[ghostwriter]

> Can you link to the document that you claim states this?

It was linked to my topmost response, here it is (scroll down to "IX. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY"): https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...

> In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament

That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.

Again, the event doesn't look democratic to me. In fact it looks random at best and suggests a case for an opportunistic power grab at worst. One cannot simply declare that the vote in parlament was legal and the due process respected because the subject had to flee the country ("self-remove") to save his life. There are many places in the world where leaders have to self-remove without due process, and we don't call these places democracies.

> I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.

Neither is your apologetic stance on the events of early 2014 that tore a thin fabric of a democratic society. It is fine to be upset on country leaders that break their political promises, but it's extremely irresponsible to suggest that "self-removing" those leaders for their promise-breaking yet non-crime legitimate decisions is a proper reaction for the upset part of the society.

[1] https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%...

[_kbh_]

> It was linked to my topmost response, here it is (scroll down to "IX. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY"): https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...

It does appear to exist, and mention what you say. But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The modern basis for the sovereignty of Ukraine, is the Ukrainian constitution that was ratified on 28 June 1996. The same constitution that explicitly mentions (through amendments) that Ukraine's goal is to join NATO and the EU.

> That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.

It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.

[ghostwriter]

I'm using this version [1] to find anything that would explicitly declare "NATO" or "military" with regard to the "bloc" status, and so far I couldn't find it. Can you cite the amendment that mentions it? I'm particularly interested in the military bloc alliances, as EU is a political and economic entity that even the documents of 1990 have no restrictions about.

> But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):

> aware of our responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991, approved by the national vote of 1 December 1991, adopts this Constitution — the Fundamental Law of Ukraine.

They deliberately include responsibility before the "past generation" to convey the idea of succession (that the new sovereign state doesn't come from a void but from a sequence of historical events and relations), and they make it clear that the principles of that succession are guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991. That's the document we reviewed above, the resolution act that only has a few pages to declare the implementation of the principles of the state sovereignty outlined in the document of July 1990.

It is clear that one can argue that the succession was selective, and that the guidelines do not necessarily include all aspects of the declaration of July 1990, but this is the point where principles cease to exist and the non-aesthetic side of geopolitics takes over. Basically, it's the same place where other side's arguments stem from. Besides, if there was a selective guding on the principles mentioned in the document of 1990 (and I keep referencing it because the doc of 1996 references the doc of 1991 that references the doc of 1990), the document of 1996 should have been mentioning these exceptions explicitly to avoid most of the potential doublespeak, as this is basic jurisprudence 101. Unfortunately, I cannot find such exceptions that would suggest selective guding.

> It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.

Let's take a look at this claim of constitutionality of the events. Did the president break a law when he broke his political promise? I am not aware of such law existing prior 2014. Was armed rioting (you can call it armed revolution instead) constitutional? I am not aware of that constitutional right be granted to Ukrainians by their constitution (the US constitution has that right declared explicitly). But I'm aware that the Article 27 says that "Everyone has the right to protect his or her life and health, the lives and health of other persons against unlawful encroachments".

At this point we've already got armed rioters, while not being granted the right to revolt, being after the president that didn't break a law. The Article 27 of the constitution grants the president the right to protect his life when rioters approach his place of residence. It does not mention the means of pretecting the life so I asume that fleeing the country under a threat to one's life is a legitimate act for the sitting president to have. Now, in order to establish whether a president of any country is able to perform their duty while being away from it, we need to come up with a legal framework that defines "ability to perform president's duty at a distance". I am not aware of that legal framework to exist, but I know it as a matter of fact that presidents of this world do travel outside their respective countries a lot, and that it doesn't affect their ability to perform their duty.

So, what exactly is the difference between a travelling president and the president that had to flee its own country to save his life due to armed rioters chasing him, in terms of their ability to perform their duty? Last time I checked, the ability of the fled party to perform their duty as a legitimate representative of the will of the people was the foundation for Taiwan government's claims of their legitimate successor status of "the China". Would you rather suggest that due to Taiwan governemnt's inability to perform their duty on the mainland territory of China they are no longer able to represent the "One China" principle?

And does it still look democratic to you? To me it looks more like an opportunistic power grab. The whole sequence in terms of principles is similar to an act of violence where a better armed side forces the weaker side to flee before declaring a referendum and the rule of a new law in a newly controlled territory. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2014....

[_kbh_]

> I'm using this version [1] to find anything that would explicitly declare "NATO" or "military" with regard to the "bloc" status, and so far I couldn't find it. Can you cite the amendment that mentions it? I'm particularly interested in the military bloc alliances, as EU is a political and economic entity that even the documents of 1990 have no restrictions about.

Here’s an article about the approved amendments that make it a goal of Ukraine to join NATO

https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-president-signs-constituti...

> Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):

This is all kind of a moot point because if they can amend there constitution to allow it (which they did). It’s not longer a issue is it.