Ukraine Redux

[Sarex]

 

 

Yeah, classic Croatian propaganda, we were the victim, the Serbs started it, 200 thousand Serbs just left of their own free will and lets not forget that the poor Croatia and Bosnia got shafted in Yugoslavia. Well I see how much better of you are today, Bosnia is collapsing and Croatia's national debt is bigger then any other country in the Balkans. Also what did your mighty army win? Maybe operation Storm which fought against Serbian peasants and outnumbered them 5 to 1. The only reason you "won" is because NATO came and bombed the **** out of us.

 

The facts are that even today your political factions are cultivating national hate towards us, while our country has since let go of this. Croats are free to come to our cities, while Serbians are chased and beaten in yours. Your businessman are allowed to work in our country while ours are stonewall in yours. So tell me more who was motivated by hate and nationalism in the war...

 

Yugoslavia was our biggest mistake...

 

 

Also I want to recognize and appreciate the point that  you acknowledge the fact that during WW2 the Croats did commit atrocities You aren't avoiding this but this is in the past and it doesn't reflect Croatia today. Its the same thing for me around Apartheid, I know South Africa implemented a racist system that dehumanized people based on the color of there skin. But it doesn't define me or my country nowadays. And it isn't something that I personally feel guilty about. This is one of the reasons I am such a supporter of social justice, I use to live in a country that legalized bigotry and I know how harmful it can be

 

I have had several discussions with Serbs, like Sarex, about the Bosnian War and they generally either deny atrocities that happened or have a very different perspective to what most people believe. To accept something that happened in a countries past doesn't undermine your country or make you a terrible person. In fact I would argue it shows strength as you accept the truth about your history but you look forward to a more positive future and how you won't repeat the mistakes of the past

 

Its such a refreshing change to see you take a topic seriously for once and give your opinion. I'm not saying you  right and I'm not saying you wrong but I have found your post very interesting. I'm also glad you were prepared to discuss the Croation position in the Bosnian War because there has been a lack of information from that perspective

 

He denies every crime they committed during the war and says that 200 thousand Serbs left of their own free will.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Sarex

[TheChris92]

Got most of my news from a documentary-maker & journalist I'm following.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/in-defense-of-instagramming-conflict-in-crimea/284279/

 

 

This one is actually interesting -- http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116927/i-have-seen-bravery-and-death-ukraine

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheChris92

[kgambit]

There isn't much doubt at all that Yanukovich's removal was illegal, I gave the reasons earlier (incorrect legal reversion of constitution, duress of votes, insufficient majority even under new constitution- 338 required, 328 actual)

 

 

No.  The reversion of the constitution was legal - both times actually.  It required a 2/3 majority and received 90% in 2004 and 85% (380 votes) in 2014.  Yanukovich approved the reversion to the 2004 constitution (although his approval was not required) when he brokered the deal with the opposition in early February and the second parliamentary vote occurred on Feb 21.    Regardless of which version you believe is legal (1996, 2004 or 2010), the articles pertinent to the removal of the president are the same in all versions.  See chapter 5, articles 108 thru 112. 

 

Ukrainian Impeachment follows the UK nomenclature and procedure.  Impeachment refers to the entire process culminating in removal from office.  But the full process requires a bill of indictment, a trial and then a vote on removal.  

 

328 votes would have been sufficient for the indictment phase.   A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin.  To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution.

 

Yanukovich fled before a trial could be convened so there is a question of whether his departure is a de facto admission of guilt or an act of resignation.   In either case, his departure makes him incapable of fulfilling his office and he can then be replaced.   

 

 

 

Ukrainian Constitution Impeachment Articles 108 thru 112   http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html

Ukrainian constitution http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#Chapter_V:_President_of_Ukraine  

 

Note that the Wiki link is a stub with links to all three versions of the constitution (1996, 2004 and 2010) 

Edited March 11, 2014 by kgambit

[213374U]

 

There isn't much doubt at all that Yanukovich's removal was illegal, I gave the reasons earlier (incorrect legal reversion of constitution, duress of votes, insufficient majority even under new constitution- 338 required, 328 actual)

 

 

No.  The reversion of the constitution was legal - both times actually.  It required a 2/3 majority and received 90% in 2004 and 85% (380 votes) in 2014.  Yanukovich approved the reversion to the 2004 constitution (although his approval was not required) when he brokered the deal with the opposition in early February and the second parliamentary vote occurred on Feb 21.    Regardless of which version you believe is legal (1996, 2004 or 2010), the articles pertinent to the removal of the president are the same in all versions.  See chapter 5, articles 108 thru 112. 

 

Ukrainian Impeachment follows the UK nomenclature and procedure.  Impeachment refers to the entire process culminating in removal from office.  But the full process requires a bill of indictment, a trial and then a vote on removal.  

 

328 votes would have been sufficient for the indictment phase.   A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin.  To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution.

 

Yanukovich fled before a trial could be convened so there is a question of whether his departure is a de facto admission of guilt or an act of resignation.   In either case, his departure makes him incapable of fulfilling his office and he can then be replaced. 

 

No. Yanukovych was first dismissed as President (with neither a preceptive Constitutional Court review nor a sufficient majority to do so), and then charged and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The legal procedure for removing the President from office for reasons other than explicit resignation, declaration of medical incompetence or death, was not observed. This, by definition, makes it unlawful. Exactly as unlawful as a local referendum on the independence of a territory. There is no provision in the Ukrainian Constitution allowing for the dismissal of the President if he leaves the capital for whatever reasons. The physical presence of Yanukovych is not required for the mandatory judicial review required for the impeachment process.

 

Revolutions, aimed as they are at changing the status quo, are unlawful. The trouble starts when you demand that non-revolutionaries abide by the very laws you have ignored to take power. This is not mere hypocrisy, it's madness.

Edited March 11, 2014 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Interesting. Off topic, but I'm very interested in what you gentlemen (Sarex and TrashMan) think of the Treaty of Trianon.

[kgambit]

 

 

There isn't much doubt at all that Yanukovich's removal was illegal, I gave the reasons earlier (incorrect legal reversion of constitution, duress of votes, insufficient majority even under new constitution- 338 required, 328 actual)

 

 

No.  The reversion of the constitution was legal - both times actually.  It required a 2/3 majority and received 90% in 2004 and 85% (380 votes) in 2014.  Yanukovich approved the reversion to the 2004 constitution (although his approval was not required) when he brokered the deal with the opposition in early February and the second parliamentary vote occurred on Feb 21.    Regardless of which version you believe is legal (1996, 2004 or 2010), the articles pertinent to the removal of the president are the same in all versions.  See chapter 5, articles 108 thru 112. 

 

Ukrainian Impeachment follows the UK nomenclature and procedure.  Impeachment refers to the entire process culminating in removal from office.  But the full process requires a bill of indictment, a trial and then a vote on removal.  

 

328 votes would have been sufficient for the indictment phase.   A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin.  To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution.

 

Yanukovich fled before a trial could be convened so there is a question of whether his departure is a de facto admission of guilt or an act of resignation.   In either case, his departure makes him incapable of fulfilling his office and he can then be replaced. 

 

No. Yanukovych was first dismissed as President (with neither a preceptive Constitutional Court review nor a sufficient majority to do so), and then charged and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The legal procedure for removing the President from office for reasons other than explicit resignation, declaration of medical incompetence or death, was not observed. This, by definition, makes it unlawful. Exactly as unlawful as a local referendum on the independence of a territory. There is no provision in the Ukrainian Constitution allowing for the dismissal of the President if he leaves the capital for whatever reasons. The physical presence of Yanukovych is not required for the mandatory judicial review required for the impeachment process.

 

 

Actually I was only disagreeing with Zo on the legality of the constitutional amendments.  You need to reread exactly what I wrote.  I'm not disputing that the 328 votes were not sufficient for removal by impeachment - what I said was that the 328 votes were sufficient for indictment.   But I suggest you read the actual resolution passed by the Rada.  Yanukovich was not removed from office thru an illegal impeachment process at all.  He was removed for failure to discharge the duties of his office.  You can drop the pretext that his "impeachment" was illegal because the Rada didn't attempt to impeach him at all.  Again see the comments I highlighted.

 

The RADA voted to remove Yanukovich for "non-performance of his duties"  

 

Here are the public statements:  

 

The resolution says Yanukovych removed himself from the constitutional powers. "The state cannot depend on the mood of the president, who has removed himself and whose whereabouts are unknown," Verkhovna Rada speaker Aleksander Turchinov said.

 

"I want to say at about 15:00 Moscow time we've succeeded in contacting Yanukovych. In the presence of deputies Arseny Yatsenyuk (head of the Batkivshchina faction) has talked with him. Yatsenyuk proposed him to resign and he (Yanukovych) agreed," Turchinov said, adding "Later, talking with other people Yanukovych denied his statement."

 

In an interview with UBR television channel, Yanukovych said he considered the events in Ukraine "a coup d'etat". "I'm going to resign and leave the country," Yanukovych said.

 

http://www.sott.net/article/274466-Ukrainian-parliament-passed-resolution-on-Yanukovichs-resignation

 

Here's a link with the summary of the Rada's activities for February 22:

 

PLENARY MEETING OF THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE OF THE SEVENTH CONVOCATION WAS HELD ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2014

 

http://iportal.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/News/88480.html

 

Some excerpts:

 

Leader of the Batkivshchyna faction A.Yatseniuk noted that yesterday, the President V.Yanukovych had to sign all the laws adopted by the Parliament. According to him, refusal to sign these laws will lead to his immediate resignation.

 

 

 

 

In connection with absence of President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych in Kyiv, the Presidential Administration does not inform where he is or what are the reasons for his absence, Oleksandr Turchynov requested to immediately find out the location of V. Yanukovych.

 

 

 

 

At 5 p.m. Oleksandr Turchynov continued the meeting. He claimed that the main issue is still connected with the President of Ukraine.  

 

The Chairman informed that near 2 p.m. it was possible to find V.Yanukovych by the phone. According to him, leader of the “Batkivshchyna” faction A.Yatseniuk talked with him, and suggested him to immediately write a notice of resignation.  

 

Oleksandr Turchynov suggested include the draft resolution on self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine into the agenda. He read the resolution’s text, according to which “it has been determined that the President of Ukraine V.Yanukovych has in the non-constitutional manner withdrawn from performing constitutional powers and is the one that does not perform his duties,” and it was suggested to set early elections of the President of Ukraine for May 25, 2014.

The Verkhovna Rada adopted the resolution with 328 votes.

 

 

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office.  His removal did not require an impeachment process.  

 

You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want.   It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. 

Edited March 11, 2014 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Should we start calling kg "Fact Checker of the Obsidian Order"?

[BruceVC]

 

 

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office.  His removal did not require an impeachment process.  

 

You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want.   It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. 

 

 

Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!!

[213374U]

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office.  His removal did not require an impeachment process but a simple 2/3 majority which requires only 300 votes out of 450 (or possibly 447 since 3 members of the Rada resigned on the 22nd iirc).  

 

You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want.   It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this.

 

No. The Rada does not get to dismiss the President for failing to "discharge the duties of his office" (something he is expressly forbidden from doing as per art. 106). You linked the Ukrainian Constitution yourself.

 

Art. 108:

 

 

 

The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:

 

1) resignation;

 

2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;

 

3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;

 

4) his/her death.

 

 

The resolution passed by the Rada does not fall within any of the above. There are no other scenarios in which the President's mandate is liable to be interrupted before his term is up. The Rada cannot simply make up new scenarios and majorities where it can lawfully dismiss the President, regardless of the excuses they have come up with post-hoc. Well, of course they are going to justify their actions somehow. That does not change the fact that any actions taken based on reasons outside of those prescribed in the Constitution are unlawful. The Rada is not above the supreme law of the land and they cannot override it, regardless of majorities.

Edited March 11, 2014 by 213374U

[213374U]

 

 

 

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office.  His removal did not require an impeachment process.  

 

You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want.   It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. 

 

 

Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!!

 

 

For the nth time. Read the source material and try to produce an original thought for once. But at least we've finally shed the fake friendliness façade, that's something right?

[Fighter]

It doesn't matter how it is framed legally. The truth is they voted because they were afraid. There is no law when the Rada is being guarded by guys with clubs instead of police and Myzychko brings a Kalashnikov into government meetings.

 

Western double standards everywhere. You want to excuse them because they are pro west and sweet talk about democracy (they have yet to practice it). And that's the truth.

[Meshugger]

Why can't Putin rename himself to 'Cobra Commander'? It would make this 'good vs. bad'-scenario much more clearer.

[kgambit]

 

 

 

No. The Rada does not get to dismiss the President for failing to "discharge the duties of his office" (something he is expressly forbidden from doing as per art. 106). You linked the Ukrainian Constitution yourself.

 

Art. 108:

 

 

 

The resolution passed by the Rada does not fall within any of the above. There are no other scenarios in which the President's mandate is liable to be interrupted before his term is up. The Rada cannot simply make up new scenarios and majorities where it can lawfully dismiss the President, regardless of the excuses they have come up with post-hoc. Well, of course they are going to justify their actions somehow. That does not change the fact that any actions taken based on reasons outside of those prescribed in the Constitution are unlawful. The Rada is not above the supreme law of the land and they cannot override it, regardless of majorities.

 

 

Discharge in the context I quoted means "perform" not surrender or transfer:   so your appeal to article 106 isn't pertinent.  I do understand the context you are using and I agree that Yanukovich can't delegate or transfer his duties according to art106 but that's not the way that phrase is being used.  To clarify failure to discharge the duties of his office means failure to perform the duties of his office.  It might be a tenuous legal argument but it can be used as grounds for removal as it can be interpreted either as an act of resignation or inability to perform thru incapacity.  And Yanukovich (at least according to several Rada members) allegedly tendered his resignation verbally.   So your claim that the Rada's actions are unconstitutional is dubious.

 

The illegal impeachment argument is at least dead since that wasn't the Rada's intent.  Now the subsequent charges and arrest warrant filed might be seen as the precursor to a future bill of impeachment but it's a moot point. 

 

PS:  Sorry for the on the fly edits. 

Edited March 11, 2014 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office.  His removal did not require an impeachment process.  

 

You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want.   It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. 

 

 

Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!!

 

 

For the nth time. Read the source material and try to produce an original thought for once. But at least we've finally shed the fake friendliness façade, that's something right?

 

 

Come on I'm just teasing, I'm still the friendly person you know me for..thats no facade

[213374U]

Failure to perform is grounds for removal as it can be interpreted either as an act of resignation or inability to perform thru incapacity.  And Yanukovich (at least according to several Rada members) allegedly tendered his resignation. 

 

At least you've finally gotten off the illegal impeachment  bandwagon,

 

No. If failure to perform his duties (in this context signing the laws passed by the Rada) was grounds for removal, it would be under the only article dealing with the dismissal of the President. The fact that the Parliament requires the President to sign laws before they go into effect is actually a safety to ensure that Parliament does not overstep its bounds and encroaches upon executive power or breach the Constitution. This is another example of the good ol' separation of powers standing in the way of would-be revolutionaries.  Where exactly are you getting the idea that he can be dismissed for failing to exercise his duties? The Rada saying it's legal because they made it legal is circular logic.

 

No bandwagon either. It's just that impeachment is the only way the Rada has to kick the President out if he's not dead or medically incapable of performing his duties. It's good that you are no longer pretending it was a lawful dismissal.

[Cultist]

I am kinda amused to often hear how it is unlawful to declare independance, or support those who wish to join other countries from those, who live in the country born from declaring independence and then acquired Texas, that seceded from Republic of Mexico.

Anyway, it is also entertaining to listen to all this "international law" babbling and reciting constitutions. Japan and China quarreled over some islands for hell knows how long. Then Japan began reciting some international law documents and other useless paper - China moved their ships and secured the islands. The end.

International law is valid only for the weak. NATO could bomb and genocide serbs because they were strong and others were weak. USA could invade Iraq because they could - nobody cares that there were no WMD. Russia could claim Georgian states because no one coul;d stop them.

Brussels and all the world could denounce, frown and announce their dissatisfaction all they want - nobody cares. International law works only in a perfect world of fairy elves, unicorns and honorable valiant knights.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Cultist

[kgambit]

 

Failure to perform is grounds for removal as it can be interpreted either as an act of resignation or inability to perform thru incapacity.  And Yanukovich (at least according to several Rada members) allegedly tendered his resignation. 

 

At least you've finally gotten off the illegal impeachment  bandwagon,

 

No. If failure to perform his duties (in this context signing the laws passed by the Rada) was grounds for removal, it would be under the only article dealing with the dismissal of the President. The fact that the Parliament requires the President to sign laws before they go into effect is actually a safety to ensure that Parliament does not overstep its bounds and encroaches upon executive power or breach the Constitution. This is another example of the good ol' separation of powers standing in the way of would-be revolutionaries.  Where exactly are you getting the idea that he can be dismissed for failing to exercise his duties? The Rada saying it's legal because they made it legal is circular logic.

 

No bandwagon either. It's just that impeachment is the only way the Rada has to kick the President out if he's not dead or medically incapable of performing his duties. It's good that you are no longer pretending it was a lawful dismissal.

 

 

Sorry but I never said that I thought it was an illegal dismissal.   So please quit putting words in my mouth.  

 

We're just going to have to disagree about impeachment being the only legal way that the Rada could remove Yanukovich.    I think there's enough evidence that Yanukovich actually DID resign and his departure and failure to sign legally passed legislation was tantamount to surrendering / resigning his office.  You obviously disagree.   

Edited March 11, 2014 by kgambit

[Gorgon]

True enough, but if we insist on playing by the rules and leverage sanctions and diplomacy against those who refuse. It's something I guess. 

 

Serbians were guilty of war crimes, but the bombing campaign was leveled against infrastructure and communications. Serbian civilians were affected. Not as bad as putting people in mass graves, but not a good solution either. Western forces should have had the stones to occupy the whole former Ugoslavia and make sure things played out fair. Hindsight being perfect and everything. 

[Elerond]

I am kinda amused to often hear how it is unlawful to declare independance, or support those who wish to join other countries from those, who live in the country born from declaring independence and then acquired Texas, that seceded from Republic of Mexico.

Anyway, it is also entertaining to listen to all this "international law" babbling and reciting constitutions. Japan and China quarreled over some islands for hell knows how long. Then Japan began reciting some international law documents and other useless paper - China moved their ships and secured the islands. The end.

International law is valid only for the weak. NATO could bomb and genocide serbs because they were strong and others were weak. USA could invade Iraq because they could - nobody cares that there were no WMD. Russia could claim Georgian states because no one coul;d stop them.

Brussels and all the world could denounce, frown and announce their dissatisfaction all they want - nobody cares. International law works only in a perfect world of fairy elves, unicorns and honorable valiant knights.

 

EU gave same punishment for USA for giving false information about Irak and again when NSA scope spying was revealed, ergo EU halted temporally free market and visa free traveling talks and our foreign ministers called Bush, Obama and Putin to tell them we are very disappointed on them and they should go in corner and be ashamed.

 

As we all know that EU is well know of it willingness to take swift and heavy actions against those who are it biggest sources of income, you can always depend on us in that.

[213374U]

Sorry but I never said that it was not a lawful dismissal because I do think it was legal.   So please quit putting words in my mouth.  

 

We're just going to have to disagree about impeachment being the only legal way that the Rada could remove Yanukovich.    I think there's enough evidence that Yanukovich actually DID resign and his departure and failure to sign legally passed legislation was tantamount to surrendering / resigning his office.  You obviously disagree. 

 

 

No, you didn't say it wasn't lawful—but since it's an either/or situation, if you concede that the process by which he was dismissed was not impeachment, then you concede that it was unlawful, because there is no other instrument in the Ukrainian Constitution to dismiss him. QED

 

As for whether you choose to accept any evidence that Yanukovych actually resigned as valid, well. Think what you will but again, the Constitution demands that the President tends his resignation before the Rada in session (art. 109). That has obviously not occurred because he hasn't been in Kiev since feb 21st.

Edited March 11, 2014 by 213374U

[Cultist]

EU gave same punishment for USA for giving false information about Irak and again when NSA scope spying was revealed, ergo EU halted temporally free market and visa free traveling talks and our foreign ministers called Bush, Obama and Putin to tell them we are very disappointed on them and they should go in corner and be ashamed.

 

As we all know that EU is well know of it willingness to take swift and heavy actions against those who are it biggest sources of income, you can always depend on us in that.

Now try re-reading what you wrote and try not to laugh. Especially the sanctions part. The funniest thing is that it is very hard to determine the irony when talking about it thanks to events in recent years.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Cultist

[Elerond]

 

EU gave same punishment for USA for giving false information about Irak and again when NSA scope spying was revealed, ergo EU halted temporally free market and visa free traveling talks and our foreign ministers called Bush, Obama and Putin to tell them we are very disappointed on them and they should go in corner and be ashamed.

 

As we all know that EU is well know of it willingness to take swift and heavy actions against those who are it biggest sources of income, you can always depend on us in that.

Now try re-reading what you wrote and try not to laugh. Especially the sanctions part.

 

I tried to give my best sarcastic voice as I have really great doubts that EUs sanctions have any impact towards anyone, let alone USA, Russia or China.

[Cultist]

I edited it. In recent years I have read huge lot of people and "experts" who seriously considered emposed sanctions as something of a huge blow. So sarcasm and irony became hard to distinguish. Which is telling a lot about the situation.

[kgambit]

 

Sorry but I never said that it was not a lawful dismissal because I do think it was legal.   So please quit putting words in my mouth.  

 

We're just going to have to disagree about impeachment being the only legal way that the Rada could remove Yanukovich.    I think there's enough evidence that Yanukovich actually DID resign and his departure and failure to sign legally passed legislation was tantamount to surrendering / resigning his office.  You obviously disagree. 

 

 

No, you didn't say it wasn't lawful—but since it's an either/or situation, if you concede that the process by which he was dismissed was not impeachment, then you concede that it was unlawful, because there is no other instrument in the Ukrainian Constitution to dismiss him. QED

 

As for whether you choose to accept any evidence that Yanukovych actually resigned as valid, well. Think what you will but again, the Constitution demands that the President tends his resignation before the Rada in session (art. 109). That has obviously not occurred because he hasn't been in Kiev since feb 21st.

 

 

 

I did ask you nicely to stop putting words in my mouth.    So let me make it clear - imo the process was legal.  Is that clear enough for you now? 

 

Yanukovich offered his resignation verbally (again according to the Rada and which he later retracted) failed to sign legislation and failed to provide details about his absence or likely return, effectively leaving the presidency in a vacuum.  Any reasonable person would consider the specific circumstances and call that a resignation of office and actionable by the Rada.  

 

It's not clear if Yanukovich's resignation (via phone to the Rada) was recorded or not.  There are also reports that Yanukovich recorded an official statement of resignation.  I can't find a transcript of the latter.   

Edited March 11, 2014 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Sanctions only work if the sanctioned state is impacted heavily enough(not able to export products to a degree that effects employent and profits) which can only be accomplished with smaller states. To the US or China EU sanctions are in the magnitude of an ant bite.