In Ukraine, one claim used by Russia to justify its invasion is that the current government is a "puppet regime", that is, the elections by which it was chosen were not valid and do not represent the will of the people.
As @o.m. state in their answer to the question cited in the OP, there are international bodies, whose opinion is usually relied upon, when considering whether elections are valid or not. The problem with Ukraine is somewhat different and I hope that the timeline below elucidates it:
- The last disputed elections in Ukraine were held in 2004, where Russian-supported Viktor Yanukovych was declared the winner over Viktor Yushchenko. The results of the election were not recognized internationally and there were massive demonstrations in Ukraine, which led to Yushchenko being declared the winner and thus becoming president. This is what is referred to as the Orange revolution. (Which is one of the events in the trend referred to as Colour revolution.)
- The Ukrainian presidential election of 2010 was mainly fought between the same two candidates and this time won by Viktor Yanukovych. The election was widely recognized as valid.
- Thus, the Euromaidan revolution of 2014 overturned the legitimately elected president (I stress legitimately elected - whether he was still legitimate at the moment of revolution is a matter of dispute between Russia and the West.) This revolution was followed by Russian takeover of Crimea and the rebellion in the Ukrainian provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk.
- Petro Poroshenko won the post-revolution snap election in 2014. The election was recognized internationally, but the voters in Crimea and the self-proclaimed republics obviously could not participate.
- Volodymyr Zelenskyy beat Poroshenko in 2019 presidential election, also recognized internationally, although the areas not under control of the Ukrainian government could not participate.
Thus, the potential issues here are with
- removing from power the legitimatly elected president in 2014 (which potentially invalidates all subsequent political process)
- holding the subsequent elections in the conditions where ethnic Russian Ukrainians were underrepresented
Remark on fact-checking: The points above contain links to Wikipedia (in English). All the information, however, can be found in the mainstream Western media - I used Wikipedia mainly to check the dates. It has not been my intention in this post to support or disprove any point of view - merely to bring to attention the main facts.
To address the remarks. From the Wikipedia article on 2014 elections:
The elections were not held throughout Ukraine. During the 2014 Crimean crisis, Ukraine lost control over Crimea, which was unilaterally annexed by Russia in March 2014.[nb 1] As a result, elections were not held in Crimea.5 In the Donbas region of Ukraine, only 20% of the ballot stations were open due to threats and violence by pro-Russia separatists. Of the 2,430 planned ballot stations (in Donbas), only 426 remained open for polling. The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, controlling large parts of Donbas, had vowed to do everything possible to disrupt the elections on their territory.
From the WIkipedia article on 2019 elections:
The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and the occupation of parts of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast prevented around 12% of eligible voters from participating in the election.
The answer was not intended as propaganda, and I deliberately limited it to verifiable facts and uncommitted statements, so as to keep it unbiased. Thus, tehre are actually two questions here:
- Why is it judged to be "propaganda"?
- Why is this "propaganda" charged to be "pro-Russian"? (It could be as well pro-Ukrainian, since the post raises awareness of the Ukrainian decade long struggle against Russian interference with their political process.)
My own interpretation is:
- The answer is written in impartial "scientific" style. For those not used to academic discourse it may appear as biased: indeed, modern political discourse and the media usually contain a great deal of positive bias, e.g., intended to support Ukraine and rally the public. The mere lack of this positive bias may be perceived as "propaganda" for the other side.
- Many political and historical events, when looked upon closer, are too complex to fit simple black&white worldview. Thus, one usually feels uneasy when confronted with new facts that seem to contradict the simple picture that the one used to have. One needs to do some thinking and further learning to reconcile one's worldview with this complexity, and to affirm one's understanding of right and wrong. Dismissing any uncomfortable facts as "propaganda" is an easy way out.
In this respect it is interesting to note what is not considered as pro-Russian propaganda. For example, question Is there any evidence of the US interfering in the 2014 Ukranian coup? (as of this writing) has been out there for a few hours, accumulated only 3 closure votes (mine among them), and no moderators rush to close it. The question reads:
In 2014, the then Ukrainian president Yanukovitch was ousted by a coup. A leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, was released on YouTube which seemed to suggest that the US was interfering in the Ukranian coup. Is there any other uncovered evidence or reports which point to the Ukranian Euromaidan 2014 coup to be US backed?
I think the comparison with the impartial langauge used in my post is stunning.