the whole "who started the violence" is a bit of chicken and egg. did he start busting up protesters that weren't backed by the CIA first? or did the CIA back them first and then they got busted up? answers seem to differ, no surprise there.
as to the trying to start a "legitimate" revolution in the eastern districts i think that's a fantasy. the new govt bombed the hell out of them even before Russia invaded, i doubt he'd have had any more success, and his presence there wouldnt have triggers UN or NATO action. the new govt was given free rein.
semantics on my use of "broad support" arent really worth arguing. he won the election, he did go back on a campaign promise, and it did get violent as a result. that's a long way contextually from what prompted my comment. He didnt send in the army to violently and quickly put down protests, but he could have. he didnt instruct them to shoot at will when the protests turns to a revolution, and he could have. that's not a defense of him or his presidency, not a denial of his corruption. its just a contrast from Duffs post which seemed to imply he was a butcher, and he wasn't.
I think the more important argument is where it shouldn't matter whether its the chicken or egg from any lens
They're not legitimate either way, nor do they actually hold control of the east so they can't just say might makes right.
If Yanukovych was the bloodthirsty tyrant they pretend he is, and the revolutionaries morally justified (despite being nazis), it would still be an illegitimate overthrow of a democracy and replacing it with an autocracy. They would still be throwing out the constitutional levers of power and electoral recourse, they'd be disenfranchising everyone in the east and banning all opposition and massacring dissidents, and now just ending elections entirely. They aren't legitimate either way. And they clearly don't have the military power to exert their will over the separatist regions. Their claim is neither de facto nor de jure.