....that the people occupying a few police stations and airports in Eastern Ukraine and welding AK-47s while demanding annexation by Russia are not representative of the "tens of millions of Ukrainians" of which you speak, correct? It's doubtful that such persons represent the majority view of the people in those regions (most of which are in fact ethnically Ukrainian), let alone the entire country. How could demanding annexation by Russia ever be considered in the best interests of Ukraine? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
As to the matter of your "coup", Webster's defines "coup d'état" as:
"
T)he violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9tat
So pray tell, who was the "small group" at play here?
Was it the thousands of protesters on the Maidan? Hardly small, wouldn't you agree?
Was it the ultra-nationalists of Svoboda or Right Sektor? If so, why aren't they the ones in charge at the top?
Was it the interim President, Turchynov? If so, why is he only interim and why are elections still scheduled for May in which he's not even a candidate for the permanent job?
Why is the Party of Regions (Yanukovych's former party) still active in the Ukrainian government? Is it common for the party of the former leader deposed in a coup to remain around in a new regime?
I'll be completely honest with you and tell you that I don't think you know what you are talking about when you throw around the word "coup."
Politics 101: Just because there was regime change in a country or even a revolution doesn't necessarily make what happened a coup.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read