• 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
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?

When he "fled" to Russia to coordinate a Russian conquest of Ukraine it confirmed that his removable was a matter of national imperative and, if possible, they should capture and hang him for treason.
 
Last edited:
Why should that principle be any different in Ukraine?

Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea. I believe that separationist movements where those involved are under a real, perceivable threat have the right to break away. I don't see how the U.S., EU, or any body can deny this right. I for one value culture and surely you do too. The right of a culture to preserve its language, traditions, and people cannot be understated. If Quebec feels that its culture, ethno-linguistic tradition is at risk, then there's an argument to be made. I'm not too versed in the issue to support that movement though.

Denmark is ethnically homogeneous so it is incomparable, and has no such ethnic separationist movements. The only such movement would be in the region Bornholm, but that's more historical than anything else.

Ukraine is torn between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. So no, I don't think "the republic" should determine the outcome when it's clearly partisan and deeply divided. Almost the entire East region supported Yanukovych and the West supported nationalists and/or Europe-focused parties. The tyranny of the majority could jeopardize the survival of a people, and I don't think that's morally justifiable.
 
I don't view it as a coup per se. As I see it, Yanukovych abdicated and then was replaced, although it is unclear whether the removal procedure satisfies the constitution.


The vote to remove Viktor Yanukovych as president of Ukraine occurred on 22 February 2014. The vote tally was 328-YES, 0-NO, 0-ABSTAIN. By the Constitution, a majority vote of 75% in parliament is required to remove a sitting president.

328 YES votes (100% of those voting) constitute 73% of 450 MPs. 338 YES votes would constitute the required 75%. So then, where are the missing votes?

I'll show you;

Party of Regions
Number of MPs: 134
For: 36 / Against: 0 / Abstaining: 0 / Not Voting: 2 / Absent: 96

Independent
Number of MPs: 117
For: 99 / Against: 0 / Abstaining: 0 / Not Voting: 1 / Absent: 17

Fatherland
Number of MPs: 88
For 86 / Against: 0 / Abstaining: 0 / Not Voting: 2 / Absent: 0

UDAR
Number of MPs: 42
For 41 / Against: 0 / Abstaining: 0 / Not Voting 0 / Absent: 1

Svoboda
Number of MP's: 36
For 36 / Against: 0 / Abstaining: 0 / Not Voting 0 / Absent: 0

Communist Party
Number of MPs: 32
For 30 / Against: 0 / Abstaining: 0 / Not Voting: 1 / Absent: 1

Постанова про усунення і результати голосування по ній на сайті верховної ради України

No MP has come forward and claimed s/he was excluded from voting. At a later date, the same parliament voted to refer Yanukovych to the International Criminal Court.

It seems to me that if you want your vote to count one way or another, you actually have to show up and cast your vote.
 
Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea.
I've spent quite a bit of time in Crimea. The suggestion of a threat to or the oppression of the majority ethnic Russian population in Crimea is an utter fabrication.
 
Simpleχity;1063062901 said:
I've spent quite a bit of time in Crimea. The suggestion of a threat to or the oppression of the majority ethnic Russian population in Crimea is an utter fabrication.

Thank you.

Declaring that Ukraine is establishing a national language is not oppression meriting another country seizing the territory. It is an absurd claim.
 
Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea. I believe that separationist movements where those involved are under a real, perceivable threat have the right to break away. I don't see how the U.S., EU, or any body can deny this right. I for one value culture and surely you do too. The right of a culture to preserve its language, traditions, and people cannot be understated. If Quebec feels that its culture, ethno-linguistic tradition is at risk, then there's an argument to be made. I'm not too versed in the issue to support that movement though.

Denmark is ethnically homogeneous so it is incomparable, and has no such ethnic separationist movements. The only such movement would be in the region Bornholm, but that's more historical than anything else.

Ukraine is torn between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. So no, I don't think "the republic" should determine the outcome when it's clearly partisan and deeply divided. Almost the entire East region supported Yanukovych and the West supported nationalists and/or Europe-focused parties. The tyranny of the majority could jeopardize the survival of a people, and I don't think that's morally justifiable.

Define "the real threat to ethnic Russians" in Crimea since that is your claim.

We know who is the threatened minority in Crimea is. It is always the same. Putin has declared it still is: Tartar Muslims.
 
Define "the real threat to ethnic Russians" in Crimea since that is your claim.

The nationalist government of Kiev poses a great threat to ethnic Russians. Obviously, such a government will neglect the needs of ethnic Russians. You do realize the new government has neo-Nazi elements and has members who are vocally and militantly nationalist?
 
Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea. I believe that separationist movements where those involved are under a real, perceivable threat have the right to break away. I don't see how the U.S., EU, or any body can deny this right. I for one value culture and surely you do too. The right of a culture to preserve its language, traditions, and people cannot be understated. If Quebec feels that its culture, ethno-linguistic tradition is at risk, then there's an argument to be made. I'm not too versed in the issue to support that movement though.

Denmark is ethnically homogeneous so it is incomparable, and has no such ethnic separationist movements. The only such movement would be in the region Bornholm, but that's more historical than anything else.

Ukraine is torn between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. So no, I don't think "the republic" should determine the outcome when it's clearly partisan and deeply divided. Almost the entire East region supported Yanukovych and the West supported nationalists and/or Europe-focused parties. The tyranny of the majority could jeopardize the survival of a people, and I don't think that's morally justifiable.

How about the tyranny of the majority on Crimea? About 58%, I believe, is ethnic Russian/Russian speaking - what of the other 42%? Why should the simple majority in Crimea rule and yet the simple majority in all of Ukraine is discounted?
 
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?


If one looks at the technical and legal sense. It was a coup.
 
Why then are the bullyboys having kittens, and ranting?

That's your proof? Really? And what 'bully boys' are you talking about? The ones in the Kremlin who keep sending troops to the Ukraine? Those bully boys? You Euro-lefties need to seek professional help. Your hatred of America has rendered you incoherent.
 
The nationalist government of Kiev poses a great threat to ethnic Russians. Obviously, such a government will neglect the needs of ethnic Russians. You do realize the new government has neo-Nazi elements and has members who are vocally and militantly nationalist?

Well, no it doesn't. But good to see the Russian propaganda machine has at least convinced somebody. Of course, those it convinces are those who long for the good old days of Soviet Imperialism.
 
Well, no it doesn't.

Have you not heard of Svoboda?

But good to see the Russian propaganda machine has at least convinced somebody. Of course, those it convinces are those who long for the good old days of Soviet Imperialism.

And yet I'm bitterly anti-Soviet, anti-communist. Although propaganda is rampant on both sides, I believe that it can be viewed objectively that ethnic Russians are at danger under the new Kiev regime. The U.S. has no right whatsoever to interfere: not only is its interference violating its policy of not interacting and supporting coup governments, but it is completely contradicting its supposed "bastion of freedom and democracy" foreign policy.
 
The nationalist government of Kiev poses a great threat to ethnic Russians. Obviously, such a government will neglect the needs of ethnic Russians. You do realize the new government has neo-Nazi elements and has members who are vocally and militantly nationalist?
Once again, do you have anything to show a threat other than a speculation and slogan? Anything done to anyone in Crimea? Anything vowed to be done?

We know the threat under Russia to Ukraineans in Crimea - against Tartar Muslims.
 
Have you not heard of Svoboda?



And yet I'm bitterly anti-Soviet, anti-communist. Although propaganda is rampant on both sides, I believe that it can be viewed objectively that ethnic Russians are at danger under the new Kiev regime. The U.S. has no right whatsoever to interfere: not only is its interference violating its policy of not interacting and supporting coup governments, but it is completely contradicting its supposed "bastion of freedom and democracy" foreign policy.

I do not believe you are bitterly anti-Soviet or communist by your messages whatsoever.

You obviously favor discrimination and "relocation" of Tartar Crimeans so ethnic Russians can again take their land - just as Stalin did. Since you approve of Russia taking Crimea on behave of white Russians and claiming their actions against Tartar Muslims identical to Stalin are better than the terrible threat of the Ukraine government declaring a national language, in this matter you are pro-Soviet and even pro-Stalinism as it gets in the world today.

You're white, aren't you?

Did Muslims ever do anything to you and or your family as to why you so bitterly despise them?
 
Thank you.

Declaring that Ukraine is establishing a national language is not oppression meriting another country seizing the territory. It is an absurd claim.

What's more is that the Ukrainian interim president vetoed laws that would have diminished Russian as a regional language status.

Yeah, they're really just like the Nazis, huh? :roll:
 
You obviously favor discrimination and "relocation" of Tartar Crimeans so ethnic Russians can again take their land - just as Stalin did.

Where did I say that?

The rest of your post is nonsense, not grounded in reality or anything I've typed. Why would the new right-wing Kiev government be any better for the Tartars? They'll be discriminated against under either regime, what do you propose be done?
 
Have you not heard of Svoboda?



And yet I'm bitterly anti-Soviet, anti-communist. Although propaganda is rampant on both sides, I believe that it can be viewed objectively that ethnic Russians are at danger under the new Kiev regime. The U.S. has no right whatsoever to interfere: not only is its interference violating its policy of not interacting and supporting coup governments, but it is completely contradicting its supposed "bastion of freedom and democracy" foreign policy.

For somebody who is supposedly 'bitterly anti-Soviet', you seem not to have much of a problem in supporting the new Soviet Union - Russia. Odd that the U.S. has no right - according to you - to even express an opinion in support of Ukraine, yet you have no problem with Russian troops invading the country and taking Ukrainians prisoner. This is just step one in re-asserting the new 'Greater Russia'. Once the Ukraine is taken care of, we can expect Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to suddenly be guilty of 'oppressing the Russian minority', which will call for Russian intervention to protect them.

But I suspect that won't bother you much.
 
What's more is that the Ukrainian interim president vetoed laws that would have diminished Russian as a regional language status.

Yeah, they're really just like the Nazis, huh? :roll:

This is the new refrain of the Euro-lefties - that Ukraine is the new Nazi threat and those peace-loving Russians ought to be thanked for invading them. This, of course, is a tactic older than dirt.
 
Odd that the U.S. has no right - according to you - to even express an opinion in support of Ukraine, yet you have no problem with Russian troops invading the country and taking Ukrainians prisoner.

Which Ukrainians are they taking prisoner? The vote was 95%+ in favour of joining Russia. Furthermore, the U.S., I thought, never cooperated with coup governments and is supposed to not encourage the violation of the democratic process? If I was an American, I would be worried when my government displays such hypocrisy...

This is just step one in re-asserting the new 'Greater Russia'. Once the Ukraine is taken care of, we can expect Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to suddenly be guilty of 'oppressing the Russian minority', which will call for Russian intervention to protect them.

Except that Russians are a majority in the Crimea, so it's not even remotely comparable. The Baltic states are members of the EU, so your scenario is just so improbable. The Baltic states have moved away from Russia, Ukraine was in the process of moving towards Russia; they elected a pro-Kremlin president, afterall. You should brush up your European geopolitics a bit, I say.
 
No. It was a popular uprising against a fairly unpopular leader in his own country. Was it "illegal"? Im gonna guess, by the Constitution of the Ukrainian state, it probably way. But when i think of coup i think of a small minority of the country (such as the military) forcefully taking a leader out. This seemed to be to be in-fact, popular uprising against a corrupt leader.
 
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?

Honestly, IMO only time will tell if it was a coup or a revolution. I say that because there is a possibility that non-Ukrainian elements were involved and the wider general population is just unaware of it at this time.
 
Ukraine was in the process of moving towards Russia; they elected a pro-Kremlin president, afterall. You should brush up your European geopolitics a bit, I say.
You should brush up on your Ukrainian politics quite a bit.

Yanukovych was elected because he politically spammed the people. Throughout his campaign in running for president, he promised the people of Ukraine that he would orient Ukraine towards the West and apply to join the European Union. He maintained this pretense all during his presidency, traveling to Brussels many times to schmooze with EU officials and sign pre-agreement documents.

But as showtime approached at Vilnius, in the last hour before he was to sign the EU Association Agreement, he did a total 180° flip and refused to fulfill his promise to the Ukrainian people. Not only did renege on his promises to orient Ukraine towards the West, he then began having secret meetings with Putin to join Russia's Customs Union. Exactly the opposite of his political promises and the people's expectations.

Finally realizing they had been bamboozled all along by a lying-corrupt-to-the-core-con-man, the protests at Maidan began.
 
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?





Was the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi a coup?

After you figure it all out, come back and tell us all about it.
 
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?

In general, I would agree with you. But, I think the reason why I would, is on account of longevity. That is to say, In the analogous cases you specify, the borders of the respective nations are long established, and the mutual responsibilities of the people so intertwined that the unravelling of the relationship is not simple. A longstanding entanglement has more legitimacy than one of short duration.

When you look honestly at the history of Crimea, it does seem odd that they ever went with Ukraine in the first place. Trust me, I have no love for Russia or Putin, but his assertions pertaining to Crimea have more than a veneer of legitimacy, to my mind, even if they lack legal legitimacy.

Now, from a strictly strategic standpoint, I think maybe we should make Russia pay as much as we can for their actions, without causing ourselves too much pain. I believe this simply because I do think Russia is horrible, and we have a veneer of legitimacy due to international laws, even if long standing tradition is not on our side.

Yet when I look at the broader picture, it would be nice to be able to side with the Tibetans and Taiwan against China. Surely, China will cite our ardent political defense of Ukraine as precedent for asking our equal support of their claims, should it ever come to it. Oh what a tangled web we weave...
 
Back
Top Bottom