Answering a question asked elsewhere -
From what I gathered by your very informed posts, when you say that after the protests, A led to B led to C, and in that context, it was not a coup. I wonder if that sequence matters. If the stage was set, does not a rose smell so sweet, by any other name?
Pravin.
Message 34217399
I'm not sure it does. A coup is when the military or security forces of some sort, or at least people with real organized power, take over (maybe putting one of their own in charge, maybe putting some other person in charge, including even the current leader in the case of an auto-coup). Its not a mass movement, that's a revolution not a coup (the boundaries can possibly be fuzzy but that's the distinction). A general disintegration of the political order for a time also isn't a coup (although a coup attempt can cause such disintegration).
They seize control of important places, maybe the head of government's residence (and/or office if they are at different locations), maybe the legislative building, sometimes radio and TV stations, maybe other government office buildings. The kill or seize, or chase off the previous leadership.
Protestors getting violent (after being shot at in this case but even if they started it), impeachment proceedings and such, they could occur in the context of a coup, but they don't really fit "coup" by themselves.
I'd add that in the case of Ukraine, even if it had been a coup, that wouldn't be particularly meaningful in terms of the current conflict. A coup doesn't give Russia legitimate justification for invading and seizing territory. And even if it somehow did there have been 2 parliamentary and 2 presidential elections since then.
Also if an election had been due then and Yanukovych lost (which he probably would have), Putin still would have probably seized Crimea and starting talking about Ukraine as not being a illegitimate country. The war is all about Putin's choices, and not ones that he was forced in to. The Russians spout unsubstantiated and clearly false claims again and again about Ukraine, and almost none of them would make the invasion anything other than a blatant case of unprovoked or almost entirely unprovoked aggression by Russia.
All false but also all mostly to totally irrelevant -
"Ukraine had a coup" So what, no justification (just as it wouldn't be justification for the US to seize a big chunk of Mexico and annex it if the current government was overthrown in a coup). Also Zelensky government was democratically elected to succeed another democratically elected president. Would it be OK to invade Chile because they had a coup back in the 70s, or Mexico because of the coups in their history?
Zelensky is a nazi or is controlled by nazis". - No justification even if in a fictional universe where it was true.
Zelensky is a heavy drug user - Totally unsubstantiated and very unlikely, and also irrelevant.
Biolabs - Biological laboratories are common. Every large country has them.
"Ukraine was actively developing bioweapons in those labs which it was going to use to attack Russia. - Crazy. But I guess this one if true would justify an attack. Not the annexation though.
"Ukraine is not a real country" - False, but even if true it wouldn't justify moving in and killing all those stateless people.i
"Ukraine was going to join NATO" - Well its not impossible for it to happen, but they didn't want to join before Timing out for edit will continue |
