Both Putin and Cohen keep repeating this point about removal of Yanukovych
from office being unconstitutional, yet we know that he was stripped of his
power by the Verkhovna Rada in a
unanimous vote. This should be a pretty black and white affair: either it
was or it was not done constitutionally. I recall reading on this mailing
list that it was perfectly legal and binding. Has the decision been been
appealed?
Over the past two decades, but especially in the past 6 months, there have
been many tricks and shenanigans pulled in the VR, but I thought the
dumping of Yanuk was done by the book.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Putin: Ukrainian 'corruption has reached dimensions that are unheard of
> here in Russia' (Transcript - Part 1)
>
> http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/putin-ukrainian-corruption-has-reached-dimensions-that-are-unheard-of-here-in-russia-transcript-part-1-338376.html
> March 4, 2014, 5:51 p.m. | Ukraine abroad -- by Kyiv Post
>
> Editor's Note: The following is a partial English-language transcript of
> Russian President Vlaidmir Putin's press conference on March 4 with
> journalists in Moscow.
>
> Here is where the partial English-language transcript can be found
> http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6763
>
> Here is where the full Russian-language transcript can be found
> http://kremlin.ru/news/20366
>
> This is the partial transcript on kremlin.ru:
>
> The President of Russia met with media representatives to answer a number
> of their questions, in particular with regard to the situation in Ukraine.
>
> PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,
>
> How shall we do this? This is what I'd like to suggest: let's have a
> conversation, rather than an interview. Therefore, I would ask you to begin
> by stating all your questions, I will jot them down and try to answer them,
> and then we will have a more detailed discussion of the specifics that
> interest you most.
>
> Let's begin.
>
> QUESTION: Mr President, I would like to ask (you took a lengthy pause, so
> we have quite a few questions by now) how you assess the events in Kiev? Do
> you think that the Government and the Acting President, who are currently
> in power in Kiev, are legitimate? Are you ready to communicate with them,
> and on what terms? Do you yourself think it possible now to return to the
> agreements of February 21, which we all talk about so often?
>
> QUESTION: Mr President, Russia has promised financial aid to Crimea and
> instructions were issued to the Finance Ministry yesterday. Is there a
> clear understanding of how much we are giving, where the money is coming
> from, on what terms and when? The situation there is very difficult.
>
> QUESTION: When, on what terms and in what scope can military force be used
> in Ukraine? To what extent does this comply with Russia's international
> agreements? Did the military exercises that have just finished have
> anything to do with the possible use of force?
>
> QUESTION: We would like to know more about Crimea. Do you think that the
> provocations are over or that there remains a threat to the Russian
> citizens who are now in Crimea and to the Russian-speaking population? What
> are the general dynamics there -- is the situation changing for the better
> or for the worse? We are hearing different reports from there.
>
> QUESTION: If you do decide to use force, have you thought through all the
> possible risks for yourself, for the country and for the world: economic
> sanctions, weakened global security, a possible visa ban or greater
> isolation for Russia, as western politicians are demanding?
>
> QUESTION: Yesterday the Russian stock market fell sharply in response to
> the Federation Council's vote, and the ruble exchange rates hit record
> lows. Did you expect such a reaction? What do you think are the possible
> consequences for the economy? Is there a need for any special measures now,
> and of what kind? For instance, do you think the Central Bank's decision to
> shift to a floating ruble exchange rate may have been premature? Do you
> think it should be revoked?
>
> VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fine, let us stop here for now. I will begin, and then we
> will continue. Don't worry; I will try to answer as many questions as
> possible.
>
> First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in
> general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional
> takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody
> does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom
> I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these
> past days, as you know -- none of us can answer. The question is why was
> this done?
>
> I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych,
> through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries
> -- Poland, Germany and France -- and in the presence of my representative
> (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an
> agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that
> under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating
> the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the
> opposition's demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early
> presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded
> by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request
> of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force.
> He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators.
> Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital,
> and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he
> left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they
> immediately occupied the President's residence and the Government building
> -- all that instead of acting on the agreement.
>
> I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? I want to understand why
> this was done. He had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe,
> as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. Everybody agrees on
> this, everyone I have been speaking to on the telephone these past few
> days. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions,
> why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked
> militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to
> which there is no answer. Did they wish to humiliate someone and show their
> power? I think these actions are absolutely foolish. The result is the
> absolute opposite of what they expected, because their actions have
> significantly destabilised the east and southeast of Ukraine.
>
> Now over to how this situation came about.
>
> In my opinion, this revolutionary situation has been brewing for a long
> time, since the first days of Ukraine's independence. The ordinary
> Ukrainian citizen, the ordinary guy suffered during the rule of Nicholas
> II, during the reign of Kuchma, and Yushchenko, and Yanukovych. Nothing or
> almost nothing has changed for the better. Corruption has reached
> dimensions that are unheard of here in Russia. Accumulation of wealth and
> social stratification -- problems that are also acute in this country --
> are much worse in Ukraine, radically worse. Out there, they are beyond
> anything we can imagine imagination. Generally, people wanted change, but
> one should not support illegal change.
>
> Only use constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space,
> where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still
> weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal
> mistake in such a situation. Incidentally, I understand those people on
> Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the
> people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some
> cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they
> have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another.
> Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming
> their own regional governments. There was a period in this country when the
> President appointed regional leaders, but then the local Council had to
> approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly. We have now
> moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this. And they began
> appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern
> regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder
> they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people
> think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have all the
> power.
>
> For example, Mr Kolomoisky was appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This
> is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich
> two or three years ago. Scammed him, as our intellectuals like to say.
> They signed some deal, Abramovich transferred several billion dollars,
> while this guy never delivered and pocketed the money. When I asked him
> [Abramovich]: "Why did you do it?" he said: "I never thought this was
> possible." I do not know, by the way, if he ever got his money back and if
> the deal was closed. But this really did happen a couple of years ago. And
> now this crook is appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. No wonder the
> people are dissatisfied. They were dissatisfied and will remain so if those
> who refer to themselves the legitimate authorities continue in the same
> fashion.
>
> Most importantly, people should have the right to determine their own
> future, that of their families and of their region, and to have equal
> participation in it. I would like to stress this: wherever a person lives,
> whatever part of the country, he or she should have the right to equal
> participation in determining the future of the country.
>
> Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but
> all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not
> legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal
> standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and
> will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.
>
> There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is
> his death, the other is when he personally stands down, and the third is
> impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has
> to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This
> is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore,
> from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact.
>
> Moreover, I think this may be why they disbanded the Constitutional Court,
> which runs counter to all legal norms of both Ukraine and Europe. They not
> only disbanded the Constitutional Court in an illegitimate fashion, but
> they also -- just think about it -- instructed the Prosecutor General's
> Office to launch criminal proceedings against members of the Constitutional
> Court. What is that all about? Is this what they call free justice? How can
> you instruct anyone to start criminal proceedings? If a crime, a criminal
> offence, has been committed, the law enforcement agencies see this and
> react. But instructing them to file criminal charges is nonsense, it's
> monkey business.
>
> Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you may know, we have decided to
> organise work in the Russian regions to aid Crimea, which has turned to us
> for humanitarian support. We will provide it, of course. I cannot say how
> much, when or how -- the Government is working on this, by bringing
> together the regions bordering on Crimea, by providing additional support
> to our regions so they could help the people in Crimea. We will do it, of
> course.
>
> Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces. So far,
> there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. I would like to say
> here that the military exercises we recently held had nothing to do with
> the events in Ukraine. This was pre-planned, but we did not disclose these
> plans, naturally, because this was a snap inspection of the forces? combat
> readiness. We planned this a long time ago, the Defence Minister reported
> to me and I had the order ready to begin the exercise. As you may know, the
> exercises are over; I gave the order for the troops to return to their
> regular dislocations yesterday.
>
> What can serve as a reason to use the Armed Forces? Such a measure would
> certainly be the very last resort.
>
> To be continued.
>
>
> InfoUkes Inc. Gerald William Kokodyniak
> Suite 185, 3044 Bloor Street West Webmaster InfoUkes Inc.
> Etobicoke, Ontario [email protected]
> Canada M8X 2Y8 http://www.infoukes.com/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 01 2014 - 00:57:21 EST