The only thing your comments tell me is that you are blindly biased as the fellow who wrote this article.
Who hired the snipers at the end? How do you know?
The standard investigative technique is to ask “who benefits”.
Well, who benefited from the snipers killing people?
The rapidly seen result was the unconstitutional replacement of the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, replaced by a western backed interim leader.
Which benefited the new coalition, and their western supporters.
That’s not conclusive, but it certainly is grounds for legitimate suspicion.
Yet somehow you don’t even consider the possibility that it was them.
I don’t pretend to know who hired them. You do.
Why is your presentation so one sided, showing only concern for protesters and none at all for police?
You ok with them being burned alive by molotovs, hit with heavy rocks, beaten with clubs, and shot?
Once again, I'll mention that the Dr.'s testimony provides some counterpoint.
Try going to that article and reading it.
I hear her loud and clear. That should show that I'm not as 'biased' as you are saying.
Besides --- in a situation not without some complexity --- must I write an extensive balanced thesis with each comment?
Just where do YOU get off, seeming to demand that I do so?