Ukraine Redux

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So if a Ukraine President wants to avoid trial he can flee the country and still be considered a legitamte head of state?

[BruceVC]

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.

 

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

They don't work if the sanctioned state has signifigant avenues of revenue that the sanctions do not affect. The US would not be affected by EU sanctions because they have many other avenues of export and import.

[Sarex]

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. 

 

At least we buried the dead, ours were just left face down in the dirt mutilated beyond recognition. But hey they don't count right...

 

 

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

 

What exactly are you interested in?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Sarex

[BruceVC]

They don't work if the sanctioned state has signifigant avenues of revenue that the sanctions do not affect. The US would not be affected by EU sanctions because they have many other avenues of export and import.

 

You right I didn't explain myself properly, for sanctions to be effective they need the USA to be involved as they have major influence on the IMF and other financial institutions, and they would never declare those types of sanctions on themselves

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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

 

What exactly are you interested in?

 

 

Your thoughts about how just it was, and why? Basically, people in Hungary are taught how it was utterly unfair and evil and what a great national tragedy it is. If I understand correctly, you guys have gotten the freedom of your respective countries out of it, so I wonder how people see it in your country. Are you taught about atrocities hungarians committed, or oppression your people faced while in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy?

[BruceVC]

 

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. 

 

At least we buried the dead, ours were just left face down in the dirt mutilated beyond recognition. But hey they don't count right...

 

 

Sarex, Gorgon has raised a good point. It may just be better if the USA annexes Serbia, you guys could become the 53 state? What do you think..it may work nicely?

[ShadySands]

Which states would be 51 and 52? Just curious

[BruceVC]

Which states would be 51 and 52? Just curious

 

I know Canada is one and the other one slips my mind.....

[Valsuelm]

 

Whatever you think about the wars in Yugoslavia in the last ~25 years, I highly recommend you watch the documentary that Sarex linked. While it glosses over a few things (especially the 19th/earth 20th century history), and is told from a somewhat Serbia perspective, there is indisputable first source information in it that flies in the face of what was told in the news to most of the world. What happened in Yugoslavia and Albania, and how those wars came to be, is not what most people outside of those nations think.

 

 

I'm happy to watch that video but I still need an answer. Do you guys think that Serbia was treated unfairly by NATO in respects to the Bosnian War?

 

 

I think there is far more than has met the eye of most of the people reading this forum in regards to Serbia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, etc. I think there is far more than has met the eye of even those looking closely at the situation (ie: Chinese embassy go boom accident my ass).

 

I think that you should watch the video Sarex linked.

 

I think in this day and age NATO has lost all pretenses of being what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance) and has morphed into an imperialist tool in the eyes of anyone who pays attention and doesn't gobble up the propaganda NATO and many of it's members serve up regularly. Some have said it's always been just an imperialist tool, I'm not sure they are wrong.

 

I think NATO definitely treated Serbia 'unfairly' and was acting as an aggressor as well as the main instigator in the war despite the official overtones otherwise. And I think that anyone who looks into what went on during the wars, and what's gone on since will come to that conclusion if they let facts and not propaganda or misplaced loyalties reign supreme.

 

And for the record, I am neither Serbian nor Bosnian, and have no family history in that part of the world, nor skin in the game over there.

[Valsuelm]

 

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.

 

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful

 

 

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil.

[Valsuelm]

 

Which states would be 51 and 52? Just curious

 

I know Canada is one and the other one slips my mind.....

 

 

No, Canada isn't one. Canada still has a queen.

 

Puerto Rico is probably the closest thing we have to a 51st state (not considering D.C. of course), and it's move to become a state has been shot down a couple of times snow. People seem fixated with the nice round number of '50'. In reality the greatest likelihood for a 51st state would be if one of the existing states split, and while I think that's a long shot right now, there is a growing movement in a number of states to split apart that I do think may gain real traction as time goes on.

[Sarex]

Your thoughts about how just it was, and why? Basically, people in Hungary are taught how it was utterly unfair and evil and what a great national tragedy it is. If I understand correctly, you guys have gotten the freedom of your respective countries out of it, so I wonder how people see it in your country. Are you taught about atrocities hungarians committed, or oppression your people faced while in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy?

 

It's complicated, even more so because it has been years since I learned/read about it. The thing is our history goes way back to our time under Ottoman occupation. A lot of Serbs migrated to Hungary to escape the Ottomans and while it is mentioned that our people were treated like a lower class in Hungary the brunt of the crimes mentioned are about the Ottomans. So yeah while thing are mentioned about Hungary, they pale to the information about the Ottomans. What I remember from my history lessons is that our people were allowed to live there but they had a duty to defend the borders and while they were treated harshly they escaped the Ottoman rule. After we liberated our self from the Ottomans we considered our selves independent.

 

As for after WW1, we considered that fair. Austro-Hungary was the aggressor, we defeat them. What my people regret is that we didn't just take the territory that was offered to us, instead of forming what was to be Yugoslavia. That, as it turned out, was the single biggest mistake any of our rulers made to this day.

[213374U]

So let me make it clear - imo the process was legal.  Is that clear enough for you now? 

 

I am not putting words into your mouth, I am simply following your logic to its end. So, to make it perfectly clear—which one is it? Was it impeachment or not?

 

- If it was impeachment, then the procedure was not duly followed (no sufficient 3/4 majority and no Constitutional Court review) → unlawful dismissal.

- If it was not impeachment, then a procedure outside of those prescribed by the Constitution for ending the mandate of the President prematurely has been followed → unlawful dismissal.

 

Take your pick.

 

 

 

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.

 

What "any reasonable person" would consider is irrelevant when you are dealing with clear constitutional provisions. Precisely because those provisions are in place to prevent abuses and hopefully put a stop to illegitimate uses of power by alleged "reasonable persons". But this whole point is academic because the resignation resolution was passed less than 24 hours after Yanukovych left Kiev, with a Parliament under duress. Couldn't risk the President coming back, now could we? Reminder: you cannot "resign" someone.

 

And no, a recorded phone call (to whom? Yatseniuk? Putin? His mom?) that has somehow mysteriously disappeared is not admissible as the formal resignation required by law to be presented before the Rada. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take scuttlebutt and hearsay as evidence.

[Rostere]

Sanctions only work if the sanctioned state is impacted heavily enough(not able to export products to a degree that effects employment 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.

 

What. Sanctions either way between China, EU other the US would be devastating. It would be the financial equivalent of a global nuclear war. Multinational corporations would be scrambling to keep sanctions out of the way if they heard so much as a whisper about it. But let's read what the EU and the US has to say.

 

The trade relations between the US and the EU is the most powerful financial flow in the entire world. I would think that any actual sanctions would be impossible to reinforce though, especially considering the recent financial crisis.

[kgambit]

If it was not impeachment, then a procedure outside of those prescribed by the Constitution for ending the mandate of the President prematurely has been followed

 

 

 

1) Accepting Yanukovych's resignation is not a procedure outside of those prescribed in the constitution.  

2) The Rada claims that Yanukovych's failure to perform his duties was tantamount to resignation and is grounds for constitutional removal.

 

Take the issue up with the Rada or the Ukrainian Constitutional Court (or at least the 12 remaining judges)  if you disagree.  

 

 

I am not putting words into your mouth,

 

Yes you were and I'm done with this.  Have a nice evening. 

Edited March 11, 2014 by kgambit

[alanschu]

2) The Rada claims that Yanukovych's failure to perform his duties was tantamount to resignation and is grounds for constitutional removal.

Is part of this perspective also from the standpoint of him basically going "peace out, yo" and leaving the country? In other words, by doing that (with apparently a verbal resignation), you're suggesting that parliament has recourse to replace him since he effectively abandoned his post?

[kgambit]

 

2) The Rada claims that Yanukovych's failure to perform his duties was tantamount to resignation and is grounds for constitutional removal.

Is part of this perspective also from the standpoint of him basically going "peace out, yo" and leaving the country? In other words, by doing that (with apparently a verbal resignation), you're suggesting that parliament has recourse to replace him since he effectively abandoned his post?

 

 

 

 

First, IMO a verbal resignation would be justification enough. 

 

IIRC Yanukovych originally left Kiev for Kharkiv on an unscheduled trip in the morning on the day of the removal vote.  It is known that Yanukovych attempted to leave Kharkiv by plane on the 22nd but his flight from grounded.  After contact with the Rada on the 22nd he didn't surface again until Feb 28 in Russia.  Exactly when he left for Russia on the Feb 22 is unknown.  So fleeing the country alone probably can't be used as an after the fact justification for the Feb 22 removal unless he indicated to the Rada that his intention was to seek asylum in Russia or he had already fled the country prior to the vote and the Rada was aware of that.   

 

On Feb 22, when he was finally located and contacted by the Rada, Yanukovych  failed to provide the Rada with any assurances of a future date for his return in addition to delivering a verbal resignation.  That is tantamount to abandoning his post and imo under those conditions the Rada is totally justified in claiming that Yanukovych is subject to removal since the abandonment is tantamount to a resignation.  (And that is what the Rada claimed when they voted him out).   

 

I refer again to the comments made by the Rada that I quoted in post #146. 

 

PS:  I was originally done with this thread but I thought you deserved the courtesy of a reply. 

Edited March 12, 2014 by kgambit

[alanschu]

Cool thanks.

[Volourn]

"First, IMO a verbal resignation would be justification enough. "

 

Only if it can be proven.

[Zoraptor]

Exactly Volo. Not two words I'm likely to write all that often, but there we are. There are resignation procedures for a reason, and most tellingly Yanukovich publicly said he had not resigned before the vote was taken.

 

Abandonment of post is a very convenient accusation when you have armed men standing around making sure votes go their own way- the main point that has consistently failed to be addressed in any way. There was plenty of footage of regional governors being dragged out of buildings by 'peaceful protesters' (interestingly enough, when exactly the same was done in the East recently it was a 'violent mob' doing it) in the west and forced to sign resignations. The opposition abrogated each agreement it signed within hours, under those circumstances you cannot expect anyone to hang around, indeed it is telling that the Rada numbers plunged by 100 over a single day and you got not one Communist or PoR person to vote against the Language Law repeal when there's not an iota of doubt they would have, under normal circumstances.

 

Abandonment of post is only relevant if you have a realistic expectation of safety. If you had, I dunno, armed NRA militiamen running around Washington and Lyndsey Graham and John McCain were claiming that Barack Obama had resigned verbally it might be viewed with just a touch of scepticism- and there'd be no doubt whatsoever that it was unconstitutional to take that as 'fact' and put John Boehner or someone into the post even if Obama were unable to perform his duties. Because there is clear duress involved, the correct legal procedures have been subverted and the absence can reasonably be construed as a direct consequence of those two factors. It is a pretext for removal, the mere veneer of legality to make people feel better about things, though in this case even the veneer of legality relies on Grahamov and McCainovic's testimony about the resignation being accurate.

 

Start down that road and you end up with Oliver Cromwell, legally and democratically elected Dictator For Life.

[BruceVC]

Exactly Volo. Not two words I'm likely to write all that often, but there we are. There are resignation procedures for a reason, and most tellingly Yanukovich publicly said he had not resigned before the vote was taken.

 

Abandonment of post is a very convenient accusation when you have armed men standing around making sure votes go their own way- the main point that has consistently failed to be addressed in any way. There was plenty of footage of regional governors being dragged out of buildings by 'peaceful protesters' (interestingly enough, when exactly the same was done in the East recently it was a 'violent mob' doing it) in the west and forced to sign resignations. The opposition abrogated each agreement it signed within hours, under those circumstances you cannot expect anyone to hang around, indeed it is telling that the Rada numbers plunged by 100 over a single day and you got not one Communist or PoR person to vote against the Language Law repeal when there's not an iota of doubt they would have, under normal circumstances.

 

Abandonment of post is only relevant if you have a realistic expectation of safety. If you had, I dunno, armed NRA militiamen running around Washington and Lyndsey Graham and John McCain were claiming that Barack Obama had resigned verbally it might be viewed with just a touch of scepticism- and there'd be no doubt whatsoever that it was unconstitutional to take that as 'fact' and put John Boehner or someone into the post even if Obama were unable to perform his duties. Because there is clear duress involved, the correct legal procedures have been subverted and the absence can reasonably be construed as a direct consequence of those two factors. It is a pretext for removal, the mere veneer of legality to make people feel better about things, though in this case even the veneer of legality relies on Grahamov and McCainovic's testimony about the resignation being accurate.

 

Start down that road and you end up with Oliver Cromwell, legally and democratically elected Dictator For Life.

 "Exactly Volo".... yeah you know your perspective is in serous trouble when you have call Volo to support your point   ( and I see you recognize that )

 

Both you  2133  are not going to drop the circumstances of the  Yanukovich "resignation/being disposed". Is this the most important factor to you around the situation in Ukraine? Is this the reason that for you Russia has iillegally entered Crimea and is basically about to annex it, so in other words the whole crisis  is caused by the reasons how Yanukovich was removed from power?

Edited March 12, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

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.

 

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful

 

 

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil.

 

 

Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is  irrelevant to the Jong-il family

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful

 

 

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil.

 

 

Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is  irrelevant to the Jong-il family

 

 

South Africa is an anomaly in regards to sanctions, and if they even worked there is questionable.  It's very noteworthy that the sanctions that ultimately were imposed on South Africa came about due to a great deal of pressure on the U.S. government from it's citizens and grassroots movements in the U.S. Both the U.S. government and the U.K. government (Mr. and Mrs. Sanctiondecider-Giver on planet earth) were more than happy to allow South Africa their apartheid system before it became political suicide for U.S. representatives to not impose them. Without so much pressure from the U.S. citizenry those sanctions would never have happened. And this is the only instance of sanctions in history I can think of that came about this way. Normally, and in every other case I can think of 'sanctions' are an aggressive imperialistic tool initiated on levels in society that are anything but grassroots, whose goals tend to not what they are advertised to be to the world at large and are anything but noble. (see Sarex's earlier linked documentary for a good example)

 

In regards to sanctions on Iran... I don't think they accomplished all that much really, at least insofar in what they were advertised to try and accomplish. It remains to be seen what the ultimate affect of sanctions will have though. And I think it's definitely debatable if they're even a good idea to begin with as the ultimate affect of them may blow up in the faces of those imposing them (possibly just about literally). Iran is one of the more interesting subjects in the world though, and one of the most mis-advertised in the western world.

 

If you want to see a decent documentary on what sanctions can do to a nation watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHn3kKySuVo

 

You might just change your mind on the idea that sanctions are a good thing.

 

There's another documentary out there on the subject that's even better but I can't recall the name of it right now (watched it years ago).

 

Of course that the U.S. and U.K. even hold the power they do to impose sanctions on anyone is a troublesome issue in and of itself, and on many levels, many of which don't reach face value for your average person. But that's a world banking system thing, didn't ya know?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful

 

 

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil.

 

 

Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is  irrelevant to the Jong-il family

 

 

South Africa is an anomaly in regards to sanctions, and if they even worked there is questionable.  It's very noteworthy that the sanctions that ultimately were imposed on South Africa came about due to a great deal of pressure on the U.S. government from it's citizens and grassroots movements in the U.S. Both the U.S. government and the U.K. government (Mr. and Mrs. Sanctiondecider-Giver on planet earth) were more than happy to allow South Africa their apartheid system before it became political suicide for U.S. representatives to not impose them. Without so much pressure from the U.S. citizenry those sanctions would never have happened. And this is the only instance of sanctions in history I can think of that came about this way. Normally, and in every other case I can think of 'sanctions' are an aggressive imperialistic tool initiated on levels in society that are anything but grassroots, whose goals tend to not what they are advertised to be to the world at large and are anything but noble. (see Sarex's earlier linked documentary for a good example)

 

In regards to sanctions on Iran... I don't think they accomplished all that much really, at least insofar in what they were advertised to try and accomplish. It remains to be seen what the ultimate affect of sanctions will have though. And I think it's definitely debatable if they're even a good idea to begin with as the ultimate affect of them may blow up in the faces of those imposing them (possibly just about literally). Iran is one of the more interesting subjects in the world though, and one of the most mis-advertised in the western world.

 

If you want to see a decent documentary on what sanctions can do to a nation watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHn3kKySuVo

 

You might just change your mind on the idea that sanctions are a good thing.

 

There's another documentary out there on the subject that's even better but I can't recall the name of it right now (watched it years ago).

 

Of course that the U.S. and U.K. even hold the power they do to impose sanctions on anyone is a troublesome issue in and of itself, and on many levels, many of which don't reach face value for your average person. But that's a world banking system thing, didn't ya know?

 

 

I read that link about the effectiveness of the sanctions against South Africa and it makes an interesting read, so good points

 

But it doesn't really change one of my earlier statements for exactly the reasons I mentioned. The sanctions against South Africa weren't effective because they weren't severe enough. There are numerous examples in that article of how certain South African exports weren't blocked so the economy was able to arguably sustain itself. But if you use sanctions to block all exports and don't allow a country's financial institutions to do business with other international banks, like they did in Iran, you will put massive economic pressure on any country as we live in a global world where exports and imports are critical to the health of country's economy

 

Also as your link mentions there is the psychological pressures associated with sanctions that aren't very nice for a country on the receiving end. I remember during Apartheid going on holiday to Austria and meeting this Swedish girl in a bar. When I told her where I was from the first thing she said to me was " well I don't like racists". This brought home to me how  people saw all South Africans despite the fact my family and I were liberals and didn't support Apartheid.

 

Finally to be fair to the West the main reason IMO that Western powers didn't address Apartheid was because South Africa was also opposed to Communism and was involved in several proxy wars against the USSR and China throughout Africa. The Cold War was ongoing and Communism was the greater evil than Apartheid for many Western leaders. Your article also alludes to this