Ukraine Crisis... Poland... and the way i see it

I am sorry, what?

You clearly have not educated yourself on Yanukovich and anyone who he favoured.

Please, let`s not into it. What you think that we educate ourselves about mass killings of USA government, or maybe British or French? To put cross on myself, those are true machines for killing. `Democratic darkness`. Still, fact is that those governments have relatively a lot of money. That makes their killings more noble. When money is no more, taste of regimes would change. Exactly that is why those governments policing the world thru NATO as their tool ... to keep controlling the world and money flow.

They are not part of this discussison


That is only partially true when it comes to Ukraine, Euromaidan and the conflict in Donbass.

Ukraine had a legitimate president, Yanukovich. Of course many people now argue that western countries influenced the people to get rid off him, after he refused to sign the AA with the EU.

While we did see politicians from the US, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Poland stand on the Euromaidan stage, giving speeches and telling the demonstrators that the world stands behind them, Euromaidan started as a student protest with only a few hundred participants.

What followed was the night of 30 November in which students were brutally beaten on Maidan square by Berkut.
This resullted in more and more people joining the protests, not necessarily because they wanted Yanukovich to sign the AA, as was the original idea of the protest, but to get rid off corruption. police brutality etc. etc. There was not actually a need for western politicians to join Euromaidan, the Ukrainian people already knew what they wanted.

One can argue that ousting Yanukovich was a coup d'etat, initiated and helped by the west. One can argue that he was the legitimate president, democratically elected. But if you look closer, take a real interest in Ukraine, you will find that through all his actions while being in power, he has lost all his legitimacy. You simply can not call a president to be democratlly elected and leave him power, if he does everything to undermine / get rid off democracy completely while being in power.

It was not the west that fuelled the anger of the Ukrainian people. Yanukovich did everything himself over the years.

So, if someone think that Komorowski is doing something wrong, he can be thrown away by direct action of few percents of polish population? Without any legal procedure?

Then one question arise - who will judge?

When we look at Yanukovich, we are not talking about "small errors" or some "wrong decisions". Yanukovich has lost legitimacy by building up an empire. Suddenly his son become a billionnaire (dollars not grivna). Look at the mansion Yanukovich built just outside of Kyiv. Crackdowns started again on anyone who dared to speak up against Yanukovich, his family or those Yanukovich did business with.

Yanukovich was slowly building a second Sicily on Ukrainian soil with him as Don Viktor and from a democracy point of view he was looking up north to Belarus as we have seen on the night of 30th November and the bloodbath created by Berkut.

He simply lost all his legitimacy and he knew it very well, otherwise he would not have fled the country in the manner he did.

Maybe Dalai Lama also lost all their holiness when he fled from China?

If you don't know what happened in Ukraine, why do you feel the need to take part in this conversation with completely irrelevant, uneducated and childish posts?

Exactly, due process was not followed.

In Yanukovich's case, there was no "due process" to follow anymore. If you would have the slightest idea as to how Ukraine developed since 2010 when Yanukovich came into power, you would not even mention "democratic elections" as a mean to get rid of him. There simply would have been no such thing. It would have resulted in something similar as happens in Belarus every time Lukashenko gets "re-elected".

You either simply do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about here or you are closing your eyes on purpose.

By the way, I know what happened and what is continue to happen. Constantly in contact with relatives, both in Kiev and near Donetsk. And I still have the right to obtain citizenship of Ukraine (jus sanguinis) . So...

There is no such thing as "almost legal", just like someone cannot be "little bit pregnant".

From legal point of view, constitutional procedure of impeachment was not followed. Period.
And does not matter, prefer Yanukovich to fled, saving their life, or stay and die "by accident", he was legitimate president.

And what to your sentences about "real interest in Ukraine" - is it YOUR business to decide about real interests of Ukrainians?

Well, seeing that you have relatives in Ukraine, you probably know that it is not Ukrainian custom to "moan" about their issues to others. Your view of real events in Ukraine is probably rather limited, if you get your information via Skype instead of having to deal with the day to day issues yourself.


Yes, he may very well have been but it turned out that the people of Ukraine had enough of him, wouldn't you agree? What kind of president lets a wild horde of Berkut riot police lose on a bunch of unarmed and peaceful students. Or what happened on the 30th of November?


No, but it's the Ukrainian people's business and they have clearly spoken, whether you like it or not.

Was "Occupy Wall Street" movement activists armed or overly aggressive? But wild NYPD hordes used brute force and arrested many of them.
What we should do with Obama after this?

Yes there was, due process was not followed.

Why don't you enlighten us as to exactly what happened and what should have been done? "Due process was not followed" is a tiny bit poor.


Here we go again. Look at the big picture. What happened on the 30th of November was simply the icing on the cake for all the Ukrainians that decided to stand on Euromaidan. It was NOT the only thing that led them to join the protests.

<1% of population on Maidan is not the same as "people of Ukraine", even if there was a lot of foreign politicians, with cookies and advices. So, answer is negative. Period.

translates as agree with me...


There are constitutional ways to remove the president that didnt happen.

Almost all this bother could have been avoided if due process had been followed

But banderists from the West had no chances at all to get power, that way.

This may come as a shock to you, but looking at 3 years of Yanukovich ruling, I don't think that the Ukrainian Constitution applied anymore.

Explain to me, how you can possibly talk about "constitutional ways of removing a president" that, just shortly before he was ousted, introduced the "draconian laws", which effectively would have made freedom of speech in Ukraine a thing of the past.

But please, don't bore me with "there were other ways". If you don't have the appropriate knowledge to base your argument on, it is better to just remain silent.

Barney simply won't do that. When challenged to produce facts to support his fantasies, he either claims he said something else or insults the person asking for proof/details or completely ignored being challenged, as shown by his reply to your question:

The "Banderists" didn't get to power at all. As you may know, in the presidential election Tyahnybok received a mere 1.16% of the votes, Yarosh got even less. The Ukrainian people showed them what they think of them. So your theory about "Banderists" taking over is utter nonsense

Its perfectly simple due process was not followed, all the bluster in the world wont change or excuse that.

There was only one way. Prescribed by Constitution. And it was not followed.

And, looks like you pretend that you have been there all the time and seen everything by your own eyes. ;) Can you count your days in Ukraine by border stamps in your passport?

Your arguments are poor, to say the least. You do not even go into a discussion about what Yanukovich did wrong. I almost think that you seriously believe the nonsense you write. Democratic elections under Yanukovich would not have happened. Are you not able to grasp that? There was simply no other way, otherwise we would have had a second Belarus, where all "due processes are followed" until Lukashenko gets his 90% again......


Sure i can, but i am not sure as to how that relates to your rather poor arguments.

Yes, that is the uncomfortable point.


My point is that due process was not followed, his removal was illegal. I dont need to elaborate you however need to explain how his removal was legitimate.

I still had some hope, but facts do not seem to exist in his fantasy world. In Ukraine they have a saying, literally translated "Suitcase - Station - Moscow". Maybe the only option for him......

And what exactly has this to do with Ukraine? Should you not be trying to argue that black is white?

Clearly you are unable to form an argument

Crimean population done it. ;) Are you happy?

That is one of the reasons Putin used to annex Crimea, another place besides Kiev where due process was not followed

And due process was not followed as well, when Crimea (important - just Crimea, not Sevastopol city) was handed to Ukraine back in 1954.

I was unaware that there is a due process under which one country can invade and annex the territory of another country. Perhaps you could go into detail about that process? Or are you simply trying to equate a democratically elected parliament voting to replace an utterly corrupt and abusive president who had abandoned his duties with the illegal invasion and annexation of Ukrainian territory by your hero in the Kremlin?