Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Geilinor]

1) If it impeached him, it also did so illegally, because the President of Ukraine can only be impeached if convicted of treason.

Remind me, what was the text of the resolution passed on February 22nd?

2) He had to flee the country to avoid being arrested on false and illegal grounds by a government that would do nothing but give him a show trial.

And having fled the country, being unable and unwilling to carry out his presidential duties...

The resolution:
Restoration of 2004-2010 constitution, early presidential elections by December 2014, an investigation into the violence, a veto on imposing a state of emergency, surrendering of public buildings occupied by protesters, forfeiture of illegal weapons, new electoral laws, and a new election commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Deal Yanukovych could easily have done his part.

[Gravlen]

Remind me, what was the text of the resolution passed on February 22nd?

(Also, "state treason or other crime")


And having fled the country, being unable and unwilling to carry out his presidential duties...

He hadn't fled the country at that point.

He had fled the country after he had fled the country.

Try again.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

1) Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine appealed to the citizens for financial aid. Again.

What do you expect, after Yanu stole $70 billion?

Якщо хто не розуміє державну мову, али "жiдофинномонголокацапьську гавкоту" (с), for them here is my (not literal) translation:

Please stop using Russian. Unless you figured it out till now, this is mainly an English forum. It comes off as obnoxious. You're obviously perfectly capable of communicating in English, the only reason why you'd still use Russian was if you only wanted Russian speakers to figure out what you're saying.

Well, I guess, this is a good answer for the question from some random forumites, not following the Ukrainian crisis:
"Why Ukrainian new Authorities can't do something with separatists?!". They really just can't, because both the Army and special forces of the Interior Ministry are seriously underfunded, few in number.

Oh really? Is that so? And you're shaming Ukraine for this, I see? It's an interesting statement for you to make, which brings up questions that much more interesting. The Ukrainian interim government obviously didn't decide to all of a sudden, especially seeing the current situation with Russia, demobilize the Ukrainian Army and deny them the resources they need. So the interim government can't be blamed for the current state of affairs (e.g. there's numbers circulating such as "only 6000 Ukrainian troops are actually properly equipped", etc. ) , it must have been inherited from Yanu's regime. Only this would make it too simple, and indeed is not a fair claim. The interesting questions are: since Ukraine has been independent, how many regimes would you say were pro-Russian as opposed to pro-Western? During the reign of whom did the military get to the point where it is now?

quite demoralized

Yeah, you'd be quite demoralized too if you'd have Russia massing troops on your border getting ready to invade you for being disobedient.

So, the situation is 100% similar with the basket case that is the "Ukrainian Army", that managed to reach their destination in early March (Souther Ukraine near Crimea) only thanks to phalzgraf Kolomoisky's money buying gasoline for them.

I don't know what point you think you're making here, and again, please stop using Russian slang.

Now, the question is - which one kurfurst oligarch will fund special forces now, indebting them to him and, effectively, creating personal military force on the Ukraine?

rite. So basically "herp derp pro Western oligarchs turning the Ukrainian military into a PMC" and you expect people to take you seriously?

2) Russophobe exhibition "Caution - Russians" have been opened in Kiev.

For an ordinary persons it's difficult to kill another man. Here in front of you is a person: a living, breathing , warm. Talking , smiling. How to kill him? Therefore, before driving one sort of people to commit the mass killings of some different people, you must dehumanize them. Convince themselves and others that the victim - is not quite a human being. It is this process for several months now that we all can see on the Ukraine.

The driving force behind the exhibition was obviously the authors' plan to desensitize Ukrainians and the Army in order to make it easier for them to kill (pro-)Russians. Not only this, but this "process" has been allegedly going on for months! Thank you for enlightening us, comrade, and showing us the true face of the Ukrainian artists Banderites!

First Ukrainian patriotic intelligentsia spread hate speech against anti-Maidan minded residents of the Southeast, and then wrote in social networks a very catchy and paranoid ramblings about " titushki", "separatists from Belgorod ", "saboteurs ", "orcs", "Colorado beetles", etc. And now - a new step! Here are some photos from yesterday's exhibition " Caution - Russian" , held as a part of a large-scale cultural projects so-called "Ukrainian Cultural Front" . Disgusting dirty aggressive Russians with St. George ribbons sit in a cage labeled "DO not feed!" . These are not people - they are compared to animals in Zoo.

Whenever the academia of ex-Soviet countries do not spread views in line with Russia's it is obviously Russophobic Nazi hate speech propaganda, this is getting old.

Similarly, at the time the Nazis portrayed Jews.

Of course, of course. We're fascinated, please tell us more.

Come on, tell me now that there is no widespread Nazism in the Ukraine!

No, this exhibition does not validate that claim, try again. And try harder next time.

Also, tell me - in what European capital (because Украiна - Це Єуропа, Нi Росія!) a "cultural" exhibition portraying another nation in extremely stereotyped, ethnophobic or even racist way would be

1) Considered a part of larger cultural event glorifying national identity.
2) Be held at all without outcry from the defenders of multiculturalism, tolerance, liberal values, self-respecting authorities, civil society and international organizations?

Perhaps in one invaded by an irredentitst, "resurgent" Russia.

Why it's incredible hard to imagine today an exhibition in London titled "Caution - Irish", where some actors in cage with labels "Do not feed" would portray "Oirish" stereotypes? Why I, personally, can not imagine such exhibition in Berlin, where there would be some Greek impersonators in cage with the label "Arbeit macht frei"?

No, it would be more like an exhibition in Dublin titled "Caution - British"

"increasingly militaristic and nationalistic" (c)

I love your writing style, you're totes edgy & original.

And why, pray tell me, for the all duration of the Ukrainian crisis, there wasn't something like that in (to use so popular in the West narrative) the "increasingly militaristic and nationalistic" (c) Russia? Why here in Moscow there were not several thousand strong crowds of rabid nationalist, chanting "Gut khohol with a knife!", "hang khohli on trees!", "let's carpet-bomb Kreshyatic!", "Ukrainians are Polish-Tatar bastards!"? Why there is no silent (or not so silent) approval of such kind of activities from the Kremlin?

Idk, perhaps because no one's invading Russia? You'd see your fair share of "rabid nationalism" of your own then. Also great association fallacy and strawman , and did you forget the anti-war/anti-putin protests in Moscow?

Сало Уронили - Героям Сала!

You're quite the handful aren't you.

[United Marxist Nations]

He hadn't fled the country at that point.

He had fled the country after he had fled the country.

Try again.

What the fuck are you talking about?! He was still in Ukraine when they had the vote.

[Gravlen]

Remind me, what was the text of the resolution passed on February 22nd?


And having fled the country, being unable and unwilling to carry out his presidential duties...

The resolution:
Restoration of 2004-2010 constitution, early presidential elections by December 2014, an investigation into the violence, a veto on imposing a state of emergency, surrendering of public buildings occupied by protesters, forfeiture of illegal weapons, new electoral laws, and a new election commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Deal Yanukovych could easily have done his part.

That happened on February 21. The question is what happened on February 22, the day after.

[United Marxist Nations]

The resolution:
Restoration of 2004-2010 constitution, early presidential elections by December 2014, an investigation into the violence, a veto on imposing a state of emergency, surrendering of public buildings occupied by protesters, forfeiture of illegal weapons, new electoral laws, and a new election commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Deal Yanukovych could easily have done his part.

That happened on February 21. The question is what happened on February 22, the day after.

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VІІ of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»
Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:

1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine. 2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.

Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada О.TURCHYNOV

[Gravlen]

He had fled the country after he had fled the country.

Try again.

What the fuck are you talking about?! He was still in Ukraine when they had the vote.

You were trying to answer my question about what the text of the resolution passed on February 22 was, by saying that he hadn't fled the country at that time? That response makes no sense either.

[Gravlen]

That happened on February 21. The question is what happened on February 22, the day after.

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VІІ of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»
Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:

1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine. 2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.

Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada О.TURCHYNOV

RESOLUTION OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE

“On self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine”

In view of the fact that the President of Ukraine has withdrawn from performing constitutional authorities, which threatens governance of the state, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, as well as mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms and proceeding from the circumstances of extreme urgency and expressing the sovereign will of Ukrainian people, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine resolves:

1. To determine that the President of Ukraine V.Yanukovych has in the non-constitutional manner withdrawn from performing constitutional powers and is the one that does not perform his duties.

2. Under clause 7 of part one of article 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine, set early elections of the President of Ukraine for May 25, 2014.

3. This Resolution comes into force on the day of its adoption.



Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine O.TURCHYNOV

Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers

So why are we then talking about unconstitutional impeachement procedures, when no impeachment procedures were taking place?

[United Marxist Nations]

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VІІ of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»
Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:

1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine. 2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.

Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada О.TURCHYNOV

RESOLUTION OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE

“On self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine”

In view of the fact that the President of Ukraine has withdrawn from performing constitutional authorities, which threatens governance of the state, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, as well as mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms and proceeding from the circumstances of extreme urgency and expressing the sovereign will of Ukrainian people, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine resolves:

1. To determine that the President of Ukraine V.Yanukovych has in the non-constitutional manner withdrawn from performing constitutional powers and is the one that does not perform his duties.

2. Under clause 7 of part one of article 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine, set early elections of the President of Ukraine for May 25, 2014.

3. This Resolution comes into force on the day of its adoption.



Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine O.TURCHYNOV

Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers

So why are we then talking about unconstitutional impeachement procedures, when no impeachment procedures were taking place?

The guy I replied to incorrectly said he was impeached.

[Gravlen]

RESOLUTION OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE

“On self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine”

In view of the fact that the President of Ukraine has withdrawn from performing constitutional authorities, which threatens governance of the state, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, as well as mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms and proceeding from the circumstances of extreme urgency and expressing the sovereign will of Ukrainian people, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine resolves:

1. To determine that the President of Ukraine V.Yanukovych has in the non-constitutional manner withdrawn from performing constitutional powers and is the one that does not perform his duties.

2. Under clause 7 of part one of article 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine, set early elections of the President of Ukraine for May 25, 2014.

3. This Resolution comes into force on the day of its adoption.



Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine O.TURCHYNOV

Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers

So why are we then talking about unconstitutional impeachement procedures, when no impeachment procedures were taking place?

The guy I replied to incorrectly said he was impeached.

To which you responded that it was unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter, the vote fell short of 75% of the members. It was unconstitutional, why else do you think they sacked the Constitutional Court Judges not long afterwards?

[Beta Test]

Jesus Christ it's like trying to argue with a brick wall. The facts are getting through to him, guys.

[United Marxist Nations]

The guy I replied to incorrectly said he was impeached.

To which you responded that it was unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter, the vote fell short of 75% of the members. It was unconstitutional, why else do you think they sacked the Constitutional Court Judges not long afterwards?

Wrong post; I said "Even if they had, the constitution requires him to have been convicted if treason for impeachment" or something to that affect.

[Saint-Thor]

Being Americain in Eastern Ukraine is not a good thing these days. Being Canadian though... is far worse, thanks to Harper. Unless you're French Canadian, apparently.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/ ... raine.html

[Gravlen]

To which you responded that it was unconstitutional.

Wrong post; I said "Even if they had, the constitution requires him to have been convicted if treason for impeachment" or something to that affect.

Regardless, we agree that he wasn't unconstitutionally impeached.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wrong post; I said "Even if they had, the constitution requires him to have been convicted if treason for impeachment" or something to that affect.

Regardless, we agree that he wasn't unconstitutionally impeached.

He was; however, unconstitutional ousted.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Being Americain in Eastern Ukraine is not a good thing these days. Being Canadian though... is far worse, thanks to Harper. Unless you're French Canadian, apparently.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/ ... raine.html

Ostrosky has balls of steel. Whenever he interviews people, he does it on a very firm, perhaps even challenging tone, whether civilians or gunmen. After all, how much do you think it'd cost them to make him disappear like so many other journalists and activists?

[Beta Test]

Regardless, we agree that he wasn't unconstitutionally impeached.

He was; however, unconstitutional ousted.

He wasn't ousted, he fled.

[United Marxist Nations]

He was; however, unconstitutional ousted.

He wasn't ousted, he fled.

He was in the country when they had the vote that is claimed ousted him.

[Gravlen]

Regardless, we agree that he wasn't unconstitutionally impeached.

He was; however, unconstitutional ousted.

Was he?

Although its constitutional foundations are not rock-solid, every effort was made to embed them in strong parliamentary foundations. On February 21st, as part of a deal with then president Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's parliament voted to reinstate amendments to the constitution, which had been made in 2004 and cancelled in 2010. These shifted the power to nominate most of the cabinet from the president to the parliament. Mr Yanukovych did not sign this resolution, and fled.

There were no constitutional provisions for this: Mr Yanukovych was neither dead nor sick, and he had not been impeached. It was in these unprecedented circumstances that Ukraine's parliament passed, on February 22nd, resolution 757-VII: "On self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine." Of the parliament's 449 members, 328 voted in favour and none against. Subsequent resolutions, all passed with huge majorities, established that the speaker of parliament would become acting president, and Oleksandr Turchynov was voted into that role.

At any rate, that brings us full circle back to the question: What's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

...which you have said you don't know, so I won't press further. The point is, even if he arguably was unconstitutionally ousted, his actions (not returning to his duties) renders the argument moot. Parliament remains unchanged, and the only thing they can do in a situation in which the president refuses to return is to appoint a temporary president and call for new elections.

[Geilinor]

He was; however, unconstitutional ousted.

Was he?

Although its constitutional foundations are not rock-solid, every effort was made to embed them in strong parliamentary foundations. On February 21st, as part of a deal with then president Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's parliament voted to reinstate amendments to the constitution, which had been made in 2004 and cancelled in 2010. These shifted the power to nominate most of the cabinet from the president to the parliament. Mr Yanukovych did not sign this resolution, and fled.

There were no constitutional provisions for this: Mr Yanukovych was neither dead nor sick, and he had not been impeached. It was in these unprecedented circumstances that Ukraine's parliament passed, on February 22nd, resolution 757-VII: "On self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine." Of the parliament's 449 members, 328 voted in favour and none against. Subsequent resolutions, all passed with huge majorities, established that the speaker of parliament would become acting president, and Oleksandr Turchynov was voted into that role.

At any rate, that brings us full circle back to the question: What's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

...which you have said you don't know, so I won't press further. The point is, even if he arguably was unconstitutionally ousted, his actions (not returning to his duties) renders the argument moot. Parliament remains unchanged, and the only thing they can do in a situation in which the president refuses to return is to appoint a temporary president and call for new elections.

This^. There's no procedure for what happened.

[Breadknife]

Meanwhile in Washington - Indian Maydan!

Cowboys, Indians, Green Groups Protest Keystone

It's a little premature to be protesting. They first need traffic cops, soldiers and construction workers to join their cause.

[Geilinor]

That happened on February 21. The question is what happened on February 22, the day after.

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VІІ of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»
Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:

1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine. 2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.

Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada О.TURCHYNOV

Yanukovych had fled because he didn't want to implement the agreement. That's what "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers" means. Refusing to do your job as the head of state or government of your country during a national crisis is plenty treasonous.

[United Marxist Nations]

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VІІ of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»
Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:

1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine. 2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.

Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada О.TURCHYNOV

Yanukovych had fled because he didn't want to implement the agreement. That's what "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers" means. Refusing to do your job as the head of state or government of your country during a national crisis is plenty treasonous.

He hadn't fled at all, he was just in another part of the country.

[Alien Space Bats]

Really, this is not a new or radical idea; indeed, it's a very old — and very well established — idea.

I understand that you are not, probably, well connected with the NATO's top brass and/or US of A government, but... did you just said that 'Murika, to use an expression, "won't give a "flying fuck" to the holy "Article 5" UNLESS some of it's "finest" would bravely fell vitcims of the supposed "invasion"? Just... splendid!

No, the use of "tripwire" forces is intended to make a hardline position more credible, as well as to make internal opposition to war less tenable. Or, in this case, to dissuade those in the Russian government who might believe that America would simply wash its hands if presented with an armed fait accompli in Eastern Europe, as well as to undermine American isolationists back home should the need for war actually arise.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone as lacking in political sophistication or any genuine understanding of statecraft and diplomacy to quite catch the nuances of such a move. In your world, Russia is the alpha dog, and all other nations had just better get and stay the fuck out of its way.

[Geilinor]

Yanukovych had fled because he didn't want to implement the agreement. That's what "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers" means. Refusing to do your job as the head of state or government of your country during a national crisis is plenty treasonous.

He hadn't fled at all, he was just in another part of the country.

He fled from performing his duties and carrying out an agreement that could stabilize the country. Yanukovych is a hypocrite and a liar. He promised he would carry out a legally-binding agreement (I presume), signed it, and then didn't follow through with it.