More correctly a
coup d'etat.
Yep, I have independently checked it and found the discription fitting.
Calling the non-violent removal of Yanukovitch by parliament with the popular support of a majority of the populace a 'coup' just doesn't fit.
Umm... apart that the protesters used to throw molotov cocktails at the police and occupied administrative buildings in Kiev, and even burned some, it was non-violent then. All the
real violence unleashed later. And still, throwing molotovs at the police and occupying and burning administrative buildings does involve a measure of violence, doesn't it?
At least people in Donetsk in Luhansk were proclaimed terrorists for only occupying administrative buildings alone.
The 'illegality' of his removal is also questionable.
Yes, I also had questions on that, so I did my homework to find answers. Here they go:
Ukrainian Constitution (version of 1996, effective on 21-Feb-2014) clause 108.
The President of Ukraine performs his duties until newly elected President assumes office. Presidential authority can stop prematurely under the following conditions:
1) retirement;
2) inability to perform the duties due to health reasons;
3) deposing within appropriate impeachment procedure;
4) death.
Because Yanukovich a) had time until Feb-2015, b) wasn't going to retire, c) was in good health condition, d) was pretty much alive, the only way available to depose him was impeachment.
Here's how it was supposed to go the constitutional way:
Clause 111. The President of Ukraine can be deposed under the impeachment procedure in case he has committed state treason or other crime.
The consideration of the deposing under the impeachment procedure can be initiated by constitutional majority of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine [that's the parliament - Daw].
To investigate the case the Supreme Rada of Ukraine creates special investigatory committee including special attorney and special investigators.
Conclusions and suggestions of the investigatory committee are to be reviewed by the Supreme Rada of Ukraine.
Based on the grounds presented by the investigatory committee, the Supreme Rada of Ukraine may charge the President if the charge is supported by no less than 2/3 of all the Supreme Rada members.
The decision on deposing the President may be made if supported by 3/4 of all the Supreme Rada members after the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has processed the case and made its formal positive conclusion on constitutional procedures compliance with regard to the process of the case investigation and processing, and after the receipt of formal conclusion from the Supreme Court of Ukraine stating that the actions the President is charged for do contain evidence of state treason or other crime.
Obviously, the Maidanists had no time for this constitutional nonsense. So, on 21-Feb-2014 they made a deal with Yanukovich. The deal said that Yanukovich withdraws the Police from Maidan and Maidanists disarm and leave the administrative buildings they had occupied, and then they sit and talk on compromise to suite everyone.
The deal was signed by Yanukovich from one side, and from the other side it was signed by:
Mr. Klichko (now Kiev mayor),
Mr. Arseniy Yatsenuk (now prime minister - again), and
Mr. Oleg Tyagnibok (just
a very nice guy from
a very nice party).
The deal was witnessed and verified by:
Mr.Frank-Walter Steinmeier (German Foreign Affairs Minister),
Mr.Radosław Sikorski (Polish Foreign Affairs Minister),
Mr.Éric Fournier (head of Continental Europe Dept. at the French Foreign Affairs Ministry)
All serious people.
Thinking that the acute crisis is over, Yanukovich left for Kharkov (because he is the president of a country, so he has the country to run, and he can't eternally sit in his chair in Kiev as if he was nailed to it). However, before he left he did his part of the deal: the police was ordered to withdraw from Kiev.
And next thing happens is that on 22-Feb-2014 (i.e. in less than 24 hours after the deal is signed) the Supreme Rada of Ukraine announces him missing and self-abstaining from ruling the country, and votes for 3 things:
1. Deposing of Yanukovich,
2. Assigning Mr.Turchynov (its Speaker) to be acting president,
3. Altering constitution to include in clause 108 a bunch of additional provisions including ousting, thus post factum validating the already performed act of deposing Yanukovich.
This last thing btw is signed by Mr.Turchinov as acting president already.
So, there was a brief moment in Ukrainian history when it had 2 presidents simultaneously on 22-Feb-2014:
- Yanukovich in Kharkov under Constitution version of 1996, and
- Turchinov in Kiev re-writing constitution to make already happened illegal things look legal to those outsiders who won't bother to check it up.
At this he fascinatingly succeeded as far as I can see
Now, back to the question: if that's not a coup (OK, coup d'etat), what is it?
In my Russian-English dictionary "coup" stands for any illegal governmental change/overthrow/removal, but I admit it may be linguistically wrong.
The fact of the matter is that Putin gives support to the rebels, both financially and with supplies for the fight. He could have not done a thing and this situation would be dead and buried and no plane would have been shot down because there would be no more fighting sinc the rebels would have lost a long time ago.
) maintain the legality of deadly force in response to an armed mob engaging in conflict with law enforcement and military personnel (and this puts aside the question of who actually ordered them to fire).
