Comments by "bobby hans" (@user-oc7ll9sv5r) on "Why this Week is Critical for Ukraine" video.

  1. Let’s look at Ukraine’s disgraced former President, (Putins boy) Mr . Victor Yanukovych . After he fled to Putin with billions of stolen money the Kremlin-backed politician and his cronies (made away with $40 billion in state Ukrainian assets disappear ) the idea that he remained the legitimate head of the Ukrainian state, and therefore the manner in which he was replaced was automatically illegitimate, was commonplace. This line of thinking was heavily promulgated by his new host country for reasons that are self-evident. But was it right, or even logical, to claim this? The legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime indeed began with a somewhat fair election, albeit an election in which the Ukrainian people had no good other choices at the time (NOTE : Yanukovych was backed up by Moscow controlled media and corrupted elites that have dealings with the Kremlin and media inside Ukraine) . But could that legitimacy go on unquestioned despite the blatant grand scale theft of state resources? No. Of course it could not. Common hooligans and thugs were brought to Kyiv by the Yanukovych authorities to beat down on the students protesting Yanukovych authorities corruption (first recorded on Nov. 29, 2013when the protested was just a few days old) Yanukovych thugs mission was to terrorize the residents of the capital and beat down the students protesting Yanukovych . This act was completely in contradiction to Article 3 of the constitution that Yanukovych was elected to uphold. It was more than right to question Yanukovych’s legitimacy after this and the Ukrainian people did just that after seeing young  students getting beat up by Yanukovych imported thugs in the streets of Kyiv, this act of state terrors, enraged the people even more and other joined the students protesting Yanukovych , now demanding his removal of office. Lets take a closer look into legitimacy of Yanukovych Presidency.. Can the legitimacy of a ruling authority survive past the blatantly illegal adoption of laws designed to end democracy and create a dictatorship? No. Of course it cannot. Yet, this is what the Yanukovych controlled Party of Regions attempted to do on Jan. 16, 2014. Later analysis of images taken in parliament that while 235 MPs were declared to have voted for these “dictatorship” laws, only about half of this number of MPs were actually in the session hall when the vote was taken (by a show of hands – also illegal.) After such clearly anti-democratic and dishonest actions, can anyone consider that authority to be legitimate? The actions were a breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s constitution – something that Yanukovych was under oath to protect and uphold. But he failed to keep his word. There were more violations of the constitution by Yanukovych, its supposed protector. Article 27 of Ukraine’s constitution says that “Every person shall have the inalienable right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” Yet Yuri Verbitsky, a 42 year old geologist from Lviv, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by forces belonging to the Yanukovych regime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 25 of 2014. That Yanukovych had already lost any legitimacy by this point should be beyond question. Later, of course, came the deaths of many more people on Jan. 18 and then Jan. 20, after which Yanukovych fled to Russia, insisting his authority and position were still legitimate. Define legitimate. The idea that legitimacy carries on from appointment without further question is a complete fallacy. It is something that we should refuse to accept. An elected leader most certainly can lose their legitimacy through illegal and/or unconstitutional, actions. The most recent public attempt at increasing the fog blurring the distinction between legitimately elected and legitimate comes from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Bottom line, they are not the same, although it is easy to see why Russia’s ruling clan would seek to pretend that they are.
    2
  2. Russian Claim: NATO tried to «drag» Ukraine into the Alliance The Fact: When the administrations of President Kuchma (the second President of independent Ukraine from 19 July 1994) and President Yushchenko (President of Ukraine from 23 January 2005 to 25 February 2010.) made clear their aspiration to NATO membership, the Alliance worked with them to encourage the reforms which would be needed to make that aspiration a reality and ever administration after them was in agreement with this aspiration to NATO membership until Putins boy and lapdog Mr. President Yanukovych got into power all of the membership, the Alliance work was turned around to the massive delight and joy of Moscow and Putin (President of Ukraine in 2010. He was removed from the office in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. He currently lives in exile in Russia) . When the administration of President Yanukovych opted for a non-bloc status, NATO respected that decision and continued to work with Ukraine on reforms, at the government’s request. NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. In fact, Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave. Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic democratic processes, to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is their sovereign choice.
    1
  3. What really gets me is that some ppl. are now saying why does Ukraine not just let Russia have the areas /land it’s just a small part of Ukriane anyway..... A small part of Ukraine ...WE ARE taking about a land mass over 200,000 sq km In EU terms thats the size of Belgium, Holland, and Greece all put together.. In UK terms that the size of all of Scotland , Wales and most of England In US terms is the size of South Carolina, West Virginia and New Jersey all put together !! Why the should Ukraine give up all that land for what to be invaded only some years later !! I SAY RUSSIA GETS TO TAKE LAND AND DEMAND UKRAINE CAN NOT JOIN NATO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT ALL !! Nobody wants to be a "buffer country".  NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom and self-determination, like some sort of 2nd class country The whole concept is demeaning to an independent nation. NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom  and self-determination, like some sort of 2nd class country; That is not right, and Russia has no right to demand or bully Ukrainians or Ukraine to accept to be some sort of lap dog on a leash 2nd class country to serve kremlins geopolitical agenda and so Kremlin, Putin and RuZZans can feel better about themselves ... Eastern European countries (ex soviet countries like Poland the baltic states ect ect ..) joined NATO because they are scared of Russia and want to be and stay independent. Nobody forced them to join NATO they was the ones running and knocking and begging to be able to join NATO and the EU ,,, . When Russia invaded Ukriane Russia then just showed why it was a good idea for those countries to join NATO, because if they didn't they might just have got invaded as well just like Ukraine and Georgia did . During Soviet times those Eastern European countries were nothing less than Russia puppet states. If they didn't join NATO after the fall of the USSR then they for sure couldn't guarantee their own independence from Russia. Nato did nothing wrong, the only mistake was Ukraine not joining NATO to ensure Ukraines independence; Remember former satellite states like Poland, Romania, Czech Republic and The Baltic states, Slovakia ect ect all came running by their own accord, knocking, kicking, screaming and banging at the front door of EU and NATO begging to come in, no one forced them into it . If Russia was not such a asshole country and stoped constantly bulling neighboring countries maybe other neighboring countries will not need to join NATO and by more open and welcoming to Russia .. Also these people who advocate this view that Ukraine shroud just give up land and appeasement to Russians wants wishes are also being very ignorant to the fact that there were already treaties in place between Russia and Ukraine where Russia respecting the integrity of Ukraine's borders plus other treaties relating to the seas around Ukraine. Putin has already broken those treaties. Why would Ukraine believe Putin would stick to a new treaty when he's just broken half a dozen of the previous Russia Ukraine treaties and agreements. Russia has demonstrated its treaties and agreements are worthless and you enter them at your great peril. On a side note ; Moscow is ONLY 480 km to Latvia and 150 km from St, Petersburg and via Estonia so the argument that NATO will get closer to Moscow if Ukraine joins NATO is BS there is 800 km from Kyiv to Moscow ..
    1