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.
Traitor to the USA and the Patriots. And you know what I mean.
Again, nothing was happening to anyone. He just wanted to avoid prosecution and didn't forget to take "his" money with him, but somehow forgot to tell his supporters. They also regard him as a traitor and a coward, you know that?
Yeah, if it's how Petain "made peace". Or Lenin for that matter (also with the Germans).
It was legal seizure, they voted in the parliament. No, not under gunpoint like in Crimea.
Traitor to the USA and the Patriots. And you know what I mean.
I disagree. I do not see why a governor appointed to the Crown would have to be 'loyal' to a state made up on the spot. It makes far more sense to remain loyal to the Crown.
The Robert E. Lee analogy is far more apt, because there you see a far clearer case of dual loyalty to states he recognized - his own state, as well as the central state.
Again, nothing was happening to anyone.
You keep saying that, without accounting for the fact that this was because he fled for his life and dropped power on the floor as it were.
He just wanted to avoid prosecution and didn't forget to take "his" money with him, but somehow forgot to tell his supporters
So why did he make a peace agreement the very day before?
Yeah, if it's how Petain "made peace". Or Lenin for that matter (also with the Germans).
I mean, history vindicated Lenin's peace deal. It was a delusion to think that they were capable of continue fighting, and the Bolsheviks came to power promising 'peace' anyway. And they retook all the lost lands anyway, except Poland.
As for Petain, it's probably the only way out for Ukraine - except that the East will not be administered by the rump Ukrainian state.
It was legal seizure, they voted in the parliament.
After violently driving out the elected President. 'Parliament' only ratified a fait accompli - and then miraculously appointed Victoria Nuland's candidate for PM.
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.
Traitor to the USA and the Patriots. And you know what I mean.
Again, nothing was happening to anyone. He just wanted to avoid prosecution and didn't forget to take "his" money with him, but somehow forgot to tell his supporters. They also regard him as a traitor and a coward, you know that?
Yeah, if it's how Petain "made peace". Or Lenin for that matter (also with the Germans).
It was legal seizure, they voted in the parliament. No, not under gunpoint like in Crimea.
I disagree. I do not see why a governor appointed to the Crown would have to be 'loyal' to a state made up on the spot. It makes far more sense to remain loyal to the Crown.
The Robert E. Lee analogy is far more apt, because there you see a far clearer case of dual loyalty to states he recognized - his own state, as well as the central state.
You keep saying that, without accounting for the fact that this was because he fled for his life and dropped power on the floor as it were.
So why did he make a peace agreement the very day before?
I mean, history vindicated Lenin's peace deal. It was a delusion to think that they were capable of continue fighting, and the Bolsheviks came to power promising 'peace' anyway. And they retook all the lost lands anyway, except Poland.
As for Petain, it's probably the only way out for Ukraine - except that the East will not be administered by the rump Ukrainian state.
After violently driving out the elected President. 'Parliament' only ratified a fait accompli - and then miraculously appointed Victoria Nuland's candidate for PM.