Or maybe Arizona, somewhere like that.

Russia is where Edward Snowden bites his thumb at those here in our country that deserve it. Otherwise i concede

"A coward who betrayed those who stood by him."

Perhaps Putin would have preferred Yanukovych to be a brave man with the hangman standing beside him.

Especially when the so-called government making the request is comprised of jokers who seized power by throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen.

That's exactly what they would do.

I suppose you'd be happier if they went all Ceausescu instead.

I am sincerely impressed, Mr. Carcetti.

As to your question: I have no idea how it applies, but who is to say what they might or might not have done to him had the coup leaders caught Yanukovich without police protection. I have seen some video of what the mobs did to some members of his Rada coalition (not pretty).

ordered to do so by Yanukovych? And if you think the current leaders aren't good enough to petition the Hague, how about for the theft of billions of dollars? Yanukovych has been to prison before, being a violent criminal and all, the Hague should be nothing for him.

The protest leaders and representatives of the EU. Yanukovich ordered the police to abide by that truce. Some of the more violent factions of the protesters, however, publicly announced they would not honor the truce and told their members to continue attacks on the police. Early Friday morning shooting was reported near Maidan Square and several policemen were taken to local hospitals with gunshot wounds. That is when police snipers were brought in, to try and take out the gunmen firing into police ranks.

When one has to decide if the protesters or police were guilty of starting the shooting, all of that must be remembered. After all, who is more likely to have broken the truce and begun the shooting: government police who had been ordered to honor the truce, or violent, fascistic protesters whose leaders had publicly said they were going to continue their attacks on police?

Found this on Breaking News this am:
In the past 3 years, $70 billion went out of Ukraine's financial system into offshore accounts, PM-designate Arseniy Yatsenyuk says - @Reuters

I imagine the IMF would like to have some of that.

Seventy billion dollars, really? The Ukrainian government didn't have that much total cash to begin with! Whoever thought that nonsense up is pretty unfamiliar with the exchange rate, at the very least.

That's rule one... Hide your fortune in a more stable currency...

The question remains, however, where in the wide, wide world of Ukrainian corruption would he have found that much to steal in the first place?

1 Ukrainian Hryvnia equals
0.093 US Dollar

Last edited Thu Feb 27, 2014, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)

There is little doubt President Yanukovich is corrupt as the day is long, all Ukrainian politicians reportedly are, but seventy billion dollars is a laughably inflated figure.

A President having gold plated seats on his crappers is still not a justification for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. At least it isn't if one wants to continue living under a democratically elected government oneself.

Really, I often do not get the things that people are grasping at when they try to induce gasps over the US-enemy-of-the-month.

Have our own crooked greedheads who buy things like car elevators for their underground garages.

He has yet to quit at all. Yanukovich is giving a speech today in Rostov on Don. That is a place in Ukraine.

If Bush left the United States and flew to, say, Paraguay, after hearing he was to be impeached and sent to the Hague, then claimed, in absentia, he was still the President of the United States, would you say the same thing? It's absurd.

Considered grounds for some armed and violent clowns to replace an entire government. What international treaty is that principle enshrined in?

security forces use their overwhelming firepower advantage to protect government buildings. Government institutions and the bureaucracy continue to function while the president is gone and he or she moves back into the presidential residence when the vacation or diplomatic trip is completed.

OTOH, if a president is abdicating on short notice what does he care what happens to government institutions and buildings? He just takes with him anything that is not nailed down and destroys documents and other things that might be useful to his opponents.

The "armed clowns" among the peaceful protesters were not like the guys in Crimea who took over the parliament building. Those guys have rocket launchers, hand grenades and high-powered rifles. Yes, having a few old rifles does make some of the Kiev protesters "armed". If they thought they could overpower heavily armed security forces tasked to defend public buildings, they were indeed "clowns".

If I had a hunting rifle and got a couple of buddies to get theirs so that we could take over the White House, I would be a 'clown' indeed. ("Delusional tea nut" might be a better assessment.) And my odds of success would be "minimal" at best. Heck, my odds of surviving my great adventure would be 'minimal' at at best. How is it that the Kiev "clowns" had so much more success than I would have in Washington?

...and having the entire fucking goddamn staff of the White House and its buildings evacuated at the same fucking time. It's so absurd it's a joke.

People literally walked on to the former Ukrainian President's compound. No guards, no staff, it was a fucking ghost town.

My emphasis isn't targeted at you, pampango. I just, I find this whole situation absurd, and I fear for the non-Russians of Crimea, because I think I can see the writing on the wall.

The non-Russian minorities of Crimea are about to have a really bad time.

In fact he is scheduled to give a speech at a venue on Ukrainian territory in about four hours.

his abdication, since his actions show that is what he did. Of course, after spending a couple of days listening to Putin explaining the "big picture" and his role in it, one can't blame him for having "second thoughts". His plan may have been to retire in luxury but Vladimir (who does not seem to be happy with him, the way he handled the protests and his abdication) has told him he has a role still to play in Crimea before his retirement with Russian protection begins.

If he were pro-American Latin American leader who suddenly abdicated in the face of protests, then returned to a US military base in the country (after a couple of days of "consultations" with the US president) to proclaim he was really still the president, we would see through that in a heartbeat.

Whatever he says today won't change his past actions, but he will say a lot about Putin's plans for Crimea. Of course, the actions of heavily armed men the past few days in Crimea makes Putin's plans fairly clear. He does not like people messing with his military bases - see Crimea, Syria and Moldova.

Nor does any document of abdication he signed exist. According to all international law and treaties, which the United States is party to, he is the President of Ukraine. There are really no two ways about it.

Actions speak louder than words. If he really thought he was the president, he would have told security forces to guard government buildings, including his residence, and he would be in Kiev right now running the government until elections which were scheduled for December.

Either security forces did not follow his orders to protect government buildings (no sign that they ever disobeyed orders), security forces tried to guard them but were outgunned by protesters (no sign of that happening after he left) or he decided not to stick around until the December election and left without signing an abdication proclamation.

If you prefer to believe that he suddenly left a few hours after signing the agreement with the protesters for "consultations" in Russia, then was shocked, shocked that security forces could not or did not try to protect government buildings to which he fully intended to return then go right ahead and believe that.

Maybe when he actually is resigning his office!

His press conference was in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, not in Ukraine.

Without leaving a fucking soul behind to explain said fucking absence?

In what international treaty is that dubious principle of succession enshrined?

He's been impeached legally.

How can an illegally constituted government do anything which is "legal?"

Your argument is really thin because it could apply to anyone who is ever impeached.

"Once you impeach your government is illegitimate."

As I said in my posting, that was a news headline from breakingnews.com, yesterday.

Now there is more to the story, from Reuters.
*Ukraine PM says $37 billion went missing under Yanukovich

*Puts capital flight at $70 billion in 3 years

He was the creature of those who stole it, certainly, but I doubt he was given so much as a tenth of one percent by his masters.

Imagine the hilarity!

Yuriy Ilyin was born in the former Soviet Union and is the leader of the Naval unit at Sevastopol in Crimea.

Yanukovich needed to change the order before going to Russia to get his directives.

It is now likely that he will "return" to Crimea to make preparations for secession.

Russian people there know that "Russia is with you". It was a boxer, Irina Rodnina the figure skater who lit the torch and had the ugly tweet about President Obama and someone else who was famous. It's sickening, Putin is trying to take over Crimea. He has spetsnatz in the government building and the soldiers in the airport were reported as having Russian naval insignia.

Putin could care less about Ukraine or it's people. He desperately needs that warm water deep sea port and he's not going to risk giving it up

Yanukovich clearly did not get a warm welcome in Moscow as his actions have put Putin in a place he did not want to be. Putin has been very quiet and Yanukovich looks lost and confused as does everyone else except perhaps the Crimean ethnic Russians who appear to be seizing an opportunity and trying to force Putin's hand.