In the excellent analysis copied below, laid out like a neat waiter... we have the legal tenets at play regarding the facts of the Kiev Maidan western-backed coup and the Minsk Agreements (I and II) that ended the violent civil war that followed it. This analysis should be "must" reading by every Canadian and/or citizen of the West who respects International Law and, more importantly, wants their country to abide by it. Please read it and I will have further thoughts in comments to follow:
Ukraine's "proof" of Yanukovich treason was a request for Russian intervention! Check and mate.
Ukraine, after shooting herself in each foot with the blockade of the Donbass, which the Popular Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk (DPR and LPR) have foiled, Ukraine is engaged in squeezing the trigger of the pistol that she put up to her temple during the Maidan of 2014.
In the passage of the last few days and weeks, Vladimir Putin's plan for Ukraine, which many had considered "soft" in his reactions to the massacre of the Donbass population, is beginning to unfold.
But let's take the story from the beginning. In May 2014, Viktor Yanukovych, the legitimately elected president of Ukraine, was overthrown by a coup d'etat, which all Western chancelleries have sanctioned as legitimate. The big problem is that it was not, even with regard to the Ukrainian constitution.
Vladimir Oleïnik, who until 2014, was a member of the Rada, wrote a complete dossier on the events (which was translated into French), where he shows that the February 2014 coup was totally unconstitutional.
To summarize: once Yanukovych left, the pro-Maidanists via the Rada changed the Ukrainian constitution, returning to an earlier version of it, in order to legitimize their coup. These changes were signed and published by Turchynov, who acted as chairman of the Rada. The problem is that until the publication of this new constitution in an official way, Turchynov was not entitled to validate it by his signature. It was up to Yanukovych's Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, to validate it.
Moreover, the Rada adopted these constitutional changes with a resolution, not a law, which is also contrary to the Ukrainian constitution. And the deputies can not even claim that they did not know what they were doing was illegal since they put in this resolution "... that respect for the procedure for the revision of the Constitution of Ukraine established by The Constitution of Ukraine and determined by Title XIII of the Constitution of Ukraine is one of the basic conditions for the legitimacy of the constitutional order in Ukraine. "
Moreover, these amendments were based on a 2004 law which the Ukrainian Constitutional Court had invalidated. The execution of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is compulsory in the territory of Ukraine and these decisions are final and without appeal. Thus, not only did the new Ukrainian authorities quash the constitution, but they also a decision of the Constitutional Court, which alone is empowered to decide what is constitutional or not.
And if we look closely at the dismissal of Viktor Yanukovych, there we rake in the jackpot. Article 108 of the Ukrainian Constitution makes it clear that there are only four reasons for the early termination of the office of the President of Ukraine:
2. inability to perform his duties for health reasons;
3. dismissal by the impeachment;
Yanukovych has not resigned, was not in poor health, and is not dead (the better to understand why Ianukovych was pursued in eastern Ukraine after the overthrow, to be assassinated, which would have solved the problem of the legality of his dismissal. And by saving him, Russia left an enormous thorn in the foot of the current Ukrainian authorities.)
The only legal way for the putschists was impeachment. Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution is very clear on the grounds which may justify such a procedure: "The President of Ukraine may be dismissed by the Supreme Rada by the procedure of the impeachment in case he is guilty of high treason or other crimes. "
But that was not the reason why he was dismissed. The decree states that "the Ukrainian President V. Yanukovych has withdrawn in an unconstitutional manner from the fulfillment of his constitutional responsibilities and is not fulfilling his duties." But such a point does not exist and is not provided for in the Ukrainian constitution to dismiss a president. The decree of dismissal of Yanukovych is also completely anti-constitutional.
Clearly, the Ukrainian authorities today are totally and undoubtedly illegitimate with regard to the Ukrainian constitution and law, and therefore Viktor Yanukovych is still the legitimate Ukrainian president.
At this point you will tell me that since the current authorities are supported by the international community, that this makes a beautiful leg for Ukraine to stand on and the Donbass. So far yes. But not anymore.
For in their russophobic madness, and trying to prove that Yanukovych committed a crime of high treason to retrospectively justify their coup, the current Ukrainian authorities themselves have come to put the pistol to the temple and prepare themselves to press the trigger.
In mid-January, some pro-Maïdan media such as Radio Svoboda, have published information known since 2014, but re-exposed following the request by the Ukrainian side to the UN to provide a certified copy of the a letter that Vitaly Churkin, the Russian representative, had brandished at a meeting of the UN Security Council on 4 March 2014.
On January 6, 2017, the United Nations responded favorably to the request, and provided a copy of the letter, which contained the following:
"In my capacity as President of Ukraine legally elected, I hereby declare the following.
The events that took place on Maïdan Square and the illegal takeover of power in Kiev led Ukraine to the brink of civil war. Chaos and anarchy prevail in the country and the lives, security and rights of the people - especially in the south-east of the country and in the Crimea - are threatened. Under the influence of Western countries, acts of terror and violence are committed and people are persecuted for political and linguistic reasons.
I therefore call on the President of the Russian Federation, V. V. Putin, to involve the Russian armed forces in the restoration of public order, peace and stability, and to protect the Ukrainian people. "
Yes, you read correctly. As early as March 2014, Viktor Yanukovych asked, as Bashar Al-Assad would ask later in September 2015, to intervene militarily in his country to restore order.
Then you will ask, why did not Russia do it? It must be remembered that at that time Russia already had to manage the Crimean case. The Crimea, refusing the coup, launched the referendum to ask whether the residents want to return to Russia. Originally planned in May, the referendum was advanced to March 30 on the same day that Yanukovych wrote this letter, and the date would be advanced again to March 16 five days later.
At a time when Churkin was brandishing this letter in the UN Security Council, the events in Crimea were already accelerating in a rather difficult way, and the Russian intervention to protect the inhabitants of the peninsula from the threats of the small groups Ukrainian neo-nazis already allowed the US and their servants to scream about a Russian invasion.
If Russia had acceded to Yanukovych's request, it would have meant taking responsibility for Ukraine, which is a financial morass (not to mention the political mess), then Russia does not want to play the role of gendarme of the world, the USA and NATO would have had the perfect pretext to start a war, and Russia had already to manage the Crimean case. Then it will have snowballed, the return of the Crimea is validated by the referendum and the situation was degenerating in the Donbass. And in Syria it was not much better. There were too many fronts to manage, and too many risks on the domestic and international level, so Russia temporized.
The most urgent matter was to manage the Crimea, a highly strategic point that Russia could not afford to lose. And then, faithful to the Russian tradition, the authorities of the country prefer to try to negotiate, to argue rather than to come to arms. This is the essence of Minsk-1, then of Minsk-2. The Russians, remembering what cost the Second World War cost them, prefer a bad deal to a good war.
And even if they know that Ukraine will never respect these agreements, as the Ukrainian deputy Anton Geraschenko has openly declaredopenly declared on the set of television channel 112:
"Let us say right away that the Minsk accords have not been implemented since the very day they were signed in February 2015. Seen from the Ukrainian side, this was a temporary measure and, I will be honest, a deliberate deception. Remember that the first Minsk agreement was signed after the military disaster near Ilovaisk when we had no strength left to defend the front of Donetsk in Mariupol. The second Minsk agreement was signed following the Russian perfidious attack on Debaltsevo and the formation of the 'Cauldron of Debaltsevo.' These agreements are not international agreements or anything like that. "(Translation from the Saker article)
Unfortunately for Geraschenko, since the UN resolution on these agreements, they are indeed a binding international agreement, which the Ukrainian authorities openly confess they are not respecting.
In this morning's CBC there is yet another news report about the plummeting poll numbers across the land of Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party. A series of possible causes (issues) is listed to account for these depressing (for the Liberals) numbers. No where is Trudeau's negativity towards Russia, his backing of Hillary Clinton during the past US election and/or his support for the Kiev Junta in Ukraine mentioned. No surprise here. The presstitutes don't want the sheeple to wake up to the real causes of Trudeau's drop in popularity.
Trudeau was elected on a promise to reset Canada's relationship with Russia. He has broken that promise, along with all the other ones the CBC lists. IMO, his kowtowing to the usual suspects/warmongering perps vis a vis Russia, Syria, Ukraine are the MAIN reason for the Liberal nose dive. *
With regard to Ukraine and, in particular, Crimea...Trudeau has shown himself to be a particularly egregious hypocrite. Canada experienced a referendum back in Trudeau's father, Pierre's day. Quebec exercised its right as a "people" to vote via referendum whether or not to stay in Canada. Luckily for Canadians...the "No" won the vote and Quebec, with its special language rights, remained in Canada. But Trudeau ignores this glaring historical precedent when he (and his neo Nazi supporting minister) demand that Crimea "be returned" to Ukraine. He ignores the Kievian Junta's outlawing of Russian as an official language of Ukraine. This is the mother tongue of the Novorossiyan break-away provinces. Canada, above all other countries in the world, should speak out in defense of minority language rights!
Supporters of the rule of International Law, particularly as it applies to Ukraine, have been waiting for someone to provide us with a legal dossier to use as a tool against the lawless, warmongering aggressors of the world. The above dossier res ipsa loquitur...speaks for itself. It clearly enunciates the firm legal foundation Novorossiya is based on...and provides a legal path forward for the Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk...and for their protector, Russia. This is particularly helpful and timely as the Kievian Junta, directed by their lawless western perps...escalates violence against civilians along the Novorossiyan border. Thank god for Russia and Putin...who is unafraid to stand up for the rule of International Law...and/or to swim with the dolphins...les dauphin.
*In support of the above statement...I will paste my comment posted on the CBC news website this morning and the number of "likes" it got in a mere 4 hours.