General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen's the last time you heard of a Western sponsored "coup" where.....
....
*calls for change initially came in the form of mass, street level protests based on demonstrable corruption in the government,
*where no military were involved in removing the leader from power,
*where the leader was not arrested or executed but rather voluntarily left the country on his own accord,
*where the legislative body continued to legislate and actually bothered to vote to remove the abdicating leader from power,
*where an interim leadership based on the constitutional laws of succession took over and explicitly stated that it was merely an interim power,
*where new elections were scheduled to take place in just a matter of several months after the change in power, and....
* where the not-so-unforeseen consequence of the change in power was that the country's more powerful neighbor then chooses invade a portion of the country it sees as valuable to its own interest, thus creating the potential to destabilize the new government, and creating a situation that is clearly to the disadvantage--and definitely not to the advantage--of Western interests?
What kind of lousy Western-sponsored coup is that?
Some of you need to seriously lay off of the tinfoil.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)country.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)2000 was a clusterfuck of its own image.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Nice post.
1000words
(7,051 posts)You are consistent.
Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)
TampaAnimusVortex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Alex_
(27 posts)They are showing an ID from International Police Association, not CIA
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Just to let you know.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)(French: stroke of state) Sudden overthrow, often violent, of an existing government by a group of conspirators. Coups are most common in countries with unstable governments and in countries with little experience of successful democracy. Their success depends on surprise and speed. Coups rarely alter a nation's fundamental social and economic policies or significantly redistribute power.
A couple of things:
1) Military is not required for a coup, however, violence often is. Ukraine has plenty of that. Extreme violence.
2) The street level protests were led by the Far right back in early November, hence the level of violence and how quickly it escalated. Those weren't everyday citizens, those were soccer hooligan types. Check the November videos from the LiveLeak website if you have any doubt as to this fact.
3) They didn't execute the leader as he did indeed leave the country but instead they seem to have executed their own protesters.
4)The new leadership is a mix of Oligarchs, the hard right and a few moderates from the "Fatherland" party...which incidentally was what the Nazi's referred to Germany as.
5) The new elections are being overseen by the Western powers who have a obvious vested interest...regardless of who they are supporting.
6) Russians and Ukranians are the same people essentially... this is lost on the West. Take a look at the history, the geography and the culture...there is almost no difference. The only difference is one group of greedy and obviously violent guys is being replaced by another...in the mean time, the country is broke and regular moderate people are suffering and are sadly going to suffer more regardless of what the West does.
Alex_
(27 posts)the protestors did not control Hotel Ukraine (the National Bank of U, another point used by snipers was not under the protestors' control either)
go west young man
(4,856 posts)states he is in the Hotel Ukraine surrounded by protesters. They controlled the Hotel and the Hotel with the sniper sighted by the BBC reporter is in the upper window. The BBC reporter clearly states this. Go to the 1:50 mark he states they are using it as a triage center for the wounded. In regards to the sniper he says "I saw the shooter...he was wearing one of the protesters green helmets".
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Evidentially, it's lost on most Ukrainians as well. But who are they to have any say on it?
Igel
(35,320 posts)Yanukovich should have stayed. Nobody forced him to left. He fled his fears. But he also fled an agreement that his sponsors didn't approve of or initial.
In so doing, he violated the agreement. Once by not signing the legislation he agreed to sign when it was passed--he'd already packed up and left. A second time by not lifting a finger to arrange for the interim government he agreed to. Instead, all he did was quickly denounce everything done, even by the representatives from his own party, as illegal and illegitimate.
He's Morsi. With more corruption and foreign support than Morsi ever had, far more divisive than Morsi ever was, and far less cooperative with sub-constituencies in his own country than Morsi ever was.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Although you have set so many constraints up to create your Ukrainian exception that you can beg out of this one too.
The sorry list of us regime change operations since WWII makes your op ridiculous. Of course we were involved.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)And there was nothing comparable to Russia intervening in that example.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)out of the country?
Because that would be the only way this is like Haiti.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Cha
(297,322 posts)sticking with that. Who was it.. dennis on fox? Protect putin and rant and rage on the USA.. 'cause you know Russia good/USA bad. edward snowden said so .
functioning_cog
(294 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)proposed by BYuT as a "latent coup d'etat"
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08KYIV1300_a.html
...
However, it is not clear that the February 22 hasty vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraines Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada i.e., 338 lawmakers.
Pro-Yanukovych lawmakers may also argue that under the 1996 constitution, it should have been the current acting prime minister, Serhiy Arbuzov, to assume power after Yanukovychs removal.
The 2004 constitution designates the parliamentary speaker as the number-two position.
That discrepancy may soon become irrelevant, with parliament expected to elect a new prime minister no later than February 24. That post is expected to go to either Tymoshenko, fellow Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) member Arseniy Yatsenyuk, or independent lawmaker and chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/24022014-ukraine-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional-analysis/