The president in 2002 was Kuchma, before picking Yanukovych (then his prime minster, and currently a traitor in Moscow)
Obviously, I don't agree with the batshit claims trying to connect this to Ukraine, but I would not say that he is a 'traitor' for having had to flee for his life by 'peaceful' 'demonstrators'.
He's is a traitor for siding with foreign invaders.
Also he didn't have to "flee for his life" at all. They didn't even ransack his ridicalous palace when they came, they were more gentle in touring it (abandoned) then the visitors of January 6 (no breaking windows or shouting, unlike some Americans at the Capitol building): https://youtube.com/watch?v=_HN3yZVKP9g No one was being killed anywhere (well, except of Right Sector's Sashko Bily, shot by the cops for being unruly, and the disappeared Tatars who tried to protest the Russian coup in Crimea, and even these deaths came later), so please just stop your histrionics.
Yanukovych only fled to both avoid prosecution for his crimes and preserve some of his illegally amassed wealth, which he did successfully before even an arrest warrant was issued against him (Poroshenko later surrendered to his warrant lawfully after losing power in turn, and was put on trial in person, for treason too).
I don't know why do you feel this urge to sympathise with and cover up for a blatant criminal (even a convicted thug in his youth) and international fugitive from justice just because he was impeached? It's very sociopathic.
He's is a traitor for siding with foreign invaders.
It's all a matter of perspective. You could also say that Russian speakers who side with the Kiev regime are 'traitors'. Same as with the US Civil War, they call Robert E. Lee a 'traitor', but he was also faithful to his state (which was the norm at the time).
Also he didn't have to "flee for his life" at all. They didn't even ransack his ridicalous palace when they came, they were more gentle in touring it (abandoned) then the visitors of January 6
That's when he was gone though. It makes zero sense for him to make an agreement for new elections and then flee the next day, but for the fact that government forces withdrew and he was at the mercy of the mostly peaceful protesters.
Yanukovych only fled to both avoid prosecution for his crimes and preserve some of his illegally amassed wealth, which he did successfully before even an arrest warrant was issued against him
He could have fled at any time though.
Poroshenko later surrendered to his warrant lawfully after losing power in turn, and was put on trial in person, for treason too
A Ukrainian leaders who does not end up in prison seems a rarity. I'm sure that if Z (the irony) makes peace, he'll later on be accused of treason and imprisoned.
I don't know why do you feel this urge to sympathise with and cover up for a blatant criminal (even a convicted thug in his youth) and international fugitive from justice just because he was impeached? It's very sociopathic.
I know he is a convicted thug, and that he is a corrupt bastard, but a traitor he is not. Being a thug and a corrupt bastard miraculously only come into play when someone resists American hegemonic ambitions.
Not Lee, but some hypothetical corrupt deposed Colonial governor who fled to London with stolen money after the independence but before the British invasion and never returned.
You talk like if he escaped some bloodbath. No one was killed, not any of his associates, or Berkut members or anyone, and they didn't even trash his home.
(Sashko was walking with an AKSU bullying various allegedly corrupt officials for internet videos, he too didn't kill anyone, they killed him later.)
Yeah, Zelensky shouldn't become a traitor. What a novel concept.
"American hegemonic ambitions" supported Yanukovych when they tried to salvage his presidency against the EU wishes ("fuck the EU!").
Not Lee, but some hypothetical corrupt deposed Colonial governor who fled to London with stolen money after the independence but before the British invasion and never returned.
How would a colonial governor who remains loyal to the Crown be a traitor?
You talk like if he escaped some bloodbath. No one was killed, not any of his associates
He escaped a situation where he had no security and the 'demonstrators' could do whatever the hell they wanted with him. So if your theory is correct, why did he make a deal for new elections the very day before?
Yeah, Zelensky shouldn't become a traitor. What a novel concept.
lol, wut? Making peace with Russia makes you a 'traitor'? I hear the strangest things from you when the topic is Russia.
"American hegemonic ambitions" supported Yanukovych when they tried to salvage his presidency against the EU wishes ("fuck the EU!").
I mean, it was smart, because none of this would have happened but for the illegal seizure of power by the Maidan gang. Russia would have been equally unhappy, but it would not have had an excuse to intervene. Russian speakers unhappy over anti-Russian laws would have had to accept them as they came after actual elections, so probably no separatism either.
Obviously, I don't agree with the batshit claims trying to connect this to Ukraine, but I would not say that he is a 'traitor' for having had to flee for his life by 'peaceful' 'demonstrators'.
He's is a traitor for siding with foreign invaders.
Also he didn't have to "flee for his life" at all. They didn't even ransack his ridicalous palace when they came, they were more gentle in touring it (abandoned) then the visitors of January 6 (no breaking windows or shouting, unlike some Americans at the Capitol building): https://youtube.com/watch?v=_HN3yZVKP9g No one was being killed anywhere (well, except of Right Sector's Sashko Bily, shot by the cops for being unruly, and the disappeared Tatars who tried to protest the Russian coup in Crimea, and even these deaths came later), so please just stop your histrionics.
Yanukovych only fled to both avoid prosecution for his crimes and preserve some of his illegally amassed wealth, which he did successfully before even an arrest warrant was issued against him (Poroshenko later surrendered to his warrant lawfully after losing power in turn, and was put on trial in person, for treason too).
I don't know why do you feel this urge to sympathise with and cover up for a blatant criminal (even a convicted thug in his youth) and international fugitive from justice just because he was impeached? It's very sociopathic.
It's all a matter of perspective. You could also say that Russian speakers who side with the Kiev regime are 'traitors'. Same as with the US Civil War, they call Robert E. Lee a 'traitor', but he was also faithful to his state (which was the norm at the time).
That's when he was gone though. It makes zero sense for him to make an agreement for new elections and then flee the next day, but for the fact that government forces withdrew and he was at the mercy of the mostly peaceful protesters.
He could have fled at any time though.
A Ukrainian leaders who does not end up in prison seems a rarity. I'm sure that if Z (the irony) makes peace, he'll later on be accused of treason and imprisoned.
I know he is a convicted thug, and that he is a corrupt bastard, but a traitor he is not. Being a thug and a corrupt bastard miraculously only come into play when someone resists American hegemonic ambitions.
Not Lee, but some hypothetical corrupt deposed Colonial governor who fled to London with stolen money after the independence but before the British invasion and never returned.
You talk like if he escaped some bloodbath. No one was killed, not any of his associates, or Berkut members or anyone, and they didn't even trash his home.
(Sashko was walking with an AKSU bullying various allegedly corrupt officials for internet videos, he too didn't kill anyone, they killed him later.)
Yeah, Zelensky shouldn't become a traitor. What a novel concept.
"American hegemonic ambitions" supported Yanukovych when they tried to salvage his presidency against the EU wishes ("fuck the EU!").
How would a colonial governor who remains loyal to the Crown be a traitor?
He escaped a situation where he had no security and the 'demonstrators' could do whatever the hell they wanted with him. So if your theory is correct, why did he make a deal for new elections the very day before?
lol, wut? Making peace with Russia makes you a 'traitor'? I hear the strangest things from you when the topic is Russia.
I mean, it was smart, because none of this would have happened but for the illegal seizure of power by the Maidan gang. Russia would have been equally unhappy, but it would not have had an excuse to intervene. Russian speakers unhappy over anti-Russian laws would have had to accept them as they came after actual elections, so probably no separatism either.