[geoka9]

> the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president

In fact, the president _illegally_ fled the country (on a Russian navy ship) leaving the parliament no choice but to appoint an acting president until the elections (which will be on May 25).

[jqm]

You may wish to look into number of votes required to remove the existing president of Ukraine.

And the number of people present voting.

[jqm]

and why would the president "illegally" remove himself from the country?

I suppose during peaceful democratic transitions of power this is a bit unusual to say the least. But ya... coup.

[geoka9]

> and why would the president "illegally" remove himself from the country?

That is the question you would have to ask him. AFAIK, not a single official from his government or staff or party has been arrested or hurt since the president fled. As I said, he could return to the country, but he chose not to.

[jqm]

baloney.

They had at least one guy (Bashkalenko) handcuffed on stage during the protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqveUVU70g

But I really don't want to argue about it anymore. I realize the people of Ukraine had legitimate grievances. I don't think Russia should own Ukraine. I don't think the CIA or anyone else instigated the coup. I just don't think Washington should have had the state department in the middle of it. And I think they should tone down the hostile talk.

[makomk]

It's not clear he can; he's in Russia, and Russia don't seem to have any more interest in him returning to Ukraine or to power than the Ukrainian government.

[geoka9]

The president illegally removed himself from the country, rendering the government inoperable - no bill could be signed into law by him "in absentia". He could return to the country but he chose not to. Calling for new elections and appointing an acting president until the time was the only sensible thing the parliament could do in such conditions.