3 ms·

>Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If

by _kbh_ 4y ago

>Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If the leaders didn't want to stick to the internationally recognised founding documents they shouldn't have signed it. One either follows the legal procedures or not, and if procedures are not followed and if the new government feels like violating the previously signed documents, http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Rres_Declaration_Independence_rev12.htm http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Rres_Declaratio... I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all. Seems like your entire premise that Ukraines founding document is predicated on a lake of nukes and military neutrality has no basis in reality. > then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders. Funny that these Pro Russian separatist movements keep appearing in post soviet states its like the FSB and GRU funds them, and even sends soldier to arm them. I mean its not like the leaders of the LPR and DNR where literally FSB officer right?. > They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed. I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. Since then they have had many elections and power has changed hands multiple times unlike Russia.

ghostwriter 4y ago
> I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all. I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, *and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine*, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]" When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state. > I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play. > the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack#2022_public_hearings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Com...
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]" When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state. Can you link to the document that you claim states this?. It’s annoying to have to chase your references to things you claim exist. > The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play. The difference is not double standards it’s the meaning of the word. In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament, in the USA the people trying to coup the government where looking to subvert the government with violence and install their own leader. > against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it. Ukraine wanted to join the EU this was already decided; Putin decided this would make Russia weaker so got his puppet to subvert that choice, which lead to him being over thrown. > One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play. I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.
  - ghostwriter 4y ago
    > Can you link to the document that you claim states this? It was linked to my topmost response, here it is (scroll down to "IX. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY"): https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#Text https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_... > In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence. Again, the event doesn't look democratic to me. In fact it looks random at best and suggests a case for an opportunistic power grab at worst. One cannot simply declare that the vote in parlament was legal and the due process respected because the subject had to flee the country ("self-remove") to save his life. There are many places in the world where leaders have to self-remove without due process, and we don't call these places democracies. > I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic. Neither is your apologetic stance on the events of early 2014 that tore a thin fabric of a democratic society. It is fine to be upset on country leaders that break their political promises, but it's extremely irresponsible to suggest that "self-removing" those leaders for their promise-breaking yet non-crime legitimate decisions is a proper reaction for the upset part of the society. [1] https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%...

by _kbh_ 4y ago

ghostwriter 4y ago

> I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all. I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, *and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine*, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]" When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state. > I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play. > the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack#2022_public_hearings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Com...

_kbh_ 4y ago
> I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]" When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state. Can you link to the document that you claim states this?. It’s annoying to have to chase your references to things you claim exist. > The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play. The difference is not double standards it’s the meaning of the word. In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament, in the USA the people trying to coup the government where looking to subvert the government with violence and install their own leader. > against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it. Ukraine wanted to join the EU this was already decided; Putin decided this would make Russia weaker so got his puppet to subvert that choice, which lead to him being over thrown. > One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play. I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.
- ghostwriter 4y ago
  > Can you link to the document that you claim states this? It was linked to my topmost response, here it is (scroll down to "IX. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY"): https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#Text https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_... > In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence. Again, the event doesn't look democratic to me. In fact it looks random at best and suggests a case for an opportunistic power grab at worst. One cannot simply declare that the vote in parlament was legal and the due process respected because the subject had to flee the country ("self-remove") to save his life. There are many places in the world where leaders have to self-remove without due process, and we don't call these places democracies. > I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic. Neither is your apologetic stance on the events of early 2014 that tore a thin fabric of a democratic society. It is fine to be upset on country leaders that break their political promises, but it's extremely irresponsible to suggest that "self-removing" those leaders for their promise-breaking yet non-crime legitimate decisions is a proper reaction for the upset part of the society. [1] https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%...