@metal-brain saidYou, obviously, love being lied to.
@sonhouse
You like being lied to, right? If it is for a good cause you want to be lied to.
https://www.newsweek.com/government-keeps-lying-us-about-ukraine-where-outrage-opinion-1806332
You believe Putin and you believe Trump.
How gullible can you get? Would you believe me if I told you I could fly? Why not? You believe even bigger whoppers from Putin and Trump.
@metal-brain saidYou must be in love with Putin to believe his brand of nonsense.
And we all know you have a bias in support of the evil empire that wants to dominate the world. You are a Nazi cheerleader. The USA overthrew Ukraine and installed Nazis into government to be their puppets. Why do you support that?
How embarrassing.
@metal-brain saidOh well done halfwit your almost there
"Maidan was about the people taking back sovereign political power from the Kremlin"
That is what the Cuban people thought about Castro getting rid of Batista since he was a puppet of the USA. Cuba was a US colony after the USA stole it from Spain. Are we now going to entertain that some coups are good coups? Good for who?
The Cuban revolution was popular uprising against a regime that exploited the people and took its orders from Washington
The Maidan uprising was a popular uprising against a regime that exploited the people and took its orders from Moscow
Your the double standard hypocrite not me
@kevcvs57 saidI'm avoiding the Forum as much as possible but this misinformation has to be challenged and Ukraine's Constitution is a "legal subject" about which apologists for the 2014 coup seem to know and/or care little about.
Oh well done halfwit your almost there
The Cuban revolution was popular uprising against a regime that exploited the people and took its orders from Washington
The Maidan uprising was a popular uprising against a regime that exploited the people and took its orders from Moscow
Your the double standard hypocrite not me
Batista was a dictator who seized power in an illegal coup months before an election:
"On March 10, 1952, three months before the elections, Batista, with army backing, staged a coup and seized power. He ousted outgoing President Carlos Prío Socarrás, canceled the elections and took control of the government as a provisional president. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#:~:text=Batista%20defeated%20Grau%20in%20the,white%20Cuban%20in%20that%20office.
By contrast, Yanukovych won an election in 2010:
"Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said there were no indications of serious fraud and described the vote as an "impressive display" of democracy. "For everyone in Ukraine this election was a victory," João Soares, president of the OSCE's parliamentary assembly, said.
With almost all votes counted, the Russian-leaning opposition leader, Viktor Yanukovych, had a clear 2.65% lead over Tymoshenko. So far, however, Tymoshenko has refused to recognise her opponent's victory, cancelling a press conference scheduled for this afternoon."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukovych-ukraine-president-election
As you have been informed countless times, Yanukovych's ouster was illegal under the Ukraine's Constitution and done after he had already made an EU backed deal with the three main opposition parties for early elections and other reforms.
@no1marauder saidThat still doesn't change the fact that the Maidan uprising was a protest against Yanukovych backing out of a partnership with the West.
I'm avoiding the Forum as much as possible but this misinformation has to be challenged and Ukraine's Constitution is a "legal subject" about which apologists for the 2014 coup seem to know and/or care little about.
Batista was a dictator who seized power in an illegal coup months before an election:
"On March 10, 1952, three months before the elections, Batista, wi ...[text shortened]... made an EU backed deal with the three main opposition parties for early elections and other reforms.
The government's removal of the president was illegal but the Ukrainian people were indeed outraged that Ukraine backed out of the EU deal.
@vivify saidSome surely were, some surely weren't. The way these things are decided in a democratic republic are by elections, not coups.
That still doesn't change the fact that the Maidan uprising was a protest against Yanukovych backing out of a partnership with the West.
The Ukrainian government's actions were illegal but the Ukrainian people were outraged that Ukraine backed out of the EU deal.
@no1marauder saidAgreed.
Some surely were, some surely weren't. The way these things are decided in a democratic republic are by elections, not coups.
I offer this article for discussion:
"On 21 February 2014, the day before President Yanukovych was overthrown, the EU brokered an agreement [1] that provided for the transfer within 48 hours of substantial presidential powers to the Ukranian parliament and the creation within 10 days of a “national unity government”, which would remain in place until presidential elections were held.
The agreement was signed by President Yanukovych and by the leaders of the three main opposition parties and was backed, verbally at least, by the EU and the US. Russia also supported it.
Had the agreement been implemented, it is very likely that the present standoff between the West and Russia would never have happened – and it’s possible that, with the EU and Russia acting together, Ukraine could have been set on the road to a stable and inclusive form of government, the like of which it has never had as an independent state.
But the opposition leaders reneged on the deal and, the next day, backed the unconstitutional overthrow of Yanukovych, replacing him with an opposition figure, and established a “government” representative of the opposition and not a “national unity government” as provided for in the agreement.
The EU stood idly by while this was happening and blessed the illegitimate regime that came into being as a result, as did the US. Its leaders have now been feted in Brussels and Washington.
It was the EU’s disavowal of this agreement that led to the standoff between the West and Russia.
Main points
The main points of the agreement were
Within 48 hours, re-introduction of 2004 constitution thereby reducing presidential powers
Within 10 days, creation of a “national unity government”
Constitutional reform “balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament” to be completed in September 2014
Presidential elections, once a new constitution is agreed
Normalisation of life in the cities and villages by withdrawing from administrative and public buildings and unblocking streets, city parks and squares
Illegal weapons to be handed over to Ministry of Interior bodies
A further (third) amnesty for participants in the recent disturbances
An investigation of recent violence, monitored by the Council of Europe.
The implementation of these arrangements would not have involved any action in breach of the Ukranian constitution, unlike the removal from power of the President that took place on 22 February.
The agreement was brokered by the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland (Laurent Fabius, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Radoslaw Sikorski) acting on behalf of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (who was in Iran).
A Russian representative, Vladimir Lukin, was also present during the negotiations and, according to Sikorski, “made interventions during the marathon talks which eased the path towards an agreement” [2].
The agreement was signed by the leaders of the three main opposition parties, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (Fatherland) Vitali Klitschko (UDAR) and Oleh Tyahnybok (Freedom) and by President Yanukovich himself. The European foreign ministers signed the document as witnesses, but the Russian representative did not.
Agreement welcomed by EU & US (and Russia)
The agreement was wholeheartedly endorsed by Catherine Ashton on behalf of the EU:
“I welcome the agreement reached today by the President and the opposition leaders. This agreement opens the way for a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine. A democratic and peaceful solution is the only way forward. The EU has been very much engaged in all the efforts that led to this important breakthrough. I particularly commend the important work on my behalf of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland who facilitated this agreement. Implementation is now key. I call upon all signatories to respect the agreement and recall full Ukrainian ownership and responsibility for its immediate implementation.” [3]
For the UK, David Cameron also welcomed the agreement, saying that “it should foster a lasting political solution to the crisis” [4]. He added:
“Over the last 24 hours, I have spoken to President Putin, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Tusk. We all support this deal and want to see it work. And working with other European partners and the United States, we will do all we can to ensure it succeeds.”
For the US, President Obama’s press secretary welcomed the agreement, saying that it “is consistent with what we have advocated in calling for a de-escalation of the violence, constitutional change, a coalition government, and early elections” [5], adding:
“Now, the focus must be on concrete action to implement this agreement, which we will be monitoring closely.”
Later, on 21 February, Obama talked to Putin by telephone and, according to a State department spokesman:
"They agreed that the agreement reached today needed to be implemented quickly, that it was very important to encourage all sides to refrain from violence, that there was a real opportunity here for a peaceful outcome.” [6]
EU backs illegitimate regime
So, on 21 February, an agreement with the potential for stabilising the political situation in Ukraine was apparently supported across the political spectrum in Ukraine and had got the backing not only of the EU and the US, but also of Russia. All that was necessary was to implement it as quickly as possible.
But opposition signatories did not honour the agreement and proceed to its immediate implementation. Instead, the day after they signed it, they reneged on it and backed the unconstitutional overthrow of the President and established a new regime, which is not representative of the east and south-east of Ukraine
And what did the EU do then? It backed the new regime, as if the agreement on 21 February had never happened.
In a press conference, on a visit to Ukraine on 25 February, Catherine Ashton never mentioned the EU brokered deal of 4 days earlier in her opening statement, a deal which 4 days earlier she had said “opens the way for a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine” [7].
When she was asked about the deal, she muttered that “the situation has moved on”. Indeed it had, a President had been overthrown by unconstitutional means, which had it happened in other parts of the world the EU would most likely have condemned it. When asked if she agreed with the Russian government that “the situation in Ukraine is illegal”, she avoided answering the question.
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/ukraine/eu-21-february-agreement.htm
The article doesn't say but the reason why the opposition leaders reneged on the agreement was because armed ultra-nationalists who opposed it were in possession of the critical government buildings in Kyiv:
"On 21 February, with a public announcement by the Maidan leaders of the parliamentary opposition of the signed Agreement, one of the activists of "self-Defense Maidan" Volodymyr Parasyuk said that he and "Maidan self-Defense" were not satisfied with the gradual political reforms specified in the document, and demanded the immediate resignation of President Yanukovych – otherwise, he threatened to storm the presidential administration and the Verkhovna Rada. This statement was met with applause. The leader of the Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh stated that the Agreement does not provide a clear commitment to the President's resignation, the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada, the punishment of heads of law enforcement agencies and "criminal orders, which were killed about a hundred Ukrainian citizens", and refused to comply with it.[4] On the night of 22 February, Euromaidan activists occupied the government quarter as law enforcement was abandoning it, and put forward a number of new requirements – in particular, they demanded the immediate resignation of President Yanukovych.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine
@kevcvs57 saidSo Washington and Moscow are both regimes that exploited people. That is basically what you said. Like I have been saying all along, there are no white hats. All of the most powerful regimes are black hats. Evil vs. evil.
Oh well done halfwit your almost there
The Cuban revolution was popular uprising against a regime that exploited the people and took its orders from Washington
The Maidan uprising was a popular uprising against a regime that exploited the people and took its orders from Moscow
Your the double standard hypocrite not me
Why are you taking sides again?
@no1marauder saidThis omits key details, like Yanukovych specifically being the one to "renege" on the deal, and his brutal, bloody crackdown on protestors.
But the opposition leaders reneged on the deal and, the next day, backed the unconstitutional overthrow of Yanukovych, replacing him with an opposition figure, and established a “government” representative of the opposition and not a “national unity government” as provided for in the agreement.
So when your posts says "The EU stood idly by while this was happening and blessed the illegitimate regime" it's leaving out important context that a violent dictator with a proven history of corruption was ousted.
This article lies by omission.
@no1marauder saidAlso not true. Putin threatened harsh sanctions if Ukraine agreed to the EU deal. More lies by omission.
“Over the last 24 hours, I have spoken to President Putin, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Tusk. We all support this deal and want to see it work.
@vivify saidNo it doesn't. The deal was made after the violence and broken within 24 hours not by Ukraine's elected President but by the opposition.
This omits key details, like Yanukovych specifically being the one to "renege" on the deal, and his brutal, bloody crackdown on protestors.
So when your posts says "The EU stood idly by while this was happening and blessed the illegitimate regime" it's leaving out important context that a violent dictator with a proven history of corruption was ousted.
This article lies by omission.
@vivify saidThat's a direct quote from the UK Prime Minister at the time.
Also not true. Putin threatened harsh sanctions if Ukraine agreed to the EU deal. More lies by omission.
@no1marauder saidAgain, I said this omits key details. I was referring to the EU trade deal that first brokered in 2013. Yanukovich backed out of that deal, sparking massive protests which he violently suppressed. That's important context leading up to his ouster.
No it doesn't. The deal was made after the violence and broken within 24 hours not by Ukraine's elected President but by the opposition.
@no1marauder saidIt's a lie by omission ignoring that Putin threatened harsh sanctions if the EU trade deal was passed. The resulting deal was one that favored Russia.
That's a direct quote from the UK Prime Minister at the time.
Your article leaves out the strongarm tactics of Putin and Yanukavich to make his ouster seem like villainy.