You're telling my assessment is not good when yours is really just...really bad.

Firstly, Yanukovych won by slim margin of 3% at 48% versus 45% to his opponent. He was hardly "popular". Second, his administration was mired with corruption. The Wikipedia article sums it up quite nicely with good sources. Even Russian-speaking Donbas don't like him.

Second, it is laughable you are pushing for the corruption narrative of Ukraine often repeated that serves Russian propaganda. What countries aren't corrupt? Except there are more so that are corrupt. And Russia just happens to be way more corrupt than you wish to portray it to be. Most significantly, Ukraine wants to join the EU to be precise, but Putin sees EU admission as tantamount to joining NATO. They are two completely different things. Separate polling showed Ukraine don't want to join NATO, until Russia agitated the Ukrainians prompting them to yearn to join NATO. Russian interference also made Ukraine want to join EU even more, and the same poll showed Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not feel neglected.

Since you are pushing for the corruption narrative, the EU is way less corrupt and richer than Russia. The latter has 1/5th of the GDP of Italy. Russian-aligned countries are known for being dictators. Why would Ukraine then join Russian sphere of influence when the EU has better standard of living, more democratic and less corrupt? Looking at corruption perception index, Russia ranks near bottom as one of the most corrupt. Really? You're telling Ukrainians to side with a more corrupt entity than the less so?

Let's go back to the NATO narrative. The West knows fully that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If the West really wants Ukraine to join NATO, they sure danced around it for decades. Recent declassified British communications showed the Blair administration rejects Ukraine joining the EU for said reasons. Kremlin sees this as Ukraine also joining NATO (also the EU wants Ukraine to be less corrupt and democratic). Because for Russia, it's either Ukraine joins them or not at all in any capacity. Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. Russia have their own political philosophy of Eurasianism. Moreover, seeing a more prosperous neighbour could make Russians realise the bad situation they are in under Putin's rule. Of course, any dictators would not want getting ideas for a better way of life as it would undermine their own rule.

And really, your argument about US East Coast joining England for being "more prosperous" could not be anymore less convincing. UK is less prosperous and not any more or less corrupt than the US (but they are both less corrupt than Russia nonetheless). The UK has GDP of $2.44 trillion while the US has $15.68 trillion (and for crying out loud, the state of New York alone has GDP of $2 trillion that could rival UK and could do well on its own). Italy that is 10% the size of Russia, has outsized more GDP than Russia. So you're saying it is better to side with Russia on this despite all the metric?

As for the supposed democratic desire by Luhansk and Donbas to join Russia, you do realise that the referendum was a sham? Held at gunpoint during a conflict and with a low voter turnout? Even televised reporting from Russia showed they counted ballots as "yes" that are not even filled out! No nation recognise the "results" except for those beholden to Russia. There's a reason as to why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and a sham and do not recognise the "secession" of eastern parts of Ukraine.

So, your claim that the West is supporting a corrupt regime is not only utter bs, but also spewing Russian propaganda, regardless of whether or not you claim to have no love for Putin. You could argue for any spin and yet you picked the worst talking points to stand one that could be easily refuted. You go for corruption spin and yet you're implying for Ukraine to side with a country that is more corrupt, less democratic and less prosperous. For someone repeating leftist buzzwords like "bourgeoisie" and "capital", you sure are contradicting yourself for tacitly supporting Putin as lesser evil and not the hyper-evil capitalist kleptocrat that he is by stating "Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t)".

Really, you're not fooling anyone. But I will give you credit, you sure make interesting spin.

I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades

More liberal, if you ignore the lack of civil liberties in those countries.