Skip to main content

View Diary: Ukraine: The Elephant (or Should We Say Bear?) in The Room (232 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to get too literal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    But the process used to impeach the ousted Yanuk did not follow Ukranian constitutional procedure, i.e., trial, testimony, and judicial review.  That was point made by Putin, certainly, and others.  A parliamentary yes or no vote doesn't meet that test.  It was summary judgement by a single branch of government, at best.  In a hastily called session with gunmen outside with a particular point of view.

    Quite aside from the point if it was useful or necessary, or enforceable, but it emphatically can't be said to be legal or constitutional as an impeachment by Ukranian constitutional standards

    •  The Ukraine Constitution is online in English (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, serendipityisabitch

      The provisions for impeachment or removal (two different things) are laid out there. While Putin has a technical point, when you consider the fact that the vote was 328-0, unanimous, with members of Yanukovich's own party voting against him, and the fact that the Constitution doesn't account for the circumstance where the President flees the country, actually records a resignation, and then rescinds it, my take is that the Parliament tried to follow the Constitution in good faith.

      Then, there is the matter of the Crimean parliament, where the chamber was taken over by armed forces, the members forced to convene, all their cellphones were confiscated, no media allowed in, and no official votes recorded, voted to oust the existing prime minister and elect a prime minister with ties to the Russian mafia and who's Russian unity party held only 3 seats in the 100 member parliament.

      I'd say its difficult for you to take exception with what happened in Ukraine while turning a deaf ear to what happened in Crimea.

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 02:57:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        Yanuk had to go.   He had ordered out the border police and the military to crack down on maidan and a massacre was looming.

        But it isn't helpful to say a deliberate falsehood that is plainly so, it weakens the whole argument.  

        •  You may have missed my point (0+ / 0-)

          Those who point at the Ukrainian situation while ignoring what happened in the Crimean parliament, certainly have weak arguments.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 03:17:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am not sure I follow (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            You seem to agree that the Ukranian transition of leadership was not a constitutional impeachment.  isn't that what we are talking about? We can agree it was necessary, but unconstitutional.  Not constitutional as you often assert.

            ironically, we wrote that constitution for them, so they could enjoy the protections of democracy and justice.  

            So, likely unconstitutional will be the Crimean referendum, which hasn't happened yet.   I don't think anyone can ignore it, I am not.  

            But one event happened, the other has not.  I hope it doesn't.  

            •  what we started talking about (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, kalmoth, Lawrence

              was your comparison to Syria. Russia didn't invade Syria, neither did the US or any other country. So your parallel was rather fallacious. Then, you chose to go off on a tangent claiming, like Putin, that the Ukrainian actions were unconstitutional. My argument was that given the circumstances, which their constitution could never account for, the combination of the 328-0 unanimous vote, the fact that they have a recorded resignation and then a rescission, and the President fled the country, the Parliament did the best it could. So much so, even Canada, the most highly respected country on the international stage, was one of the first countries to recognize the new government.

              Then, I brought up a very close parallel to the farce and fraud that occurred in the Crimean parliament, and noted that  you choose to ignore that, for obvious reasons I might add.

              So, likely unconstitutional will be the Crimean referendum, which hasn't happened yet.   I don't think anyone can ignore it, I am not.  
              What Crimea has already done is unconstitutional, forcing members to convene at the tip of a gun, and vote the prime minister out, and vote in a convenient pro-Russian individual who couldn't even muster single digits in an open election, confiscating their cell phones, barring media entry, and refusing to openly record a vote. .

              you have a good evening wisdom. My interests lie with the Ukrainian people, their right to their own country, without invasion by bullies, their right to sovereignty and their own government. I realize others have other interests.

              KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

              by fcvaguy on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 04:56:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We just don't want it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ray Pensador

                To escalate.  If it is to be resolved without escalation, a resolution acceptable and binding under international law and norms, and enforceable under them.  

                The alternative is worse.   These fragile documents and international institutions are what is between us and chaos, the predation of the weak nations and peoples by the strong, and ruthless.  

                Both sides must enter into honest negotiations with honest brokers, with the ability to commit it externally adjudicated agreements.  Or the alternative is worse.  

                That means Putin has to be seen to get something. For the home audience.   That will drive FoxNooz nuts.  But calling him a crazy man does little to descalate.   It is a prod for him to escalate further.
                Time to defuse this thing, not inflame it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site