6 ms·

>Yanukovych decided to flee on his own What on earth does that even mean? If you watch the videos the entire city was on fire and the "peaceful protestors" we

>Yanukovych decided to flee on his own What on earth does that even mean? If you watch the videos the entire city was on fire and the "peaceful protestors" were firing rocket propelled grenades at the police force. And the Democratically elected leader, Yanukovych, had to flee the country and give control over to the insurrectionists or he would have been murdered. I guess you can say "That wasn't a coup" if you like, but we would really just arguing about semantics here.

Isinlor 4y ago
The protests were peaceful at the very begging in November 2013. Then protests were dispersed and the spiral of violence escalation started culminating in death of around 100 protesters and less than 20 police officers in February 2014. Towards the end it was certainly not a peaceful ordeal. It was more of a small uprising. I recall snipers shooting to protestors. But I don't recall RPGs being used by either side when I was following it. I could not find any mention of it right now. Any sources of that claim?
- maratc 4y ago
  On Feb 21st 2014, the EU foreign ministers and Yanukovich signed on a deal where there would be speedy elections — that would most certainly remove Yanukovich from power, somewhere in spring. But on Feb 22nd, the protesters refuse that deal and seize Yanukovich's palace, stripping him of power immediately. After which he flees. It's that seizing of the palace and rejecting the EU-brokered deal is what is usually called "the coup".
  - Isinlor 4y ago
    The deal signed on Feb 21st 2014 says: 1. Within 48 hours after the signing of this agreement will be adopted, signed and promulgated a special law that will restore the action of the Constitution of 2004, as amended by this time. The signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter. On February 22, 2014 as allowed by Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution, Verkhovna Rada decided to impeach Yanukovich with 328 votes for, 0 against and 122 not present or abstaining.
    - maratc 4y ago
      According to the Constitution of Ukraine, impeachment would have involved a) formally charging the president with a crime; b) a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine; and c) a three-fourths majority vote – i.e. at least 338 votes in favor – by the Rada. Of that three — that all had to happen — exactly zero happened. Instead, the Verkhovna Rada declared that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency" as the reason for early elections. This can be taken to a direction of "democratic transfer of power under extraordinary circumstances". This also can be taken to a direction of "unconstitutional coup d'etat". The direction depends on the goals one's trying to achieve.
csee 4y ago
Because a popular revolution shouldn't be labelled a "US-backed coup", and labelling it as such strips agency from the protesters who made it happen. Getting the label right is important given that this is a critical part of the Kremlin's justification for the invasion: casting the current Ukrainian government as illegitimate, and stripping Ukrainians of agency and their identity. The evidence that it was a US-backed coup is quite weak; from Nuland's leaked call, to Nuland handing out sandwiches to protesters, to the speculative opinions of Estonia's FM, to the few billions of investments the US has made into civic institutions since 1991 -- it's a little bit of smoke if you squint really hard and apply a good dose of confirmation bias, while simultaneously sweeping under the rug Russia's more aggressive colonial meddling in Ukraine (such as Yushchenko's poisoning). Maybe better evidence will emerge later about 2014 as records are declassified (such as it did with Diem's overthrow), it's possible and wouldn't be surprising, but barring better evidence, it needs to be labelled the 2014 Maidan Revolution, or something similar.
- Isinlor 4y ago
  Yes. Westerners and Russians seems to think that everything is organized by USA and that people of other nations do not have any autonomy. A lot of people seem to think that Poland or Baltic states were somehow forced into NATO. Certainly narrative that China is trying to sell right now. We knew very well that aligning ourselves with Russia is just straight road to disaster. And we needed to get as far as possible as soon as possible from Russian imperialism when we had a small window of opportunity. Ukraine was split on it and it did result in disaster.
  - maratc 4y ago
    > everything is organized by USA and that people of other nations do not have any autonomy This is not an either-or proposition: the truth could well be that there were (lots of) people who wanted a regime change AND the US State Department intervened.
    - Isinlor 4y ago
      What do you mean by "intervened"? That they talked to people? Sure, they did talk to people.

Isinlor 4y ago

The protests were peaceful at the very begging in November 2013. Then protests were dispersed and the spiral of violence escalation started culminating in death of around 100 protesters and less than 20 police officers in February 2014. Towards the end it was certainly not a peaceful ordeal. It was more of a small uprising. I recall snipers shooting to protestors. But I don't recall RPGs being used by either side when I was following it. I could not find any mention of it right now. Any sources of that claim?

maratc 4y ago
On Feb 21st 2014, the EU foreign ministers and Yanukovich signed on a deal where there would be speedy elections — that would most certainly remove Yanukovich from power, somewhere in spring. But on Feb 22nd, the protesters refuse that deal and seize Yanukovich's palace, stripping him of power immediately. After which he flees. It's that seizing of the palace and rejecting the EU-brokered deal is what is usually called "the coup".
- Isinlor 4y ago
  The deal signed on Feb 21st 2014 says: 1. Within 48 hours after the signing of this agreement will be adopted, signed and promulgated a special law that will restore the action of the Constitution of 2004, as amended by this time. The signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter. On February 22, 2014 as allowed by Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution, Verkhovna Rada decided to impeach Yanukovich with 328 votes for, 0 against and 122 not present or abstaining.
  - maratc 4y ago
    According to the Constitution of Ukraine, impeachment would have involved a) formally charging the president with a crime; b) a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine; and c) a three-fourths majority vote – i.e. at least 338 votes in favor – by the Rada. Of that three — that all had to happen — exactly zero happened. Instead, the Verkhovna Rada declared that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency" as the reason for early elections. This can be taken to a direction of "democratic transfer of power under extraordinary circumstances". This also can be taken to a direction of "unconstitutional coup d'etat". The direction depends on the goals one's trying to achieve.

csee 4y ago

Because a popular revolution shouldn't be labelled a "US-backed coup", and labelling it as such strips agency from the protesters who made it happen. Getting the label right is important given that this is a critical part of the Kremlin's justification for the invasion: casting the current Ukrainian government as illegitimate, and stripping Ukrainians of agency and their identity. The evidence that it was a US-backed coup is quite weak; from Nuland's leaked call, to Nuland handing out sandwiches to protesters, to the speculative opinions of Estonia's FM, to the few billions of investments the US has made into civic institutions since 1991 -- it's a little bit of smoke if you squint really hard and apply a good dose of confirmation bias, while simultaneously sweeping under the rug Russia's more aggressive colonial meddling in Ukraine (such as Yushchenko's poisoning). Maybe better evidence will emerge later about 2014 as records are declassified (such as it did with Diem's overthrow), it's possible and wouldn't be surprising, but barring better evidence, it needs to be labelled the 2014 Maidan Revolution, or something similar.

Isinlor 4y ago
Yes. Westerners and Russians seems to think that everything is organized by USA and that people of other nations do not have any autonomy. A lot of people seem to think that Poland or Baltic states were somehow forced into NATO. Certainly narrative that China is trying to sell right now. We knew very well that aligning ourselves with Russia is just straight road to disaster. And we needed to get as far as possible as soon as possible from Russian imperialism when we had a small window of opportunity. Ukraine was split on it and it did result in disaster.
- maratc 4y ago
  > everything is organized by USA and that people of other nations do not have any autonomy This is not an either-or proposition: the truth could well be that there were (lots of) people who wanted a regime change AND the US State Department intervened.
  - Isinlor 4y ago
    What do you mean by "intervened"? That they talked to people? Sure, they did talk to people.