Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 5

[Paulsie]

The phone call where the US expressed a preference for a certain candidate, oh noes

Fact - Yanukovych wanted to sign a deal which was more beneficial to Ukraine (his parliament majority voted against the EU deal)
Fact - pro-western west of Ukraine protested and violence ensued
Fact - in order to stop violence and create a space to negotiate, Yanukovich offered two political positions to his opponents (prime minister to Yatsenyuk and deputy to Klitshko). When they subsequently denied (see below), he agreed to bring presidential elections forward to allow people the opportunity to vote.

What later transpired (from the conversation) was that the US got directly involved by direct contact with the opposition leaders. What followed everyone knows.

As for the phonecalls themselves, everyone just focuses too much on the "fk Europe" part. Meanwhile, there were more important parts to the conversation. Even the bloody BBC reported io it as well as on the US involvement.

Also - @TEXTILE GUY - this is my answer to your question earlier on. The US government / foreign office has as much blood on their hands as Russia and I denounce both of them.

I also denounce all those who supported the illegitimate overthrow of a sitting president.

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

BBC commentator..

Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan.

Transcript..

I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario.

I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together.

He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

And lastly, the parliamentary vote to impeach and remove sitting president was note done according to the process laid out in the Ukrainian constitution. As such, Yanukovich was removed unconstitutionally.

How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine

In a statement on 4 March 2014, Foreign Minister William Hague deceived the House of Commons about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine... He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February in...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

 

[Howdy]

Are you sure? That's a convenient excuse. I'm sure they would have ignored it anyway because how can anyone condeming Russia for her aggression not be an evil puppy eating Holocaust denier.

I am sure you'll enjoy "Let's do the time warp again". But please post about it in Off Topic, not here.

 

[Blu82]

People are starting to ask this question.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581722611037315072

 

[MiW]

Fact - Yanukovych wanted to sign a deal which was more beneficial to Ukraine (his parliament majority voted against the EU deal)
Fact - pro-western west of Ukraine protested and violence ensued
Fact - in order to stop violence and create a space to negotiate, Yanukovich offered two political positions to his opponents (prime minister to Yatsenyuk and deputy to Klitshko). When they subsequently denied (see below), he agreed to bring presidential elections forward to allow people the opportunity to vote.

What later transpired (from the conversation) was that the US got directly involved by direct contact with the opposition leaders. What followed everyone knows.

As for the phonecalls themselves, everyone just focuses too much on the "fk Europe" part. Meanwhile, there were more important parts to the conversation. Even the bloody BBC reported io it as well as on the US involvement.

Also - @TEXTILE GUY - this is my answer to your question earlier on. The US government / foreign office has as much blood on their hands as Russia and I denounce both of them.

I also denounce all those who supported the illegitimate overthrow of a sitting president.

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

BBC commentator..


Transcript..








And lastly, the parliamentary vote to impeach and remove sitting president was note done according to the process laid out in the Ukrainian constitution. As such, Yanukovich was removed unconstitutionally.

How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine

In a statement on 4 March 2014, Foreign Minister William Hague deceived the House of Commons about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine... He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February in...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

You are so full of schitty facts , but somehow you manage to ignore the singular biggest reason for Maidan to happen.

The Ukrainian anti-protest laws are a group of ten laws restricting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.[1] The laws were passed by the Parliament of Ukraine on January 16, 2014, (referred to as Black Thursday) and signed into law by President Viktor Yanukovych the following day,[2][3] amid massive anti-government protests that started in November. The laws are collectively known as the "dictatorship laws" (Ukrainian: закони про диктатуру) by Euromaidan activists,[4] non-governmental organizations,[5] scholars,[6] and the Ukrainian media.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Western nations have criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship.[16] The laws were widely denounced internationally, with US Secretary of State John Kerry describing them as "anti-democratic".[citation needed]

When adopting the laws the Parliament violated a number of its own procedural rules. The laws were voted mostly by showing of hands. This is allowed by the Rules of Procedureuk but only when there is no "technical possibility" to vote through the electronic system. Moreover, hands were "counted" within a few seconds, based on the number of MPs included in the parliamentary groups, while many MPs were in fact absent. Diplomats observing the votes counted only some 100 to 140 raised hands, while the laws would have needed to be adopted by a majority of 226 votes. Most of the laws were adopted without prior consideration in the parliament's committees as required and with no time for examining the laws even by the MPs.[22]

Let me repeat it again for you.

criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship

 

[MiW]

 

[MiW]

You are so full of schitty facts , but somehow you manage to ignore the singular biggest reason for Maidan to happen.

The Ukrainian anti-protest laws are a group of ten laws restricting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.[1] The laws were passed by the Parliament of Ukraine on January 16, 2014, (referred to as Black Thursday) and signed into law by President Viktor Yanukovych the following day,[2][3] amid massive anti-government protests that started in November. The laws are collectively known as the "dictatorship laws" (Ukrainian: закони про диктатуру) by Euromaidan activists,[4] non-governmental organizations,[5] scholars,[6] and the Ukrainian media.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Western nations have criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship.[16] The laws were widely denounced internationally, with US Secretary of State John Kerry describing them as "anti-democratic".[citation needed]

When adopting the laws the Parliament violated a number of its own procedural rules. The laws were voted mostly by showing of hands. This is allowed by the Rules of Procedureuk but only when there is no "technical possibility" to vote through the electronic system. Moreover, hands were "counted" within a few seconds, based on the number of MPs included in the parliamentary groups, while many MPs were in fact absent. Diplomats observing the votes counted only some 100 to 140 raised hands, while the laws would have needed to be adopted by a majority of 226 votes. Most of the laws were adopted without prior consideration in the parliament's committees as required and with no time for examining the laws even by the MPs.[22]

Let me repeat it again for you.

criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship

Anti-protest laws in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Provisions​

The laws have provisions such as:[4]

• Criminalizing "extremist activity", which according to TI Ukraine is defined in "broad and vague terms",[22] with a hefty fine for a first offence and up to three years in jail for a repeat offence.
• Simplifying the process of removal of parliamentary immunity during criminal proceedings to a majority vote in the Parliament. A prior review is no longer required by the Parliamentary committee;
• Extending and applying amnesty from prosecution previously adopted by the Parliament to those who committed crimes against protestors, including Berkut security forces and other law enforcement officials;
• Allowing trial in absentia of individuals, including prison terms in cases where the person refuses to appear in court when criminal proceedings in the absence of such person are pronounced possible;
• Simplifying procedures for serving summons and filing administrative protocols;
• Creating a penalty for blocking access to residential buildings of up to six years in jail;
• Drivers of motorcades of more than 5 cars, if they cause traffic jams, face the loss of their driver's license and vehicle for up to two years (unless permission is obtained from the Ministry of Internal Affairs);
• Gathering and disseminating information about the Berkut, judges, or their respective families carries a penalty of up to 2 years in jail;
• Defamation, either by means of press or social media, carries a penalty of up to one year in jail;
• Law enforcement officials involved in similar activities and their families face a maximum prison term of six months;
• The penalty for blocking government buildings is up to five years in jail; that for blocking of entrance to a residence is up to three years of restriction of liberty
• Up to 15 days in jail for unauthorised installation of tents, stages and sound equipment;
• Anti-mask law with the provision of up to 15 days in jail for participation in peaceful gatherings wearing a mask, camouflage clothing, scarf, helmet, or other means of concealing or protecting one's face or head;
• Non-governmental organizations that accept foreign funds must register as "foreign agents" and face high scrutiny and additional tax measures;
• Mandatory licensing of Internet providers;
• Provisions for legal governmental Internet censorship;
• A broad definition of "extremist activities," which disallows non-governmental organizations and churches from engaging in support of civil protests.[4]

 

[sefeddt]

Next round of Russian attacks. Appears to be drones.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581861311712923650

 

[MiW]

Putin convenes Russia’s Security Council again

ROMAN PETRENKO – SUNDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2022, 14:52

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[sefeddt]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581610302856081410

 

[MiW]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581783332257660928

 

[MiW]

Russia war in Ukraine pushes 4 million children into poverty: UN

Study of 22 countries shows children in Russia and Ukraine were most affected by the economic fallout of war, UN says.

www.aljazeera.com

The conflict “and rising inflation have driven an additional four million children across Eastern Europe and Central Asia into poverty, a 19 percent increase since 2021”, it said.

UNICEF drew its conclusions from a study of data from 22 countries.

Russian and Ukrainian children have been most affected since Moscow attacked its neighbour in February.

“Russia accounts for nearly three-quarters of the total increase in the number of children living in poverty due to the Ukraine war and a cost-of-living crisis across the region, with an additional 2.8 million children now living in households below the poverty line,” UNICEF found.


The blow to Russia’s economy from Western sanctions has combined with its large population to produce the outsize effect.

“Ukraine is home to half a million additional children living in poverty, the second largest share,” UNICEF added.

 

[MunosMachos]

You are so full of schitty facts , but somehow you manage to ignore the singular biggest reason for Maidan to happen.

The Ukrainian anti-protest laws are a group of ten laws restricting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.[1] The laws were passed by the Parliament of Ukraine on January 16, 2014, (referred to as Black Thursday) and signed into law by President Viktor Yanukovych the following day,[2][3] amid massive anti-government protests that started in November. The laws are collectively known as the "dictatorship laws" (Ukrainian: закони про диктатуру) by Euromaidan activists,[4] non-governmental organizations,[5] scholars,[6] and the Ukrainian media.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Western nations have criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship.[16] The laws were widely denounced internationally, with US Secretary of State John Kerry describing them as "anti-democratic".[citation needed]

When adopting the laws the Parliament violated a number of its own procedural rules. The laws were voted mostly by showing of hands. This is allowed by the Rules of Procedureuk but only when there is no "technical possibility" to vote through the electronic system. Moreover, hands were "counted" within a few seconds, based on the number of MPs included in the parliamentary groups, while many MPs were in fact absent. Diplomats observing the votes counted only some 100 to 140 raised hands, while the laws would have needed to be adopted by a majority of 226 votes. Most of the laws were adopted without prior consideration in the parliament's committees as required and with no time for examining the laws even by the MPs.[22]

Let me repeat it again for you.

criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship

Translation:
USA: Look, a dictator and dictator laws! We must intervene to give them freedom and democracy just like we gifted it to the Middle East! Oh and of course we must "secure" their energy for them.

 

[Paulsie]

You are so full of schitty facts , but somehow you manage to ignore the singular biggest reason for Maidan to happen.

The Ukrainian anti-protest laws are a group of ten laws restricting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.[1] The laws were passed by the Parliament of Ukraine on January 16, 2014, (referred to as Black Thursday) and signed into law by President Viktor Yanukovych the following day,[2][3] amid massive anti-government protests that started in November. The laws are collectively known as the "dictatorship laws" (Ukrainian: закони про диктатуру) by Euromaidan activists,[4] non-governmental organizations,[5] scholars,[6] and the Ukrainian media.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Western nations have criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship.[16] The laws were widely denounced internationally, with US Secretary of State John Kerry describing them as "anti-democratic".[citation needed]

When adopting the laws the Parliament violated a number of its own procedural rules. The laws were voted mostly by showing of hands. This is allowed by the Rules of Procedureuk but only when there is no "technical possibility" to vote through the electronic system. Moreover, hands were "counted" within a few seconds, based on the number of MPs included in the parliamentary groups, while many MPs were in fact absent. Diplomats observing the votes counted only some 100 to 140 raised hands, while the laws would have needed to be adopted by a majority of 226 votes. Most of the laws were adopted without prior consideration in the parliament's committees as required and with no time for examining the laws even by the MPs.[22]

Let me repeat it again for you.

criticised the laws for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations.[14] They have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian",[15] with Timothy Snyder claiming that they effectively established the nation as a dictatorship

I am aware of that part as well. That does not change the fact that the president was removed unconstitutionally and new (illegitimate) government installed with the US assistance. Some might call it coup. Everything else that followed was as a result of this.

Like it or not, but you can't reason out of it.

 

[Cray]

And lastly, the parliamentary vote to impeach and remove sitting president was note done according to the process laid out in the Ukrainian constitution. As such, Yanukovich was removed unconstitutionally.

How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine

In a statement on 4 March 2014, Foreign Minister William Hague deceived the House of Commons about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine... He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February in...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

He wasn't impeached though...

https://www.ponarseurasia.org/was-yanukovych-s-removal-constitutional/

How was Yanukovych removed?

The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).

Why didn’t the Rada impeach Yanukovych?

The impeachment process, as outlined by the Ukrainian Constitution, was not the most obvious constitutional option in the situation that existed on February 21-22. The impeachment process is a drawn-out procedure that is reserved for cases when the president has committed treason or other crimes. The immediate problem on the evening of February 21 was that the Yanukovych regime had dissolved and Yanukovych had left the capital, apparently not intending to return for a while. The dissolution of his regime was evidenced by the Interior Minister and the Speaker of Parliament also leaving the country, the departure of several important Party of Regions MPs, and, furthermore, the chief of the army resigned.

The full article is worth a read.

 

[Cray]

I am aware of that part as well. That does not change the fact that the president was removed unconstitutionally and new (illegitimate) government installed with the US assistance. Some might call it coup. Everything else that followed was as a result of this.

Lets say 2014 was unconstitutional (I don't think it was), why does that then invalidate the elections that happened in 2019?

You have to give a solid reason as to why 2019 was not free and fair, plenty of countries have had coups and then resorted back to democracy, a coup doesn't automatically invalidate anything that comes after it. If no elections had been held and there was a dictator, then I would agree, but stating that the supposed coup counts more than actual elections held 5 years later, can you please explain your reasoning?

 

[Paulsie]

He wasn't impeached though...

https://www.ponarseurasia.org/was-yanukovych-s-removal-constitutional/





The full article is worth a read.

Interesting read, thank you.

So he was voted out on a technicality - he left and was assumed to not return. Also the constitutional court was not approached as they were deemed to be aligned with Yanuchovych and the result was not expected to be independent.
So they took it upon themselves to make a more independent decision.
All made on the assumption that Yanuchovych would not return, nor that he would be able to govern from wherever he was hiding at the time

 

[MunosMachos]

Decent interview. Pilger is right about this being a propaganda war and the jingoism seen in this war is extreme.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The person you are trying to defend (@Cosmik Debris) attacks everybody and anybody. He's actually become unfittingly and unnecessarily rude to others lately.

Truth is now a personal attack?

 

[Blu82]

A lot of Iranian suicide drone attacks in Kiev this morning.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581861327735508993

 

[MiW]

I am aware of that part as well. That does not change the fact that the president was removed unconstitutionally and new (illegitimate) government installed with the US assistance. Some might call it coup. Everything else that followed was as a result of this.

Like it or not, but you can't reason out of it.

Never mind that your facts are wrong, the question is how do you remove a dictator?
Ukrainians were one of the very few lucky people managing to prevent becoming a full on dictatorial state, it doesn't matter if any other nations supported them or not.