There was no coup in Ukraine. The sitting president was responsible for getting over 100 protestors killed. First he went into hiding as it became clear that had lost all political support in Ukraine and would be facing criminal charges, then Russian secret services helped him escape to Russia.

Ukrainian parlament assembled, voted with 328-vs-0 to hold early elections for a new president. Not even a single member of his own party voted in favor of the Russian puppet who ran away. Elections were held soon thereafter and even Russia recognized its results after a delay.

Calling this a coup indicates lack of knowledge or intentional maliciousness.

Elected president gets forcibly removed -> coup. It's the definition of the word.

edit: I am not even sure how this can be malicious in any context.

This is the opposite of "illegal seizure of power by a small group", as coup is commonly defined.

Are all subsequent russian rulers illegitimate?

In any case political events in independent countries are none of Russia's business.

You never thought for yourself it seems and just throw fact-check around. Janukowytsch was elected president of the country and was forcibly removed from that function. If you like him or not, it's by definition a coup.

> In any case political events in independent countries are none of Russia's business.

This is also true for the US and the EU. Why do we fund movements to overthrow foreign governments? It's not even a secret that the US does this all the time. It even got their own name: color revolutions.

That's not what a coup d'état is. Check the definition please, and try again.

It's also not correct to say he was simply forcibly removed from that function.

What russia calls a "provocation" is no excuse for russia's invasion and subsequent 3rd genocide of Ukrainians (the 1st being the russian-perpetrated Holodomor starting in 1932, the 2nd being the russian deportation of Crimean Tatars starting in 1944).

Had russia stayed within their borders and minded their own business, the current russian war of genocide against Ukraine would not exist. Had russia historically not been evil to its neighbors (example: the Katyn Massacre in 1940), its neighbors wouldn't seek protection from russia.

The hollow russian talking point the other poster pointed out, is that russia being upset at something that happened in another country which has nothing to do with it, is somehow justification for russia perpetrating a war of genocide. It isn't. That's why nearly every country in the world voted to reject russia's excuses such as the ones you cite, and condemn russia's actions in multiple United Nations votes, and why the ICC issued arrest warrants for putin and his war crimes.

Yeah the liberal use of genocide isn't going to help. Killing thousand civilians per day in east Ukraine by their own people is closer to that. And killing thousands of civilians was also a reason for the NATO to intervene in Serbia.

> Had russia stayed within their borders and minded their own business, the current russian war of genocide against Ukraine would not exist.

The same could be said about the US in Ukraine, but also Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq - just in the recent time, otherwise I have to list most of the world. The difference with this and Russia is, that there was never a threat for the US, but it is an open threat to Russia if Ukraine is part of NATO.

> Had russia historically not been evil to its neighbors (example: the Katyn Massacre in 1940), its neighbors wouldn't seek protection from russia.

1940? What time is it?

You're hallucinating. Total deaths an all sides (civilian and military) are far below 1000, and certainly not ">=2000" as you are explicitly stating.

One could delve further into civilian vs. military distinction and which side is responsible for the bulk of these -- but if you're going to insist on pulling numbers out of the air without making any effort to check them, there's no point in doing so.

Agreed: russia's liberal use of genocide in Ukraine isn't going to help resolve the conflict. Beyond that, denying russia's 3rd genocide of Ukrainians isn't going to help. Especially since nearly every country in the world has rejected the excuses you speak, and condemned russia's actions in the UN. If russia cared about civilian killing, russia would not have killed so many civilians in their war on Chechnya and their other conquered lands, and russia would stop killing so many civilians in Ukraine, including in Eastern Ukraine.

>> Had russia stayed within their borders and minded their own business, the current russian war of genocide against Ukraine would not exist.

> The same could be said about the US

The same could be said about russia. "Someone else did it" isn't a sufficient excuse, which is why nearly every country in the world has rejected the excuses you speak, and condemned russia's actions in the UN. If you think other countries' actions are equivalent, you may make your case to the UN, who can decide if they are. If you think other countries did wrong, you may make your case to the ICJ or ICC, who can decide if they did. Note that "invade and genocide" is not an acceptable response.

> 1940? What time is it?

Has russia ever acknowledged that the actions I cite were wrong, apologized, and made reparations? No? They're just doing the same thing again? And russia is surprised the world is reacting to russian actions in the way they are? Such surprise is performative. It is best if russia accepts sooner, rather than later, that if they wish to change the world's reasonable reactions to unreasonable russian behavior, they must first change the unreasonable behavior. This starts with accepting to settle their complaints via multilateral diplomacy, not invasion and genocide. It also means accepting russia doesn't get everything russia wants.

> The difference with this and Russia is, that there was never a threat

Oh, russia has never attacked any countries? They present no threat? If this was true, countries would not seek to join NATO to protect themselves from russian threat. Ukraine sought protection because they felt threatened by russia. They were right: russia attacked them for no good reason.

> it is an open threat to Russia if Ukraine is part of NATO.

This is an empty, world-rejected talking point. Every country has the right to join NATO if they wish. It only threatens russia's ability to conquer and genocide other countries, which they have no right to do in the first place. As long as russia doesn't attack other countries, there is no problem. A better representation is that russia is an open threat to Ukraine and eastern Europe if the latter are not in NATO. russia proved this to be true with their nazi-like wars of territorial conquest.