| |
| ▲ | lenkite 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual. But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today. | | |
| ▲ | 9dev 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That is an awful retelling of history. There was no revolution in Ukraine, but protests and demonstrations that were brutally crushed by government forces. The people persevered though and the president fled the country, leading to a formal and correct process of electing a new government after. The US didn’t have anything more to do with this. | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The US didn’t have anything more to do with this. Only if one is utterly blind and put fingers in their ears, can one truly believe that. Nuland's call was leaked where she was proudly deciding who would form the next government in Ukraine and who should be kept on the outside. And her personal choice of puppet: "Yats" did in-fact become the prime minister. Nuland was even handing out cookies to anti-Yanukovych protests for Christ's sake. Mc Cain actually flew in and congratulated the protesters. Imagine if that was happening in the US against a US President - members of foreign nation's government cheering on a coup and deciding who would be the next President. There would be Absolute War. | | |
| ▲ | 9dev 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | For those reading this and doubting: Read the call transcript for yourself, annotated by Jonathan Marcus of the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 Yes, the USA is attempting to facilitate talks here. No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I also fully support not just reading the call transcript, but also listening to the leaked call so you get Nuland's firm tone. I would reserve very skeptical judgement on the "annotations". Those weren't part of the call. Listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y > No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda Anyone with a rational brain who separates themselves from biases and emotions and carefully listens to the call would realize there is no propaganda involved here. Also, for better clarity of judgement, please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government. | | |
| ▲ | mopsi 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government. We can discuss potential successors to Xi right here on HN, and an outsider might say that "a forum frequented by Silicon Valley billionaires is picking the next leader of China". But that would be a huge misrepresentation of us and our influence. The fixation of Russian trolls on that single phone call reeks of desperation. During election season, I'd expect hundreds of such calls to be happening at any given moment between various officials, strategists, financiers, candidates, analysts, and many other people. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stavros 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But the GP is not saying the election wasn't valid, they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself. I hate the US meddling as much as the next guy, but why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"? | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All politicians "mispresent themselves". Kicking them out during elections is the way they are thrown out in a functioning democracy. Or do you believe Americans should storm the White House and beat up the President anytime a campaign promise is broken ? And one that is magnified by the funding and urging of a foreign government ? Such actions - which break the "deal of democracy" naturally lead to civil war - which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. | | |
| ▲ | motorest 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > All politicians "mispresent themselves". No. The ones that try to push agendas that go against their programme and are deeply unpopular will often see public protests and even general strikes demanding policy reversals or governments stepping down. Do you call those regime changes as well? | |
| ▲ | stavros 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't care what Americans do, but I'd quite like to storm our parliament and kick out the current government. |
| |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not 100% sure of Ukraine, but most democracies have a legal way to impeach a sitting president. If Yanukovich was committing literal treason, acting on behalf of a foreign country, there should have been a slam dunk case for impeachment. | | |
| ▲ | stavros 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Our government killed 50 people in a train accident because they couldn't be bothered to maintain the safety systems, then immediately ordered crews to the site to cover everything up with dirt so there would be no trace of fuel additives being illegally transported on a passenger train. The courts found no wrongdoing, and they're still in power. Who's going to impeach them? |
| |
| ▲ | spacecadet 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree with you. | |
| ▲ | m000 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself You mean like "peacemaker"/"America First" Donald Trump? > why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"? If Americans can wait out for the second Trump term to be over, Ukrainians could do it too for Yanukovych. | | |
| |
| ▲ | motorest 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. Yes, he was. What you are leaving out is the fact that in spite of being elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU platform, it turned out he was a Russian agent and betrayed his mandate to enforce Kremlin's anti-west agenda and force himself upon Ukraine as another kremlin-controlled dictatorship. Except the people of Ukraine wanted none of that and protested against this betrayal, which culminated in the wannabe dictator seeking exile in Russia. Somehow you leave this out when you talk about basic democratic principles. Why is that? Is it out of sheer ignorance? What's also very odd is the way that you somehow try to portray anti-government protests as revolutions and regime changes, when this is a Hallmark of any democratic system: when a government doesn't follow through with their compromise and go directly against their mandate and people's will, they express their discontent and demand elections. How odd that when democracies reject Russia's interference, this is deemed as an anti-democratic coup. | |
| ▲ | Narretz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's no way of knowing that Russia wouldn't have incited the "rebellions" anyway. Once the writing was on the wall that the majority of Ukrainians didn't want to be Russia's puppets, Putin would likely have acted one way or the other. Why take chances? | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "He could have been overthrown in the next elections" Let me see if Erdogan can be overthrown in the next elections in Turkey. No US involvement either. If you live in a stable Western country, your trust in the next elections being fair and free is understandable, but in that case, refrain from any authoritative talk ("your arguments don't matter") about other places. In recent democracies that transitioned from totalitarian rule just a decade or two ago, elections are far easier to hijack than in the UK or Denmark. "no-one would have batted an eye" You cannot really make such a strong prediction about places like Ukraine, the Balkans, the Middle East etc. These are places where empires collide, and several crises in a century are almost a given. Anyway I am fairly glad that Ukraine didn't end up like Belarus did, a satellite state of Moscow. Anything is better than becoming a satellite state of Moscow. Most of us from behind the Iron Curtain would rather fight a war than submit to Moscow again. Interestingly, the Western leftists, who otherwise preach anti-colonialism from breakfast to sunset and then some, don't understand the same dynamic among white-majority nations. But it is still there. | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did you somehow magically miss the part where Yanukovych's election was extensively observed and vetted by the EU and several other international bodies ? The EU’s own delegation — alongside the OSCE and other bodies — stated that the election was "free, fair, and transparent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el... "Over 700 observers from EU member states participated, in addition to OSCE/ODIHR, the EU Parliament, PACE, and other international delegations" The Guardian reported EU-led observers praised the vote as "fair and truly competitive" noting only "minor irregularities” that did not affect overall results". "After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukov... | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Did you somehow magically miss the part" Could you tone down your arrogance, please? I was talking about the next election. You expressed your conviction that Yanukovich could be removed in the next election, remember? I expressed my doubt about iron-cladness of such future election. Strongmen-like leaders in fresh democracies have a lot of methods how to win next elections without actually winning them. | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, but I am really incredulous now - If he won the next election even after extensive vetting by EU and a plethora of international observers who called the elections "fair and transparent", then he has completely won the seat of the Presidency. On what basis does your personal opinion overrule the result of democracy ? | | |
| ▲ | mopsi 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The fact that someone won elections doesn't mean they get to stay until the end of their term no matter what they do. Yanukovych had over 100 people killed in a violent crackdown on protests, then fled to Russia as he was about to be imprisoned. On 21 February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to hold snap elections to replace Yanukovych before the end of his term. Not a single member of his own party supported him or voted against the decision. He was replaced through general elections held a few months later. This is exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_election | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, by that time the coup was successful. Anyone in Kyiv who objected to it would face arrest and incarceration themselves. The vote did not follow formal impeachment procedure under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution (which requires a Constitutional Court review and more formal steps). I am sure you then have no objections to the 53–0 vote in Crimea to remove the then-Ukrainian-appointed prime minister Anatoly Mogilev and install Sergei Aksyonov and the subsequent referendum on autonomy. After all, this is "exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work". | | |
| ▲ | mopsi 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The vote by the parliament did follow formal procedures: not those of an impeachment, because the president was not impeached, but those of snap elections, as the parliament chose to replace the government through elections. In terms of legitimacy, general elections trump over everything else. A coup is commonly defined as an illegitimate seizure of power by a small group. General elections are the polar opposite, the furthest thing from a coup. Regarding the Crimean referendum, I do have objections: international law considers referendums held under foreign military occupation illegitimate, and rightfully so. Had Hitler staged a referendum in occupied Paris after the invasion, would that have meant that the French willingly joined the Third Reich? The Crimean referendum is nothing new. In the 1940s, the USSR also staged a series of votes to legitimize their invasions of European nations. At this point, I would consider anyone expecting me to take these referendums seriously as either severely underinformed or simply maliciously trolling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
