Since all of your posts are the same Kremlin lies and propaganda...

Since all of your posts are the same Kremlin lies and propaganda narrative, it is easier to respond to the same dishonest and deliberately misleading claims you make in a single reply.

Yanukovych’s presidency was marked by a number of pro-Russian policies and decisions that aligned Ukraine closer to Moscow, contradicting the idea that he was working to diminish Ukraine's dependence on Russia. Below is a more detailed exploration of these pro-Russian policies:



"Yanukovich signed a $10 billion gas development deal with a European company, which would have reduced Ukraine's dependence on Russian gas."

While Yanukovych did sign a $10 billion deal with Royal Dutch Shell in January 2013 for shale gas exploration in Ukraine, it is misleading to frame this as a decisive move against Russian interests. The project was intended to explore and develop Ukraine's shale gas reserves, which could have reduced dependency on Russian gas in the long term. However, Yanukovych's broader energy policies were heavily aligned with Russia, as evidenced by his frequent negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure cheaper gas deals for Ukraine. Furthermore, Ukraine continued to rely on Russian gas imports under Yanukovych’s presidency, and the deal itself was long-term, with no immediate effect on Ukraine's energy dependence. Thus, this argument overlooks Yanukovych's consistent pro-Russian energy policies and reliance on Russia for short-term economic stability.

In November 2013, Yanukovych abruptly suspended Ukraine’s preparations to sign the EU Association Agreement, which had been in negotiation for several years. This agreement would have created closer political and economic ties between Ukraine and the European Union, opening up trade opportunities and offering financial assistance in exchange for democratic reforms and anti-corruption measures. Yanukovych’s government cited the need to protect Ukrainian industries and avoid economic harm, but it quickly became clear that the real reason for the suspension was pressure from Russia.



"Yanukovich chose Russia's offer over the EU Association Agreement because it benefitted Ukrainians more (more money and cheaper energy)."

While it's true that Yanukovych rejected the EU Association Agreement in favor of a Russian offer, this decision was widely seen as a political move rather than one that genuinely benefitted the Ukrainian people. The EU's offer included financial aid and trade benefits but required Ukraine to implement economic reforms and anti-corruption measures, which would have improved governance in the long term. Instead, Yanukovych accepted a $15 billion loan from Russia and a temporary gas price cut. These short-term benefits came with significant geopolitical strings attached, effectively tying Ukraine closer to Russia’s sphere of influence and stalling critical reforms. Public opposition to this decision was massive because many Ukrainians saw EU integration as a path to modernizing Ukraine's economy and escaping Russian dominance. Yanukovych’s choice to side with Russia triggered the Euromaidan protests, demonstrating that many Ukrainians viewed the Russian offer as detrimental to Ukraine’s sovereignty and long-term interests.
In the lead-up to Yanukovych’s decision, Vladimir Putin had been openly hostile to Ukraine’s potential EU integration and instead pushed for Ukraine to join the Eurasian Economic Union, a Russian-led alternative to the EU. Reports indicated that Putin offered Yanukovych substantial financial incentives, including a $15 billion loan and a significant reduction in gas prices. These offers were perceived as Russia’s attempt to bribe Ukraine away from European integration, and Yanukovych accepted them, aligning Ukraine’s future with Moscow rather than the West. This decision sparked the Euromaidan protests, as many Ukrainians viewed EU integration as a path toward modernization and away from Russian influence.



"The opposition refused to honor the agreement with Yanukovich, and death threats forced him to flee Kiev."

Yanukovych did sign a compromise agreement with the opposition on February 21, 2014, under EU mediation, agreeing to constitutional reforms and early elections to resolve the escalating crisis. However, by the time this agreement was signed, the situation in Kyiv had already spiraled out of control, with deadly violence between protesters and security forces. While it's true that some radical elements within the protest movement rejected the agreement they were not in a position to undermine or derail the deal, the mass protests reflected broad public outrage against Yanukovych’s corrupt governance, his violent crackdown on protesters, and his pivot towards Russia. The claim that Yanukovych fled solely due to death threats overlooks the fact that his regime had lost significant political and military support by then. Ukraine's parliament, including members of Yanukovych's own party, voted to remove him from office, citing his abandonment of duties after he fled Kyiv on February 22, 2014. His departure was not solely the result of threats but rather his inability to maintain control amidst a collapsing government and popular uprising.

Yanukovych’s domestic policies also demonstrated a tilt toward Russian-style governance. During his presidency, Yanukovych was widely criticized for stifling political opposition, curbing press freedoms, and concentrating power in the executive branch—all hallmarks of the political system favored by Putin. Yanukovych systematically weakened Ukraine’s democratic institutions by influencing the judiciary and using law enforcement agencies to intimidate and harass political opponents.

Notably, Yanukovych’s government prosecuted and imprisoned Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister and one of his main political rivals, on what were widely seen as politically motivated charges. The European Union condemned Tymoshenko's imprisonment as an abuse of the legal system, but Russia supported Yanukovych’s actions. This authoritarian style of governance closely mirrored that of Putin, who also utilized state apparatuses to consolidate power and eliminate opposition.



Additional reasons why Yanukvych was a puppet of Putin:



Language and Cultural Policies
Yanukovych also pursued policies that aligned Ukraine more closely with Russia culturally and linguistically. In 2012, under his administration, the Law on the Principles of the State Language Policy was passed, which gave the Russian language official status in regions where Russian speakers made up more than 10% of the population. This law was seen as a direct concession to Russian-speaking regions in Ukraine and was widely opposed by pro-European factions who feared that it would undermine the status of Ukrainian as the national language and weaken the country’s cultural independence from Russia.



Pro-Russian Foreign Policy
Yanukovych also took steps to align Ukraine’s foreign policy with Russia’s strategic interests. For instance, Ukraine under Yanukovych declared its non-aligned status in 2010, meaning that it would not seek membership in military alliances such as NATO. This was a significant departure from the policies of his predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko, who had pushed for Ukraine to join NATO as part of his broader pro-Western agenda. Yanukovych’s government emphasized neutrality and distanced Ukraine from NATO, which was a priority for Russia, as Putin strongly opposed any expansion of NATO influence in the post-Soviet space.

Furthermore, Yanukovych made efforts to strengthen ties with Moscow through various bilateral agreements and partnerships, often prioritizing relations with Russia over those with the European Union or other Western entities. His government was seen as consistently favoring Russian interests in international forums and negotiations, further solidifying Ukraine's position within Russia’s sphere of influence.



Conclusion
Yanukovych’s presidency was characterized by a series of decisions and policies that aligned Ukraine closely with Russia, contrary to the notion that he was seeking to lessen Ukraine’s dependence on Moscow. His energy deals, foreign policy decisions, and domestic actions all demonstrated a preference for maintaining strong ties with Russia, particularly in response to Moscow's pressure. His eventual rejection of the EU Association Agreement in favor of Russian financial incentives and gas discounts was the culmination of this pro-Russian orientation, a move that sparked the massive public outcry known as the Euromaidan protests, ultimately leading to his downfall. Thus, labeling Yanukovych as a "Russian puppet" is not unfounded when considering his consistent pattern of aligning Ukraine’s policies with Russian interests.