Poroshenko tells Constitutional Court that ousting of ex-President Yanukovich was illegal

From Macedonia Online — MINA
20 June 2015

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appealed to the country’s constitutional court, asking the court to recognize the ousting of former President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 as illegitimate.

I ask the court to acknowledge that the law ‘on the removal of the presidential title from Viktor Yanukovych’ as unconstitutional,” Poroshenko said in a court statement published on the website of the Ukrainian constitutional court.

The current Ukrainian president said the law violates the constitution, according to which the President of Ukraine is protected by law and his title remains with him forever. He also added that by enacting the law in February of 2014, the parliament of Ukraine undermined the constitution.

Now, the amusing fact is that Poroshenko himself actively supported the Euromaidan protests between November 2013 and February 2014 in Kiev that resulted in the overthrow of Yanukovych.

As the current head of Ukraine, who became the president after the illegal coup, Poroshenko’s statement seems strange at best. By admitting that the overthrow of Yanukovych was illegal and stressing that the President of Ukraine should be forever protected by the country’s law, Poroshenko might be insinuating that his own presidency is put in jeopardy.

Otherwise, why would someone else who became the president after the coup all of a sudden defend the former leader of the country? Seems illogical.

Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Lower House of Russia’s parliament, commented on Poroshenko’s bizarre revelation.

Here we go, Poroshenko acknowledged the unconstitutional nature of Yanukovych’s removal from power. The EU and PACE both denied it. Now it’s recognized,” Pushkov wrote on his Twitter account.

Last year, Yanukovych became the scapegoat of Ukrainian politics after his government was accused of all the misfortunes in the country. Now, more than a year after the former president was gone, his legacy is still around. Mikheil Saakashvili, the new governor of Ukraine’s Odessa Region, said that in the best case scenario, Ukraine will need 20 more years to reach the economic level of Yanukovych’s government in 2013.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/27583/53/

Eric Zuesse writes on Global Research (June 23, 2015) — excerpt–

In a remarkable document, which is not posted at the English version of the website of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, but which is widely reported outside the United States, including Russia, Poroshenko, in Ukrainian (not in English), has petitioned the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (as it is being widely quoted in English):

“I ask the court to acknowledge that the law ‘on the removal of the presidential title from Viktor Yanukovych’ as unconstitutional.”

I had previously reported, and here will excerpt, Poroshenko’s having himself admitted prior to 26 February 2014, to the EU’s investigator, and right after the February 22nd overthrow of Yanukovych, that the overthrow was a coup, and that it was even a false-flag operation, in which the snipers, who were dressed as if they were Ukrainian Security Bureau troops, were actually not, and that, as the EU’s investigator put his finding to the EU’s chief of foreign affairs Catherine Ashton:

“the same oligarch [Poroshenko] told that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides … Behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”

If the Court grants Poroshenko’s petition, then the appointment of Arseniy Yatsenyuk by the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland on 4 February 2014, which was confirmed by the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada) at the end of the coup on February 26th, and the other appointments which were made, including that of Oleksandr Turchynov to fill in for Yanukovych as caretaker President until one of the junta’s chosen candidates would be ‘elected’ on May 25th of 2014, which ‘election’ Poroshenko won — all of this was illegal.

However, this illegality had already been known. It was already explained in detail on 28 February 2014, that, “Yanukovych’s removal was unconstitutional.” That’s for lawyers; but, now, finally, Ukraine’s Constitutional Court is faced with the shocking predicament of Ukraine’s own President, who won his post as a result of this coup, requesting them to “acknowledge” that it was a coup, much as the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor had even called it, “the most blatant coup in history.” (It was that because the authentic video and other evidence of its having been a Washington job was so massive.)

Also in the news now is that Dmitriy Yarosh‘s Right Sector — the same group that Washington had hired for the coup and for the ethnic cleansing campaign in Ukraine’s former Donbass region — have announced that they will assemble in Kiev on July 3rd to overthrow Petroshenko unless he restarts right now the war against Donbass. The people whom Washington paid to oust Yanukovych are planning to do the same to Poroshenko. There is a struggle inside the Obama Administration about how far they can successfully go with their Ukrainian nazis not formally leading the country.

Washington is having a hard time keeping in line the Ukrainian nazis upon whom Washington’s plan for Ukraine has been based. Ukraine’s nazis are thirsting for Russian blood, and want to slake their thirst faster than the Obama Administration is willing to go along with. Washington’s previous “F—k the EU!” hasn’t worked as well as they had hoped. There is thus increasingly bad blood between the Obama Administration and the Ukrainian enforcers upon whom Obama has been relying.

Basically, Poroshenko now is torn between the EU, on one side, and Ukraine’s well-armed nazis, on the other; and, thus far, the ultimate decider, U.S. President Obama, who has needed cooperation both from Ukraine’s nazis and from the EU, in order for his Ukrainian gambit against Russia to work, is on the fence between those two sides. John Kerry sides with the EU; Victoria Nuland sides with the nazis. But Obama himself hasn’t yet played his hand.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraines-president-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup/5457631

Advertisements

Evidence about the connection between the Ukrainian coup and Crimea’s breakaway

By Eric Zuesse
Posted on Fort Russ, February 16, 2015

Little attention is generally paid to the connection between the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, and Crimea’s breakaway from Ukraine. The testimony that will here be cited helps fill this in. An attorney in the federal prosecutor’s office at the time of the coup refers to the longtime national socialist, Andriy Paribiy, as having been the key person behind the coup. In the new regime, Paribiy became appointed to become the chief of national security, and the top person overseeing the war against “ATO” ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ to exterminate the residents in the formerly Ukrainian area, Donbass, the area which had voted 90% for the overthrown President Viktor Yanukovych, and which consequently rejected this new regime, which Washington violently imposed to replace him.  

Below is a Crimean TV interview with Natalya Poklonskaya, who was a senior criminal prosecutor in Kiev at the time of the February 2014 Maidan demonstrations and overthrow of President Yanukovych, and who resigned her post during the coup and drove back to her childhood home in Crimea, because she objected to what she called “nazis” who, she said, had done the overthrow; she objected to the way that Yanukovych was replaced, and to the unconstitutional and violent nature of it, which she didn’t view as being a democratic action, at all, but instead a “nazi” one.
This interview was telecast shortly after the February 2014 overthrow, but before the March 16th referendum in Crimea on whether to reject the new Government and to rejoin Russia (of which Crimea had been a part during 1783-1954).
Poklonskaya was interviewed in this call-in live TV show so as to inform her fellow Crimeans what she had seen happen during the overthrow, and why she couldn’t, in good conscience, remain as a Ukrainian official in Kiev, and swear loyalty to the new Ukrainian Government there. She had heard the chants of the Maidan protesters and smelled their piles of burning tires, and seen their marches in Kiev with nazi symbols and salutes, and she didn’t want to become any part of that. So, she quit and was now unemployed back home in Crimea at the time of this interview.
The key moments in this interview are shown below, with English subscripts. (Here is the full interview, for anyone who wants to see that:
“He” refers to 

Andriy Paribiy was the co-founder (along with Oleh Tyahnybok) of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which the CIA had persuaded to change its name to “Freedom” or “Svoboda” in order not to offend Westerners with its origin as a native Ukrainian version of Hitler’s National Socialist Party of Germany. Polonskaya said:
“He was standing on Maidan and delivering orders.” The interviewer asked:
She then asked, rhetorically:
And she answered, also as a question (since she’s a good trial-lawyer):
She was asked her view of the new Ukrainian Government’s declaration that this referendum in Crimea would be illegal:
The referendum took place entirely peacefully, because Russian troops from Crimea’s naval base in Sevastopol Crimea prevented an invasion from Kiev. The results were 96% for reunion with Russia. A 2013 Gallup poll of Crimeans, and also a 2014 Gallup poll of Crimeans after the referndum, both showed overwhelming support for Russia and opposition to the United States; and the 2014 poll also showed that almost all Crimeans thought that the referendum-results had been free and fair and accurately reflected the views of Crimenans. However, the United States Government, and its allies, claim that the overthrow of Yanukovych was legal and that the reunification of Crimea with Russia was not, and also that the ethnic cleansing against the residents in the Donbass region of the former Ukraine is legal and that the military assistance that Russia is providing to enable those residents to defend themselves from being exterminated is not. The United States Government, and its Ukrainian Government, call that extermination-program Ukraine’s “Anti Terrorist Operation,” and the United States is sending Ukraine weapons to carry it out.
 
When the Crimean people voted to rejoin Russia when they did, they saved themselves from the fate that soon thereafter befell the residents in Donbass

—————