Ukraine crisis: Casualties in Sloviansk gun battles

VIDEO:

Shooting scene near slovyansk.

It appears the Ukrainians opened fire on a Separatist checkpoint.
http://www.rferl.mobi/a/slovyansk-shooting-ukraine/25331548.html

To Putin Ukraine is just that, a game....

“Sorry, but that is semanyics, and opinion.”

No, it is a matter of fact and not a matter of semantics. It is a fact that the Parliament represents the citizens of the Ukraine, and not a king, dictator, or a President who violated the constitutions to occupy, secure, and abuse his office in defiance of the constitutions and the sovereign powers of the parliament.

“The elected Government fell in coup, and some people in Ukraine have a problem with it.”

The elected government is primarily the parliament and its Deputies who are the respresentatives of the electorate. President Yanukovich arguably used vote fraud to occupy and secre his office, using his appointed Prosecutor-General to obstruct the normal constitutional means of removing him and his ministers from office for their commissions of innumerable and impeachable criminal acts. Characterizing this law enforcement by the elected Deputies of the Ukraine’s citizens as a “coup” misrepresents the powers of the parliament and the citizens the parliament represents. An attempt can be made to argue the actions of the parliament were in some manner extralegal with respect to one or both of the constitutions, but misrepresenting them as a coup by people who had no sovereign authority from the citizens of the Ukraine is simply invalid and a gross distortion of reality serving illegitimate propaganda purpsoes for a criminal foreign invader.
.

Oh, and were they fighting Muslim terrorists when they started a war and lost it with Catholic Slovenia? Or how about when they were fighting with Catholic Croatia, were the Croatians Muslim terrorists too? And when the Serbs overthrew the gangster statesman Milosevic were they Muslim terrorists?

Putin and Milosevic are two gangster statesmen who both were commies (you know it!!!), and chose demagogue nationalism and chauvinism when their former racket as commies would no longer pay out for them. They’re the sickest type of politicians; they’re pure opportunists and sociopaths.

“They don’t have to be Russian to oppose the current Kiev regime. Let’s not forget that Yanukovich won in what was described by both the EU and US as democratic and free elections.”

You are spouting off even more bizarrely false propaganda just as if it were coming from the Kremlin itself. Yanukovych was removed from office in 2004 because of the rampant vote fraud perpetrated on his behalf. Likewise in recent elections, the legitimacy of the election of Yanukovych was very much in question. See for one of innumerable examples:

SPEAKING OF FIXED ELECTIONS: UKRAINIAN ELECTION DUBBED A FRAUD – EXCESSIVELY HIGH VOTE COUNTS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS CITED (SOUND FAMILIAR?)

Oh, Yeah: Putin, Our President’s New Best Friend, Stands In Defense Of Election All Other Observers Call, “Best Compared With Elections In North Korea or in Iraq Under Saddam Hussein.”

by Betsy R. Vasquez; The Moderate Independent; NOV 16 - 30, 2004; VOL. 2 ISSUE 22

[....]

In the Ukraine, the people are taking the situation a little more seriously than, say, in other places where similar things have happened recently.

“People gathered behind metal barriers around the parliament building holding a giant orange ribbon over their heads. They chanted “Criminals, go away!” and “Yushchenko!” Some waved signs reading, “Today or Never.” according to the Post.

And while the parliament is being called on by local Ukrainian governments not to recognize the results of the election, the man who celebrated President Bush’s re-election by announcing he will deploy a new generation of nukes unlike any seen before, Putin, has already called to congratulate his candidate and shrugged off any claims of fraud – even before the official result is declared.

“Yanukovych, 54, has received strong support from President Vladimir Putin of Russia, whose spokesman issued a statement Monday from Brazil, congratulating Yanukovych on winning the presidency, although the result has not been declared,” states another Washington Post article (”Widespread Vote Fraud Is Alleged In Ukraine”).

Which is nice, except a US Republican Senator named Richard Lugar has the opinion, shared by EU observers, that the elections was an outright fix.

As the Post reports, “Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, said in Kiev that there had been “a concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse.” He called on Kuchma “to review all of this and take decisive action in the best interests of the country.”

And just in case you weren’t ready to draw any parallels between this election and our recent presidential contest, a spokesman for the victorious Putin-picked candidate went ahead and did it for you.

“”These polls don’t work,” said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for Yanukovych. “We will win by between 3 to 5 percent. And remember, if Americans believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be president.”

A mouthful indeed.

Problems cited include excessively high voter turnout in Yankovych-leaning districts, on the order of 96% turnout in districts where only 65% turned out in the first round of voting; absentee ballot problems; and voter intimidation.

“At a news conference, the monitors said there were too many violations for them to enumerate,” reports the Post in the second article.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22ukraine.htm

First of all the elections were in 2010. Secondly even Tymoshenko admitted the result and international observers rated them as fair:

Ukraine’s presidential election meets most international commitments
http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/51830
“The observers noted that the election demonstrated respect for civil and political rights, and offered voters a genuine choice between candidates representing diverse political views. Candidates were able to campaign freely, and the campaign period was generally calm and orderly.”

It is amazing to see how you have used a partial truth to, in effect, propagate a lie. Yes, it is true the OSCE issued such a report. You neglect to observe how that same report found, “This election was organized overall efficiently and with respect for fundamental freedoms, despite challenges such as an incomplete and inconsistent legal framework.” You also mislead the readers by omitting the fact this OSCE report reflected only the first round of voting in the Presidential election and not the second round of voting in which there was evidence of massive vote rigging. You totally misrepresent Tymoshenko’s comment about the 2010 second round and final result of the 2010 Presidential election: “Tymoshenko stated, “I and my political party will never recognize Yanukovych as the legitimately elected president of Ukraine”, and “an honest court will assess that Yanukovych was not elected President of Ukraine, and that the will of the people had been rigged (Wikipedia)”.

Before you or someone else can attempt to wrongly dismiss the complaints of Tymoshenko and her political party, it must be noted how even the OSCE subsequently found evidence of significant vote fraud on behalf of Yanukovych and his political party, with one such of many examples being:

Shortcomings in 15 December repeat elections in Ukraine underline the need for comprehensive legal reform, says OSCE/ODIHR report
30 January 2014

Problems in the formation of election commissions, the misuse of state resources to benefit some candidates, indications of vote-buying and a lack of transparency in the counting process were among the shortcomings observed during the 15 December 2013 repeat parliamentary elections in Ukraine, concludes the final report of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

The repeat elections were held in five districts where the results of the 28 October 2012 parliamentary elections were annulled by the Central Election Commission (CEC). The report, published on 30 January 2014, notes that the legal framework was largely unchanged for the repeat elections, so no additional legal measures were taken to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. Reports from previous missions also identified problems with the legal framework and recommended that legislation regulating all types of elections be harmonized.

The report adds that the CEC managed the technical arrangement for elections well overall, but the work of the election administration was hampered by extensive changes to precinct election commission membership, apparently in an attempt to gain partisan control over commissions. The report recommends providing for greater stability in the membership of the commissions and the clarification of mechanisms for nominating CEC members, in order to increase confidence in the administration of elections.

http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/110817

In other words, Yanukovych and his political party compromised the integrity of the election commissions and the courts responsible for maintaining and enforcing the integrity of the elections. This is why Tymoshenko’s appeal of the second and final round of voting was dismissed wtihout consideration of the evidence of massive vote fraud by the administration of Yanukovych. It also appears to be arguable that Yanukovych’s 2010 election was likely to have been fraudulent and unconstitutional, and affirmed only thorugh an arbitrary ruling of a court corrupted by Yanukovych’s appointees.

It is in this background of several decades of government corruptio and corrupt elections that the long suffering citizens of the Ukraine protested and peacefully demanded the parliament undertake immediate reforms, including criminal investigations of Yanukovych and his appointed ministers. Yanukovych resorted to using force to remove the peaceful protestors, which provoked violent confrontations between the protestors and Yanukovych’s security forces. When yanukovych resorted to abductions and assassinations of political opponents and the use of snipers to murder the protestors as a means of intimidation, Yanukovych’s criminal acts compelled the parliament to act against such criminal activities by Yanukovych and his accomplices in those crimes.

One of the highlights in the Wikipedia article desribes the vote fraud in the Presdential election in part:

How it happened in brief[edit]Early vote returns from the first round of the election held on 17 January showed Yanukovych in first place with 35.8% of the vote.[7] He faced a 7 February 2010 runoff against Tymoshenko, who finished second (with 24.7% of the vote).

Analysts predicted a slight advantage for Tymoshenko in the second (and final) round as she was more likely to attract voters from the other 16 candidates who did not proceed to the second round.[8] Viktor Yanukovych refused to hold debates with his opponent before the second round of voting, saying Yulia Tymoshenko should either take responsibility for every word as prime minister, or go to the kitchen.[9] After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.[10] Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc members immediately claimed that there was systematic and large-scale vote rigging in this run-off.[11][12][13][14]

On 10 February 2009, Yanukovych called on Tymoshenko to abandon her protests and resign as Prime Minister.[14] On 9 February 2010, Yanukovych had stated that Borys Kolesnykov was his preferred next Prime Minister of Ukraine. According to him pre-term parliamentary elections will be imminent if the Ukrainian parliament would not work effectively. Yanukovych also stated that, as the largest faction in the parliament at the time, his party was entitled to nominate the premier.[15] On 15 February, Yanukovych stated “I do not rule out the candidature of Tigipko (as next Prime Minister). Tigipko is on the list which, in my opinion, will be discussed next week in parliament”.[16]

On 16 February 2010, Ukraine's parliament had fixed 25 February 2010 for the inauguration of Yanukovych as president.[17] On 17 February 2010, “the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine”, suspended the results of the election on Yulia Tymoshenko’s appeal.[18][19] On 20 February 2010, Tymoshenko withdrew her appeal after “the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine” rejected her petition to scrutinize documents:[20]
— about 300,000 voters who voted but were not in the “Register of Voters of Ukraine”;
— about 1.3 million voters who “without right” voted in their homes;
— about falsification in the election in the eastern regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv region, Crimea, etc.) — fixed by law-enforcement officials.[6]
Tymoshenko stated, “I and my political party will never recognize Yanukovych as the legitimately elected president of Ukraine”, and “an honest court will assess that Yanukovych was not elected President of Ukraine, and that the will of the people had been rigged”.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010

and he holds trumps - they still have a few nuclear weapons that could be conveniently turn missing into the hands of Iranian RGC techs. he too cagey to choose us on directly - he has other weapons that won’t push us to the brink. he’ll increase the pain until we pay him something to go away for awhile.