Ukraine

[Turin Turambar]

If there were armed paramilitarys who wanted to kill me I would leave the land as well. It's better for the healthiness.

[Duuring]

The procedure exists, and thus lawful. Whether the procedure was done exactly according to the law, thát we can argue about.

If it's not done according to the law, it's not lawful. And moreover there was no majority of 3/4 in the Parliament, so even a week later the Parliament couldn't have legally removed Yanukovyich. Yanu fled to Russia when he felt that he was close to be unlawfully deposed. This, in itself, shouldn't have happened in a democratic country. Moreover it's not because a government is forced to flee that this government has abdicated its authority.

What I mean that there is a legal procedure to oust the president. And why couldn't they have removed him a week later? Even his own party was done with him and had asked him to resign from the presidency, something he even agreed on in some conversation, but then refused on others. Yanukovich fled to Russia AFTER he was ousted, but because he didn't tell anyone who stayed where he was. He could have stayed in Kharkiv or in Donetsk, but he didn't. He left the nation and started crying about a 'fascist coup', performed, according to him, by the very same people he had signed an agreement with and promised early elections just days before. What a dickhead, working with fascists.

We should also not forget that nobody voted against the resolution, all other MP's were either not present, not voting or abstained, and that Yanukovich was ousted after he had fled Kiev (but before entering Russia). The Parliament building were still protected by Riot Police. Can you tell me why he suddenly decide to flee, after signed an agreement with the opposition? Saying '

If there were armed paramilitarys who wanted to kill me I would leave the land as well. It's better for the healthiness.

Is obviously ignoring the fact that there had been fierce protests and riots for more then four months already and that the heaviest weaponry owned by the rioters were revolvers and rifles. If he was in danger, he could have just gone 20 miles north to his estate and wait for tensions to cool down, protected by bodyguards, helicopters, APC's, tanks, and AK-47's. Obviously, he was in grave danger - or maybe he had just lost support of basically every MP and regional governors in the country.

[Rejenorst]

EDIT:  My bad the Rada was guarded. I must have been thinking about the Presidential residence.

The impeachment procedure wasn't followed to the letter due to the protracted time required for such proceedings. Additionally 'constitutional' grounds where not given for the impeachment since the removal of a President could only be done due to; resignation, impeachment, death, and an inability to continue due to health reasons. 3 of those didn't happen and impeachment requires the following under article 111;

Spoiler

Article 111

The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime. The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.

The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.

The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

[close]

Also I am unsure if the selection of a new chairman was constitutional. I would be interested to know who was absent for the voting and whether it was a major chunk of the Party of Regions.

The Euromaidan argues something along the lines that the constitution can only be changed by the people and since the uprising is considered a manifestation of the will of the people the constitution can be changed/altered especially given the loophole of the President's absence.

In regards to the party of regions distancing itself from Yanukovych; it is only natural for the party to blame its leaders rather than assume an equal measure of blame so its party members can still remain relevant in political affairs and domestic life and to avoid some of the serious heat which was being thrown at them. Within hours after the truce both sides blamed the other of betraying the truce. Additionally when it came to the truce Right Sector did not agree to it full stop which likely caused further escalation in the streets.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140221070249/http://www.theinsider.ua/politics/530544dc3bd1e/#

Yanukovych may have needed to go but I dare say that a democracy generally negates the need for violent armed uprising while the events of February have a lot of the markings of being defined as a Coup d'état. There is obviously no real international mechanism that prohibits or condones this.

In the end a revolution or coup is legitimized by its own success, which is usually cemented with recognition by other states. Thus all is fair in love and war.
 

[EdwardC]

I lost interest in Ukraine over time.

Putin can do whatever he wants, jk but rip.]

[close]

[MarshalKim]

Hipsters always ride the wave and move to a new one when it dies down.

[Rejenorst]

So using that image ^_^

[MrTiki]

Spoiler

EDIT:  My bad the Rada was guarded. I must have been thinking about the Presidential residence.

The impeachment procedure wasn't followed to the letter due to the protracted time required for such proceedings. Additionally 'constitutional' grounds where not given for the impeachment since the removal of a President could only be done due to; resignation, impeachment, death, and an inability to continue due to health reasons. 3 of those didn't happen and impeachment requires the following under article 111;

Spoiler

Article 111

The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime. The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.

The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.

The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

[close]

Also I am unsure if the selection of a new chairman was constitutional. I would be interested to know who was absent for the voting and whether it was a major chunk of the Party of Regions.

The Euromaidan argues something along the lines that the constitution can only be changed by the people and since the uprising is considered a manifestation of the will of the people the constitution can be changed/altered especially given the loophole of the President's absence.

In regards to the party of regions distancing itself from Yanukovych; it is only natural for the party to blame its leaders rather than assume an equal measure of blame so its party members can still remain relevant in political affairs and domestic life and to avoid some of the serious heat which was being thrown at them. Within hours after the truce both sides blamed the other of betraying the truce. Additionally when it came to the truce Right Sector did not agree to it full stop which likely caused further escalation in the streets.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140221070249/http://www.theinsider.ua/politics/530544dc3bd1e/#

Yanukovych may have needed to go but I dare say that a democracy generally negates the need for violent armed uprising while the events of February have a lot of the markings of being defined as a Coup d'état. There is obviously no real international mechanism that prohibits or condones this.

In the end a revolution or coup is legitimized by its own success, which is usually cemented with recognition by other states. Thus all is fair in love and war.

[close]

This is of course true, but there's another issue here as well, which hasn't been address (recently at least).
The protests in the Arab Spring weren't legal at all, yet the West happily backed them. Personally I don't have a problem with them either. There comes a point where the legal process behind electing/removing politicians isn't really relevant any more. Politicians can and do change laws to keep themselves in power and make it almost impossible to get themselves ousted. What does one do in that situation? Simply allow them to keep abusing power or take action?

Consider, hypothetically, two protests, for exactly the same cause and both 100% peaceful. Both are complaints about some aspect of government. Now, in one country, that's perfectly legal, and in another, it's not. Is it right to condemn one set of protests and not another?

[Rejenorst]

Seems inevitable that one is condemned/ignored and others supported depending on the interests of big players. Alone in the Arab spring we turned a blind eye to Bahrain's troubles and Saudi Arabia's intervention in Bahrain (both being allies).

For my own part I am somewhat cynical that we can support a revolution in one country and then get upset when another country supports a separate revolution or counter-revolution in the same country.

Revolutions do not always require a peaceful majority but a well organized violent minority can at times suffice which makes elections in a country which was democratic to start with preferable to supporting armed rebellion.

Most of the Arab countries are or where dictatorships or had extremely limited democratic options.

[Duuring]

A revolution were the entire parliament is exactly the same as before the 'revolution' is hardly one.

[Desert Thunda]

Most of the Arab countries are or where dictatorships or had extremely limited democratic options.

We prefer the Jordanian model of Democracy, Abdullah's legacy to us.

[Turin Turambar]

Most of the Arab countries are or where dictatorships or had extremely limited democratic options.

We prefer the Jordanian model of Democracy, Abdullah's legacy to us.

Live long and prosper.

[Humlenerd]

Most of the Arab countries are or where dictatorships or had extremely limited democratic options.

We prefer the Jordanian model of Democracy, Abdullah's legacy to us.

Live long and prosper.

Spoiler

[close]

[Suede]

Appears some videos from Volnovakha
Shelling near the block-post

Explosion from dashcam (started from ~1:10)

[Duuring]

The missile that came down at the bus was probably the one that went furthest. Sad, really. Nothing hit anything except that.

[Suede]

Faces of the "russian" world

Spoiler

"Givi", "Abhaz", "Mongol", "Motorolla"

[close]

Btw, same camo as ISIS uses

Spoiler

[close]

looks like both got it in same russian shop