4 ms·

"S.V. Lavrov expressed the most serious concern over the inability of those who signed the agreement in Kyiv on 21 February to agree. Not only did the oppositio

by kombine 13y ago

"S.V. Lavrov expressed the most serious concern over the inability of those who signed the agreement in Kyiv on 21 February to agree. Not only did the opposition fail to honor any of its commitments, it is also putting forward new demands, taking its cue from the armed extremists and rioters whose actions pose a direct threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and constitutional order." I can't add more than that. The opposition signed an agreement only to break it the next morning. How could anyone trust the new leaders of the country if this is how they ascend to power?

IgorPartola 13y ago
The situation is quite a bit more complex than that. Also, remember that the opposition leaders represent the protesters on the streets. The protesters on the streets were not satisfied with the agreement from Friday. The opposition leaders then did exactly what good politicians should do: listened to their constituents and acted accordingly. Moreover, they did the right thing. I will repeat it again: Yanukovhich is a criminal who should have been put into prison when he tried to rig a presidential election. Instead, he was allowed to run again.
- kombine 13y ago
  Instead they should have just stepped down and let the crowd do any further talking. Crowd is a very interesting beast, and I would be very scared if the crowd would be making decisions on where the country should go. I agree that Yanukovich is a criminal, but he is an elected president, elected by the people of the country and is the lawful authority. What is happening now is an upheaval. Also, an entirely separate matter is, who is going take the power now. I seriously doubt that the new ruling class would be any better for the country than Yanukovich and his gang.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    Your first paragraph does not gel well with the idea of democracy: rule of the people. > I agree that Yanukovich is a criminal, but he is an elected president In my book that's on oxymoron. Not only is he a criminal, but he committed crimes while in office, abusing the powers of his office. Moreover, due process was followed to remove him. He was not dragged out and shot like some other dictators usually are. This is not an upheaval, this is correction. Once again, Ukraine does not have a strong judicial branch to oversee constitutionality of what's happening. People taking to the streets and demanding change is a part of the process, not an exception. > Also, an entirely separate matter is, who is going take the power now. I seriously doubt that the new ruling class would be any better for the country than Yanukovich and his gang. I think it is hard to do worse than him. In either case, if they are worse, it will not take a long time for the crowds to come back. Also, the change on Friday was to restore the 2004 version of the constitution where the parliament has much more power and the president has less, so whoever becomes the president will not be in the same position as Yanukovych was just in.
    - kombine 13y ago
      > Your first paragraph does not gel well with the idea of democracy: rule of the people. And who said that democracy, the rule of people, is ideal? It is the system that brought a convicted criminal that has been twice in jail to presidency. It was also the rule of people that allowed George W Bush to be a president of the US for 2 terms! I don't trust people, because they often choose idiots. > In my book that's on oxymoron. Not only is he a criminal, but he committed crimes while in office, abusing the powers of his office. I meant he was a criminal before becoming a president. And I will second, that the common crowd, the people still elected him. > Also, the change on Friday was to restore the 2004 version of the constitution where the parliament has much more power and the president has less, so whoever becomes the president will not be in the same position as Yanukovych was just in. Yanukovich stepped into presidency during the 2004 version constitution and it didn't prevent him from changin the rules of the game in his favour.
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    >> I agree that Yanukovich is a criminal, but he is an elected president, elected by the people of the country and is the lawful authority. What is happening now is an upheaval. Wasn't he also lawfully voted out by his own people?
    - marcosdumay 13y ago
      And so what? Votes are not a blank check for a person to commit any atrocity and get away with it.
drdaeman 13y ago
It's a weird situation (urging for changes, meeting, agreeing on some terms then immediately breaking the agreement). I guess I understand why they broke the agreement (keeping Yanukovich until December is, well, quite contrary to what protestors seek), but what I really fail to understand is why they ever agreed to that.
- tomp 13y ago
  > I guess I understand why they broke the agreement (keeping Yanukovich until December is, well, quite contrary to what protestors seek), but what I really fail to understand is why they ever agreed to that. The "they" you are referring to are not one group - the first "they" are the protesters, while the second "they" are the opposition leaders. The first "they" broke the agreement that the second "they" made because they never agreed to it.
grey-area 13y ago
The opposition signed an agreement only to break it the next morning. How could anyone trust the new leaders of the country if this is how they ascend to power? Maybe they can trust the elected new leaders after free and fair elections are delivered as Ukrainian MPs have voted to hold early presidential elections on 25 May? It's right to be apprehensive and perhaps even suspicious in the case of the violent overthrow of a government, because things can easily spiral out of control or be taken over by a faction, but it doesn't always end in tragedy or dictatorship. I'd say the fact that demonstrators have left the parliament to pass laws and proclaim new elections is a good sign.
- kombine 13y ago
  The thing is that the president, that had just been overthrown was elected on "free and fair elections". I am watching the live stream from Maidan right now, and people from the stage say that the age of dictatorship is finally over. Noone seems to remember that at the first Maidan in 2004 people had similar euphoria. I am worried that perhaps in another 10 years we will see a new dictator being thrown over by the angered crowd...
  - grey-area 13y ago
    free and fair elections That is disputed and there is much talk of rigged elections, but I don't know enough about the elections to have an opinion. Let's see if things proceed peacefully and democratically from this point on - the lack of looting and the organisation do bode well compared to say the uprising in Egypt, and the regime lost my sympathy when police used assault weapons and snipers against lightly armed civilians (the people shot did not have guns, some were medics). When the choice is between an oligarch or a dictator it is not a great one, but the choices in western democracies are similarly limited. I am worried that perhaps in another 10 years we will see a new dictator being thrown over by the angered crowd... Quite possible. I completely understand and sympathise with your ambivalence; western news sources are perhaps a bit too triumphant and hubristic over a complex and violent situation, as long as the outcome suits their geopolitical biases (EU/West good, Russia bad), and Russian media is even more limited by state control.

by kombine 13y ago

IgorPartola 13y ago

The situation is quite a bit more complex than that. Also, remember that the opposition leaders represent the protesters on the streets. The protesters on the streets were not satisfied with the agreement from Friday. The opposition leaders then did exactly what good politicians should do: listened to their constituents and acted accordingly. Moreover, they did the right thing. I will repeat it again: Yanukovhich is a criminal who should have been put into prison when he tried to rig a presidential election. Instead, he was allowed to run again.

kombine 13y ago
Instead they should have just stepped down and let the crowd do any further talking. Crowd is a very interesting beast, and I would be very scared if the crowd would be making decisions on where the country should go. I agree that Yanukovich is a criminal, but he is an elected president, elected by the people of the country and is the lawful authority. What is happening now is an upheaval. Also, an entirely separate matter is, who is going take the power now. I seriously doubt that the new ruling class would be any better for the country than Yanukovich and his gang.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Your first paragraph does not gel well with the idea of democracy: rule of the people. > I agree that Yanukovich is a criminal, but he is an elected president In my book that's on oxymoron. Not only is he a criminal, but he committed crimes while in office, abusing the powers of his office. Moreover, due process was followed to remove him. He was not dragged out and shot like some other dictators usually are. This is not an upheaval, this is correction. Once again, Ukraine does not have a strong judicial branch to oversee constitutionality of what's happening. People taking to the streets and demanding change is a part of the process, not an exception. > Also, an entirely separate matter is, who is going take the power now. I seriously doubt that the new ruling class would be any better for the country than Yanukovich and his gang. I think it is hard to do worse than him. In either case, if they are worse, it will not take a long time for the crowds to come back. Also, the change on Friday was to restore the 2004 version of the constitution where the parliament has much more power and the president has less, so whoever becomes the president will not be in the same position as Yanukovych was just in.
  - kombine 13y ago
    > Your first paragraph does not gel well with the idea of democracy: rule of the people. And who said that democracy, the rule of people, is ideal? It is the system that brought a convicted criminal that has been twice in jail to presidency. It was also the rule of people that allowed George W Bush to be a president of the US for 2 terms! I don't trust people, because they often choose idiots. > In my book that's on oxymoron. Not only is he a criminal, but he committed crimes while in office, abusing the powers of his office. I meant he was a criminal before becoming a president. And I will second, that the common crowd, the people still elected him. > Also, the change on Friday was to restore the 2004 version of the constitution where the parliament has much more power and the president has less, so whoever becomes the president will not be in the same position as Yanukovych was just in. Yanukovich stepped into presidency during the 2004 version constitution and it didn't prevent him from changin the rules of the game in his favour.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  >> I agree that Yanukovich is a criminal, but he is an elected president, elected by the people of the country and is the lawful authority. What is happening now is an upheaval. Wasn't he also lawfully voted out by his own people?
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    And so what? Votes are not a blank check for a person to commit any atrocity and get away with it.

drdaeman 13y ago

It's a weird situation (urging for changes, meeting, agreeing on some terms then immediately breaking the agreement). I guess I understand why they broke the agreement (keeping Yanukovich until December is, well, quite contrary to what protestors seek), but what I really fail to understand is why they ever agreed to that.

tomp 13y ago
> I guess I understand why they broke the agreement (keeping Yanukovich until December is, well, quite contrary to what protestors seek), but what I really fail to understand is why they ever agreed to that. The "they" you are referring to are not one group - the first "they" are the protesters, while the second "they" are the opposition leaders. The first "they" broke the agreement that the second "they" made because they never agreed to it.

grey-area 13y ago

The opposition signed an agreement only to break it the next morning. How could anyone trust the new leaders of the country if this is how they ascend to power? Maybe they can trust the elected new leaders after free and fair elections are delivered as Ukrainian MPs have voted to hold early presidential elections on 25 May? It's right to be apprehensive and perhaps even suspicious in the case of the violent overthrow of a government, because things can easily spiral out of control or be taken over by a faction, but it doesn't always end in tragedy or dictatorship. I'd say the fact that demonstrators have left the parliament to pass laws and proclaim new elections is a good sign.

kombine 13y ago
The thing is that the president, that had just been overthrown was elected on "free and fair elections". I am watching the live stream from Maidan right now, and people from the stage say that the age of dictatorship is finally over. Noone seems to remember that at the first Maidan in 2004 people had similar euphoria. I am worried that perhaps in another 10 years we will see a new dictator being thrown over by the angered crowd...
- grey-area 13y ago
  free and fair elections That is disputed and there is much talk of rigged elections, but I don't know enough about the elections to have an opinion. Let's see if things proceed peacefully and democratically from this point on - the lack of looting and the organisation do bode well compared to say the uprising in Egypt, and the regime lost my sympathy when police used assault weapons and snipers against lightly armed civilians (the people shot did not have guns, some were medics). When the choice is between an oligarch or a dictator it is not a great one, but the choices in western democracies are similarly limited. I am worried that perhaps in another 10 years we will see a new dictator being thrown over by the angered crowd... Quite possible. I completely understand and sympathise with your ambivalence; western news sources are perhaps a bit too triumphant and hubristic over a complex and violent situation, as long as the outcome suits their geopolitical biases (EU/West good, Russia bad), and Russian media is even more limited by state control.