There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. It's one of those immediately revealing things like height of the chimneys in Auschwitz; just barely mention them and we all immediately know who you are.

Sure. And you keep babbling and restating your point instead of proving it because you've got an overwhelming proof, you're just too polite to share it with us.

There's nothing to prove; by definition, elections != coup.

Is this trolling by stupidity? You are irredeemable. I wasn't talking about elections, I meant everything before it that caused premature elections in 2014.

Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich? Can you recall?

  > Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich?

Yes; under extreme Russian pressure, Yanukovych blocked the passage of the highly anticipated Ukraine-EU trade treaty. This led to massive protests. He sent paid thugs (titushky) to harass and beat the protesters, but the protests only grew larger. When he panicked, about 100 protesters were shot in a single day. From that moment, he was politically a corpse and lost the support of even his own party. He ran away into hiding to escape arrest, and the Ukrainian parliament assembled and unanimously voted to hold snap elections, which took place a few months later.

This is the polar opposite of illegal seizure of power by a small group of people, or a coup.

Are there any key details you're leaving out? Is there a chance you creatively picked what to leave out in a way that serves the view you're sympathetic to?

No.

> The society was split about this idea

Yes, this is how democracy works. Then a decision is made and the society rolls with it. See the UK for example: a decision was made to leave the EU, they left, it cost them a lot of money and goodwill, but it works, worse than being in the EU but works. The EU did not invade, did not bomb their cities, did not rape their women and did not steal their children. And crucially the EU did not blame the citizens of the UK exercising their free will for mass murdering them.

Now look at the sad Russia you are worshipping.

I agree about democracy. What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.

I stressed that it was split, and the democratic thing to do would be to wait another year until the next election, where everyone will be given equal opportunity to express their choice and determine what's the next thing we're rolling with. But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent. Give me one reason why Maidan organizers couldn't go home in 2013 and just vote a year later.

Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course. But we'll never know, since neither Yanukovich nor pro-EU leaders have conducted one.

> What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.

So in a separate thread you are demanding a bit of history and here you are likely not mentioning a bit of history for a reason. Anyway. The protests have not been 'undemocratic'. And the protesters did not decide to be murdered by snipers.

> But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent.

Ah yes. Who exactly 'got violent'? Who authorised the decision to shoot to kill?

> Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course.

Possibly, but let's not hold our breath whether the mass murderers in Moscow would respect the outcome if it didn't suit them.