Ukraine and Russian forces engage

a reply to: jedi_hamster

under international law, as ban ki-moon has said, state of ukraine doesn't exist.

Care to provide a source for that, because it all seems to be coming from Voice of Russia.

Also according to this Russia identifies the Ukraine border, so I think you have been hoodwinked by a certain Russian media outlet.

archive.kremlin.ru...

Here in case you don't want to translate it...

Article 1

In this Agreement, the term "Russian-Ukrainian state border", hereinafter - the "frontier" or "border", refers to the line and passing along this line the vertical surface, dividing the state territory (land, water, subsoil and airspace) Contracting Party of the intersection point of the state borders of the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus to a point on the shore of the Gulf of Taganrog.

Article 2

Russian-Ukrainian state border passes as it is specified in the description of the state border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine (see Annex 1) and depicted by the solid red line on the map of the state border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine (see Annex 2).

Description and map of the state border, attached hereto, constitute an integral part thereof.

Article 3

Any natural changes that can occur in the field, do not change the position of the Russian-Ukrainian border, defined by this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed.

Article 4

Joint state borders of the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus is determined by the relevant international agreement.

Article 5

Resolving issues related to the adjacent maritime areas is carried out by agreement between the Contracting Parties in accordance with international law. Provided that nothing in this Agreement is without prejudice to the positions of the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the status of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait as inland waters between the two states.

Article 6

This Agreement is subject to ratification and shall enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification.

a reply to: crazyewok
Think it?

I suspect I do. Good point on the intermarriage and the differences in EU countries.

Thinking again, as you say, it's also likely that over the decades, the majority of Brits that think outside the British box have long since left. The gene pool has shrunk.

The results are obvious from this side of the pond.

Your feeling towards the U.S. reflect my own of the U.K. and what little respect remains of what was, despite it's flaws, a world leader. My sympathies...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok
Think it?

I suspect I do. Good point on the intermarriage and the differences in EU countries.

Thinking again, as you say, it's also likely that over the decades, the majority of Brits that think outside the British box have long since left. The gene pool has shrunk.

The results are obvious from this side of the pond.

Your feeling towards the U.S. reflect my own of the U.K. and what little respect remains of what was, despite it's flaws, a world leader. My sympathies...

Sorry that was a type I couldn't change cause of the being out of time to edit.

I was meant to put: I think again your right in some cases European have moved over to the US. And a lot of Brits are maybe not going to the USA long term but are going to Canada (Im looking at Canada myself) plus Australia is popular. I know a few that have immigrated only 1 went to the USA and hated it and came home, the rest went to Canada or Australia and never returned. I know 4 US/UK marriages and its split half half 2 couples came here and went to the USA (I Detroit of all places ) but those decisions were normally based on family.

Its bases on standard of living. Standard of living not much between US/UK, not really worth the expense of moving and annoyance of leaving friends behind. But Canada and Australia offer better standard of living so I think that's why they are more popular. As more other European country's? Italy,Spain, Greece visa into Canada and Australia if your not British.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: tanka418

The problem with the Pro Ukrankian government supporters is that when they are faced with questions they wont face the truth and admit that there beloved Ukrankian government is the one whom lied about the Convoy attack fabricated news story.

As for the claims that they had released a video showing of an destroyed armed truck, they have to do better then showing ONE truck destroyed.

Ok let us follow a simple trail here. Repoters see a bunch of Armor and APCs cross the Russian border, not long after Ukraine says its artillery has destroyed part of a Russian column of Armor and APCS, not long after the Pro Russian rebels hail the arrivale of armor, APCs and volunteers from Russia. So in your mind none of this happened? Because the time line of their encounters with it and the make up of the column from 3 different parties match. So in your opinion the repoters, Ukraine and the Rebels are all working together to make it look like Russia has been sending in men and equipment for the rebels. You know I bet by the end of this you will be teling us the rebels never were pro Russia and they were just Ukrianes creation to attempt to smear Russia. You can have that one from me. Your going to need it.

a reply to: MrSpad

the trail is really simple.

indeed.

so simple.

almost like somebody laid it out for you to see.

...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MessageforAll

They have provided satellite images... Pro Russians dismiss them.

Where?!???

I don't seem to be finding images, only talk.

The maybe you should stop talking and actually read whats put out. That seems to be a problem on the pro Russian side. You guys talk so much you miss things.

Oh, you should have just said there are no such images...thanks anyway.

And the rebel leader is a liar as well I assume?

Jeez! I was just asking for images and perhaps some additional info so I can decide for myself.

I guess y'all want to decide for me? Except, that ain't gonna work slim. I look at the data and decide for myself, right, wrong, or otherwise.

Typically, I find that those who insist so strongly, especially without evidence, are trying to "pull the wool" over everyone's eyes.

Now, if you please, some freakin' links to real image data.

Yeah, good luck with that. It's seems that hearsay is more than good enough for the Russia-bashers. Although that apparently only works one-way.......

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: tanka418

The problem with the Pro Ukrankian government supporters is that when they are faced with questions they wont face the truth and admit that there beloved Ukrankian government is the one whom lied about the Convoy attack fabricated news story.

As for the claims that they had released a video showing of an destroyed armed truck, they have to do better then showing ONE truck destroyed.

Ok let us follow a simple trail here. Repoters see a bunch of Armor and APCs cross the Russian border, not long after Ukraine says its artillery has destroyed part of a Russian column of Armor and APCS, not long after the Pro Russian rebels hail the arrivale of armor, APCs and volunteers from Russia. So in your mind none of this happened?

Ya kow what?!?? In my mind none of this happened, very simply, because you have not provided any evidence.

You claim images; where are they?
You claim reports; where are they?

From your language attempting to describe the events of the "incursion"; it makes me wonder if you were ever in the military. You don't seem to understand the problems, and issues with ballistic shelling...

I came all up in here wanting to find out something that at least began to approach the truth, the reality of what is going on; all you have done in muddy the water. And, unfortunately, your attempts at explanation have failed, presumably because you have not enough experience with a real world situation like this to be able to understand the mechanics...

So, again, without any personal interpretations; is it possible to actually get and view some sort of real evidence. Or is that just in your imagination?

Seriously yall; all I want is real, verifiable, data...I don't care what it says, I just want to read it, examine it, try to understand.

Oh, and by the way; "RT" is doing a far superior job of reporting this than anything in the "west"!

a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for the clarification. There is an immigration problem in the U.S.- currently 1 million per year- and that only counts the legal....oops, 'documented' immigrants. When one adds in with the undocumented boys, it does drive wages down significantly and that affects the standard of living.

The Canadian Gov't has done a far better job of managing the money, so to speak, and actually have a surplus this year. (Assuming the books haven't been cooked). It does help to have the added revenue from resource exports that Canada and Australia enjoy as well.

There is regional differences as well. I spend a fair amount of time in British Columbia and live in Washington State-100 yards from the border.LOL

Wages are lower in Washington but so are expenses and taxes. When medical costs are factored in, it's real close, standard of living wise, between the two, IMO.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think whats put some that moved to canada over the US I know was education. They didnt want to send there kids to a US school. It why the 2 American wifes I know stayed in the UK too.

I guess standard of living wise it doesnt differ much between any of us. Think whats got some of us moving to canada is property prices are high here. Its why I really had to think when offered a permenent job in Chicargo. A bigger house though didnt seem worth moving away from freinds and family.

a reply to: crazyewok

Makes sense.

When the financial considerations are not 'huge' then culture and comfort zones come into play.

I will cede England's education system is far superior to any in North America.

My daughter went to private school-U.S. version- and my grand children are home schooled.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

i never said they don't recognize ukraine's borders. everyone does, more or less.

but yes, while many smaller media outlets were parotting that story (mbc times for example it seems), it looks like it's a fake, so i stand corrected on this one.

www.stopfake.org...

it was more of an irony though, pointed at all that 'international law' crap. the rest of my post stands. kinda pathetic, when you can only attack a little bit of irony while cannot dispute the fact they broke the ukrainian constitution with the support of the west. or can you?

you cannot. i read that constitution. i've checked the facts. the current so called government in kiev IS illegal.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

and you would be wrong in thinking the government was illegal.

Even Russian media has showed the government in Kiev is lawful and that Yanukovych removal was lawful as well. Its been posted a few times now yet I see people ignore it when it doesn't fit their RT agendas.

The government (Parliament) of Ukraine was elected in December 2012. That election was accepted by Russia. Russian media noted as far back as 2004 that changes to the Ukraine Constitution, specifically the streamlined impeachment process, could pose a threat to Yanukovych should political parties in Ukraine unite to meet the required elements.

one of those elements is corruption, which Yanukovych was not only charged with, he was found guilty, resulting in new elections in the 2004 elections. The investigation procedure was laid out and was followed by Ukraine's parliament.

If you take the time to read the agreement where Yanukovych stated he would step down for elections, you will note the return to the previous constitution would take affect in 48 hours, upon it being signed by the head of parliament, which occurred.

Once the criteria was met, a vote was held to impeach Yanukovych, which was supported by the required constitutional majority under Ukraine's constitution.

When there is no President, Ukraine's constitution requires elections be held within 90 days, which they were. The newly elected government in Kiev now was recognized by Russia.

Just so we are on the same page -
Ukraine's elections in 2012 were lawful and recognized by Russia.
Ukraine's Presidential election in 2014 to replace Yanukovych were recognized by Russia.

So this crap about violating the Constitution in the manner you present is false. However, even ignoring Russia's invasion of Ukraine/Crimea, the action Crimea took not only violated Ukraine's constitution, it violated Crimea's constitution. Something I notice you and others ignore.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: MrSpad

there's a possibility that it's a set up.
previous rebel leader stepped down, reasons unknown.
current one trashes russia, reasons unknown.

there's just one question one has to ask about this whole situation: WTF?

russia being forced to act is rebels wet dream. they will rather risk getting putin pissed just to get the slightest chance of becoming part of russia than fight to survive to no end, because surely as hell they can't win without russian troops openly moving in. they won't loose, but they can't win either.

They are not trashing Russia. They are grateful for the support and are simply saying as much.

they are saying they got support coming from russian territory.

lets assume there's no conspiracy to that, and that said statement is what it is. they've claimed that the soldiers WERE TRAINED at the russian soil.

were trained.
for months.
before being sent to ukraine.

why the hell would kremlin need to train their active duty military before sending them to ukraine?
did the rebels say that putin sent them? that kremlin did? there are many people in russia supporting those rebels. some are even willing to go to the ukraine, grab the guns and fight with the mafia from kiev. and they do.

it looks far more like a private military force being sent from russia to ukraine, probably backed by russian ex-military folks having families in ukraine. there's no proof they're backed by russian government in any way, nor does that rebel's statement say so as far as i know.

of course, putin obviously isn't against such moves, but can you really blame him? ukrainian civilians go through the russian border - they are being helped. ukrainian military runs through the russian border - they are being helped and sent back to ukraine with no repercussions nor accusations from russia. russians living in ukraine for a long time are being killed for being russians - other russians want to help them so they cross the border with some equipment and privately trained people - and putin should stop them? would you?

perhaps he should close the border altogether and let those pissed off rebels and civilians handle the next 'brave ukrainian military squad' trying to run across the border?

what rebels said is one thing.
how western propaganda interprets it and presents it, is something entirely different.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: jedi_hamster
Once the criteria was met, a vote was held to impeach Yanukovych, which was supported by the required constitutional majority under Ukraine's constitution.

that is a lie. simple as that.
care to prove otherwise?

it's not the first time we clash on this issue. you seem to have short memory.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

funny, how everyone changed the subject back then.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

A lie, you say? Care to prove that?

One link

Two links

Three links

Four

From a variety of different sources - the second discusses whether it was strictly "legal", but also points out that Yanukovych did resign himself, only to retract it and it is confusing which of the several Constitutions Ukraine is supposed to be following - there have been a few over the years.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster


that is a lie. simple as that.
care to prove otherwise?

Uhm no sorry its not - try again

The agreement signed by the former President and the parliament, in addition to calling for new elections, immediately reverted back the 2004 Constitution (and by immediate, it means just that. There was no time frame for it and there was no law needed. It became effective once the agreement was signed).

Under the 2004 Constitution, it allowed for impeachment using the existing language as well as a streamlined process, which is the part that people are not familiar with.

Voice of Russia - Constitutional reform may downgrade Yanukovych to figurehead president -

Ukraine’s MPs are due to take up drafts constitutional reform today, the drafts that have been prepared by the Batkivshchina and UDAR party factions. The opposition insists on a return to the constitution of 2004 and on setting limits on presidential powers. Meanwhile, the EU Foreign Ministers are due to meet in Brussels this Monday to discuss the situation in Ukraine. Sweden and Poland will come up with their proposals on changing the stand on Ukraine.


Besides a return to the old constitution, the drafts provide for a simplified system of impeachment and voting, and also deprive the President of any role to play in the Constitutional Court lineup. The opposition feels the Court should be formed by the MPs and a congress of Ukraine’s judges. Unlike the constitution of 2004, which restricted presidential powers, the currently presented draft actually turns Yanukovych into a figurehead President, says the Director of the Institute for Strategic Planning, Alexander Gusev, and elaborates.

“The changes under discussion will largely trim the presidential powers, reducing his function to receiving credentials from foreign Ambassadors. The President’s duties will boil down to representing Ukraine during receptions. He will de facto stop being Head of State, with all powers due to be transferred to Parliament”.

How do we know the 2004 return and simplified impeachment is valid?

Voice of Russia - Ukraine: Yanukovych signs deal on ending crisis, Rada reinstates 2004 Constitution

The following is the text of the agreement signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders in the presence of EU envoys to end the ex-Soviet country's three-month crisis.

1. Within 48 hours of the signing of this agreement, a special law will be adopted, signed and promulgated, which will restore the Constitution of 2004 including amendments passed until now. Signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter.

2. Constitutional reform, balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament, will start immediately and be completed in September 2014.

3. Presidential elections will be held as soon as the new Constitution is adopted but no later than December 2014. New electoral laws will be passed and a new Central Election Commission will be formed on the basis of proportionality and in accordance with the OSCE & Venice commission rules.

4. Investigation into recent acts of violence will be conducted under joint monitoring from the authorities, the opposition and the Council of Europe.

5. The authorities will not impose a state of emergency. The authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence.

*** A portion was removed by me as it dealt with actions taken under part 5 - the link has the full text ***

6. The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Poland and the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation call for an immediate end to all violence and confrontation.

The simplified impeachment process was valid and lawful under the Ukrainian Constitution.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has announced that, to settle the crisis in Ukraine, he will initiate the reinstatement of the 2004 constitution and call early presidential elections. He also called for starting the procedure of forming a government of national confidence. "I am announcing steps that need to be made in order to restore peace and avoid more victims of the standoff," Yanukovych said in a statement available on the presidential website on Friday.

"These tragic days when Ukraine has taken the gravest losses and when people has died my duty is to state that human lives are very important. We should do our best to take joint steps to restore peace in Ukraine," Yanukovych said.

"I declare the steps that should be taken to restore calm and avoid new victims," the Ukrainian president said.

"I state that I initiate early presidential elections and return the 2004 Constitution by redistributing powers from the president to the parliament," Yanukovych said.

Yes the return to the 2004 Constitution was valid / lawful.
Yes the impeachment using the simplified process from the 2004 Constitution was valid / lawful.
The impeachment process followed the law as the bill was introduced by Parliament, and was actually authored by Nikolay Rudkovskiy, head of the Socialist Party in Ukraine, which is part of the ruling Party of Regions coalition. The Party of Regions was the party of former President Yanukovych.

Since people have issues using western sources, the above are all Russian sources. The Constitutional changes were discussed by Russian media in 2010/20/12, noting the changes in how parliament was elected would most likely result in parties coming together to impeach the former President. He had been under investigation for a few years prior to all the mess we have now over corruption charges.

Finally - Library of Congress - Ukraine: Simplified Impeachment Procedures - Link 1
Library of Congress - Ukraine: Simplified Impeachment Procedures - Link 2

a reply to: Xcathdra

(Feb 03, 2009) On January 15, 2009, the Ukrainian legislature, the Verkhovna Rada, adopted the Law on Special Temporary Investigative Commissions, which simplifies the procedure for the legislative body to impeach the President. Previously, the impeachment procedure could be initiated on the basis of a petition signed by three-quarters of the parliamentarians. The new Law provides that the formation of a Special Investigative Commission is the formal beginning of the impeachment process. Such a Commission must be formed upon the request of a simple majority of the Rada's members. The original sponsors of a bill on the creation of a Special Investigative Commission cannot recall their signatures and withdraw the proposed bill. Legal justification and evidential materials must accompany the bill. The Law requires the Commission to finish its investigation within a three-month period, although the first report must be submitted to the Rada no later than at the end of the second month of its work. If the Commission's conclusion is supported by the Rada, the case will be submitted to the Supreme and Constitutional Courts.

A Commission is formed from among Members of the Rada who represent the existing parliamentary factions proportionally, plus a special prosecutor and three special investigators. Members of the Rada can be appointed as the special prosecutor and as the investigators. (Rada Simplified the Impeachment Procedure,GAZETA.RU, Jan. 15, 2009, available at www.gazeta.ru...)

Author: Peter Roudik More by this author

Topic: Legislative power More on this topic

Jurisdiction: Ukraine More about this jurisdiction

Gazeta - Russian-
**The article below was translated using the microsofttranslator program.

Rada has simplified the procedure of impeachment

01/15/2009 19:23 | Ria "Novosti"

The Verkhovna Rada adopted the draft law on the ad hoc investigatory commissions, which simplifies the procedure of impeachment of the President.

The adoption of law 408 Lawmakers voted 226 votes required. In Parliament recently, repeatedly sounded calls for impeachment of President Viktor Yushchenko. To declare impeachment requires the support of three-fourths of the constitutional composition of the Parliament, in which 450 places.

A bill on the special temporary investigative commissions supported 171 of 175 deputies from the party of regions faction, 155 of the 156 deputies from the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, 36 of the 72 members of the pro-presidential faction "Our Ukraine-people's Self-Defense bloc, all 27 Communists and 19 of 20 deputies of the faction of the bloc of Lytvyn.

The Bill regulates the legal status and operating procedure of commissions of inquiry for impeachment proceedings.

Helpfully this clears up the confusion some have on the Constitution of Ukraine, impeachment and its lawfulness.

a reply to: tanka418

This kind of post annoys me - someone says something and, instead of getting off your arse and looking it up yourself, you sit their with your fingers in your ears saying "La-La-La, no pictures, didn't happen, La-La-La"..

Personally, I like to check everything everyone says, even if it is something I don't believe or want to acknowledge. For some though, it seems they are happy to look up what they agree with, but simply point blank refuse to even look at anything that may be against their beliefs.

In this day and age, it would be simple for you to verify from a variety of sources what other posters say and, if incorrect, you could call them out on it. As it stands though we see, from your side, just more of the same absolute denial with almost nothing to back up your side, yet you demand CSI levels of "evidence" from the other side, which you'll promptly ignore anyway.

a reply to: Xcathdra

there's only one HUGE problem with this.
"Within 48 hours of the signing of this agreement, a special law will be adopted, signed and promulgated [...]".

yes, he did sign the agreement.
yes, they've voted on returning to the 2004 constitution.
but yanukovych did NOT sign it.

that means the whole impeachment procedure should go with the respect to the old constitution.
also, the link you've pasted about simplified impeachment procedure, says about investigation and all that - the only thing it changes, is the required majority to start the investigation, but there's no word about the voting required (or not) AFTER the investigation is completed. i would like to see a direct translation of that constitution, because that's not what you've provided. not that it matters, since simplified procedure wasn't in place anyway.

and they didn't even follow the simplified procedure, just made it look so for the media. was there any investigation? anything? just a voting to kick him out and next thing you hear from the very officials that made it happen, were calls to hunt him down. it's damn interesting that the single thing they've chosen to uphold to from that deal supported by the EU, was the change of the consitution so they can more easily kick him out - but yanukovych screwed them over by not signing that change of the constitution. everything else was flushed down the toilet. it also puts in new light words of the foreign minister of my country (poland) - "sign it or you'll be all dead".

a reply to: stumason

well, from your very own link:
www.rferl.org...

But a legal gap remains. According to the terms of an EU-brokered peace deal finalized on February 21, Yanukovych was due to sign a measure returning Ukraine to its 2004 constitution. (In 2010, Yanukovych restored the country's 1996 constitution, which hands greater power to the presidency.)

Yanukovych, however, failed to sign the measure.

and

The 1996 and the 2004 constitutions are uniform when it comes to the reasons for removing a president

so here we have it. some claim the impeachment procedure was simplified, some claim it was not, the truth is that even if it was, yanukovych didn't sign it so such law wasn't in place, and even if it would be, they didn't even follow that simplified procedure correctly, and certainly not the one that was in charge.

try harder, boys.

a reply to: stumason

and about retracting his own statement - that statement wasn't binding by law, which i've explained already in that other thread. i'll post it again, since you've missed it it seems.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

he didn't say it in person at the meeting, so according to the constitution, it didn't happen. that's the law.