> Not undefined. Ukrainians. Some of whom died for their convictions.
Thank you. So a group of Ukrainians organised a coup against a legitimately elected president instead of substituting him with another legitimately elected individual at the next election cycle. This is a valuable insight for everyone who claims that Ukraine is a democratic state.
> Nonsense. Who else would control Ukraine except Ukrainians themselves?
Was there a referendum for joining the EU or was it a political program? You know, at least something that would resemble the UK referendum for leaving the EU. Otherwise how else do you know what the majority of Ukrainians want long-term as a nation?
> It was a part of struggle of open society versus autocracy.
oh yes, the open society of the Panama and Pandora papers [1][2]. Two consecutive presidents that can't help themselves from being anti-autocracy.
"the open society of the Panama and Pandora papers [1][2]. Two consecutive presidents that can't help themselves from being anti-autocracy."
Western institutions stand firm. The fact that you have even heard of panama papers is a proof of this fact.
Democracy is not a joke, it is standing fast. Regardless of the attempts of the autocracies to claim otherwise, or sow dissent by nefarious "whataboutism".
Nobody is "good", everyone does mistakes. They key to understand in the west is the belief of the people in the institutions, and the self correcting dynamic a western style of government instills into a nation.
To get a high level understanding of the situation I recommend Darren Acemoglus "why nations fail" which tries (and in my mind succeeds) in explaining what distinguishes western style of government from more closed autocracies (and how and why it's better in many ways, even though not perfect).
Not undefined. Ukrainians. Some of whom died for their convictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan