"Well, who has disrespected Ukrainian sovereignty?" -- who financed Yuschenko's campaign, as well as provided organizational and logistical support? I hope you're not going to claim that such money came solely from Ukrainian sources? What we end up with is a candidate bought and paid for by foreign powers.
"The US for declaring they would not recognise a government elected through fraud?" -- if it was a principled stand, that is, if the US government declared that it would not recognize Yuschenko's government either for the same reason (fraud), it would be one thing. But since the US government is perfectly willing to recongize its favored candidate regardless of how he came to power, it also demonstrates blatant interference in Ukrainian politics and disrespect for the sovereignty of Ukraine.
"The 300,000 people on the streets of Kiev?" -- you seem to wave this inflated number as a flag in virtually every post, while ignoring Yanukovich's supporters. That's very honest.
(Just a side note)
"As you well know, there are a number of good reasons why a rerun of the election was not immediately considered a particularly good or practicable solution by anyone, such as the Ukrainian election law." -- there are no problems in Ukrainian law when it comes to repeat elections. But the main question is, what good reasons are there for demanding that one candidate be chosen over the other when there is really no way to establish who actually won the election? Could it be all the money you invested in that candidate? It's geopolitics before democracy, that has always been the case. "He's a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch."
"If you want to believe that, then you will." -- unless you prove me wrong. How can you prove that it is more important to "the west" how the elections are held rather than WHO wins them, when all recent examples demonstrate just the opposite?