime had dissolved and Yanukovych had left the capital, apparently not intending to return for an indeterminate period (ie he was not just going on a state visit to Russia for 10 days). The dissolution of his regime was evidenced by the Interior Minister and the Speaker of Parliament also leaving the country, the departure of several important Party of Regions MPs, and, furthermore, the chief of the army resigned.

The problem is that the Ukrainian Constitution (like many other constitutions) does not provide any stipulation about how to remove a president who is neither dead nor incapacitated, but is nonetheless absent or not fulfilling his duties. The lack of such provisions creates a dangerous loophole. Any leader who is about to lose power, whether because his government dissolves, or because loyal supporters abandon him, or because he is about to lose an election just as the last vote are in, could simply skip town and doom any government by declaring it as constitutionally illegitimate. Leaving the scene would undermine the constitutionality of any acts subsequently passed by whoever succeeds the missing president and would allow him to keep a minimally legitimate constitutional claim to returning and claiming his office back.

The solution that took place within the Rada was more legitimate than any strictly legal solution that could have come from the Constitutional Court. The Rada was legitimately elected in 2012, and the majority of its members participated in the important debates on February 21-22. Moreover, a big majority (close to three quarters of all Rada deputies) voted for the Rada resolution, including many MPs from the Party of Regions (Yanukoviches own party, which had already removed him as its leader).

If the President refuses to fulfill his constitutional obligations he ceases to act as a President of Ukraine. Therefore the path that Ukrainian Rada took was lawful and did not contradict Ukrainian Constitution. President Yanukovich left the country and de facto refused to fulfill his constitutional obligations to the country and its people. After Rada lawfully voted to reverse the Ukrainian Constitution to its 2004 state and the head of state refused to fulfill his constitutional obligations to the country and its people, Rada voted to remove Yanukovich as the legitimate President. After the vote Yanukovich ceased to be President of Ukraine de jure.

The USA has its prints all over this one and its not so subtle interference pushed Putin into his hard line response – one wonders why they were so obvious about it all.

So some how it's the US's fault ? I think some are confusing the movies with reality … again. If the CIA was a powerful as they are portrayed in the movies or books, etc. … Jason Borne and his clones would have taken care of business and this and other calamities in the world would be over …

There's quite a number of lawers who don't think that initial removal of Yanukovicj was legal. They have their own arguments:
<<The vote to remove Yanukovych doesn't seem to have followed constitutional procedures. Under Articles 108-112 of Ukraine's constitution there are four ways a sitting president may leave office between elections: resignation, incapacitation, death, and impeachment. None of the first three happened, Yanukovych has vehemently denied that he resigned—so that leaves the fourth, impeachment. According to Article 111, impeachment must follow a specific set of procedures: Parliament must vote to impeach and then convene a committee to investigate. That committee must investigate and report back to parliament, which must then vote to bring charges. A final vote to convict may only come after receipt of a judgment from the Constitutional Court that "the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime."
And this final vote would have taken the votes of at least 3/4 of all MPs (338), whereas only 328 MPs simply voted for impeachment in a clearly unconstitutional way.>>
What seems logical ,might not be legal. Ok, we have reelected parliament and president, and Right Sector/Svoboda that some people just don't want to see, organized a nice rally on 1st of January, demanding Bandera and Schuhevich getting "heroes of the Ukraine" titles…
YouTube link

I guess Poles will be especially happy if it happens.

Gwydion – having been in Kyiv recently and spending most of my working week on stuff re Ukraine I think you are seriously underestimating the role of Ukrainians themselves in getting rid of Yanukovych. There are plenty of patriotic Ukrainians who were out on the streets and its just Moscow propoganda to paint them all as crypto-fascists. Ultimately it was Ukraine's security organs themselves that backed away from Yanukovych except for the small numbers in units like Berkut (course I guess that maybe people will think that the CIA paid the police and army off to not intervene)

Doesn't fit with the conspiracy theory plan though GNREP ;-)

Under Articles 108-112 of Ukraine's constitution there are [only] four ways a sitting president may leave office between elections

Yes, I noticed that. However Article 108 may only apply in case of a President who is fulfilling his constitutional obligations. If the President refuses to fulfill his constitutional obligations he ceases to act as a President of Ukraine. QED the rest does not apply and he was legally removed.

Right Sector/Svoboda that some people just don't want to see, organized a nice rally on 1st of January, demanding Bandera and Schuhevich getting "heroes of the Ukraine" titles…

Much as I might worry about the likes of Right Sektor/Svoboda, they still represent a minority (far less presence now than they were painted to have last year) and the problem with a true democracy is that it's hard to deny them the same rights to free speech and protest.

The Bandera hero status was always dubious. Despite appearances, he is generally viewed in the west as a xenophobic nutter whose view was 'my way or the grave', whether you were Russian, German, Polish or even Ukrainian.

It is even more interesting…BBC article says only about Bandera, who, at least, can be seen as a fighter against Soviets.
link
but you can clearly hear that the rally cries: "Bandera, Shukhevich, heroes of Ukraine" and the latter was considered cruel bandit even by Germans…
First Orange revolution hero, and former president Yushenko, in his recent interview
says basically the same as I was saying – people were used, ideals of revolution changed into political fight between oligarchs. To be fair, he might be poisoned by eternal hatred for Timoshenko, as he is actually accusing her of being Putin's agent ( he says "I wasn't at Maidan, as the place where thousands are crying "freedom to Yulia" (i.e. Timoshenko) is not for me..). He also says, that even that Donbass is different from the rest of Ukraine, and has very little in common with other parts, culturally and politically, he would never allow partition of the Ukraine.
The worse political and economical situation in Ukraine will be, the stronger nationalists are going to become. It was always happening elsewhere, and I see no reason to treat current political struggle in Kiev as an exception.
True, that educated young people were for Europe, against corruption and freedom of speech. What they have got so far, apart of "ministry of truth" is not so easy to say…

…ideals of revolution changed into political fight between oligarchs…

That is much more likely

…where thousands are crying "freedom to Yulia" (i.e. Timoshenko)

An exaggeration on his part, but she did sort of become an opposition figurehead. Didn't last long.

The worse political and economical situation in Ukraine will be, the stronger nationalists are going to become

Possibly, but they are significantly less notable in the west now. When I was out there in the summer in the heart of nationalist land (Rivne, where Right Sektor 'leader' Sashko Bily was shot) all I saw was one Bandera flag, manned by one lonely man.

Yes – inconvenient though it may be to some actually of course the far Right hardly demonstrated a massive core base of support in the last elections – Right Sector got 1 Deputy and 284,000 votes and Svoboda 742,000 and 6 seats – given that the BNP and UKIP got 1.5m votes in the UK we shouldn't be too quick to talk about the role of the far right in Ukraine

Right Sector/Svoboda that some people just don't want to see, organized a nice rally

There is a lot of talk of Ukrainian nationalists. There were an estimated 2500 at this rally (which had a purpose of reinstating Bandera as 'Hero of Ukraine'), but RT gives far less attention to the annual nationalist march which too place in November in Moscow, had a similar size, and also took place in several other cities across Russia, including Crimea (despite the alleged reason for Russia initially moving on Crimea being to protect them from Ukrainian nationalists who were threatening to invade…)

Given the CIA's history of meddling in the democratic determination of countries across western Europe, central and south America, Africa, the middle east, the far east and Australisia (and in the USA!)why would anyone be surprised about the activity in Ukraine?

GNREP8 wrote

There are plenty of patriotic Ukrainians who were out on the streets and its just Moscow propoganda to paint them all as crypto-fascists.

I don't for a minute think that all or even a majority of the people in Maidan were fascists – crypto or otherwise. I am pretty sure there were sufficient who were however- those nice skinheads in the paramilitary gear brandishing Svoboda flags alongside their various weapons – to make me and a lot of others wonder why a mob in a city trumps a democratic election? Is it when the mob is on our side only? Or is it okay if a mob chased a pro-western President out of office?

Lots of democratic Ukrainians (a majority of those who could be bothered to vote) turned out and elected Yanukovych into power. If the opposition were so committed to democracy why did they not seek one of the several democratic means to get rid of him – for example wait (only a short while) to elect someone else, or impeach him and go through the method outlined in the constitution? Why do we as democratic people who love freedom and the legal transition of power in elections suddenly get all enthused about mob violence as a way of ending a government? To end violence? There was no violence until the right wing mobs used the cover of the protestors to attack the government.

I'm not arguing in favour of Yanukovych or Russia. What I am saying is that it is not okay to swallow a pack of lies just because they suit an anti-Russian consensus in the west. Why should we believe it is okay for right wing thugs, whose leader shared a platform with a US Senator, to overthrow an elected President? It isn't and no amount of bluster makes the US or the EU come out of this looking good.

And Legion4 – if Jason Bourne had been involved he probably wouldn't have let the National Endowment for Democracy be involved or Senator McCain share a platform with a neoNazi or let someone from the State Department use an unencrypted phone to slag off the EU and discuss who they were going to get to replace the Ukrainian Govt.
It's as much the inefficiency and cack handed manner of the operation as anything else that is so worrying.

…those nice skinheads in the paramilitary gear brandishing Svoboda flags alongside their various weapons

Like many media images, they were a real minority blown up to appear bigger than they were by excessive media attention; the same small bunches shown walking about from place to place. Many of them were simply anarchic kids taking photos of themselves holding guns, because it was 'cool'.

There was no violence until the right wing mobs used the cover of the protestors to attack the government

Actually it was all pretty peaceful until 30 November 30 when Yanukovich introduced "an unqualified ban on all peaceful assemblies in central Kyiv", which the OSCE called "disproportionate and in contradiction to Ukraine's OSCE commitments". That, and ongoing negotiations towards the Russian customs union (despite the clear opposition both with the public and within the government) was bound to stir up the level of disatissfaction and resulted in an increased level of (still essentially peaceful) protest.

Then at 4am Berkut special police units armed with batons, stun grenades, and tear gas, "attacked and dispersed all protesters from Maidan Nezalezhnosti while suppressing mobile phone communications. The police attacked not only the protesters (mostly students, most of whom did not or failed to put up resistance) but also other civilians in the vicinity of Maidan Nezalezhnosti, when the Berkut forces chased unarmed people several hundreds of meters and continued to beat them with batons and feet…

That was the start of it.

This resulted in a not entirely unexpected backlash the folowing day, but it then settled back into fairly peaceful protests (noted by several sources as tense but quiet or peaceful over the next few days) until 11 Dec when again "thousands of coordinated Internal Troops (VV) and Berkut surrounded the Maidan Nezalezhnosti (square) in order to clear out all remaining protesters, barricades, and encampments from its periphery in what was described as a 'determined and unexpected crackdown on protesters" – mainly to clear the square so the Christmas tree could be put up, as he wanted to ignore the protests and carry on as normal.

…why did they not seek one of the several democratic means to get rid of him – for example wait (only a short while) to elect someone else, or impeach him and go through the method outlined in the constitution?

Because the constitution did not include a clause for a President who orders his special forces to open fire on protesting civilians, then abandons his post.

It's as much the inefficiency and cack handed manner of the operation as anything else that is so worrying

That's because it was not organised, but essentially organic, reactionary and self perpetuating with a small handful of extremist groups making use of the anarchy to brandish their banners. Note that the vast majority of those groups vanished as soon as order was restored, as they thrive on chaos, lack of discipline and media attention.