>> Yanukovych campaigned and won the 2010 election with the promise of making that EU deal. That was his key election promise. <<
It was certainly his key concession to pro-Western Ukrainians. But you can’t think of anything that happened in 2010 that might have legitimately made Ukrainians rethink joining the EU? Like maybe the EU’s response to the Greek, Italian and Spanish credit crises?
Besides, supposed he actually did straight-up lie about a major campaign theme. That justified insurrection? How about the Crimeans, who were told they’d have autonomy if they joined Ukraine in secession from Russia, only to have their parliament banned and end up placed under direct rule of Kiev?
I’ve been following the Ukrainian thing even when the killing of people hadn’t started. I think you have read some Russian propaganda and believed it, but I think I know the answer to everything you wrote.
I’ll post them later.
I think this is how it was: Ukraine chose poorly already in the 90s. Maybe they had their reasons, but they chose not to lustrate their communist rulers and switch to free market capitalism like Poland did. Future was uncertain at that time, but now we see Poland is tremendously successful while Ukraine laggards. With president Yushchenko they got on to that track, but his popularity was crushed by the 2007/2008 economic crises. In most countries with two major parties the one holding power during the crises lost it in next elections. Yanukovych made double sure he is the favorite in 2010 by being from the east, but giving promises of EU trade deal, that was popular in the west. 2010 elections were fair. Yanukovych’s background was having been a street gangster imprisoned twice by the way. Once he got to power of restricted presidency of 2005 constitution he started to switch key personnel and institute corruption. 2012 parliamentary elections weren’t fair any more and he used his administrative power to favor his own party. That wasn’t enough to give him the votes to change the constitution, but he somehow managed to stack the constitutional court with his cronies and they abolished the 2005 constitution that had been voted in by 90% of the members of parliament.
Now he was able to rule by the post soviet constitution that gave him large power. He started to secure his power with appointing his loyalists everywhere and his son taking over the Ukrainian economy by winning more than 50% of state procurement contracts. He failed to make the EU trade deal he had campaigned on though. EU would have offered aid in the form of carrot and stick with carrot being promise of closer integration and favorable contracts if Ukraine keeps on reforming path. That had worked rather well with countries like Poland and Romania.
Support for EU deal had stronger correlation to age than to east-west. Majority of under 50 people supported it everywhere.
When Yanukovich failed to sign the EU deal there was initially a small protest. What he did, and what I think is influenced by his gangster background, was that he sent his new riot police (created for Euro soccer cup 2012 and filled with his loyalist) to beat them up.
After protesters had been beaten more protesters showed up. It had gone from protest in support of euro deal to protest against beating. Then Yanukovich thought to turn on the heat and passed a set of laws making protesting illegal. That only brought more protesters and it was now about Yanukovich having to step down. The protests were truly massive. Army said they are not going to go against the people and Yanukovich stupidly ordered some of his enforcers to shoot people.
That is what I believe happened.
Oh, and I believe Greek debt crises happened because Greek governments had been commies. They had cheated and taken debts while cooking their books and then Greeks elected radical commies who in their entitled mentality demanded that Europe must give them billions of euros and forgive their debts. It was absolutely the fault of Greek governments.