• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup?

Was the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup?

  • Total voters
    24
MadLib

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.

Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
 
MadLib said:
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.

Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
Click to expand...

Yanukovych claims to still be President of Ukraine, he just chooses not to live there anymore. If President Obama decided to flee the US for whatever reason and take up residence in Canada, would the US determine that Joe Biden was then the President of the United States? There is an interim government in the Ukraine awaiting elections in May to elect a new government to replace the absent President. He could come back and run again, or reclaim his elected office, if he wanted. Of course, as with any government leader who authorized the illegal slaughter of his own citizens, he may be subject to arrest, prosecution, and execution.
 
MadLib said:
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.

Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
Click to expand...

I think we need international law regulating under what circumstances a population can relinquish a ruler.
 
joG said:
I think we need international law regulating under what circumstances a population can relinquish a ruler.
Click to expand...
Under what circumstances a foreign-backed minority can overthrow an elected government?
 
Penderyn said:
Under what circumstances a foreign-backed minority can overthrow an elected government?
Click to expand...

Apparently, when that foreign government sends in troops and has military bases on site, such as in the Ukrainian "province" of Crimea.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Yanukovych claims to still be President of Ukraine, he just chooses not to live there anymore. If President Obama decided to flee the US for whatever reason and take up residence in Canada, would the US determine that Joe Biden was then the President of the United States? There is an interim government in the Ukraine awaiting elections in May to elect a new government to replace the absent President. He could come back and run again, or reclaim his elected office, if he wanted. Of course, as with any government leader who authorized the illegal slaughter of his own citizens, he may be subject to arrest, prosecution, and execution.
Click to expand...

I admit that I do not know much about the specifics of Yanukovych's overthrow, but I do not believe that his ouster constitutes a coup d'etat, for the following reasons:

1. He decided to run away to Russia. Since his impeachment was not strictly legal, he could always stay in the country and appeal to the courts, the general populace, or the military to preserve his legitimate rule. Because he chose instead to flee, and because he was not exiled from the country, he has for all intents and purposes abandoned his duty and his seat and so the prior legalisms of his removal are irrelevant. If Obama was partially impeached and thus decided to run away to Canada, I would no longer consider him my president even though I favor his policies.

2. Through his murder of protestors and his anti-demonstration laws, he was essentially becoming a dictator. The Ukrainians were completely justified in staging an extralegal revolution in order to halt his usurpation of power.
 
MadLib said:
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.

Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
Click to expand...

It technically wasn't a coup. Usually that involves a military take over.

On the other hand, it was a revolution and definitely not in keeping with the democratic principles they claim to espouse
 
CanadaJohn said:
Yanukovych claims to still be President of Ukraine, he just chooses not to live there anymore. If President Obama decided to flee the US for whatever reason and take up residence in Canada, would the US determine that Joe Biden was then the President of the United States? There is an interim government in the Ukraine awaiting elections in May to elect a new government to replace the absent President. He could come back and run again, or reclaim his elected office, if he wanted. Of course, as with any government leader who authorized the illegal slaughter of his own citizens, he may be subject to arrest, prosecution, and execution.
Click to expand...

It's called a "government in exile." That's usually what happens after a revolution, the deposed head for "friendly territory" and proclaim that they are still legitimate.

Yeah, I'm sure he could just show up in Kiev and say "Hey I'm back. We're cool, right?":roll:
 
MadLib said:
I admit that I do not know much about the specifics of Yanukovych's overthrow, but I do not believe that his ouster constitutes a coup d'etat, for the following reasons:

1. He decided to run away to Russia. Since his impeachment was not strictly legal, he could always stay in the country and appeal to the courts, the general populace, or the military to preserve his legitimate rule. Because he chose instead to flee, and because he was not exiled from the country, he has for all intents and purposes abandoned his duty and his seat and so the prior legalisms of his removal are irrelevant. If Obama was partially impeached and thus decided to run away to Canada, I would no longer consider him my president even though I favor his policies.

2. Through his murder of protestors and his anti-demonstration laws, he was essentially becoming a dictator. The Ukrainians were completely justified in staging an extralegal revolution in order to halt his usurpation of power.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there may have been justification for his ouster. Treating those who took over as a completely legitimate and Constitutional government is a big stretch, though.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Apparently, when that foreign government sends in troops and has military bases on site, such as in the Ukrainian "province" of Crimea.
Click to expand...

Thank God it wasn't somewhere where the US had immediate interests then, rather than imperialist ones! How can anyone live with such total hypocricy?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Yanukovych claims to still be President of Ukraine, he just chooses not to live there anymore. If President Obama decided to flee the US for whatever reason and take up residence in Canada, would the US determine that Joe Biden was then the President of the United States? There is an interim government in the Ukraine awaiting elections in May to elect a new government to replace the absent President. He could come back and run again, or reclaim his elected office, if he wanted. Of course, as with any government leader who authorized the illegal slaughter of his own citizens, he may be subject to arrest, prosecution, and execution.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much acknowledged that the "opposition",, not Yanukovych, was behind the snipers. As a matter of fact, the new head of Security Pruebly (sp) was in charge of the building that the snipers fired from. He has chosen not to investigate. Gee, I wonder why.
 
It was a coup. And this is not the first time the U.S. has backed a coup and supported the new, illegitimate government. The US is scolding Russia for alleged interference in the affairs in Crimea – and, at the same time, supports the Ukrainian nationalists who usurped power in Kiev, supports them with much more than friendly words and gestures.
 
Konig said:
It was a coup. And this is not the first time the U.S. has backed a coup and supported the new, illegitimate government. The US is scolding Russia for alleged interference in the affairs in Crimea – and, at the same time, supports the Ukrainian nationalists who usurped power in Kiev, supports them with much more than friendly words and gestures.
Click to expand...

Proof? Any evidence? Or are you just spouting typical anti-American Bull****? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. The answer is already known. It's bull****.
 
MadLib said:
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. It started long before that.


The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.

Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
Click to expand...

It was a coup d'état and yes, it was illegal. But then, so was the election of Yanukovych.



Where's the links to your sources, MadLib?
 
Penderyn said:
Thank God it wasn't somewhere where the US had immediate interests then, rather than imperialist ones! How can anyone live with such total hypocricy?
Click to expand...

What are the U.S. immediate interests in Ukraine? Where are the American troops and aircraft necessary to further the causes of imperialism? As usual, more anti-American crap without a shred of proof.

PS - hatred of the U.S. does not constitute proof anywhere.
 
Wiggen said:
What are the U.S. immediate interests in Ukraine? Where are the American troops and aircraft necessary to further the causes of imperialism? As usual, more anti-American crap without a shred of proof.

PS - hatred of the U.S. does not constitute proof anywhere.
Click to expand...

Why then are the bullyboys having kittens, and ranting?
 
rocket88 said:
It's called a "government in exile." That's usually what happens after a revolution, the deposed head for "friendly territory" and proclaim that they are still legitimate.

Yeah, I'm sure he could just show up in Kiev and say "Hey I'm back. We're cool, right?":roll:
Click to expand...

But the question is, why did he flee? If he feels he's legitimate and he's done nothing wrong, he'd stay. Didn't the former President of the Ukraine, I forget her name, get imprisoned by Yanukovych when he took power? She felt she was legitimate and she stayed - got put in prison - and then was released by Yanukovych during his attempt to retain power during the "revolution". She's the one who stood on principle for her country. Yanukovych high-tailed it out of town like any good communist dictator would.
 
Penderyn said:
Thank God it wasn't somewhere where the US had immediate interests then, rather than imperialist ones! How can anyone live with such total hypocricy?
Click to expand...

I'm unclear - who are you claiming is a hypocrite, and why?
 
No, because
a) he lost all legitimacy when he ordered his thugs to open fire on the protesters
b) the interim govt already established elections and did not enforce it's ruling with military power.
 
DaveFagan said:
It's pretty much acknowledged that the "opposition",, not Yanukovych, was behind the snipers. As a matter of fact, the new head of Security Pruebly (sp) was in charge of the building that the snipers fired from. He has chosen not to investigate. Gee, I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Pretty much acknowledged by whom? The opposition to the opposition? The Russians? I'm pretty sure every western nation considers the opposite of your claim, but I could be wrong. Can you name a single democracy that acknowledges this?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm unclear - who are you claiming is a hypocrite, and why?
Click to expand...

All capitalist gangs fight one another, for profit, telling lies. Anyone who pretends one of them is 'right' is a hypocrite, obviously.
 
Konig said:
It was a coup. And this is not the first time the U.S. has backed a coup and supported the new, illegitimate government. The US is scolding Russia for alleged interference in the affairs in Crimea – and, at the same time, supports the Ukrainian nationalists who usurped power in Kiev, supports them with much more than friendly words and gestures.
Click to expand...

Do you equate "support" with "interfence"? That would be interesting - that would mean Canada and other western nations who support the Ukrainian nationalists in their desire not to be drawn back into the sphere of Russian dominance are as bad as the Russians.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do you equate "support" with "interfence"? That would be interesting - that would mean Canada and other western nations who support the Ukrainian nationalists in their desire not to be drawn back into the sphere of Russian dominance are as bad as the Russians.
Click to expand...

The Russians did not much wrong. The nationalists in Kiev changed the status of Russian as a language in the Crimea and showed other acts hostile towards ethnic Russians. Those ethnics took a democratic vote and decided to join Russia. If Crimea stayed apart of Ukraine and didn't have Russian backing who knows what kind of bloodshed might have occurred.

The U.S., on the other hand, agitated and encouraged the illegal overthrowing of a democratically elected government, violating international law and their own policy of no dealings with coup d'état governments. Why did the U.S. have to get involved, exactly? If Ukraine wanted to move closer to the Brussels and not the Kremlin then they wouldn't have elected an openly pro-Russia president in the first place. Ukrainian nationalists don't represent all of Ukraine, only about half, yet not enough to vote in a nationalist government, evidently.
 
Konig said:
The Russians did not much wrong. The nationalists in Kiev changed the status of Russian as a language in the Crimea and showed other acts hostile towards ethnic Russians. Those ethnics took a democratic vote and decided to join Russia. If Crimea stayed apart of Ukraine and didn't have Russian backing who knows what kind of bloodshed might have occurred.

The U.S., on the other hand, agitated and encouraged the illegal overthrowing of a democratically elected government, violating international law and their own policy of no dealings with coup d'état governments. Why did the U.S. have to get involved, exactly? If Ukraine wanted to move closer to the Brussels and not the Kremlin then they wouldn't have elected an openly pro-Russia president in the first place. Ukrainian nationalists don't represent all of Ukraine, only about half, yet not enough to vote in a nationalist government, evidently.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree on who did what, when and how, but I hope we can agree that in a sovereign nation, where constitutional rules are in place governing such things as secession, it would be up to the central government, not a province, to sanction and authorize as legal such a vote and not the province itself. The very fact that Russia recognized the vote as legal and moved to legalize Crimea becoming part of the Russian federation would or should indicate that Russia did plenty wrong.

Here in Canada, we're used to discussions by separatists in the province of Quebec - we have very specific legislation as well as Supreme Court rulings on what constitutes a legal vote to secede. I presume Ukraine has the same. Perhaps your home country of Denmark, likewise. How would you feel if the island on which Copenhagen rests decided to secede and join Sweden without any approval or sanction of such a move by the rest of Denmark? Likewise, in the US, if Texas as an example voted to secede, the federal government would not allow them to do so on their own initiative - the republic would determine the outcome. Why should that principle be any different in Ukraine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom