2014 Ukrainian Maidan Revolt: News, Views, Photos & Videos

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

delft

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
Delft, it was not a "coup."

That word has a very definite meaning:

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Whatever else you may think, the Parliament of the Ukraine, which itself was legally elected, met together and followed the Ukrainian Constitution to the letter, and impeached and then removed Yanukovich from power, finalizing it on February 22.

That was what legally removed him...it was not illegal, and that vote and procedure was not violent.

The violence on the streets leading up to it (on both sides) were not what created the interim government in Kiev. The Parliament did and it did it legally, and peacefully in chamber. Now, clearly the protests and the reaction to hem on both sides influenced this...but protest leaders and their adherents did not storm the Parliament, hold guns to the members and force them to vote. They did so as duly elected members of the Ukrainian Parliament.

Now, the Ukraine will continue to follow its constitution and there will be exactly what you call for, "free and fair elections to be held in Ukraine ."

We shall see who wins those...but they will be voted on by the people of Ukraine...which at this point, though it may be open to the Crimea by the Ukraine, will most likely not include the Crimea.

There are those, particularly the Russians, who want to frame what happened as a "coup," in order to give them justification for what they did. But that is propaganda and meant to justify what Putin is doing, nothing more. Putin clearly had no intention of allowing the Crimea (and perhaps other parts of the Ukraine) to go all in with the EU and thereby risk losing Russia's critical Black Sea Fleat port there. He simply was NOT going to allow that to happen.

As it is...if he moves on any other part of the Urkaine, then it will be him who is seeking a coup. He has already accomplished a coup in the Crimea...but it is one I doubt anyone in Europe or the US can do anything about in the long run. All the talk about "punishing," Putin is likely to remain just that...talk.

Obama is weak and will not be able to form or hold a coalition to enforce his new "red" line. Europe is too tied to Russian energy to risk that being turned off and the counter economic sanctions Putin would impose if they tried to do the same to him.

This is the truth of the situation...on both sides.
Click to expand...

The Dutch constitution says that members of parliament will act without "last of ruggespraak", i.e. without accepting orders or discussion with others. Of course nearly all are members of fractions and belong to political parties so they do not strictly follow the law but this is still far removed from a parliament that is controlled by a score of oligarchs. The Ukrainian parliament resembles the British House of Commons from before 1832. Of course another country's democracy looks very much less perfect than your own. While gerrymandering is to many Americans just part of the democratic process to may foreigners it looks like corruption.
It is said that the US spent $5b to advance democracy in the Ukraine. They did it no doubt to advance US interests but it will be difficult to find a parliament in the world that is much more corrupt. That's why pressure on the oligarchs could lead to a 'government' of extremist hue that now is part of the problem and not of the solution.
 
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Also I am tired of hearing this "Crimea historically belongs to Russians" well anyone with basic history will know Crimea was a Khanate and the Crimea Muslim Tartars were allied with the Ottoman Empire and Crimea was ruled by Muslims for century's

But guess what you don't see Turkey invading Crimea and shouting that it was historically part of the Ottoman Empire

So why the Russians? Simple they are land grabbers
 
F

Franklin

Captain
The issue that people ignore is Kosovo. Back in 1998 civil war broke out in Kosovo between the Kosovar Liberation Army (KLA) and the then Yugoslav authorities of Slobodan Milosevic. In 1999 NATO became involved and bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days. In june of 1999 a ceasefire agreement has been signed between the warring parties negotiated with the help of the Russians. NATO troops was allowed to enter Kosovo with the explicit guarantee that their will be no independence for Kosovo in the future. But despite this guarantee Kosovo became independent 9 years later in 2008. This in the mind of the Russians has helped to set the precedent for what they are doing now in the Crimea and even before that in South Ossetia and Abchazia. And the Kosovo precedent goes even beyond that with a referendum for independence in Scottland and there might even be one in Catalonia even though Spain never granted them a referendum for independence. And Madrid has already said that they will not recognise any result of such referendum.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
chuck731 said:
1. Putin has not out maneuvered Obama or Europe. He is making good progress to, but has not yet succeeded in, salvaging a portion from what would otherwise have been an total and cataclysmic defeat dealt to him by the EU and Obama. He has not snatched victory from jaws of defeat. He has salvaged the a chance to perhaps fight another day from what would have been the end. But even if he succeeds in annexing Crimea, when all the windy hype and all the opportunistic political sniping has blown over, the west today is still far ahead geostrategically relative to Russia of where we were in November 2013, and Putin still far behind.
Click to expand...
We disagree, and that is fine.

But, as it stands, Putin has the Crimea, and I expect he is going to keep it. Obama and the West, despite what they say...or may even try to do...are not willing to do what it would take to reverse that for obvious reasons.

I did not mention world-wide geostrategic position in this, you did. In doing what he did there in Ukraine, and in the Crimea, Putin improved his lot there, and in that thing, as I stated, I believe he has indeed outmaneuvered Obama and the rest of Europe.

chuck731 said:
2. The us can not directlyt address European energy needs. The US can never compete on price in Europe by shipping natural gas on ships. The us may be able to compete on price in Asia because of Fukushima, but not Europe. The us can whittled down Russia's ability to set its European and Asian customers against each other, and hurt Russian economy by whittling down Russian profit margins. The us can offer fracking technology to Asia and Europe. But the us can't directly substitute Russian gas with American gas.
Click to expand...
The US has more Gas, Coal, and Oil reserves than any other. If the US develops it to the fullest extent in order to become energy independent itself and then become an even larger exporter than we are now...we will impact and drive the market and prices. As of yet, it has not been developed to that extent. But it could do so, though as I stated, it will take a long time.

In this regard, I think I made it clear in my comments that we do not have those capabilities yet...as you say. So, in that thing, you are agreeing with what I said...though you habitually couch and phrase things as if though your comments are correcting others. But over time, as I stated, I believe we can significantly impact the situation and relive the Europeans of being beholden to Putin and Russia...while improving their supply and their own abilities to do more for themselves.

Will we actually do that? As long as the current ilk of political leaders are in power...no.
.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
delft said:
The Dutch constitution says that members of parliament will act without "last of ruggespraak", i.e. without accepting orders or discussion with others. Of course nearly all are members of fractions and belong to political parties so they do not strictly follow the law but this is still far removed from a parliament that is controlled by a score of oligarchs. The Ukrainian parliament resembles the British House of Commons from before 1832. Of course another country's democracy looks very much less perfect than your own. While gerrymandering is to many Americans just part of the democratic process to may foreigners it looks like corruption.
It is said that the US spent $5b to advance democracy in the Ukraine. They did it no doubt to advance US interests but it will be difficult to find a parliament in the world that is much more corrupt. That's why pressure on the oligarchs could lead to a 'government' of extremist hue that now is part of the problem and not of the solution.
Click to expand...

Just my two penneth for you and Jeff.
The following is wiki for the results of the 2012 Ukraine parliamentary elections.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It shows an absolute majority for the Party of the Regions, the generally pro Russian and Pro Yanukovych party. Until the next election is held, that is the parliament that should still be in power and the Party of Regions should still be forming the Government. Clearly this is not, so on what legitimacy is the new government?
Is it a minority government? If so how can it operate now, when clearly the popular opinion of most of the electors of POR parliamentarians is clearly against?
Are POR members being prevented or made to feel prevented from taking their seats?
Are there now members of the Government who have never won a seat in an election?

If the answers of either of the last two questions are true, then it looks very much like coup in the best "looks like a duck" fashion.

Maybe somebody can shed some light?
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
delft said:
...nearly all are members of fractions and belong to political parties so they do not strictly follow the law but this is still far removed from a parliament that is controlled by a score of oligarchs.
Click to expand...
If they follow their constitution, they are following the law. Anywhere that political parties exist, the tendancy will always be for those parties to ultimately have a temptation to view what they think is their own interests above that of the overall nation and other parties within it. Call it ruling parties, oligarchies, establishment, whatever you will. The key is constraining them according to a constitution that divides power and does consider the best interests of the people.

delft said:
Of course another country's democracy looks very much less perfect than your own. While gerrymandering is to many Americans just part of the democratic process to many foreigners it looks like corruption.
It is said that the US spent $5b to advance democracy in the Ukraine. They did it no doubt to advance US interests but it will be difficult to find a parliament in the world that is much more corrupt.
Click to expand...
The Ukrainians have a constitution and their parliament acted according to their constitution which the people of Ukraine overwhelmingly approved.

Nothing you have said invalidates that. What they did was legal and I established an interim government according to law that itself will soon be voted out of power according to the voice of the people of Ukraine,

As to whether it is part of the problem or solution is, right now a subjective argument that anyone watching can advance based on how they feel.

As far as I am concerned, what they have done, according to the vote of their parliament in accordance with their constitution is for the best...right now. If they proceed and have legal, open, and fair elections according to their law, as their constitution calls for, judgment about what is best for Ukraine will then be left over to the Ukrainian people themselves...which is how it should be.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
SampanViking said:
Just my two penneth for you and Jeff.

The following is wiki for the results of the 2012 Ukraine parliamentary elections.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It shows an absolute majority for the Party of the Regions, the generally pro Russian and Pro Yanukovych party. Until the next election is held, that is the parliament that should still be in power and the Party of Regions should still be forming the Government. Clearly this is not, so on what legitimacy is the new government?
Click to expand...
On February 22, 2014, the sitting Parliament of the Ukraine, those who had been voted into to those seats, met according to the Ukrainian Constitution and impeached and removed their president according to the Constitution of their country. That move also established an interim Presidency according to law, who has much restricted powers over a normal president. It left the Parliament intact.

It also demands a vote, according to their constitution, of the Ukrainian people within a few months that will decide who they have for President...and that vote too will be according to their own laws.

That has established the legitimacy of the current interim government according to law.

Now, clearly, some do not like it. Both internal to the Ukraine, and external to it. But their liking it or not, does not invalidate what occurred according to law. If they can amass the votes, then at the election they can elect a President of their choosing again...who themselves will be bound by their constitution and will be subject to their parliament and its powers of impeachment if he does things that get the Parliament to the point where they vote to remove him.

The US has similar provisions, and it has been used a couple of times in history, and on a third occasion it was so obvious that it was going to occur, that the President of that time, Nixon, resigned before it could happen. In the US case, the individual that becomes President according to the Constitution fills out the term of the individual impeached uintil the next election.
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
The Western powers can besiege Russia from many places, but Ukraine is simply too close to home that Russia must respond forcefully, that's why Putin play it so heavy handed. Yet the West this time have to deal with Russia up front and centre, and Russia, despite all things, ain't as a pushover as Libya did back than.

And what puzzled me the most, is that the coup faction didn't truly bothered to secure the support of the Ukrainian military or its security forces, and now losing soldiers at unit level by defection to the Crimean "republic" or to Russia. Is it that they put too much faith on the neo-Nazi goons can really stop the Russian army, or the empty promises that the NATO will come to their rescue?
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
On February 22, 2014, the sitting Parliament of the Ukraine, those who had been voted into to those seats, met according to the Ukrainian Constitution and impeached and removed their president according to the Constitution of their country. That move also established an interim Presidency according to law, who has much restricted powers over a normal president. It left the Parliament intact.

It also demands a vote, according to their constitution, of the Ukrainian people within a few months that will decide who they have for President...and that vote too will be according to their own laws.

That has established the legitimacy of the current interim government according to law.

Now, clearly, some do not like it. Both internal to the Ukraine, and external to it. But their liking it or not, does not invalidate what occurred according to law. If they can amass the votes, then at the election they can elect a President of their choosing again...who themselves will be bound by their constitution and will be subject to their parliament and its powers of impeachment if he does things that get the Parliament to the point where they vote to remove him.

The US has similar provisions, and it has been used a couple of times in history, and on a third occasion it was so obvious that it was going to occur, that the President of that time, Nixon, resigned before it could happen. In the US case, the individual that becomes President according to the Constitution fills out the term of the individual impeached uintil the next election.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the nub Jeff and it seems to revolve around numbers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Ascertaining the legitimacy of the interim government in Kiev is quite tricky. According to Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the President can only be impeached from office by parliament through “no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” On February 22, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych who fled to Russia the night prior. However for an effective impeachment under constitutional rules the 449-seated parliament would have needed 337 votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Thus under the current constitution, Yanukovych is still the incumbent and legitimate President of the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

That seems petty hard and dry, that they were short of numbers to vote the measure through. There are a good many other salient points made in this article as well.

I would however like to know what happened to the other 121 members of the parliament that did not register a vote. Did they simply abstain or were they unable/prevented by force or threat (perceived or otherwise) from taking their seats.

This still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the forming of a new government and what are the correct powers/limitations of a caretaker administration prior to new elections. Some of the edicts coming from Kiev do seem to exceed the powers and measures one would usually expect and do little to dispel the feeling of coup mentality that seems to surround them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top