A comment from a message board discussing the Ukraine crisis - the truth hurts.

[reformist2]

"Viktor Yanukovich was democratically elected president of Ukraine in February of 2010. In February of 2014, unelected mobs removed him and chose unelected people to replace his administration. The Obama administration took the bizarre step of supporting unelected mobs over a democratically elected government. President Yanukovich has the legal right to request President Putin to send troops into Ukraine, and President Putin has the legal right to send Russian troops into Ukraine. There is no legal reason for the US, EU, or NATO to dispute the actions of President Yanukovich, his supporters in Ukraine, President Putin, and the Russian forces in Ukraine.

This crisis started over two economic offers. The EU made an offer that would come with austerity. Russia made an offer that was better than the EU offer. Unelected mobs illegally forced President Yanukovich from Kiev and set up an illegal regime. President Obama chose to support the unelected mobs in Ukraine, unwisely giving legal support to a possible overthrow of the Obama administration by unelected mobs. I served in the US military for 34 years, but I have never seen a president give such open legal support to those who might take action for the removal of his administration by force. President Obama and/or his advisers must be complete idiots.

The US, NATO, and the EU have no legal cause for action in the Ukrainian situation because the Kiev mobs are not a legally elected government, and the mobs cannot legally order or request any military action by Ukraine, the US, NATO, or the EU. President Yanukovich legally requested military aid from Russia, and President Putin made a legal military response. Hopefully, the situation can be resolved without further bloodshed, but the Kiev mobs have committed treason against Ukraine and may face severe legal penalties."

-carlmartel

http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSBREA1Q1E820140301

[TwilightGardener]

1. Comments from message boards rarely = Truth.

Not here, not on Reuters, nor anywhere else.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. Without military support, Former President Yanukovich has no legal redress.

The executive is only as powerful as the monopoly on violence it holds. When that monopoly is shattered, the executive is powerless.

A popular uprising with the support of the armed forces, or at least without the resistance, is a legitimate form of revolution. As Yanukovich no longer possesses any substantive power in the Ukraine, his alliance with Putin and Russia is legally meaningless.

Putin has no legal authority to intervene.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. Why are people taking sides here?

The proper description is below:

Ukraine President Impeached as Archrival Returns to Kiev

I can't find a count of the vote, but as I recall it was pretty overwhelming. So no, it was an action of the Ukrainian gov't itself that deposed the guy. He is no more President of the Ukraine than I am. He can't legally ask Putin to do anything, because he no longer represents the Ukrainian gov't, according to the Ukrainian gov't itself.
There's opinions, and there's facts. What that guy wrote ain't facts.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

4. Actual vote count from Parliament to impeach the Prez

Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election; Tymoshenko free

We can discuss everything else, but facts are facts. The Parliament was as elected as he was and acted in their legal capacity, just as our Congress would have with Nixon had it come to that.

[hedgehog]

5. "Viktor Yanukovich was democratically elected"

at least as much as George W. Bush.

[left on green only]

6. The Way I heard It....

....the Ukraine Parliament acted in accordance with the demonstrators by *voting* a no support for Pres. Yankoff, and that was the reason why he had to step down and flee the country. I also seem to remember that two years ago, at the time of Yankoff's election, there was quite a bit of dissension in Ukraine as to the legality of that election. And all of that came after a previous election where it was proven out-right that Yankoff had thrown the election.

It seems that Yankoff and the shrub have much in common, except Yankoff was at least able to throw his election without the help of his governor brother.

There is also *much* disagreement as to whether the deal to come to the aid of Ukraine that was offered by the EU was inferior to the deal that Yankoff went for that came from Russia.

I have an Internet pen friend in Odessa who has taught me that the news we might hear in the USA about Ukraine is not always related to reality.

[davidn3600]

7. Wasn't Yanukovich basically impeached?

[pampango]

8. He was not forced out. After months of massive, sustained public protests, he agreed

to remain in office until early elections in December and to use security forces to protect public buildings.

What did he do? Rather than remain in office and to his job with the protection of the security forces but likely lose the election, he decided to pursue a different strategy.

Within hours of signing the agreement the protesters (with the police, army and security forces under his control), he hastily abandoned his residence and left Kiev. Before leaving he ordered security forces to not protect public buildings. Why issue an order contradicting the agreement he had just signed? The image of mobs mobbing and looting public buildings would create an image of lawlessness and violence that could be used by others to justify military intervention. Of course the looting and burning did not happen (much to the surprise of him and Putin), but that did not change the spin.

If he had simply lived up to the agreement he signed with the protesters 8 days ago, he would be sitting in Kiev running the government pending elections in December.

[hrmjustin]

9. I thought he was legally removed by parliament.

[Holly_Hobby]

10. Smells like a CIA coup right out of their playbook n/t