As a German i agree with your point, but also agree with the point of the grandparent. It was predictable and the people responsible for Germany's heavy reliance on Russian gas unsurprisingly are getting paid through intermediaries by Russia.
There have been an abundance of coverage on it, even from state media... but nothing ever changes. Heck, the current head of the government was/is involved in the biggest financially scandal of Germany's history and got away with it by "forgetting" everything.
> The Revolution of dignity has absolutely no signs of a coup. It resulted in presidential and parlimentary elections.
This is a non-sequitur; the transfer of power was extra-constitutional, so it can't be ruled out by this fact alone.
> Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia.
This is a circular argument. It was illegal insofar as it violated Ukrainian law, sure, but whether Ukrainian law should apply in Crimea in the first place is literally the whole point of contention!
1. The revolution of diginity was a series of protests. No-one took over the airwaves and killed the existing government.
"On 21 February an agreement was signed between Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition, witnessed by representatives from European Union and Russia. which promised return to the 2004 constitution, early elections and withdrawal of security forces from the center of the capital."[0].
2. Crimea was assigned to Ukraine in 1991. It's part of Ukraine's internationally recognised borders. It's illegal according to international law.
It was taken by force[1] without the will of the people. Any referendums under occupation are illegal and invalid (also according to international law)[2]. You can't vote with a gun to your head.
1. That's not the definition of a coup or a revolution. What happened was an extra-constitutional transition of power, which is a technical term of art, and this is the case regardless of whether its final ends were good or evil.
2. This is a circular argument. It's contrary to domestic law insofar as Crimea is Ukrainian, it's contrary to international law insofar as Crimea is occupied, which it is insofar as the people don't want to be Russian, which they don't insofar as the referendum was illegitimate, which it is insofar as Crimea is Ukrainian.
You don't get anywhere with this, it's just sophistry no matter what side you're on. You have to make different arguments. What can we really say about Crimeans' wishes?
In particular: why do you mention "the will of the people", if your political position is that it should not be up to the people of Crimea? Do you believe in the general idea of referenda? If not, why?
The Revolution of dignity has absolutely no signs of a coup. It resulted in presidential and parlimentary elections.
Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia.