Ukraine Crisis - Page 491

Russia in Ukraine: A Reader Responds

...

In its case Somalia vs. Woodhouse Drake & Carey, the High Court of the United Kingdom ruled that a new government derives its legitimacy through three factors: (1) whether it is the constitutional government of the state, (2) the degree, nature, and stability of administrative control over state territory, (3) and the nature of its dealings with other governments.

Ascertaining the legitimacy of the interim government in Kiev is quite tricky. According to Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the President can only be impeached from office by parliament through “no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” On February 22, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych who fled to Russia the night prior. However for an effective impeachment under constitutional rules the 449-seated parliament would have needed 337 votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Thus under the current constitution, Yanukovych is still the incumbent and legitimate President of the Ukraine.

This constitutional oversight puts the interim government in legal limbo as the bills that are currently being signed into law by acting President Turchynov are not carrying any constitutional authorization. This problem of legitimacy also undermines Kiev’s dealings with foreign governments, as the government appointed by Turchynov does not represent the de jure official government of the Ukraine. As such, foreign governments who are willfully recognizing and thereby trying to confer international legitimacy upon the interim government in Kiev, are indeed breaking international law by violating (1) the sovereignty of the Ukraine and the law of the land (constitution), (2) the principle of non-interference, (3) and the practice of non-government recognition.

Whether the interim government in Kiev has effective administrative control over state territory also remains highly speculative, given the unfolding situation in Crimea, civil unrest in the eastern part of the country, and the persisting confusion in the chain of command within the Ukrainian military and police force.

...

On May 05 2014 07:47 Cheerio wrote:
And a bit outdated but still important. About the wonders of the Russian diplomacy. The special representative of Putin (Vladimir Lukin) was sent to Slavyansk to negotiate the release of the captured OSCE delegates. Here are the intercepted by SBU conversations about the matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXZuHUyWQuw
Basically from the conversation it is obvious that "Strelok" was instructed to comply with demands to release the delegates, but only after "negotiations" with Lukin, and not the EU negotiators. All negotiations were farse, since "Strelok" was instructed and willing to comply before they even started.

P.S. Lukin confirmed that the discussions were authentic.

On May 05 2014 08:42 marigoldran wrote:
Well, yeah, except compared to the alternatives, the Kiev government is extremely legitimate.

British newspaper The Guardian notes that recently, readers have been complaining of pro-Russia propaganda being posted in the comments section of articles about Russia and Ukraine.
One reader wrote to The Guardian:

One need only pick a Ukraine article at random, pick any point in the comments at random, and they will find themselves in a sea of incredibly aggressive and hostile users (the most obvious have accounts created since February 2014 … but there also exist those who registered with the Guardian before the high point of the crisis) who post the most biased, inciteful [sic] pro-Kremlin, anti-western propaganda that seems as if it's taken from a template, so repetitive are the statements. Furthermore, these comments are consistently capturing inordinate numbers of 'recommends', sometimes on the order of 10 to 12 times what pro-Ukrainian comments receive.

Guardian comment moderators believe this is an orchestrated campaign.

Russia has worked hard to make people believe that the country is supporting the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and defending those people against some type of threat. These "comment mills" play into that strategy.

Last year, The Atlantic wrote about how the Russian government apparently pays people to "sit in a room, surf the Internet, and leave sometimes hundreds of postings a day that criticize the country's opposition and promote Kremlin-backed policymakers."

This practice isn't new, according to The Atlantic. But it can stifle open discussion about political issues in Russia, giving a louder voice to those who support the Kremlin.

Source.

On May 05 2014 15:31 Mc wrote:
Concerning legitimacy:

1.) Yanukovych refused to reinstate the 2004 constitution which was approved by 386 of 450 (86%) of parliament. 1. This was part of a deal that Yanukovych agreed to in order to stay in power and appease EuroMaidan.
2.) The vote to reinstate the 2004 constitution was in order reverse the 2010 constitutional amendments Yanukovych had forced through. Basically, it greatly increase the power of the president. In order to do this he forced 4 constitutional judges to resign 2
3.) Yanukovych fled Kiev *before* parliament decided to impeach him.
4.) The removal of Yanukovych received 73% approval and did need 75% approval. No one voted "no"- everyone who didn't vote "yes" was either absent or abstained.

Given that this seemed like the only way for the Ukrainian government to work (Yanukovych not present in a time of crisis, and refusing to sign laws that he is required to sign), it seems quite sensible that Yanukovych was dismissed.

The subsequent government that was elected did not need 75% approval (it only needed 50% I believe).
Yatsenyuk, the president, was voted in with 373/450 (82%) votes. The rest of the government was voted in with around 72% of the votes.

Yes, in theory Yanukovych was not constitutionally impeached but the constitution didn't really have a provision for dealing with a president who had fled and refused to function as a president (not signing laws while he was in Kiev).

However the government is clearly legitimate, having been voted in with required amount of votes AND even enjoying support of most of the party of regions (yanukovych's former party).

With early elections on May 25th, the current solution seems beyond reasonable to me...

more sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovich#Constitutionality_challenged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Azarov_Government#cite_note-EN28114AA-3

On May 05 2014 16:57 Feartheguru wrote:


You cannot be serious with this.

1) Irrelevant, he was working within the system
2) Not informed on this, but the link you gave says the dismissals had to do with pay
3) He fled because he was going to get lynched by a mob?
4) Again, you admit yourself it was not legitimate, it is common in many places to abstain rather than vote no

The procedure only matters when they support your argument?
Your entire arguments amounts to I don't like Yanukovich.

On May 05 2014 16:56 Ghanburighan wrote:
Relevant:

10 to 12 times what pro-Ukrainian comments receive.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.

On May 05 2014 16:57 Feartheguru wrote:


You cannot be serious with this.

1) Irrelevant, he was working within the system
2) Not informed on this, but the link you gave says the dismissals had to do with pay
3) He fled because he was going to get lynched by a mob?
4) Again, you admit yourself it was not legitimate, it is common in many places to abstain rather than vote no

The procedure only matters when they support your argument?
Your entire arguments amounts to I don't like Yanukovich.