Ukraine in Turmoil. Fears of East/West Schism. Russia Talking to East UA. Updates!

jedi_hamster
you know why they've armed themselves? so that noone will ask any questions when they remove yanukovytch from the office.

This is one of the pictures I was talking about earlier.

the image is from Getty Images, and their website does not identify this person as either a protestor nor as a government official.

Speculating on a photo in an effort to support a personal narrative is problematic.

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

reply to post by Xcathdra


i was refering to the statement, not to the picture itself.

jedi_hamster

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

Actually, if you are making a claim, you are the one who needs to back it up with documents.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

Thank you. It seems to me that Yanukovytch broke his oath of office in detail. It is fair to assume that his attempted flight was a de facto resignation.

DJW001

jedi_hamster

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

Actually, if you are making a claim, you are the one who needs to back it up with documents.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

Thank you. It seems to me that Yanukovytch broke his oath of office in detail. It is fair to assume that his attempted flight was a de facto resignation.

no, it is not.
resignation has to happen in specific circumstances, as written in the constitution.

also, if he broke his oath, that's what impeachment is for. they did NOT follow the rules.
so his removal from the office was illegal.

unless you're suggesting that a president cannot take a flight abroad without resignation. even if that would be true (and it is not), you've failed to mention that his attempted flight happened AFTER he was removed from the office (illegally). that's the only reason why he was stopped after all. as a president, he has immunity.

nice attempt at twisting the facts. fail, though.

reply to post by daaskapital


It's a no win situation. Either way will leave Ukraine with a president with interests abroad and not at home. Either it's Russia's interests or "the West's" interests.

I feel for the majority of the Ukrainians. I hope this doesn't end up like Germany and a new wall.

jedi_hamster

DJW001

jedi_hamster

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

Actually, if you are making a claim, you are the one who needs to back it up with documents.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

Thank you. It seems to me that Yanukovytch broke his oath of office in detail. It is fair to assume that his attempted flight was a de facto resignation.

no, it is not.
resignation has to happen in specific circumstances, as written in the constitution.

also, if he broke his oath, that's what impeachment is for. they did NOT follow the rules.
so his removal from the office was illegal.

unless you're suggesting that a president cannot take a flight abroad without resignation. even if that would be true (and it is not), you've failed to mention that his attempted flight happened AFTER he was removed from the office (illegally). that's the only reason why he was stopped after all. as a president, he has immunity.

nice attempt at twisting the facts. fail, though.

edit on 23-2-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)

Ukraine reverted back to the 2004 Constitution. Is that the one you are using to base your argument?

jedi_hamster

DJW001

jedi_hamster

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

Actually, if you are making a claim, you are the one who needs to back it up with documents.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

Thank you. It seems to me that Yanukovytch broke his oath of office in detail. It is fair to assume that his attempted flight was a de facto resignation.

no, it is not.
resignation has to happen in specific circumstances, as written in the constitution.

also, if he broke his oath, that's what impeachment is for. they did NOT follow the rules.
so his removal from the office was illegal.

unless you're suggesting that a president cannot take a flight abroad without resignation. even if that would be true (and it is not), you've failed to mention that his attempted flight happened AFTER he was removed from the office (illegally). that's the only reason why he was stopped after all. as a president, he has immunity.

nice attempt at twisting the facts. fail, though.

edit on 23-2-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)

I think you need to read this:
www.kyivpost.com...

On the Ukrainian Constitution.

Like everyone here, I am no expert on the Ukrainian Constitution, but the Article 108 of the said says the President can only be "terminated" in cases of 1) resignation; 2) inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health; 3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment; 4) death.

However, those sneaky Ukrainian parliamentarians voted to reinstate the old 2004 Constitution before the presidential powers were increased, thus allowed them to kick him out of office. The ex President has apparently complained that it is unconstitutional because he has not signed anything. I guess sometimes one has to be unconstitutional to stop the march to autocracy.

This is an interesting approach which will doubtlessly get all the Constitutional lawyers the world over excited and moist. However it is where we are and perhaps a period of calm will prevail.

It should be noted that the increases in the Ukrainian presidential authority in recent years has alarmed some groups who have pointed out that Ukraine was shifting towards the presidential autocracy role so exemplified by their Russian neighbour. It seems that march has been stopped.

Regards

jedi_hamster

TritonTaranis

Agent_USA_Supporter
For those supporting the peaceful protesters here's another picture of them holding arms i am quite sure they are very peacefully.

This is truly a Dark Day For Ukraine as fascism takes over and while here cheer with it.

edit on 22-2-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Oh please

Get a grip those people armed themselves for a very good reasons, and that's because these governments will be FORCED of the streets and not HEARD

Are you also one of these fool who believes the same happened In Syria, it's like you're purposely ignoring the fact both these East west clashes on Syria and Ukraine started of as peaceful protests and as in Syria those people was also shot at at the request of Putins Mafia

The Ukrainians crystal are no different than Syrias, Syria is a Sunni majority under a minority rule, not to mention a Russia puppet in the ME, Ukraine is in favour of European and again of course Russia and Putin mafia can't be having that can they,

Russia doesn't care about the voice of the people In Syria and Ukraine, it cares about putins new soviet empire and will flood each country with advanced arms to its sympathisers

It's also no different to those in the United States who still sided with there british motherland ....

Let the games begin but history is on both Syria and Ukraine side and those people will get there wish

ukraine in favor of EU? highly doubt that. they just need money, and they're desperate to get it. criminals that took over the country with violence, are probably even blackmailing those in the eastern ukraine - i don't know how otherwise pro-russian so far politicians from that region may suddenly change their stance - so that everyone supports their cause, which is 'get to EU, please brussels and get their money to have something to steal'.

you know why they've armed themselves? so that noone will ask any questions when they remove yanukovytch from the office.

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

the current EU-sponsored mafia trying to rule ukraine is a bunch of thugs and criminals and their actions are ILLEGAL.
russia knows this, everyone knows this. as such, EU and USA are supporting a coup, not a peaceful, democratic change.

this is all BS and EU will pay for this.

Lol

Just lol

Have you seen the size of the peaceful protests before hand? Are you blind? Are you in denial? Because It sure seems so...

The government is in favour of closer ties with Russia THE PEOPLE are NOT it is Russia who are palling up and bribing government officials in Ukraine and they have let it be know on many occasions there intentions of building a new union, the EU has otherwise done nothing and the same goes for the US

So are you saying the EU and the US is brainwashing the Ukraine people or do they have FREE WILL ? Regardless of you BS laws broken a country gets to decide it own future not a pro east government I. Bed with the Russian mafia, the people do t want it and the EU and the US have every right, as I Syria to help the people of Syria achieve this

If those protested just like in Syria did not take up arms and shoot back there revolutions and protests would be swept to the side by the heavy handed governments in bed with Russia SIMPLE ...

You can twist it how you like but you'll never ever see Ukraine fall back under the control of putins mafia or a new Soviet Union, the EU and US and most importantly the Ukrainian people fighting to be heard will without doubt win there freedoms and wishes to be heard

And also the Saudis and Qatar will run Russia into a financial black hole in Syria while western powers make a killing selling arms to the Saudis and fellow Sunni Muslim countries who suppose the Sunni majority ousting there minority government in power which is taking orders from putins mafia

For Russia it's lose lose, except it and move along

Xcathdra

jedi_hamster

DJW001

jedi_hamster

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

Actually, if you are making a claim, you are the one who needs to back it up with documents.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

Thank you. It seems to me that Yanukovytch broke his oath of office in detail. It is fair to assume that his attempted flight was a de facto resignation.

no, it is not.
resignation has to happen in specific circumstances, as written in the constitution.

also, if he broke his oath, that's what impeachment is for. they did NOT follow the rules.
so his removal from the office was illegal.

unless you're suggesting that a president cannot take a flight abroad without resignation. even if that would be true (and it is not), you've failed to mention that his attempted flight happened AFTER he was removed from the office (illegally). that's the only reason why he was stopped after all. as a president, he has immunity.

nice attempt at twisting the facts. fail, though.

edit on 23-2-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)

Ukraine reverted back to the 2004 Constitution. Is that the one you are using to base your argument?

i couldn't find a translation of the one from 2004, but as far as impeachment laws go, those haven't changed.
en.wikipedia.org...
if you have any source stating otherwise though, i'm interested to see it.

DJW001

jedi_hamster

DJW001

jedi_hamster

DJW001
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

read ukraine's constitution. see with your own eyes how many laws they have broken.

Why not post a link to an English translation and point out what laws were actually broken?

why not google it yourself? if you're asking someone to do your research, you shouldn't be posting here.

Actually, if you are making a claim, you are the one who needs to back it up with documents.

the whole removal of yanukovytch from the office is illegal. they could do it, but they didn't follow the impeachment procedure at all, and he didn't announce his resignation either.

is.gd...
(web archive - for some reason, the original website fails to open)

article 109 and 111 - neither of those happened. according to the law then, yanukovytch is still a democratically elected president of the ukraine.

Thank you. It seems to me that Yanukovytch broke his oath of office in detail. It is fair to assume that his attempted flight was a de facto resignation.

no, it is not.
resignation has to happen in specific circumstances, as written in the constitution.

also, if he broke his oath, that's what impeachment is for. they did NOT follow the rules.
so his removal from the office was illegal.

unless you're suggesting that a president cannot take a flight abroad without resignation. even if that would be true (and it is not), you've failed to mention that his attempted flight happened AFTER he was removed from the office (illegally). that's the only reason why he was stopped after all. as a president, he has immunity.

nice attempt at twisting the facts. fail, though.

edit on 23-2-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)

I think you need to read this:
www.kyivpost.com...

they should establish a special ad hoc investigating commission - they did not.
and even if they would:

The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with the procedure of impeachment shall be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by at least three-quarters of its constitutional membership upon a review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and upon a receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine t 1000 o the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime.

328 votes are not enough.

besides, they keep saying that yanukovych agreed to resign, then backtracked, and so on and so forth. their word is worth NOTHING according to the law.

Article 109. The resignation of the President of Ukraine shall enter into force from the moment when he personally announces the statement of resignation at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

if he didn't say it in person at the meeting, according to the law it didn't happen.

this whole voting is BS, it's a coup legalized by the EU and their propaganda machine, so that noone says 'wait a minute' to check the facts.

and the fact is, there's nothing legal in what they did.

reply to post by paraphi


that change doesn't change the laws of impeachment as far as i know.

reply to post by TritonTaranis


i'm not saying ukrainian people were happy with their government.
i'm just saying that EU used that to spin it out of proportion by backing up a relatively small group of extremely right-wing thugs, that are by no mean representants of the people of ukraine nor their will.

they are serving noone but themselves. so is (and was) tymoshenko. so are those criminals in the office right now.

it's a EU-backed coup, nothing else. they couldn't stand yanukovych turning his back on them, because he saw a greater future for ukraine in relations with russia (count the billions of dollars putin was willing to give to ukraine, check how well countries like greece ended up thanks to EU and you'll see that it wasn't as crazy as you may think).

people of ukraine weren't that pissed off at his pro-russian stance as they were on overall corruption. many of them were - and still are - pro-russian. you won't see them in the western media though. those are only showing well armed thugs posing as national heroes.

jedi_hamster
that change doesn't change the laws of impeachment as far as i know.

Well, like you, I am no Constitutional lawyer. The point is that it has happened and the lawyers will doubtless have their day, but working with the current reality there appears to be an appetite for real political change in Ukraine.

jedi_hamster
it's a EU-backed coup, nothing else.

You make that assertion, but there is no evidence that this is the case. I see the EU issue as a catalyst, but Ukraine has been meandering in this direction for years with the gradual increase in Presidential powers. The last minute cancellation by (ex) President Yanukovych of the proposed Ukraine / EU trade deal just pushed too many buttons of those in Ukraine who look West.

Lastly, the thought of the EU backing a coup is laughable. The EU cannot organise the proverbial pissup in a brewery.

Regards

reply to post by jedi_hamster


Question about the voting you highlighted. What does it say about the voting when it comes to members who do not vote / abstain?

If a vote is scheduled, and only 300 members out of 1000 show up to vote (because the others refused / failed to show), is the voting majority the basis or no?

Like the UN security council, if nations refuse to vote / abstain, a resolution can still be passed.

paraphi

jedi_hamster
that change doesn't change the laws of impeachment as far as i know.

Well, like you, I am no Constitutional lawyer. The point is that it has happened and the lawyers will doubtless have their day, but working with the current reality there appears to be an appetite for real political change in Ukraine.

jedi_hamster
it's a EU-backed coup, nothing else.

You make that assertion, but there is no evidence that this is the case. I see the EU issue as a catalyst, but Ukraine has been meandering in this direction for years with the gradual increase in Presidential powers. The last minute cancellation by (ex) President Yanukovych of the proposed Ukraine / EU trade deal just pushed too many buttons of those in Ukraine who look West.

Lastly, the thought of the EU backing a coup is laughable. The EU cannot organise the proverbial pissup in a brewery.

Regards

that trade deal would be a huge direct hit to russia. you may want to do your own research before judging his decission.

also, of course there are pro-EU people in the ukraine, the eastern half is pro-russian though. as i've said many times, you cannot blame all those events on ukrainian people being unhappy with their government. peaceful protest turned into a bloody mess, armed thugs were attacking and killing police officers and you think it's just about ukrainian people willing so badly to be part of the mighty EU, so they can share the fate of greece?

do you really think they're that stupid?

also, you're underestimating EU. few influential people in ukrainian opposition, few thugs, a little bit of money and weapons, and mostly - propaganda in western media, and it's a done deal. if you can't see it, you're blind.

EU has as much to gain from installing their puppet government in ukraine as russia has to loose.
and for power, they'll do everything.

Xcathdra
reply to post by jedi_hamster

 

Question about the voting you highlighted. What does it say about the voting when it comes to members who do not vote / abstain?

If a vote is scheduled, and only 300 members out of 1000 show up to vote (because the others refused / failed to show), is the voting majority the basis or no?

Like the UN security council, if nations refuse to vote / abstain, a resolution can still be passed.

'three-quarters of its constitutional membership'

so of all the seats. if someone doesn't show up, it's a lost vote.

reply to post by daaskapital



Similar to 1968, and I think the Russians will again respond with tanks at some point.

jedi_hamster
that trade deal would be a huge direct hit to russia. you may want to do your own research before judging his decission.

Ah, try not to assume that people who have a different view than you have not done the research. The trade agreement was primarily the removal of import/export restrictions and tariffs. Most pundits consider it would have benefitted Ukraine.

Russia is terribly worried that they will eventually lose influence in Ukraine and they have previously made it clear that they would not tolerate Ukraine developing closer links with NATO and the EU. As Ukraine is an independent state it can do what it chooses, but perhaps the actual or perceived meddling by the Russians is unhelpful and just serving to consolidate opinion away from Russia.

jedi_hamster
few influential people in ukrainian opposition, few thugs, a little bit of money and weapons, and mostly - propaganda in western media, and it's a done deal. if you can't see it, you're blind.

Try not to fall into the trap of being blinkered by your perception of reality. The vast majority of demonstrators were displaying frustrations with the politicians, including the cancellation of the trade deal with the EU, but also corruption, nepotism and a host of other grievances. It only turned violent when (ex) President Yanukovich decided to push through repressive laws curtailing the ability of people to protest. You can call them thugs – and I am sure many were – but name calling hardly changes reality.

Regards

paraphi

jedi_hamster
that trade deal would be a huge direct hit to russia. you may want to do your own research before judging his decission.

Ah, try not to assume that people who have a different view than you have not done the research. The trade agreement was primarily the removal of import/export restrictions and tariffs. Most pundits consider it would have benefitted Ukraine.

Russia is terribly worried that they will eventually lose influence in Ukraine and they have previously made it clear that they would not tolerate Ukraine developing closer links with NATO and the EU. As Ukraine is an independent state it can do what it chooses, but perhaps the actual or perceived meddling by the Russians is unhelpful and just serving to consolidate opinion away from Russia.

jedi_hamster
few influential people in ukrainian opposition, few thugs, a little bit of money and weapons, and mostly - propaganda in western media, and it's a done deal. if you can't see it, you're blind.

Try not to fall into the trap of being blinkered by your perception of reality. The vast majority of demonstrators were displaying frustrations with the politicians, including the cancellation of the trade deal with the EU, but also corruption, nepotism and a host of other grievances. It only turned violent when (ex) President Yanukovich decided to push through repressive laws curtailing the ability of people to protest. You can call them thugs – and I am sure many were – but name calling hardly changes reality.

Regards

if you've done your research, you're perfectly aware of the trading agreement between ukraine and russia and the result that trading agreement with EU would have, right? also, ukraine is basically bankrupt. it doesn't stand a chance confronted with western capitalism. the only side that would benefit from that, would be EU.

think, who's pushing for the EU? tymoshenko.
whom EU wanted out of the jail? tymoshenko.
and what did she do that she ended up in jail in the first place?
rings a bell?

and yeah, name calling doesn't change the reality. the reality you seem to be oblivious to:
- police officers used rubber bullets until the protesters started using guns
- those 'peaceful protesters' were throwing molotovs and bricks at the police, and were shooting them
- they've stopped a bus full of tourists from my country (poland), set it on fire and told them that either they'll shout what they're told or they'll all die in flames

they ARE thugs. criminals. bunch of extremely right-wing nationalists, that only waited for an occassion to take over the country in turmoil. EU gave them that opportunity. a backing, a green light for the politicians behind those thugs, that when they'll take over, they will have the support of the west.

unless you think that they would do all this, including breaking the constitution by throwing out yanukovych without respect to the impeachment laws, without knowing in advance that the EU will support their move.
in such case, you're extremely delusional.

if they would have that green light from the west earlier, it would all happen long time ago. but it didn't, because EU gave them green light just now, when there are olympics and russian intervention seems less likely.

they wouldn't risk doing anything without the support of the west though. they may be a bunch of thugs for the average ukrainian, but for putin they're just cockroaches, and they're well aware of that.

My post from another thread:
"Ukraine is splitting apart. East of the country cannot recognize any government who put itself in parliament without election. Eastern regions already decided they will manage things without Kiev until the elected government gets in there and not the one, who got in with weapons and without elections. The problem for the opposition is that those regions are the 'money makers' in Ukraine, so opposition will find itself in front of a mob without money to pay them. Mob already hates them (mostly because they're just puppets (Nuland leaked tape) and they won't forget Timoshenkos deal she made with Gazprom that got her in jail and few billion dollar on her account). Protesters still won't leave Kiev and will keep protesting until the election. They already said that they're taking over Kiev (city of few million). Now they want Yanukovich dead or at least on Maidan with them (which is the same thing for him). Today few thousand of them already protested against Timoshenko.

If you want to see how they voted in parliament (many officials didn't want to come because of an illegal government and peaceful protesters with guns).

Video: How to vote in democratic unelected parliament.

So as Obama said: "Democracy won again"... minority with guns took over the country without election. Nice job!

P.S.: If you want to see how Eastern Ukraine supports Maidan, just watch this video. They got their ass kicked before they could repeat Kiev. This was happening yesterday. (backgroud screams: fascists, nazists, killers, ...). Video.