[gljiva]

Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference

[nullorempty]

2014 coup ousted democratically elected president. Some people disagreed.

Minsk agreement was supposed to solve it peacefully. Alas, the intention of the agreement was to build-up ukraine's army for war with russia.

War was in the cards already really. Still is - all out europe vs russia war.

[tim333]

Yanukovych was removed by

>Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election

funny sort of coup.

[kelipso]

After he fled the country fearing for his life… Nice try lol.

[oneshtein]

He can return and face the court.

[nullorempty]

Yanukovich ran for his fucking life they night of Feb 21 - to avoid being captured and just fucking killed. Because that's what revolutions do.

18–21 February 2014 - Maidan coup - ended with Yanukovich fleeing.

[tim333]

You can debate if the 'Revolution of Dignity' was a good thing or not, but some other country impeaching their leader for human rights violations and holding new elections is a poor reason to invade it. Obviously Putin thought Yanukovych was his guy and if the Ukranians dared to kick him out and have democracy he'd just have to invade and install a new puppet but is that really a coup? Google has:

>A popular uprising is not typically considered a coup. An uprising is a broad, public, and often spontaneous mass movement aimed at social or political change, while a coup (coup d'état) is a rapid seizure of power by a small, elite group, such as the military or political insiders.

[gljiva]

> 2014 coup ousted democratically elected president

..whose forces killed unarmed protestors, and who abandoned the country (after the forces under his chain of command killed protestors, so he can mostly thank himself and his goons for "fearing for his life", don't try that "argument" on me). After years of straying Ukraine away from democracy, after democratically elected parliament decided "enough is enough" and even broke ranks to oust him, you dare to speak about democracy?

Some people "disagreed"? They took up arms. Terrorists. I would say the same about the Euromaidan protestors who killed the police, had the police not killed first. Again pro-russians are the ones to escalate violence.

I already said what Minsk "agreement" is. A capitulation to Russia, not a just solution. Of course Ukraine would arm itself to reclaim its borders from the aggressor. You also missed a keyword here: _defensive_ war against Russia.

[nullorempty]

No. Foreign mercenaries killed the protestors. That's how revolutions are done, it's a ratchet event that doesn't allow the history to wind back.

Once there is blood spilled - full force ahead, no turning back.

Btw, you are forgetting that Ukranian police was torched by the protesters using molotov cocktails.

And that's weapons. According to your logic Police had the right to shoot, but they didn't.

They didn't because Yanukovich ordered not to shoot at the protesters.

You really need to do some reading pal.

Or try attacking police assuming you are in a USA - that will teach you a lesson about what happens in a real democracy when police is attacked. And I fully support such a response.