This is patently false. Ukraine passed a law in 2004 that would allow them to join NATO. Same year, they passed another law allowing NATO to have access to their military bases. Ukraine formally applied to join NATO in 2008. That was
8 years before the annexation of Crimea. At the time, Condoleezza Rice said that Ukraine would not be granted membership immediately but that they would
eventually become a NATO Member.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080612193607/http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/
There is nothing in the article that indicates that Ukraine was applying for NATO membership. Which is what I said. The Bush administration was pushing for this, but Ukraine has never formally requested admission. Back in 2008, there was no popular support in Ukraine for NATO membership, they were interesting EU admission, not NATO membership. They didn't want this because they knew this would trigger the Russians... besides they had an agreement in place with Russia and the United States that they would be safe for invasion if they surrendered their nuclear weapons, a treaty Russia violated. Anyway even if it was true... that Ukraine made a formal request for inclusion, which they did not, it doesn't matter they had every right in the world to do that.
For 8 years, Putin tried to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO through non-military means.
And it was working... Ukraine still is not a member of NATO. Had they been a member of NATO Russia would not have dared attack them so I am pretty sure they wish they had joined when other Soviet states joined.
Then, in 2014, America and the EU supported and financed a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected president. At the same time, NATO general-secretary publicly said that NATO membership was an option for Ukraine. Putin did what he had to do to prevent that from happening. Rightly or wrongly, NATO membership for Ukraine is his red line.
The US and EU did not fund and support a coop. He was removed from office by the Ukraine parliament which according to their constitution is a legal and allowable process. They did this because he began acting like a head of government, which he was not. He exceeded his authority under the Ukraine constitution by attempting to enter into a finance agreement with Russia, only the Prime Minister, head of government can do this... his plan with Putin, was a violation of the Ukraine constitution. He opposed Ukraine's relationship with the EU... sure as President he can refuse to sign and EU treaty agreement, but then the Parliament has the right to remove him if he does not.... which is what happened. It was not a 'coup' it was how the Ukraine government works.
Just like your statement about NATO, this is patently false. Where are you getting this nonsense from? The association agreement was not even signed during his presidency, so there could be no "agreement" for the legislature to ratify.
Clearly you do not know how government works in Ukraine. The legislature does not ratify actions by the President, actions emanate from Parliament, and the President can refuse to sign, but the President of Ukraine does not make laws, they can propose treaties with foreign governments, and the Parliament can ratify these treaties, but only under the umbrella of authority granted by Parliament, and this authority can be taken from the President at anytime.
Yanukovich refused to sign the proposed association agreement which he, as president, absolutely had the legal right to do.
True, and if Parliament overrides his veto, it becomes law anyway.
Instead, he decided to sign an agreement with Russia.
This is where he exceeded his authority. He did not have the right to enter into an agreement with Russia without the treaty being ratified. He should have proposed this to the Parliament, they then would debate this and if they agreed, would ratify the treaty, and if Parliament agreed then they could have accepted the agreement.
This made economic sense too, as Russia offered him a $15 billion loan, while the EU was only offering $900 million.
Maybe... but this wasn't his call, in spite of what he wanted, he was not a dicator.
Yanukovich was impeached for "failing to perform his duties" after he was forced to flee the capital when his life was threatened. Basically, his enemies tried to kill him, and after he was forced to flee, they impeached him for his failure to remain in the capital. I wouldn't call that a "constitutional removal".
There is absolutely zero evidence that his life was threatened, other than his statement that his car was fired upon which was never verified. Maybe he was, I don't know... there just isn't any evidence to support this contention. I suppose if you want to believe this sack of sh1t who was trying to circumvent the laws of his country in an attempt to set himself up as a puppet dictator sucking on Putin's t1t, then have at it.
But we do know that Putin has tried to assassinate the current Ukraine President several times. But unlike that piece of sh1t coward of a former President, the current Ukraine President didn't run away. All we know for sure is that all of his possessions and wealth left with him, hardly the actions of a those perpetrating a coup. His approval rating was less than 8% when he left, so it is highly unlikely he would have been retained in office when he ran for re-election. He was escorted out of Ukraine by Russian special forces. None of his property was seized. Right now he is waiting in Belarus, and it is expected that when Russia eventually over runs Ukraine Putin will install him as the new President of Ukraine.