Actually the post I quoted had nothing to do with Crimean history, it was about the Eastern Ukraine, which is what I’m calling revisionism, as Crimea was part of the RSFSR at that point in time, and only much later (by decree) made part of the Ukrainian SSR.
You’re free to search for it. It was only an anecdote to demonstrate the anti-Russian feelings that are normal here. Though I acknowledge that was a rather exceptional case which quite surprised me.
President, not PM, and it was only unanimous because everyone who opposed it had fled. It didn’t have the support required by the Ukrainian Constitution to be legal.
Exactly. So were you calling the facts giving about Eastern Ukraine “revisionist”?No, it was not a coup, Yanukovych was ousted by parliament, i.e., once Yanukovych transferred power back to parliament as per the 2004 constitution, he knew he was done in for, i.e., the corruption that marked his regime would be exposed, so he fled the country, and parliament ousted him.
bbc.com/news/world-europe-25182830
euronews.com/2014/03/11/y…ge-of-ukraine/
**
Fair point on the PM and It is also fair to point out the the parliament lacked proper quorum. The situation is not perfectly legal, but by no means wholly lawless, nor is it unrepresentative. It was not a coup.
They can stop rule by mafia; then can restore the rule of law in their own country and allow it elsewhere; they can stop the phony misinformation campaign about the situation in Ukraine; they can stop Russian citizens from entering Ukraine as provocateurs; they can end the invasion; they can withdraw their troops from Ukraine; they can release the UGCC (normalije) seized at his church by their forces.
Yanukovych violated the constitution and the laws of the land on many occasions, and that is why he had to return the constitution back to its former 2004 state (during his presidency he had rested more power for himself in direct violation of the constitution). Now that parliament had the powers as per the 2004 constitution, they also had the means by which to impeach and oust Yanukovych. If not every “t” was crossed or “i” was dotted means a lot less to me than the fact that Yanukovych lost all legitimacy along time ago, and deserved to be ousted as immediately as possible (although he fled) so his puppet master, Putin, could not reinstate him.
Is it pro-Western rhetoric to say that millions of people wanted Yanukovych ousted, especially after the violence which ensued, i.e., they wanted nothing less than his resignation. And rightfully, so, he was a duplicitous, greedy, evil man who’s only concern was enriching himself at the expense of Ukrainians.
Oh my goodness. . . . . . . . . . . you hit it out of the ballpark with this one. . . . . . . . . . . . . . :clapping:
You need to put this response in the Ukraine thread (world news), so more people can see it. we’ve already reached more than 30 000 views.
He was ousted by less than half of parliament, after he and his supporters were forced to flee.
The Parliament has the power, I haven’t argued that. They did it illegally, it was much more than not having every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed, It was a case of chasing those who opposed the idea - the majority (if slim) out of parliament and then taking the vote. That is some “t”.
Absolutely it is. Millions wanted him out from the very beginning. Millions supported him from the beginning. That tends to happen in a country like Ukraine with a population of just under 45 million and a deep political divide. Millions will want a lot of things, and to use the argument that “millions want” while ignoring the other millions who want something else is the sort of rhetoric that has marked the pro-Western side in this.
I rarely agree with the PM on foreign policy. While I agree with him regarding the referendum (not that it matters. We didn’t recognize the PRC for 20 years either, did nothing for the Kuomintang), visiting the new Ukrainian government seems like a waste of tax dollars. Probably an effort to shore up support among Ukrainian Canadians, particularly in rural Saskachewan and Alberta where his popularity has taken a bit of a beating due to his early opposition to Chong and his Private Members Bill.
I’m afraid I wasn’t aware of that. I thought he remained president only by technicalities and legalities of the process.
I didn’t read anything in the news about what happened. All of a sudden he fled and there was a new pro-protester government suddenly in place. I had to look it up to figure out what happened.
Huh?
What are the sides? Yanukovich caved to his boss, Putin, on the EU issue that was supported by some two-thirds of hte people of Ukraine. This capitulation led to the protests. Once the mass murder of the protestors occurred, Yanukovich was finished. After that, the “sides” became Ukraine against an unprovoked invasion by Russia. Only one side is wrong.
I’ve been reading up on the issues in the Ukraine for many weeks now, and that is exactly what I remember as well (328-0), i.e., I don’t know where he got the idea that the “majority” were chased out.
Perhaps not a majority, I was under the impression that Ukraine needed 50+1 to overthrow the president (as in Canada).
Good. We have put the first part of this falsehood to rest. Now, tell us where you get the idea that 27% of the members were “chased out”. Who chased them, and where were they chased to. In Crimea, we’v had an invasion in Crimea, houses of Tatars marked, Greek Catholics threatened. What are your sources for the “chasing” in Kyiv?
Yes, the houses of Tatars were marked with crosses as they were once before under Soviet rule, that is, right before they were deported to Siberia, I believe, and now Greek Catholics are not only threatened as you stated, but Greek Catholic priests were also kidnapped, albeit returned. This does not bode well for minorities in the Crimea.
