If true,then Ukraine's government is getting ready to run

a reply to: Rocker2013

KIEV had an elected President,by their own constitution,they were not supposed to dispose of him or their government like they did.They had already stripped said president of almost all powers,they had only to wait till their next upcoming election to vote in legally who they wanted. A coup was not in their constitution. Crimea has in the past voted to go with Russia before any of this came up.

a reply to: Dimithae

I know you aren't saying that I cherry picked,but the fact is anyway you cut it the citizens of Ukraine are not happy campers right now.

I said your source did, and even linked to the story it was most likely picked from.

a reply to: Dimithae

So what you are advocating then is the ability of 6 citizens who have their own idea on how things should go to be able to arm and force those changes on everyone else?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am currently looking them up,I have found this one and I will post it translated for those who can't translate.

fakti.org...

Home
GlobOtpor
Whitechapel, orbit?
Canada has given Jacenjuku citizenship - in case you have to leave the country

Canada has given Jacenjuku citizenship - in case you have to leave the country

06.03.2015 19:55.
6 comments
Print

Ukrainian law prohibits possession
TWO OF CITIZENSHIP AND TWO PASSPORTS

Arsenij Jacenjuk

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk received državljabstvo Canada - announced Kiev media.

A source in the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) explained to him: "Citizenship for Yatsenyuk - to guarantee the premiere Western partners for life, and the lives of his family members, if the situation in Ukraine radicalized".

This would be Jacenjukovo another nationality, but now there is no official confirmation, that his West in this way guarantee that it will be evacuated if the situation in Ukraine so much worse that Yatsenyuk and other coup plotters have to flee the country.

Canada was among the first countries to recognize Jacenjukovu after the state government to send in Kiev in February last year.

The laws of Ukraine do not allow the possession of two nationalities and two passports.

Famous Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoysky, which played a key role in the overthrow, and to finance the war against the Donbas, admitted that there were three of nationality: Ukrainian, the Cyprus and Israel. At the same time, in his style, he explained: "I did not violated. The law prohibits two citizenships, but does not prohibit three. "

Lets see what else I can find.Ah here is another

www.politnavigator.net...

And here is the translation:

Yatsenyuk received Canadian citizenship

Kyiv, March 06 (PolitNavigator, Basil Ablyazimov) - Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk recently got a second passport, obtaining Canadian citizenship.

This was reported by a source "PolitNavigatora" in the Verkhovna Rada.

Sign up for news "PolitNavigator - Kiev" in Facebook , Odnoklassniki and Vkontakte

Canada does not prohibit dual citizenship, while in Ukraine it is against the law. However, obtaining Canadian citizenship Arseniy Yatsenyuk - a guarantee from the Western partners of the life of the Prime Minister and his family, if the situation in Ukraine will go into a radical direction, believe the agency.

By the way, Canada was one of the first countries to recognize in February 2014 the government Yatsenyuk after a coup in Ukraine.

Documentary evidence of receipt Yatsenyuk dual citizenship yet, however, this phenomenon in the modern Ukrainian politics is far from unique.

More in the 2007th site "Ukrainian Truth" wrote about the Israeli citizenship of the current head of the Bloc Poroshenko , Yuri Lutsenko .

Media claimed Vitali Klitschko has German nationality. Vitali Klitschko himself strenuously denied this information .

About triple citizenship openly declared governor of Dnepropetrovsk region and the oligarch Igor Kolomoisky . Appeared in the media and data on American citizenship head of the SBU Valentin Nalyvaychenko .

Today business publication Bloomberg confirmed that the Minister of Finance of Ukraine Natalia Yaresko also has dual citizenship. The process of non-US citizens - not a momentary action and can take several years. The publication writes : "According to local law, it is forbidden to have two passports. She has several years to abandon the US. It is hard to imagine that Yaresko remain on the job for so long. " The publication confirms that, despite claims to the renunciation of citizenship, in fact, Natalia Yaresko citizen of both the United States and Ukraine.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Xcathdra

You didn't help your case with this post. You may have even helped BornAgain make hers.

Not at all.. We have bene down this Nazi BS road before and they failed to answer the question then. The portray ALL Ukrainians who don't support Russian occupation as Nazis when in fact there are more Russian Nazis / ultra Nationalists in the Russian Duma than in the Ukrainian Parliament (0).

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why are you talking about Poroshenko? This isn't about the citizens being able to have dual citizenship,this is about their officials suddenly getting it for other countries.

Im sorry when you stated Ukraine had the only leader with dual citizenship I assumed you were speaking about Porshenko. The Prime Minister is head of government in Ukraine.

Secondly as I stated before do you have any other sources to support this that don't stem from fortRus?

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why don't you call up Victoria Nuland and ask her what she thinks. Think you would get a truthfull answer out of her? I don't think so.

'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat on Ukraine

rt.com...

or the rebels who were caught on chat talking about bringing down MH17... how about "those non insignia forces in Crimea aren't Russian"?

Trying to make an argument for who is lying will fail for you.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Rocker2013

KIEV had an elected President,by their own constitution,they were not supposed to dispose of him or their government like they did.They had already stripped said president of almost all powers,they had only to wait till their next upcoming election to vote in legally who they wanted. A coup was not in their constitution. Crimea has in the past voted to go with Russia before any of this came up.

Wrong the agreement Yanukovych signed allowed it.

The elected government of Ukraine voted to impeach Yanukovych. Yanukovych then fled before they could hold the second vote to remove him from power. When he fled he gave up his position as President per the Constitution.

Crimea voted AFTER Russian military forces invaded and secured the area.

a reply to: Dimithae

A source not linked to fortrus.

What I am finding is Yatsenyuk being involved in passport requirements for people in the occupied territories in addition to restrictions placed on Russians entering Ukraine.

This smacks of nothing more than propaganda BS, trying to push the focus back on Yatsenyuk.

If and when a respectable source reports on this let me know. Other than that I don't put credence into the report, especially when its from a biased blog site.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am advocating that you let the people speak and have their say,not what the west wants and not even what Russia wants. Let Crimeans have their say,and they did.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Xcathdra

You didn't help your case with this post. You may have even helped BornAgain make hers.

So my writing style is feminine ?

a reply to: Dimithae

That's just it.. What you advocate was denied to people not wanting to live under Russian occupation.

There as no valid / lawful vote held in Crimea. Aside from Russia and 6 other countries the rest of the world says no.



I will look for the new 2015 Human Rights report for eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The report was so damning that Churkin lost what's left of his mind at the last UNSC meeting on March 6th, attacking the UNHCR rep with accusations.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dimithae

That's just it.. What you advocate was denied to people not wanting to live under Russian occupation.

There as no valid / lawful vote held in Crimea. Aside from Russia and 6 other countries the rest of the world says no.

I will look for the new 2015 Human Rights report for eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The report was so damning that Churkin lost what's left of his mind at the last UNSC meeting on March 6th, attacking the UNHCR rep with accusations.

You keep posting that stupid cartoon as if it's some kind of proof, I've asked you a number of times now...provide some real evidence for being "forced to vote at gunpoint".

a reply to: Flatcoat

I mustr of missed your post in this thread asking for that info.

As for what you think of the cartoon tell someone who cares. Its a valid representation of what occurred in Crimea. As for supporting my claim I have time and again, in this thread and others.

Russia invaded Crimea BEFORE the vote. The entire vote was held at gun point and those not supporting Russia were threatened.


Here is the UNSC meeting. The UNHCR rep briefs the representatives of what has been discovered in East Ukraine and Crimea.
UNSC Meeting: Ukraine Mar 2015

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dimithae

That's just it.. What you advocate was denied to people not wanting to live under Russian occupation.

There as no valid / lawful vote held in Crimea. Aside from Russia and 6 other countries the rest of the world says no.

I will look for the new 2015 Human Rights report for eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The report was so damning that Churkin lost what's left of his mind at the last UNSC meeting on March 6th, attacking the UNHCR rep with accusations.

You keep posting that stupid cartoon as if it's some kind of proof, I've asked you a number of times now...provide some real evidence for being "forced to vote at gunpoint".

FACT - Crimea was invaded
FACT - Crimea was in a state of turmoil
FACT - Ukraine is a sovereign nation with Crimea internationally recognized as its own
FACT - A referendum has to be conducted under international law
FACT - A referendum has to involve the COUNTRY WHICH THAT REGION IS PART OF

Listen up once and for all. You cannot have a valid "referendum" in a region of a country without the government of that country mandating it, approving it, and being involved in that process. This is CRIMINAL and it's not recognized under any international law.

You can whine and b*tch about that all you like, but it's international law and you nor Russia gets to simply ignore it and rewrite reality to excuse the invasion and theft of a chunk of another country.

Now, please stop with this obvious BS that Crimea chose legally to become part of Russia. It is blatantly impossible that this could be the case when Crimea belongs to Ukraine and NOT Russia, regardless of what you or Russia thinks.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Xcathdra

I am advocating that you let the people speak and have their say,not what the west wants and not even what Russia wants. Let Crimeans have their say,and they did.

No, you're attempting to excuse a criminal invasion and annexation of a region of a country by claiming it's self determination, while then attacking genuine and legal self determination in Kiev.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too. You deny the reality in one instance and manufacture your own in the other.

Kiev was a legal process of democratic replacement of government with a temporary continuation until an internationally recognized election occurred.
Crimea was an invasion by another nation, and a criminal "referendum" where the people voting had little option other than to obey the occupying force. This was (FACT) criminal in international law.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
You keep posting that stupid cartoon as if it's some kind of proof, I've asked you a number of times now...provide some real evidence for being "forced to vote at gunpoint".

You mean, ignoring all the Russian guns, held by Russian soldiers, with their Russian vehicles?

Sure, no guns at all!

a reply to: Rocker2013

This international law ?

In 2008 NATO and the UN signed a Secretariat Coordination Treaty that implies that NATO has become the de facto military enforcement instrument of the international body, even though NATO is not representative of UN members or their individual rights or policies. The signing of this treaty was largely omitted by most media.

Source

FACT - Most countries crap in their pants because of the above.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes "evidence". Every photo and video I've seen from before and after the referendum shows people just going to that ballot box and dropping in their vote. No guns, tanks or soldiers beating voters in the street. All subsequent polls show the vast majority are more than happy with the outcome. The observers who did attend state they saw absolutely no irregularities with the vote and no armed soldiers whatsoever. I personally don't trust anything Kiev has to say, as they've developed quite a "boy who cried wolf" reputation...the best evidence they've come up with so far for Russian military in eastern Ukraine is a photo of a tank column from 2008....says a lot for their honesty.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Flatcoat
You keep posting that stupid cartoon as if it's some kind of proof, I've asked you a number of times now...provide some real evidence for being "forced to vote at gunpoint".

You mean, ignoring all the Russian guns, held by Russian soldiers, with their Russian vehicles?

Sure, no guns at all!

Hate to get cliche, but 'pics or it didn't happen'...