Re: Hey Oleg, Comment?

jonathan, <news:ZtmdnWlD1O8S9ETJ...@giganews.com>
> On 2/9/2015 6:10 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>> The fact is, Yanukovych was 'ousted' by militant force.
>>
>> That's absolutely true.
>>
>>> If a few demonstrators with metal trash can lids
>>> strapped to their waists for body armor is
>>> military force, then I'm Bill Gates.
>>
>> A few thousand with fire arms - at the moment of the coup.
>>
>>> Besides it appears Yanukovych fled because
>>> his own cabinet turned their back on him.
>>
>> The true story's here <http://goo.gl/2YO3Vc>.
>>
>> It was a violent, militant anti-constitutional coup, Jonthy,
>> and I understand your desperate desire to invent and repeat
>> various 'plausible' excuses, but that can't change the fact.
>
> For starters, Yanukovych claimed he had an
> agreement with the protesters, they seem
> to disagree. And this so-called agreement
> took place a couple of hours before he left.
> Hardly enough time for anyone to implement
> anything.

Yanukovych once already reached an agreement with the protesters,
January 2014. He dismissed the prime minister, Azarov, and offered
this position and a few more top positions to the opposition
leaders. They didn't say yes or no, but demanded time 'to ponder'
and continued to bargain and intrigue.

At the time there was a dozen of days when situation in Kiev was
peaceful, - the big crowd remained in the Maidan square, but the
neo-Nazi militant groups did not attempt to attack the government
buildings. Many (including me) hoped it's coming to a resolution.
But in mid-February, under unimportant pretext, a few thousand of
the militants suddenly renewed their effort to seize the main
government buildings in Kiev, and it eventually led to the coup.

From December to February there was two sorts of the 'protesting
activities' in Kiev: the crowd in the Maidan square peacefully
listened to orators on stage and chanted slogans, including Nazi
ones, while the militant groups attempted to attack the government
quarter in Kiev. The riot police passively blocked the path to the
government and did pretty nothing about the crowd in the square.
The militants attacked the police with molotov cocktails and steel
arms, threw stones etc. The police was armed only with truncheons
and shields (and the extinguishers against the molotovs). Once they
tried to use water cannons against the militants, and it caused a
righteous indignation in the West ('torture with cold water' etc).
It is funny to compare this to how the West approved and even
incited the use of regular army against the anti-coup protesters.

Y. could order police to apply strict police means and arrest the
militants that tried to break into the government quarter but he
didn't give the order. The only reason for that was, he didn't want
to spoil relations with the 'friends'. Before he postponed the EU
association he was warmly treated by the West as a decent legitimate
leader, he met with the top EU politicians friendly, he met with
Obama too. He didn't want to look a bad guy in the eyes of the major
'democratic powers'. Such a behavior was naturally explained by the
fact that despite Y. has suspended the association, he still
planned to continue development of closer ties with the West, he
wasn't a 'Moscow puppet', he was just a fool.

Meanwhile, in the Western media, the attacks of the militants
(mostly the far right / neo-Nazi groups) on the riot police blocking
paths to the government was presented as a brutal repression against
a peaceful protest. The brutality of the events was interpreted as
an illustration of how much bloody the 'dictatorship' is, while in
reality the brutality was escalated by those 'protesting' militants
themselves, not by the authorities and police.

This way Y. put himself in the position of a masochist. Each time
when the police tried to curb the militants (not the Maidan crowd
but those attacking the government) Y. received strict warnings from
the Western politicians that "people have right to peaceful protest".
It's impossible to imagine that a legitimate government of a country
could for weeks tolerate violent attempts to seize governmental
buildings. But that's exactly what the West demanded from Y. under
pretext that "a peaceful protest must be allowed". Y. agreed to play
the role of masochist - this kindled the sense of impunity among the
militants and fueled their sadistic ardor, and their attacks became
even more tough and brutal.

Here's yet one description in some detail, written in March 2014.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.politics.misc/bUGQRZGP9Nw/ouPryLcN86IJ>

At the coup day, 2014-02-21, I posted a message about how it looks.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.politics.misc/riyFpzBqOpg/TkXmevPFI5AJ>

=== quotation ===
The clear fact is, all results that were achieved by the Ukrainian
protesters, were achieved exclusively because of the brutal fight
of the 'Right Sector' militants. The situation is, the 'protesters'
seize buildings, attack police with Molotov cocktails (and - since
yesterday - attack police with the firearms, and seize military
depots and police stations). Of course, the policemen could answer
adequately, but they have no order. And the Western leaders repeat
constantly and droningly: you must provide opportunity for peaceful
protest, you must respect the freedom of people for the peaceful
protest. Accompanied with these words the 'peaceful protesters'
reinforce their violent activities more and more strongly, and in
response to that the Western leaders repeat even more loudly that
the people have the right for the peaceful protest.

It might be worthwhile to assign a special name for this, in fact,
sadistic combination of psychological and violent pressure on a
victim. The Western powers have just applied this sadistic practice
to Yanukovich and the Ukrainian government. Now Yanukovich must be
feeling himself as a victim of merry rape, or like that. ..
=== end of quotation ===

The above was needed to show a simple fact: Yanukovych foolishly
trusted 'the West', and diligently followed Western demands up to
the very moment of the coup. If he was a bit smarter then he could
understand much earlier that the West appointed him to the role of
rape victim from the very beginning. He was / is actually a rather
stupid person. He trusted the West, he entered into final agreement
with the opposition under pressure from the West, and those European
foreign ministers assumed the role of guarantors that the agreement
will be honored by the protesters, and Y. trusted that, and the
coup has happened mainly because the EU 'guarantors' abandoned
their commitment to get the opposition to respect the agreement.

I have no sympathy for Yanukovych, he largely brought himself to
that infamous end by himself. Though the Western politicians make
me feel much more contempt and disgust towards them. But the case
is not about persons, it's a matter of principle. Whatever a person
in power was, it's wrong to break democratic, constitutional
procedures. And the present civil war in the Ukraine may illustrate
this thesis well.

> And second, the vote to remove him had two
> constitutional problems, it wasn't reviewed
> by the court, and the vote was 10 votes short
> of the needed supermajority.
>
> So technically one could say the impeachment was
> unconstitutional.

This is of secondary importance. Even more significant fact is that
the parliamentarians 'voted' under violent pressure and at gunpoint.
It does not allow to take 'parliamentarian' decisions seriously.

And the 'fled' 'argument' doesn't hold water at all. It's within the
framework of presidential powers to make visits to where he or she
needs. 'He fled' is a dull far-fetched excuse for very stupid public.

With this shameful Ukrainian mess the current Western establishment
has dragged itself into so deep abyss of moral degradation that I've
no doubt it will cause a quite heavy retaliation in the future.