@jormundr simple math is one of my strengths, it's definately mental gymnastics. don't even try to tell me you did not break out a sweat typing that post. that'd be ridicolous enough for the SBU to put on youtube.
if you rile up enough people and chase the elected leader out of the capital you get a free pass by jormundr to set up shop on account of the elected leader being chased out. that doesn't sound very fair for the people not living in the capital... in that case they ought to make their areas capitals as well. they better get on that!
sourcing russians is allowed? oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.
@mc rferl and euromaidanpr, yes, that seems like very reliable sources. let me just relate to you this counter message that a putin-impersonator i picked up on the street wrote on the wall of my bedroom in shit while i was sleeping last night:
tbh it seems mostly like ad-hoc justification of the ouster to me.
So can you tell me how he was chased out rather than he fled? Sources? Remember he had *just agreed* to a resolution to the crisis (restoration of 2004 constitution, early elections) but hadn't signed the agreement yet. He then suddenly decides to flee Kiev saying that his car was shot up. Any proof? Any evidence?
Do you think that maybe he sensed that he was about to removed from office (73% voted for removal, he would have been off by 2%) and fled because of that?
So again, how was he chased out? Facts? Not just your BS assumptions.
Concerning Yanukovich. He didn't just leave, he packed his stuff and fled. Trucks and hellicopters full of stuff were leaving Mejigorya (his residence) the day he left. Of which there is plenty of video footage even in open sources.
Shorter one for the news
Longer. Should be noted packing up started the day after the night assault of Euromaidan had failed, and two days before he fled or the alleged assassination attack took place.
On May 17 2014 09:17 Cheerio wrote: Concerning Yanukovich. He didn't just leave, he packed his stuff and fled. Trucks and hellicopters full of stuff were leaving Mejigorya the day he left. Of which there is plenty of video footage even in open sources.
Yanu had no intention of allowing free elections in November under the deal signed with the EU. He planned to use it as political cover to remove the Maidan protesters by force. The evidence? His presidential palace. If he had any intention of vacating it, he would not have stuffed it with the ridiculous amounts of corruption we see today.
However, his enemies got the jump on him and removed him first.
from what i can gather and recall in msm (reuters, guardian, ch4, and i'm sure there's more) reported that yanukovyc came to an agreement, and signed a deal with the opposition on 21st of feb but was ousted after maidan rejected the deal. simple beans and pretty much what maghrell posted in the first place.
maybe he felt some great distrurbance in the force before he fled, or maybe it was a trap, who knows.
Dumped now by his closest allies and backers after violence that shocked the world, Yanukovich fled Kiev by helicopter on Friday - the day when the 'Euro-maidan' told opposition leaders they rejected a deal they had done with him and demanded he immediately stepped down.
Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovich, and three opposition leaders have signed an agreement intended to end a crisis that sparked bloody clashes between protesters and police on the streets of the capital, Kiev.
....
The deal was also signed by two European Union foreign ministers who helped broker it in tortuous negotiations that lasted more than 30 hours. "This agreement is not the end of the process. It's the beginning of the process," the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said after the signing.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders have signed a deal to try to end the political crisis in the countryThe opposition leaders who signed the deal were booed and called traitors by a crowd in Independence Square, the focal point of the protests, the BBC's Gavin Hewitt reports from Kiev.
...
The opposition leaders who signed the deal were booed and called traitors by a crowd in Independence Square, the focal point of the protests, the BBC's Gavin Hewitt reports from Kiev.
Pointless argument, nunez. Yanu had no intention of honoring that deal. It was simply a ploy to buy time. Unfortunately for him his enemies got the jump on him before he could attack them.
Unless you show some evidence to me that he was chased out or physically removed from Kyiv the story looks to be as follows.
1.) Yanukovych agrees/signs w/ opposition members. 2.) Yanukovych flees 3.) The agreement isn't put into action *because* Yanukovych isn't there the next day (i.e. parliament must approve it, president must sign it) 4.) The rada votes that same day (using questionable constitutional arguments, possibly unconstitutionally) to remove him from presidency, given the fact that there is no constitutional provision for dealing with a president who has fled.
Why are you guys spamming the thread in response to Nunez? He has posted the same factless story several times, it doesn't matter what anybody argues, he'll not listen and keep stating his own bs version. All that happens is that new developments are drowned out in the thread.
great, here's another bulletpoint for comparison. together they span a wide range of possible interpretations.
1) signs deal w/ opposition members, travels to eastern ukraine, mob-justice at the hands of maidan doesn't sound eniticing. 2) maidan rejects it, police stop guarding buildings, maidan storm in. rada attempts to make it look legit with a sham vote to save its own neck and grabs power.
listen to ghanburg ppl, it's making him really upset that you are talking directly to me.
On May 17 2014 17:16 nunez wrote: great, here's another bulletpoint for comparison. together they span a wide range of possible interpretations.
1) signs deal w/ opposition members, travels to eastern ukraine, mob-justice at the hands of maidan doesn't sound eniticing. 2) maidan rejects it, police stop guarding buildings, maidan storm in. rada attempts to make it look legit with a sham vote to save its own neck and grabs power.
listen to ghanburg ppl, it's making him really upset that you are talking directly to me.
@nunez So your bullet points are simply my factual bullet points embellished with your conjectures. Well, that's your opinion, but maybe that's why it's that hard for you to convince anyone of it.
1.) You believe Yanukovych fled "fearing mob-justice", I believe he fled fearing politically motivated (yet valid) corruption charges, detention, and possible imprisonment (like he did to Tyomshenko). 2.) Maidan *NEVER* stormed the Rada building and the parliamentarians were never under threat (or at least we have no proof of it).
Quote from a biased Euromaidan website claiming that Right-Sector and Self-defence are guarding various buildings to prevent looting/chaos: + Show Spoiler +
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/02/22/chronicle-of-our-victory-feb-21-2014-we-won-in-kyiv-kharkiv-solution-for-the-unity-of-ukraine/ “7th Self-Defense Squadron is stationed near the Verkhovna Rada. A squadron of the Right Sector is there as well,” says Parubiy. “Squadrons 19 and 3 guard the Presidential Administration, and Squadron 15, the Central Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.” ... Parubiy noted that right now, Kyiv must be in perfect order, better than ever, and then establish the same level of order in all of Ukraine.
Many parliamentarians switch sides, abandoned Yanukovych's party to save their own ass politically.
Summary without conjectures: 1.) No proof of use or even threat of use of force to the Verkhovna Rada, parliamentarians, Yanukovych 2.) 72% of parliament agreed to remove Yanukovych after he fled. 3.) Possibly/probably unconstitutional (impossible to give definite yes/no without reading parliaments decree. Consitution is online in english btw). 4.) The country was in the middle of a crisis, and as long as Yanukovych was not in Kyiv the country was paralysed being unable to pass any new laws/resolutions. Specifically they weren't able to pass the agreement to resolve the crisis that Yanukovych had just signed the day before, but had not made it to the Verhkovna rada.
So can you point out if anything I say is false/conjecture in this summary? Feel free to embellish these facts with your conjectures again, but it's not going to convince anyone unless you provide *facts* or reasonable arguments.
@Ghan I agree that it's almost pointless to argue but he's not an actual troll, and I get enjoyment when the person I'm arguing with capitulates (usually implicitly by changing the subject).
On May 17 2014 09:55 nunez wrote: from what i can gather and recall in msm (reuters, guardian, ch4, and i'm sure there's more) reported that yanukovyc came to an agreement, and signed a deal with the opposition on 21st of feb but was ousted after maidan rejected the deal. simple beans and pretty much what maghrell posted in the first place.
maybe he felt some great distrurbance in the force before he fled, or maybe it was a trap, who knows.
Dumped now by his closest allies and backers after violence that shocked the world, Yanukovich fled Kiev by helicopter on Friday - the day when the 'Euro-maidan' told opposition leaders they rejected a deal they had done with him and demanded he immediately stepped down.
Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovich, and three opposition leaders have signed an agreement intended to end a crisis that sparked bloody clashes between protesters and police on the streets of the capital, Kiev.
....
The deal was also signed by two European Union foreign ministers who helped broker it in tortuous negotiations that lasted more than 30 hours. "This agreement is not the end of the process. It's the beginning of the process," the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said after the signing.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders have signed a deal to try to end the political crisis in the countryThe opposition leaders who signed the deal were booed and called traitors by a crowd in Independence Square, the focal point of the protests, the BBC's Gavin Hewitt reports from Kiev.
...
The opposition leaders who signed the deal were booed and called traitors by a crowd in Independence Square, the focal point of the protests, the BBC's Gavin Hewitt reports from Kiev.
About "opposition leaders" declining the deal. Show one single footage of any oppositional leader (Klichko, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnybok. The ones who did refuse were right wing Euromaidan leaders who had very little to do with the political opposition at the moment) declining the deal BEFORE Yanukovich fled the country. I haven't seen any and most likely there is none to be found. After Yanukovich run away and openly refused signing agreed documents there was not much choice for the Parliament.
On May 17 2014 17:16 nunez wrote: great, here's another bulletpoint for comparison. together they span a wide range of possible interpretations.
1) signs deal w/ opposition members, travels to eastern ukraine, mob-justice at the hands of maidan doesn't sound eniticing. 2) maidan rejects it, police stop guarding buildings, maidan storm in. rada attempts to make it look legit with a sham vote to save its own neck and grabs power.
Another car in Lugansk Oblast got covered with gunfire after not stopping to separatists demands and after the chase ensued. As a result the driver got killed, his passenger and two passer-bys were injured (former - gunshots, latter - not confirmed what type of damage). According to Lugansk police.
not sure 100% on what you're responding to cheerio... you're basically saying what i'm saying, and what was reported.
i haven't seen any reports that specifically states he 'fled the country' before the ousting happened. he left for khrakiv late on 21st feb, "to shore up support", and at 10 am the next day protestors were at the door of the parliament, police etc nowhere to be seen, where they among other things attacked the deupty of the party of regions, as reported by the guardian:
yeah, this vote was totally fair though, that's just the lviv heimlich. they're saving his life from a pro-russian piece of broccoli planted by the gru.
at 3:30 pm yanu was ousted, while it was still being reported that he was in ukraine. what he was referring to that he wouldn't sign (and that he was not resigning) was surely not the agreement which he had already signed, but probably whatever the rest of the govt were pushing through in his and any police absence, under supervision by the maidan. more specifically the resolution from the indepentent i posted earlier (3 pm 22nd feb) stating:
President Viktor Yanukovych said a coup was underway against him after he left Kiev for an eastern stronghold and the country's parliament debated a motion calling for his resignation.
The resolution said that Mr Yanukovych "is removing himself (from power) because he is not fulfilling his obligations, and (that parliament) is setting elections for May 25."
in fact the opposition was not fullfilling their obligations on account of the hardliners in the maidan.
in absence of having legal grounds to stand on, according to the lawfare blog, the interrim govt would need to prove their legitimacy through their actions... that bed has been thoroughly shat so far.
and come on now, there was at least one protestor storming into the rada before the vote. probably several right-sector thugs and maybe even a closet-banderite or two... seems fair game if mc gets to suggest that yanu felt a disturbance in the force, or mari gets to think that it was a russian trap.
i wrote the bullet points to contrast mc's, not necessarily to state my own views. there's a lot of room for interpretation. neither him nor ghanburg are arbiters of truth. they are fallible and gullible idiots like the rest of us. regardless i'm glad you pushed me on this, the 'he fled'-narrative looks very ridicolous when you read the guardians as-it-happened reports from 21st and 22nd feb.
On May 17 2014 21:46 nunez wrote: and come on now, there was at least one protestor storming into the rada before the vote. probably several right-sector thugs and maybe even a closet-banderite or two... seems fair game if mc gets to suggest that yanu felt a disturbance in the force, or mari gets to think that it was a russian trap.
Yanu was removed. It was pretty clear he didn't want to leave the presidential palace (who would want to leave a place like that?) but he must have received some bad news that the people in charge of security won't protect him any more. Then he ran for it. The evidence is pretty clear: a lot of the police reported after Yanu fled that they were ordered by their chiefs to stand down and let the Maidan protesters take control. The Washington Post did an article on them. When they returned to the Crimea, they received a hero's welcome.
By any definition this is rather unconstitutional behavior. On the other hand, Yanu didn't behave constitutionally either. So as far as I'm concerned: what goes around comes around.
But that's old news. What's more interesting is: what happens next? And which oligarchs will side with Kiev and which will side with Russia?
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/22/1393067564422/db262022-5733-4861-9763-dd6207b79cba-460x276.jpeg)
