Former USSR

Are they clear?
For example

"The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning pointin Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to acivil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine."

1. 18 police officers died in total.
2. 112 protesters died.

All very sad but given that three of those police deaths were not shot or directly related and six died in action against protest camps, the term mass shooting of police reads like bs to me.
3. Why would the will of the vast majority start a civil war unless a minority would not accept who themselves were backed by Russia who also would not accept it.

If any of your claims were true then why were the Ukranians themselves, not just political leaders, so keen on joining the EU, before the overthrow, after the overthrow and most likely more so today.
It is not indicative of fascist regime or sentiment who, I think we might agree, would not be the type of group who would want to join an organisation such as the EU.

The only fascist I can see is sat in the Kremlin.

Finally, this made me fall off the sofa laughing.

"It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protestors"

Obtuse, predetermined, (far right and Oligarchic elements) used the same evidence generally available and, based upon a clearly predetermined view, published a report which said what they believed before they wrote it.

Now, this is complete tosh unless you can show where this paper has been peer reviewed, approved and therefore referenced in other academic papers on the topic.

I’d give up if I were you Oldie . You’ll spend valuable time pulling apart Pirates posts and his discredited sources . Then he’ll just post more & more ad nauseam .

Crack on then ! 😂

He posted a couple of quotes from the BBC and somewhere else from the media which he claimed were deliberately distorting the truth, softening up the public for war and attempting to unfairly slur Putin, then went on to say we are all thickos for believing it. 

Don't know if he deleted it or a Mod.

What a surprise that a Research Fellow at the far right neocon Henry Jackson Society disagrees. The initial signatories of the Henry Jackson Society statement of principles included International patrons  Richard Perle, William Kristol, (co-founder of the 'Project for a New American Century' document with Victoria Nuland's husband Robert Kagan) and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey Jr. 😆

I read that. My instant thought was "oh god, not another one"

Stop with the pretence oldie. You literally just linked to an article by a research fellow at the far-right noeocon Henry Jackson Society.

Co-founder Matthew Jamison wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement in what he described as a "far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups."