4 ms·

> Breaking state laws is not the only reason for people to be upset. Proven violation of state laws is a mandatory pre-requisite for a legitimate president exp

> Breaking state laws is not the only reason for people to be upset. Proven violation of state laws is a mandatory pre-requisite for a legitimate president expulsion from his office, "people get upset" isn't the same as the opportunistic power grab where democratic process wasn't held and due process wasn't respected. The US representatives were involved in the process to a degree, and yet you claim that it was the pro-russian puppet president at fault.

hbrn 4y ago
People got upset and president fled from the country. How would you suggest it should be handled? I think Ukraine handled it almost perfectly: A temporary government was formed. Two democratic elections were held since. Each resulted in a new president being elected. You could echo Russian talking points and call it undemocratic coup. But Ukraine undeniably returned back to stable democracy within a year. For a corrupt ex-soviet country, that's pretty damn impressive.
- yucky 4y ago
  The President fled when his life was threatened after the coup. Him fleeing might be cowardly but it doesn't make it not a coup. And the Ukraine Constitution was then changed, so elections after that aren't considered legitimate by everyone as a result. I mean we consider it legit because now our guys are running things.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > And the Ukraine Constitution was then changed, so elections after that aren't considered legitimate by everyone as a result So unlawfully changing the constitution voids the election results? Because that's exactly what the pro-russian president did, reverting changes that turned Ukraine into premier-presidential system, gaining way more power than he used to have. Imagine this: a president gets elected and immediately discovers that changes that stripped presidents of power 6 years ago (!) were unconstitutional. What a lucky coincidence. You can read about it here: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2010)044-e https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(20... And the changes you are talking about didn't "change" the constitution, they reverted it back to previous commit. But for the sake of the argument we can skip the details. Let's say you're right, the constitution was changed, and from now on elections are illegitimate. Are you suggesting to treat them illegitimate forever? Is there a process to make them lawful again? Because if there is, my bet is that Ukraine has followed it: they reverted constitution back to the most stable commit, and held two elections afterwards. Those elections were recognized by everyone in the world, including Russia. Do you have a better process in mind?
    - yucky 4y ago
      >But for the sake of the argument we can skip the details. Let's say you're right, the constitution was changed, and from now on elections are illegitimate. Are you suggesting to treat them illegitimate forever? Is there a process to make them lawful again? I think using your analogy, the Russian position is that a fork is needed.
      - hbrn 4y ago
        1. A fork doesn't delete the old repo. 2. Forking or not should still be Ukrainian business, not Russia or US.
        yucky 4y ago
        > Forking or not should still be Ukrainian business, not Russia or US. Agreed 100% - but once the US decided to meddle in Ukraine shouldn't we have expected Russia would respond? I mean, that's been written in stone since the 1990's that Russia would not play games when it came to western encroachments in Ukraine. People can talk sovereignty all they want, but how do we think the US would respond to China playing the same games in Mexico? Or for a real life example, the Soviets setting up shop in Cuba. Spheres of influence are real and crossing those lines start wars.

hbrn 4y ago

People got upset and president fled from the country. How would you suggest it should be handled? I think Ukraine handled it almost perfectly: A temporary government was formed. Two democratic elections were held since. Each resulted in a new president being elected. You could echo Russian talking points and call it undemocratic coup. But Ukraine undeniably returned back to stable democracy within a year. For a corrupt ex-soviet country, that's pretty damn impressive.

yucky 4y ago
The President fled when his life was threatened after the coup. Him fleeing might be cowardly but it doesn't make it not a coup. And the Ukraine Constitution was then changed, so elections after that aren't considered legitimate by everyone as a result. I mean we consider it legit because now our guys are running things.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > And the Ukraine Constitution was then changed, so elections after that aren't considered legitimate by everyone as a result So unlawfully changing the constitution voids the election results? Because that's exactly what the pro-russian president did, reverting changes that turned Ukraine into premier-presidential system, gaining way more power than he used to have. Imagine this: a president gets elected and immediately discovers that changes that stripped presidents of power 6 years ago (!) were unconstitutional. What a lucky coincidence. You can read about it here: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2010)044-e https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(20... And the changes you are talking about didn't "change" the constitution, they reverted it back to previous commit. But for the sake of the argument we can skip the details. Let's say you're right, the constitution was changed, and from now on elections are illegitimate. Are you suggesting to treat them illegitimate forever? Is there a process to make them lawful again? Because if there is, my bet is that Ukraine has followed it: they reverted constitution back to the most stable commit, and held two elections afterwards. Those elections were recognized by everyone in the world, including Russia. Do you have a better process in mind?
  - yucky 4y ago
    >But for the sake of the argument we can skip the details. Let's say you're right, the constitution was changed, and from now on elections are illegitimate. Are you suggesting to treat them illegitimate forever? Is there a process to make them lawful again? I think using your analogy, the Russian position is that a fork is needed.
    - hbrn 4y ago
      1. A fork doesn't delete the old repo. 2. Forking or not should still be Ukrainian business, not Russia or US.
      - yucky 4y ago
        > Forking or not should still be Ukrainian business, not Russia or US. Agreed 100% - but once the US decided to meddle in Ukraine shouldn't we have expected Russia would respond? I mean, that's been written in stone since the 1990's that Russia would not play games when it came to western encroachments in Ukraine. People can talk sovereignty all they want, but how do we think the US would respond to China playing the same games in Mexico? Or for a real life example, the Soviets setting up shop in Cuba. Spheres of influence are real and crossing those lines start wars.