> And mysteriously your only argument is a talking point about how his removal wasn't democratic It's written on the Wiki page you linked. Don't you think it w

> And mysteriously your only argument is a talking point about how his removal wasn't democratic It's written on the Wiki page you linked. Don't you think it would be better if it wasn't written there? Don't you think you'd have an easier time afterwards if there were no doubts about constitutionality? Can't you just say that "yes, it would have been easier to counter Russian propaganda if there were no doubts like this, but we had no other choice" and move on? Or, if you believe that doing things in a way that cast doubts on the constitutionality of the process was not a mistake and helped you, can't you explain to me how did it help you or your cause? Yeah, it's a "talking point" for Russia. You gave them that talking point on a silver platter. In my opinion, you've made a strategic mistake at the time. That's all. I'm not talking about anything before or after that point. I'm not judging, I'm not supporting, and I'm not condemning. I'm trying to give you an impartial perspective on the specific point in time, based on the description you yourself linked. I see that you're not interested in such a perspective. You want unconditional support and praises for everything you did. However, I'm not interested in that. Being on the same side - having a common enemy in Russia - doesn't mean we have to agree with everything you did and how you did it. You will have my support because Russia is a threat to me, too. To get my sympathy, however, you'll need to be able to rationally talk about the less glorious events in history and in recent memory, too. Assuming that just because I criticize some development it must mean that I'm on Moscow's payroll is honestly insulting, and doesn't help any.