Yanukovych won the democratic elections. His Party of Regions was the biggest at the time. He made some unpopular decisions, well within his constitutional righ

Yanukovych won the democratic elections. His Party of Regions was the biggest at the time. He made some unpopular decisions, well within his constitutional rights, and then an armed, violent mob started occupying a part of the capital, a mob that enjoyed all the rhetorical (and, I read on the Wiki, financial) support of foreign officials, up to the point of using foreign embassy as a field hospital. Yanukovych first tried to use force[1] to take care of the situation, which failed. Before fleeing the country, though, he repeatedly tried to strike some kind of deal with the protesters, offering talks and concessions to the other side, including holding new elections in about a month. The opposition leaders took up his offers, only to be ignored by the mob, which demanded removing Yanukovych from office effective immediately. Meanwhile, democratically elected local government of Crimea repeatedly warned that, shall Yanukovych be forced out of office illegally, Crimea will consider seceding. We know how that played out. Was Yanukovych Russian puppet? Sure. Was he democratically elected president? Yes. Was he and his political circle corrupt? You bet. Was it strange at the time in Ukraine? Not at all. Were there masses of people who demanded his deposition? Obviously. Were there masses of people who opposed the perceived coup d'etat? Yes, there were. There seem to be deeply rooted divisions in Ukrainian society and perhaps something like the Euromaidan was inevitable. Maybe Ukraine is better off afterwards, I don't know. What I do know, though, is that your comment here is part of the problem, not the solution. Foregoing the nuance, forgetting to consider narratives other than your own, and above all else - giving in to emotionally loaded arguments instead of rationally assessing long-term effects of what happened is exactly what caused the current situation. [1] EDIT: yes, by firing live ammo at the crowd, which in itself is nothing strange. The guns and live rounds did not magically appear out of thin air - they were entrusted to the police to defend the state from perceived threats. Euromaidan protesters were perceived as a threat. They were aware they were perceived as such. They could have gone home, but chose not to. The effect was 20 dead and many more wounded. All deaths should be mourned, but it's unfair to blame them on just one side while both sides contributed to escalating the tensions.