I really do find it laughably ironic.
Then may I suggest you actually take an in-depth look at the claims surrounding the "coup".
* - Europe / Ukraine government sit down to resolve the issues on the conflicting agendas being put forth by the EU and by Russia. A settlement is
reached, which spells out the transition - elections in December, a return to the 2004 Constitution, a joint committee to investigate the bloodshed
that occurred in Kiev and some others. The conditions on that agreement, which was signed by the former President, stipulated an immediate return to
the 2004 constitution. There was no delay on that condition, it was immediate. It also allows Parliament the authority to appoint the deputies.
* - The return to the 2004 Constitution included all amendments that have been made. The simplified impeachment process being one of them. The
simplified process only requires a vote of parliament (like 75% in favor) in order to impeach.
People ignore the fact that the former President had been under investigation since before 2004. Mainly dealing with corruption, floating business to
close associates etc. In 2013 there was issues / investigation revolving around the former President about holding secret meetings in Russia. The
Parliament wanted more info as to what the meetings were over and never got any.
Russian media, during the 2010/2012 elections noted specifically that the change in how Parliament is elected could cause issues, since parliament
could now form a coalition that could possibly gain enough votes for impeachment. This was a concern that was discussed at length in Russian
* - Once the document was signed, Parliament held a vote recognizing the reinstatement, and then moved for an impeachment vote. The former Presidents
own party turned against him, and the vote passed with a significant amount over what the minimum requirement would be.
* - the same day of impeachment, the former President either -
* - Fled
* - Attended a meeting.
The story has gone back and forth, depending on what version of events were being used to further Putin's justifications. The former President stated
he did not flee and that he had meetings. Putin stated during his press conference the former President fled because if he did not he would have been
So you even have conflicting info from those 2.
Under Ukrainian law, once the president is out of power, it requires an election be held within 90 days. That's the reason the vote had to be moved
His removal was lawful and within the Constitution.
The issue for Putin now became how to justify taking Crimea. The issue here is Putin used the Ukrainian constitution to justify his actions while
ignoring the constitution when it did not. The official's in Crimea have done the same thing.
Had Ukraine's Constitution never have mattered to Crimea, then Crimea would have been independent / a part of Russia after the cold war. That did
not occur. The Ukrainian constitution has a section for Crimea and their self governance / constitution. The moment the Ukraine constitution was
invoked by Crimea / Putin, they undermined their argument as it served as proof Crimea was a part of Ukraine and that the Crimean authority was
derived in part from their constitution as well as Ukraine's.
Lets look at what occurred in Crimea -
* - Military forces with no insignias took control of the Crimean government. Those men removed the lawful PM who was elected by Crimean's and put
their own in place with no referendum / vote on the matter. Those actions were not only a violation of the Ukrainian constitution, they were a
violation of the Crimean constitution as well as international law / UN Charter.
* - by extension, any act the Crimean government takes is unlawful, including the vote for "independence" as well as the vote to "join" Russia.
* - to further demonstrate Crimea being a part of Ukraine deals with the military agreement to use the port for Russian naval assets. That agreement
is between Russia and Ukraine, not Russia and Crimea. While the agreement states Russia can have so many soldiers and so much equipment, there are
stipulations Russia ignored.
* - Any increase in Russian troop strength that is over the amount they had prior to the invasion, in addition to the deployment of certain weapons
etc, must be presented to Ukraine and Ukraine must agree to the numbers / equipment.
* - Russian military is prohibited from being outside their bases / prohibited from fanning out across the countryside.
Russia's / Crimean "self Defense" forces also created another legal issue that undermined their argument. The actions taken by the non insignia
troops / Russian military occurred prior to Crimean "independence", which means it is a part of Ukraine, which means an armed invasion of Ukraine