EU recognizes legitimacy of new government in Kiev

The EU has said it recognizes …

Who cares what they say ! With such a castrated independence they are free to bark whatever they like. Russia has direct contacts with the Dept. Of State to ask what EU is going to recognize or approve next. Since 1933 it’s the second attempt to make the Nazi fight us. OK everybody is welcome - see you in Berlin !

"The transitional government was elected by the assembly, whose legitimacy is not debatable, so we recognize it as a legitimate partner,"

It's unconstitutional, of course, as government is not to be elected by the assembly, but on elections.
Ukrainian constitution , also, envisions impeaching the president, but only if he is accused of "treason". Taking a bailout loan from Russia is not really a treason...
Not to mention that on the session of parliament when they "elected" the transitional government, more then 100 MP's from the East were absent. Those who were on the session hardly had much choice with footage showing masked protesters with clubs present during the vote. Try not the vote the way they want....
And in the end - if legitimacy of assembly is not debatable because they were elected, one could say that Yanukovich was, also, elected so his legitimacy as a president is not debatable either.
Truth is, as we stand, there is no state official in Ukraine that has any legitimacy whatsoever, and it won't have it until next elections, provided those are free and FULLY TRANSPARENT, for observers from all over the world.
And even them, with legitimacy, there is no guarantees that government will have any power. It wouldn't be first time that elected officials were denied to make decisions. It enough to gather crowd...
Anarchy is only legitimate ruler of Ukraine.

They don't care about democracy as long as their agents are in charge!

Where have we heard this one before?? Syria I believe and look at the mess they created there. Well done EU you fiddle whilst the Earth burns all around you.

Man are those western Ukrainians ever going to become angry when the EU starts lending them money if they commit to "austerity measures". Remember the model for Ukrainian bailout has to be based on what was done to the Greeks and others. The Greeks still resent it, and the EU can't do better for an outsider.

Meanwhile The Ukraine's largest trading partner Russia won't deal with the coup government, and no one's money is safe to invest in the Ukraine because of the uncertainty. I don't understand how the Ukraine can avoid bankrutpsy.

I feel really bad for the Regular people. Even the troublemakers will soon regret what they did to their own country because they believed a bunch of empty western promises.

so eu accepts a coup-government as legitimate. interesting notion of importance of democratic process.
why didn't the occupy protestors get to take over a the uk government? perhaps they should have armed themselves with moltov cocktails, than the eu would have been forced to recognize the will of an extremely dissatisfied and vocal subset of the population, recognize them as a legitimate government and call for sanctions against the ousted one for their parts in any police/military violence acted upon the peacefully armed protestors.

Sreten !

Top news is that Putin asked the Consul of the Federation for a permission to use force in the Ukraine. Guess he’ll have it today so that before Monday troops were able to occupy at least Crimea. Hopefully the ultimatum for Kiev to be announced soon will be impossible to fulfill and thus Russia will have to enter our own lands. I believe the decision is already taken and those are jformalities. The events will run unpredictable but Russians are ready for sacrifices. We are fed up with permanent treasons and hypocrisy.

One more thing. You must have noticed what a severe attack we suffered from the Tatars. Then all of a sudden they fall asleep. Russia neutralized this striking force of Kiev and the Wkhabbi strongpoint rather effectively using Russian Muslims. World Tatar Council immediately asked them to calm down while same very night a special GRU brigade composed of the Chechens was delivered here by air. They seized all the state buildings and airports. Another brigade has blocked the Ukrainian troops dislocated in Crimea. During WW2 local Tatars behaved worse than the Ustashas.

I do not worry about Crimea. It’s matter of a couple of days when it will be totally occupied and taken under the control. What I really care is that Russia should not stop in Crimea and set all the occupied Russian lands here. One more thing that makes me worry is that during restoring the borders we should not forget that Ukrainians whatever they say are also Russians.

Of course they recognise their own mess.

Here is one of the "peaceful protesters" giving instructions how to vote in parliament of Rivany oblast in Western Ukraine. Why would anyone think that their vote is not exactly legitimate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtxbGjkpkF8

Here is a new government showing support for independent judiciary. Public prosecutor's decisions are fully legitimate after this, of course...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8JC-ZjqFb4

icj1

Yanukovich is impeached, true, but under what conditions? You fail to mention that they were armed people present during the vote. Report is that at least 2 were "roughed up" before the session to "smarten up" and vote as expected. Report is not confirmed by independent sources so I won't take it into account. Still, session of parliament under those conditions is hardly legitimate, don't you think?
I'll search clarification of "treason or other crime" but I don't think so...
But, what other crime and who is accusing him? Public prosecutor who is smacked in the head and pulled by the tie, and told whom to indict for what? Whatch that second video that I posted, will you?
Sure, someone shot at the protesters. It's not clear if Yanukovich ordered it, but he was accused as a man in charge. Someone shot at police too, according not to Russian media, but Reuters...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/ukraine-crisis-shooting-idUSL6N0LQ12R20140221

Someone was in charge of them too...how come nobody was indicted?

You don't just create anarchy, sieze the parliament and say you are in charge and legitimate.
When you create anarchy, you have anarchy.

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

False. The constitutional court has to consider first the demand for impeachment under the ukranian constitution. It didn't, the rada simply vote for it.

The EU "recognition" of the coup against the elected president and "ratified" by a parliament convened under the guns of insurgents means nothing to anyone other than those accustomed to believing their own lies. The EU announcement does not legitimize the Kiev mob; it instead *de-legitimizes* the EU. If the globalists behind the coup aim to continue Hitler's "Drang nach osten", they need Panzer divisions, not neo-nazi rabble assembled on NATO orders. Once again, we see President O-bomba playing checkers against Putin's grandmaster-level chess.

Remember the model for Ukrainian bailout has to be based on what was done to the Greeks and others. The Greeks still resent it
(marKo, 28 February 2014 19:28)

You are right. The Greeks begged the Russians for help but Russia showed them the door. So, it's fully understandable that Greeks still resent it.

----------

Truth is, as we stand, there is no state official in Ukraine that has any legitimacy whatsoever
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

That's for the democratically elected Ukrainian parliament to decide

It's unconstitutional, of course, as government is not to be elected by the assembly, but on elections.
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

!!!! Dude, I understand that anger makes thinking less lucid, but going by the statement above, most of the governments in the world would be unconstitutional, Serbia's included.
----------

Ukrainian constitution , also, envisions impeaching the president, but only if he is accused of "treason".
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

That's not a complete quote from Ukraine's Constitution. It rather says "treason or other crime". There we have another lie.
----------

Not to mention that on the session of parliament when they "elected" the transitional government, more then 100 MP's from the East were absent. Those who were on the session hardly had much choice with footage showing masked protesters with clubs present during the vote. Try not the vote the way they want....
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

Well, if 100 MPs were not present, that does not make the session illegal since they still had the quorum. As for the rest, you gave the solution yourself. If any MP felt threatened, he/she could have done the same thing as those 100.
----------

And in the end - if legitimacy of assembly is not debatable because they were elected, one could say that Yanukovich was, also, elected so his legitimacy as a president is not debatable either.
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.

why didn't the occupy protestors get to take over a the uk government?
(lula, 28 February 2014 17:39)

Because the British parliament did not agree with them; very simple. if the British parliament had supported the occupy protestors we would have had an occupy government in the Uk

Yanukovich is impeached, true, but under what conditions? You fail to mention that they were armed people present during the vote.
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

Even if you are correct, you provided the solution yourself when you said in the prior post that about 100 MPs did not attend. So if the majority were afraid of armed people, they could have not attended (like those 100) and the Parliament would not have had a quorum. So your argument does not stand.
----------

Report is that at least 2 were "roughed up" before the session to "smarten up" and vote as expected. Report is not confirmed by independent sources so I won't take it into account. Still, session of parliament under those conditions is hardly legitimate, don't you think?
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

You would not take the report into account but still use it to consider the conditions hardly legitimate?! So your second argument also does not stand.
----------

I'll search clarification of "treason or other crime" but I don't think so...
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)


Sure, search and let us know the results of your research :)
----------

But, what other crime and who is accusing him?
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

That's for the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament to decide; it's not up to me, you, Russia, US, EU, etc... to decide. If anybody disagrees, he/she can complain to the Ukraine's Constitutional Court which has the final say.

Sure, someone shot at the protesters. It's not clear if Yanukovich ordered it, but he was accused as a man in charge. Someone shot at police too, according not to Russian media, but Reuters...Someone was in charge of them too...how come nobody was indicted?
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

Ok, I'm not denying it. But it’s up to the Ukrainian authorities to investigate the above. I hope you are not suggesting that the FBI or the Russian Prosecutor's General Office should do it, instead of the Ukrainians.
----------

You don't just create anarchy, sieze the parliament and say you are in charge and legitimate.
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

You are fully correct, but I think you are off topic here. This forum is about Ukraine where the democratically elected Parliament is making the decisions not somebody else who seized the Parliament - obviously the Parliament can't seize itself :)

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

False. The constitutional court has to consider first the demand for impeachment under the ukranian constitution. It didn't, the rada simply vote for it.
(Sloppy Seconds, 1 March 2014 20:31)

Well, dear, not sure what "false" means above but if you are saying the impeachment did not conform to the Constitution of Ukraine, then the former president can complain to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as, I said, before. So, we are on the same page here.

But certainly it's not something to be solved by the Courts or Armies of US or Russia!

Once again, we see President O-bomba playing checkers against Putin's grandmaster-level chess.
(John Bosnitch, 2 March 2014 05:10)

Haha, I loved the above... Tell us, dear, which of the actions Putin has taken so far were not predictable? For a grandmaster-level chess like Putin his behavior has been so predictable in the last few days:

1. Foment unrest by Russian speakers, and when that failed;
2. Send Russian agents to Ukraine to protest;
3. Provoke the Ukrainian armed forces to get a pretext for intervention (again Putin failed at this as well);
4. Have Russian agents in Ukraine request help from Moscow
5. Russia sends troops to Ukraine to help against imaginary attacks to Russians

No wonder not a single country in the world has supported Russia; not even Serbia. The Ukrainian government by not reacting at all has really put on display the crude aggression 19th-century stile that Russia is committing against Slavic "brothers". So much for the Slavic brotherhood we hear about every day in these forums :). I'm sure other countries sharing border with Russia, like China, will re-think their friendship with Russia as tomorrow may be their turn.

Of course, Ukraine will pay with loosing Crimea, but there is no better way for the world to see Russia's true face with President O-bomba not having to do anything - Russia is doing it all by itself:)

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

Even when you are caught out claiming something as a fact when it simply is not, you refuse to admit it. Spin it as much as you want (bs on the same page), but nothing the coup Rada did with impeachment was legal or followed their own laws.

Hoist upon your own petard. Again.

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

Even when you are caught out claiming something as a fact when it simply is not, you refuse to admit it. Spin it as much as you want (bs on the same page), but nothing the coup Rada did with impeachment was legal or followed their own laws.

Hoist upon your own petard. Again.
(Sloppy ICJ pops, 4 March 2014 17:26)

I did claim as a fact that he was impeached. It did not claim as a fact that was legal. I claimed as my OPINION that it was legal. That is Rada's opinion as well. You have a different OPINION about the legality which you are obviously entitled to. It does not mean that your opinion is correct and mine wrong, or viceversa. That's why I said that the former president can file a complain with the Ukraine's Constitutional Court about the legality of his impeachment. It's the Court who can resolve it, if there are doubts - not us here.

It's unconstitutional, of course, as government is not to be elected by the assembly, but on elections.
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

!!!! Dude, I understand that anger makes thinking less lucid, but going by the statement above, most of the governments in the world would be unconstitutional, Serbia's included.
----------

Ukrainian constitution , also, envisions impeaching the president, but only if he is accused of "treason".
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

That's not a complete quote from Ukraine's Constitution. It rather says "treason or other crime". There we have another lie.
----------

Not to mention that on the session of parliament when they "elected" the transitional government, more then 100 MP's from the East were absent. Those who were on the session hardly had much choice with footage showing masked protesters with clubs present during the vote. Try not the vote the way they want....
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

Well, if 100 MPs were not present, that does not make the session illegal since they still had the quorum. As for the rest, you gave the solution yourself. If any MP felt threatened, he/she could have done the same thing as those 100.
----------

And in the end - if legitimacy of assembly is not debatable because they were elected, one could say that Yanukovich was, also, elected so his legitimacy as a president is not debatable either.
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.

----------

Truth is, as we stand, there is no state official in Ukraine that has any legitimacy whatsoever
(Sreten, 28 February 2014 21:27)

That's for the democratically elected Ukrainian parliament to decide

Remember the model for Ukrainian bailout has to be based on what was done to the Greeks and others. The Greeks still resent it
(marKo, 28 February 2014 19:28)

You are right. The Greeks begged the Russians for help but Russia showed them the door. So, it's fully understandable that Greeks still resent it.

why didn't the occupy protestors get to take over a the uk government?
(lula, 28 February 2014 17:39)

Because the British parliament did not agree with them; very simple. if the British parliament had supported the occupy protestors we would have had an occupy government in the Uk

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

False. The constitutional court has to consider first the demand for impeachment under the ukranian constitution. It didn't, the rada simply vote for it.
(Sloppy Seconds, 1 March 2014 20:31)

Well, dear, not sure what "false" means above but if you are saying the impeachment did not conform to the Constitution of Ukraine, then the former president can complain to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as, I said, before. So, we are on the same page here.

But certainly it's not something to be solved by the Courts or Armies of US or Russia!

Once again, we see President O-bomba playing checkers against Putin's grandmaster-level chess.
(John Bosnitch, 2 March 2014 05:10)

Haha, I loved the above... Tell us, dear, which of the actions Putin has taken so far were not predictable? For a grandmaster-level chess like Putin his behavior has been so predictable in the last few days:

1. Foment unrest by Russian speakers, and when that failed;
2. Send Russian agents to Ukraine to protest;
3. Provoke the Ukrainian armed forces to get a pretext for intervention (again Putin failed at this as well);
4. Have Russian agents in Ukraine request help from Moscow
5. Russia sends troops to Ukraine to help against imaginary attacks to Russians

No wonder not a single country in the world has supported Russia; not even Serbia. The Ukrainian government by not reacting at all has really put on display the crude aggression 19th-century stile that Russia is committing against Slavic "brothers". So much for the Slavic brotherhood we hear about every day in these forums :). I'm sure other countries sharing border with Russia, like China, will re-think their friendship with Russia as tomorrow may be their turn.

Of course, Ukraine will pay with loosing Crimea, but there is no better way for the world to see Russia's true face with President O-bomba not having to do anything - Russia is doing it all by itself:)

Of course they recognise their own mess.

The EU has said it recognizes …

Who cares what they say ! With such a castrated independence they are free to bark whatever they like. Russia has direct contacts with the Dept. Of State to ask what EU is going to recognize or approve next. Since 1933 it’s the second attempt to make the Nazi fight us. OK everybody is welcome - see you in Berlin !

Sreten !

Top news is that Putin asked the Consul of the Federation for a permission to use force in the Ukraine. Guess he’ll have it today so that before Monday troops were able to occupy at least Crimea. Hopefully the ultimatum for Kiev to be announced soon will be impossible to fulfill and thus Russia will have to enter our own lands. I believe the decision is already taken and those are jformalities. The events will run unpredictable but Russians are ready for sacrifices. We are fed up with permanent treasons and hypocrisy.

One more thing. You must have noticed what a severe attack we suffered from the Tatars. Then all of a sudden they fall asleep. Russia neutralized this striking force of Kiev and the Wkhabbi strongpoint rather effectively using Russian Muslims. World Tatar Council immediately asked them to calm down while same very night a special GRU brigade composed of the Chechens was delivered here by air. They seized all the state buildings and airports. Another brigade has blocked the Ukrainian troops dislocated in Crimea. During WW2 local Tatars behaved worse than the Ustashas.

I do not worry about Crimea. It’s matter of a couple of days when it will be totally occupied and taken under the control. What I really care is that Russia should not stop in Crimea and set all the occupied Russian lands here. One more thing that makes me worry is that during restoring the borders we should not forget that Ukrainians whatever they say are also Russians.

Yanukovich is impeached, true, but under what conditions? You fail to mention that they were armed people present during the vote.
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

Even if you are correct, you provided the solution yourself when you said in the prior post that about 100 MPs did not attend. So if the majority were afraid of armed people, they could have not attended (like those 100) and the Parliament would not have had a quorum. So your argument does not stand.
----------

Report is that at least 2 were "roughed up" before the session to "smarten up" and vote as expected. Report is not confirmed by independent sources so I won't take it into account. Still, session of parliament under those conditions is hardly legitimate, don't you think?
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

You would not take the report into account but still use it to consider the conditions hardly legitimate?! So your second argument also does not stand.
----------

I'll search clarification of "treason or other crime" but I don't think so...
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)


Sure, search and let us know the results of your research :)
----------

But, what other crime and who is accusing him?
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

That's for the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament to decide; it's not up to me, you, Russia, US, EU, etc... to decide. If anybody disagrees, he/she can complain to the Ukraine's Constitutional Court which has the final say.

Sure, someone shot at the protesters. It's not clear if Yanukovich ordered it, but he was accused as a man in charge. Someone shot at police too, according not to Russian media, but Reuters...Someone was in charge of them too...how come nobody was indicted?
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

Ok, I'm not denying it. But it’s up to the Ukrainian authorities to investigate the above. I hope you are not suggesting that the FBI or the Russian Prosecutor's General Office should do it, instead of the Ukrainians.
----------

You don't just create anarchy, sieze the parliament and say you are in charge and legitimate.
(Sreten, 1 March 2014 21:45)

You are fully correct, but I think you are off topic here. This forum is about Ukraine where the democratically elected Parliament is making the decisions not somebody else who seized the Parliament - obviously the Parliament can't seize itself :)

Man are those western Ukrainians ever going to become angry when the EU starts lending them money if they commit to "austerity measures". Remember the model for Ukrainian bailout has to be based on what was done to the Greeks and others. The Greeks still resent it, and the EU can't do better for an outsider.

Meanwhile The Ukraine's largest trading partner Russia won't deal with the coup government, and no one's money is safe to invest in the Ukraine because of the uncertainty. I don't understand how the Ukraine can avoid bankrutpsy.

I feel really bad for the Regular people. Even the troublemakers will soon regret what they did to their own country because they believed a bunch of empty western promises.

so eu accepts a coup-government as legitimate. interesting notion of importance of democratic process.
why didn't the occupy protestors get to take over a the uk government? perhaps they should have armed themselves with moltov cocktails, than the eu would have been forced to recognize the will of an extremely dissatisfied and vocal subset of the population, recognize them as a legitimate government and call for sanctions against the ousted one for their parts in any police/military violence acted upon the peacefully armed protestors.

They don't care about democracy as long as their agents are in charge!

Where have we heard this one before?? Syria I believe and look at the mess they created there. Well done EU you fiddle whilst the Earth burns all around you.

icj1

Yanukovich is impeached, true, but under what conditions? You fail to mention that they were armed people present during the vote. Report is that at least 2 were "roughed up" before the session to "smarten up" and vote as expected. Report is not confirmed by independent sources so I won't take it into account. Still, session of parliament under those conditions is hardly legitimate, don't you think?
I'll search clarification of "treason or other crime" but I don't think so...
But, what other crime and who is accusing him? Public prosecutor who is smacked in the head and pulled by the tie, and told whom to indict for what? Whatch that second video that I posted, will you?
Sure, someone shot at the protesters. It's not clear if Yanukovich ordered it, but he was accused as a man in charge. Someone shot at police too, according not to Russian media, but Reuters...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/ukraine-crisis-shooting-idUSL6N0LQ12R20140221

Someone was in charge of them too...how come nobody was indicted?

You don't just create anarchy, sieze the parliament and say you are in charge and legitimate.
When you create anarchy, you have anarchy.

Here is one of the "peaceful protesters" giving instructions how to vote in parliament of Rivany oblast in Western Ukraine. Why would anyone think that their vote is not exactly legitimate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtxbGjkpkF8

Here is a new government showing support for independent judiciary. Public prosecutor's decisions are fully legitimate after this, of course...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8JC-ZjqFb4

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

False. The constitutional court has to consider first the demand for impeachment under the ukranian constitution. It didn't, the rada simply vote for it.

"The transitional government was elected by the assembly, whose legitimacy is not debatable, so we recognize it as a legitimate partner,"

It's unconstitutional, of course, as government is not to be elected by the assembly, but on elections.
Ukrainian constitution , also, envisions impeaching the president, but only if he is accused of "treason". Taking a bailout loan from Russia is not really a treason...
Not to mention that on the session of parliament when they "elected" the transitional government, more then 100 MP's from the East were absent. Those who were on the session hardly had much choice with footage showing masked protesters with clubs present during the vote. Try not the vote the way they want....
And in the end - if legitimacy of assembly is not debatable because they were elected, one could say that Yanukovich was, also, elected so his legitimacy as a president is not debatable either.
Truth is, as we stand, there is no state official in Ukraine that has any legitimacy whatsoever, and it won't have it until next elections, provided those are free and FULLY TRANSPARENT, for observers from all over the world.
And even them, with legitimacy, there is no guarantees that government will have any power. It wouldn't be first time that elected officials were denied to make decisions. It enough to gather crowd...
Anarchy is only legitimate ruler of Ukraine.

The EU "recognition" of the coup against the elected president and "ratified" by a parliament convened under the guns of insurgents means nothing to anyone other than those accustomed to believing their own lies. The EU announcement does not legitimize the Kiev mob; it instead *de-legitimizes* the EU. If the globalists behind the coup aim to continue Hitler's "Drang nach osten", they need Panzer divisions, not neo-nazi rabble assembled on NATO orders. Once again, we see President O-bomba playing checkers against Putin's grandmaster-level chess.

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

Even when you are caught out claiming something as a fact when it simply is not, you refuse to admit it. Spin it as much as you want (bs on the same page), but nothing the coup Rada did with impeachment was legal or followed their own laws.

Hoist upon your own petard. Again.

Sure, unless he is impeached, as he indeed was.
(icj1, 1 March 2014 01:56)

Even when you are caught out claiming something as a fact when it simply is not, you refuse to admit it. Spin it as much as you want (bs on the same page), but nothing the coup Rada did with impeachment was legal or followed their own laws.

Hoist upon your own petard. Again.
(Sloppy ICJ pops, 4 March 2014 17:26)

I did claim as a fact that he was impeached. It did not claim as a fact that was legal. I claimed as my OPINION that it was legal. That is Rada's opinion as well. You have a different OPINION about the legality which you are obviously entitled to. It does not mean that your opinion is correct and mine wrong, or viceversa. That's why I said that the former president can file a complain with the Ukraine's Constitutional Court about the legality of his impeachment. It's the Court who can resolve it, if there are doubts - not us here.