|
In a functional democracy, a protest is not needed to remove the president. I may think GWB and Obama are the worst president in history, but they did not, personally, violate the constitution, nor endanger the safety of the people of the US.
-Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine, are all having trouble with multi-party democracy. A president is elected who is only popular with a minority of the people. Korea had the same problem when I was there.
-Street protests are against unelected rulers, not people you wait until their term expires.
Bwawahahahahahaaaa!!!
I can't believe that in this day and age of online news and everything else that someone still has a view that is literally what the government feeds to the populace. Do a google search on "president violates constitution"....then read until the rosy glasses wither. You can even pick your president to see what they have done.This site is kinda fun because it tells all about the more historical presidents...good ol' Honest Abe, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Roosevelt..etc.
Presidents do whatever they want and our election system has been corrupted so much that the American people are puppets and mostly powerless to do anything about it. Don't fool yourself into believe that you hold any power in this country. You won't be allowed the voice to get people to side with you either, so even if you wanted to enact change you will get silenced once you start creating a stir.
Exactly... I forgot to replay to that part, being focused on Ukraine... but... yeah.
I think it's been a while since I've done a CounterPunch info dump.
The Profit at Stake: Obama’s Far Right Foreign Policy by SHAMUS COOKE
Who is an SEIU steward. And, I have learned, is a member of a split-off from the group I currently am a member of. Which is two strikes against him. (Ultraleft sectarian/Teamster in-joke.)
The Rise of the Quasi-Fascists: The Dark Side of the Ukraine Revolt by CONN HALLINAN
Which looks cooler on his own website
Conn's got a pretty impressive Stalinoid/Trotskyoid CV and is, at least, a second-generation Bay Area commie rabble rouser.
And, finally,
Cold War Heating Up: Ukraine and the IMF by NORMAN POLLACK
Whom I don't know from Adam, but he starts the piece "I welcome Russian intervention in Crimea." Which I don't (and find a troubling lack of anti-Sexy Putin sentiment in all of them as a matter of fact) but still found pretty interesting.
THE U.S and Nato got out maneuvered and this invasion will have no consequences for Russia.The Ukraine was a huge prize for its mineral deposits and is a desireable asset for both sides.
Prior to the invasion how quickly could the Ukraine been added to Nato and now that this has happened what other countries should be added to Nato immediatly?
Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
How much oil does the U.S import from Russia? If its significant would it be prudent to make alternate deals with other counties such as Canada? Wouldnt it make sense to increase fracking or add the pipeline from canada.
THE U.S and Nato got out maneuvered and this invasion will have no consequences for Russia....Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
I don't even wanna speculate on that, but it does appear that Sexy Putin is quite a slick playa.
|
|
I don't even wanna speculate on that, but it does appear that Sexy Putin is a slick playa.THE U.S and Nato got out maneuvered and this invasion will have no consequences for Russia....Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
Wait until after Olympics, national pride in Russia is high, the world is glad all their athletes are back,...perfect timing. He is quite cunning, or his advisors are...it was brilliant timing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ukraine had a democracy, they lost it, when they start protesting too violently, as happened in Thailand.
Their president wasn't abiding by the constitution they'd elected him to. What else were they supposed to do besides protesting?
T
Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
.
Would this be a valid insinuation if ANY Of your other facts were right?
how are they wrong?
Ukraine does have have large mineral resources? Not a prized asset? When i google Ukraine thats what i come up with.
Petroluem industry in Russia not the largest in the world? 12% of global output? Doesnt the U.S purchase from them?
The US and nato was not played?
Please enlighten
Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
Vlad Putin's foreign policy model.....nsfw
If Putin ever cried once in his life, it was one time, going to bed, sad that he could never have an epic pissing contest with Ronald Reagan over the fate of the world.
So, hell yeah.
Kick them out of the G-8, then Putin will do something gnarly.
Then, welcome to the Second Cold War.
I guess it beats World War III, but hey.....
I don't have any ideas on a solution.
Oliver North saying that Obama should do things more like Reagan.
I guess you might be thinking of the Georgian war? I would hardly call that Nazi-like, as Russian troops were there under UN mandate and by agreement of Georgian government as peace-keepers to prevent ethnic massacres (Georgians having already sacked the ethnic town under motto of "Georgia for Georgians!"). The Georgian regime decided to go to war because it could, and when they killed peacekeepers and destroyed the peace, Russia did what could be expected to authoritatively keep the peace... not further attacking, occupying, or massacring ethnic Georgians or forcing them under their sway. I guess Russian recognition of those indepenent countries goes a bit beyond the remit, but maybe the Georgian aggression was so beyond the pale that it was implausible for Ossetians to continue living in the same situation, the Georgians had their chance and they blew it... Regardless, Russian-recognized indepenent Ossetia/Abkhazia isn't materially different than the previous status quo. Comparing to Kosovo or other cases would be pointless since two wrongs don't make a right, but Ossetia certainly didn't seem "Nazi tactics" on part of Russians, unless you really want to water down what the Nazis did
Are you KIDDING ME!!!????
You may be able to pull the wool over some, but I had people there and during part of that was also unfortunately around that part of the world...that was NO agreement of a peaceful nature. Any agreement was more like the type you make when someone has a loaded gun to your head.
That was a full on friggin invasion. Your portrayal of this calls to question EVERYTHING that you've already stated.
It was blatant Russian aggression...and it happened quick as well. There wasn't much time for those who wanted to get out of Georgia to GET OUT...before Russia came steamrolling in.
I have a VERY different experience than the one you just portrayed.
I'm not disagreeing with the notion of the Neo-nazi influence at all in Ukraine...but your portrayal of the events in Georgia are just downright wrong there.
Poland should annex the Ukraine.
Been there, done that. Not again. It wouldn't serve our and Ukrainian interests, especially after the failed Polish politics towards Ukrainians in 20s and 30s...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Russia should invade Finland again.
He got any grandkids?
neat thing about Simo Hayha is that any one of those rural guys could've been him. Imagine pissing off a whole village of that guy.
<shiver>
Jessie James did.
Kinda called it the "Northfield, Minnesota Raid."
In a functional democracy, a protest is not needed to remove the president. I may think GWB and Obama are the worst president in history, but they did not, personally, violate the constitution, nor endanger the safety of the people of the US.
-Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine, are all having trouble with multi-party democracy. A president is elected who is only popular with a minority of the people. Korea had the same problem when I was there.
-Street protests are against unelected rulers, not people you wait until their term expires.Bwawahahahahahaaaa!!!
I can't believe that in this day and age of online news and everything else that someone still has a view that is literally what the government feeds to the populace. Do a google search on "president violates constitution"....then read until the rosy glasses wither. You can even pick your president to see what they have done.
This site is kinda fun because it tells all about the more historical presidents...good ol' Honest Abe, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Roosevelt..etc.
Presidents do whatever they want and our election system has been corrupted so much that the American people are puppets and mostly powerless to do anything about it. Don't fool yourself into believe that you hold any power in this country. You won't be allowed the voice to get people to side with you either, so even if you wanted to enact change you will get silenced once you start creating a stir.
-Um I refer to "presidents for life" and similar events. Frankly, the US has a low voter turnout, and we get the people we deserve. Living in a police state has taught me to Be greatful for the US.
how are they wrong?-=
Lets go down the list.
THE U.S and Nato got out maneuvered and this invasion
- The invasion is 3 days old. Little early to be calling it.
will have no consequences for Russia
Little early to be calling that. If they behave probably not. If they take the crimean area of the Ukraine there's a good chance they can be booted from the G8 summit.
.The Ukraine was a huge prize for its mineral deposits and is a desireable asset for both sides.
Russia has been taking over the area for the same reason for centuries, its the only port that doesn't freeze over.
Prior to the invasion how quickly could the Ukraine been added to Nato
Not at all, since Russia owned the Ukranian president lock stock and pirate themed restaurant.
now that this has happened what other countries should be added to Nato immediatly?
I will have to add nato immediately to my list of oxymorons.
Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
Why would it make a difference? This isn't about us.
Natural resources
Russia has not taken over the ukraine. They've taken over the crimean area of the ukraine.
How much oil does the U.S import from Russia?
If its significant would it be prudent to make alternate deals with other counties such as Canada? Wouldnt it make sense to increase fracking or add the pipeline from canada.
By the time any of those projects actually got gasoline into your tank either russia will be out of the Ukraine, we will be importing Russian oil again, or cockroaches will be very sorry they thought they could inherit the earth bereft of our centralized heating.
The US and nato was not played?
What do you mean played exactly? You make it sound like this is some clever Machiavellian plot or zanatos gambit. Russia just up and invaded. Whats exactly clever about that?
I guess you might be thinking of the Georgian war? Russian troops were there under UN mandate and by agreement of Georgian government as peace-keepers to prevent ethnic massacres. The Georgian regime decided to go to war because it could, and when they killed peacekeepers and destroyed the peace, Russia did what could be expected to authoritatively keep the peace... not further attacking, occupying, or massacring ethnic Georgians or forcing them under their sway.That was a full on friggin invasion. It was blatant Russian aggression...
I'm not sure what in the official OSCE observers' testimony you dispute, or the EU parliament's inquest on the matter. Georgia's own initial announcement (they changed the story multiple times) of the operation stated it was "restoring the constitutional order", which means wiping out the opposing forces, with no mention of Russians as impetus for the operation. The OSCE observers were there observing the cease-fire and russian peacekeepers whose legitimate role was acknowledged by all sides, otherwise nobody would call them "peacekeepers". What changed in the status quo to trigger Russia's response was the internationally recognized Georgian aggression.
AFAIK, Georgia now admits their role in instigating the conflict, even if they still don't like the fact the Ossetians and Abkhaz seceded, and now have decently good relations with Russia after removing from power their own autocratic criminal regime that launched the war. Regardless, I still don't see how the outcome of the war is materially any different from the preceding peacekeeper-monitored status quo from the Georgian perspective, so I still don't see how Nazi-esque occupation/massacring of Georgians was the goal or outcome of it.
Former senior OSCE officials say Georgia started bloody war in South Ossetia
The European Parliament acknowledged that Georgia attacked South Ossetia in August 2008
A damning admission on the Georgian war
Responsibility for the Russia–Georgia war: EU Independent Fact Finding Mission Report
Russo-Georgian war: Combatants' positions
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
will have no consequences for RussiaLittle early to be calling that. If they behave probably not. If they take the crimean area of the Ukraine there's a good chance they can be booted from the G8 summit.
Also, Obama, Biden, AND Rachel flippin' Maddow have all defriended Putin on fbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to send in Chuck Norris.
Or possibly threaten them with a Piers Morgan tv show.
THE U.S and Nato got out maneuvered and this invasion will have no consequences for Russia.The Ukraine was a huge prize for its mineral deposits and is a desireable asset for both sides.
Prior to the invasion how quickly could the Ukraine been added to Nato and now that this has happened what other countries should be added to Nato immediatly?
Would Putin have tried this with Bush as president?
How much oil does the U.S import from Russia? If its significant would it be prudent to make alternate deals with other counties such as Canada? Wouldnt it make sense to increase fracking or add the pipeline from canada.
About 3% of monthly imports come from Russia, none from the Ukraine for the last 6 months of 2013 (The data I found first.) Roughly 1/3 from Canada and slightly more from all of the OPEC countries (Saudi Arabia and Venezuela lead there).
How much oil does the U.S import from Russia?
While oil is an important resource, the US is not per se directly motivated by single factors like that. An ongoing strategy is to seek to prevent emergences of blocs particularly in the "Eurasian" landmass which do not depend on allegiance to US, in order to prevent challenges to it's self-created role as "sole global superpower hegemon". I believe said power strategy had been enunciated earlier, but it's most clear proponent is the following character:
The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Bzezinsky, former US National Security advisor
"A geostrategy for Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Wiki: The Grand Chessboard (book by Brzezinksi):
Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence.
Much of his analysis is concerned with geostrategy in Central Asia, focusing on the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass in a post-Soviet environment. In his chapter dedicated to what he refers to as the "Global Balkans", Brzezinski makes use of Halford J. Mackinder's Heartland Theory.
I guess you might be thinking of the Georgian war? Russian troops were there under UN mandate and by agreement of Georgian government as peace-keepers to prevent ethnic massacres. The Georgian regime decided to go to war because it could, and when they killed peacekeepers and destroyed the peace, Russia did what could be expected to authoritatively keep the peace... not further attacking, occupying, or massacring ethnic Georgians or forcing them under their sway.That was a full on friggin invasion. It was blatant Russian aggression...I'm not sure what in the official OSCE observers' testimony you dispute, or the EU parliament's inquest on the matter. Georgia's own initial announcement (they changed the story multiple times) of the operation stated it was "restoring the constitutional order", which means wiping out the opposing forces, with no mention of Russians as impetus for the operation. The OSCE observers were there observing the cease-fire and russian peacekeepers whose legitimate role was acknowledged by all sides, otherwise nobody would call them "peacekeepers". What changed in the status quo to trigger Russia's response was the internationally recognized Georgian aggression.
AFAIK, Georgia now admits their role in instigating the conflict, even if they still don't like the fact the Ossetians and Abkhaz seceded, and now have decently good relations with Russia after removing from power their own autocratic criminal regime that launched the war. Regardless, I still don't see how the outcome of the war is materially any different from the preceding peacekeeper-monitored status quo from the Georgian perspective, so I still don't see how Nazi-esque occupation/massacring of Georgians was the goal or outcome of it.
Former senior OSCE officials say Georgia started bloody war in South Ossetia
The European Parliament acknowledged...
I don't care what a Russian is trying to say...
Your numerous things can't defy EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.
I don't need to read the reports as it was happening around me in that area where I just happened to be at the time...and more exactly, people I knew who were in country at that exact point in time and were involved with the events.
There's a LOT of Russian propaganda you've been posting...I don't give a dang about the BIAS'd and obvious Russian propaganda you are posting...as you will ignore those that were on the brunt of the Russian aggression.
The point is, what you are stating is different then what I experienced and saw, and what others who were actually in country at the time (and non-Russian) experienced.
I don't care what a Russian is trying to say... Your numerous things can't defy EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.
I specifically avoided citing Russian sources. Do you think I'm Russian or something?
The OSCE eyewitness observers cited were British military and the EU Parliament report was headed by a Finnish woman.Feel free to denounce them if you wish.
It's unclear to me how merely being somewhere in Georgia and experiencing the Russian intervention resolves
"who started it" unless you were in Ossetia, and that still is a decent sized place. Of course, all war sucks, no argument there.
Re: "the Ukraine thingy", I think it's important to look at what's happening beyond the Crimean Autonomy, which is after all a small part of Ukraine. In addition to the SE oblasts where the local populace has rejected cooperation with the Kiev revolutionaries and governors appointed by them, turning back apparent "Maidan activists" who attempted to occupy their local government buildings (in Kharkiv, with a good number of wounded from fights with the Maidan faction having molotovs, etc), apparently now local representatives from the SW Ukraine regions (Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson) have now contacted the Crimean authorities stating they want to join them... While emphasizing that they don't necessarily seek secession from Ukraine, but simply local governance without governors and police imposed from Kiev, and solid guarantees that any future changes to Ukraine Consitution can't overturn that position. No Russian military forces are present in those regions (SW and SE), it is just local people.
"'You just don't in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext,' Mr Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation."
[Laughs until he passes out]
not suere if this is funny because is sad or is sad because is funny.
Apparently at a UN Security Council meeting Russia's ambassador presented the letter from elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych requesting Russian military presence in Ukraine. Russia clarified their goal is not to return Yanukovych to power per se, but that he is the legitimate President and his fate (and presumably, Ukraine's) should be decided by Ukrainian people. They state that they don't consider the current situation with the Kiev revolutionary regime as able to guarantee fair elections over all the territory of Ukraine, what with Svoboda and extremist reign over Western Ukaine and unpunished incidents of violence and intimidation elsewhere (which US/NATO have so far refused to address or acknowledge). You can obviously take that as 'propaganda' or 'spin', but it was the latest update on the situation I saw, and certainly is what Russia's stance is now.
A representative of the Kiev revolutionary regime was at the meeting and apparently had this to say:
"“You call it a coup d'etat. We call it a revolution of dignity"
Of course everybody prefers a "nice" name for their favorite things, "freedom fighter" vs. "terrorist", but interesting that they have explicitly acknowledged the revolutionary nature of their regime, not putting forth rigorous arguments for legal legitimacy, but just saying "we're the good guys" basically.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov previously said: "The agreement on a joint investigation into acts of violence and the obligation to set up a national unity government sank into oblivion. Instead, as was announced in Maidan, 'a government of winners' has been set up that includes representatives of nationalist extremists,"
-I for one, will restate my position, that once a election takes place, you wait until the next scheduled election to get rid of the guy. Unless you have a clear system of recall set up. The fact that a president fled the country is not a good sign, even if he wasn't popular.
-This is going to end badly for everybody but Putin and the Russian government, that's my take on it.
-I live in China.
Apparently at a UN Security Council meeting Russia's ambassador presented the letter from elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych requesting Russian military presence in Ukraine.
So, I spent the last hour finding an English translation of the Constitution of Ukraine and reading it.
Some relevant portions:
The defence of Ukraine and the protection of its sovereignty, territorial indivisibility and inviolability, are entrusted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Ensuring state security and protecting the state border of Ukraine are entrusted to the respective military formations and law enforcement bodies of the State, whose organisation and operational procedure are determined by law.
[...]
The creation and operation of any armed formations not envisaged by law are prohibited on the territory of Ukraine.
The section on presidential powers contains no specific exceptions to Article 17, which makes it highly suspect that even if the exiled President were still regarded as the legitimate office-holder, that he would possess constitutional power to authorize the Russian Army to invade Ukraine.
In other words, even if there were a legitimate and totally undisputed President of Ukraine, I don't see where it becomes legal for Russians to invade on his say so.
I'm pretty sure there has never been a time in history where asking a neighbor to invade your country has worked out well...
To be clear, the President of Ukraine is the Commander in Chief of the military, as in most presidential government countries.
"According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the president is the guarantor of the state's sovereignty, territorial indivisibility, the observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and human and citizens' rights and freedoms."
The revolutionary regime replaced the previously appointed Chief of General Staff, Yury Ilyin, with their own appointee, but obviously the legitimacy of that hinges on the revolution's own legitimacy. Specifically, impeaching a President is supposed to require a Constitutional Court review and 3/4 majority of Parliament (338 MPs), but they skipped the legal procedure and could only muster 328 MPs. There are some other similar issues with other governmental posts I believe, but they come down to the same basic thing. So it unsurprising that they rely on self-laudatory moral arguments for legitimacy rather than legal ones.
And again, I don't doubt that such moves might not be valid in SOME situation, but it is baffling why anybody believes them necessary in this situation, with the agreement signed to change the constitution, reduce presidential powers/increase parliament's, and have elections within the year with power-sharing government until then. That is what the elected opposition signed up to, but swiftly abandoned when the unelected radical protestors ignored the agreement and moved on to seize government buildings threatening the President personally if he didn't flee. .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure there has never been a time in history where asking a neighbor to invade your country has worked out well...
Worked for de Gaulle?
To be clear, the President of Ukraine is the Commander in Chief of the military, as in most presidential government countries.
This means that he is the ultimate head of the Ukrainian military. Not that he has the power to invite a foreign military to invade.
Just saying. This letter the Russians are presenting to the UN would seem to have no legal weight even if it is genuine and of unimpeachable legitimacy as a document of the one true president of Ukraine ;)
Unless I am misreading the document - but it seems unlikely, the article seems very clear - then Yanukovych, or any other President of the Ukraine, lacks any constitutional authority to invite a foreign army into the Ukraine, and in fact the Ukrainian constitution explicitly forbids such without authorization by law (meaning it is a question for the legislature, not the executive).
There's a LOT of Russian propaganda you've been posting...I don't give a dang about the BIAS'd and obvious Russian propaganda you are posting...as you will ignore those that were on the brunt of the Russian aggression.OTOH, I would like to thank Quandary for posting the Russian propaganda. It's an interesting counterpoint to the US propaganda I've mostly been hearing.
More about the Ukraine than Georgia, I'm just piggybacking off your propaganda comment.
Who Is Provoking the Unrest in Ukraine? A Debate on Role of Russia, United States in Regional Crisis
Amy talks to Ray McGovern of crypto-Putinesque propaganda and ex-CIA conspiracy theory fame and Timothy Snyder of of Yale
Also,
This trippy anti-capitalist cartoon was the USSR's first animated film
To be clear, the President of Ukraine is the Commander in Chief of the military, as in most presidential government countries.This means that he is the ultimate head of the Ukrainian military. Not that he has the power to invite a foreign military to invade.
Just saying. This letter the Russians are presenting to the UN would seem to have no legal weight even if it is genuine and of unimpeachable legitimacy as a document of the one true president of Ukraine ;)
Unless I am misreading the document - but it seems unlikely, the article seems very clear - then Yanukovych, or any other President of the Ukraine, lacks any constitutional authority to invite a foreign army into the Ukraine, and in fact the Ukrainian constitution explicitly forbids such without authorization by law (meaning it is a question for the legislature, not the executive).
In fact, rereading, Article 85 section 23:
(23) approving decisions on providing military assistance to other states, on sending units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to a foreign state, or on admitting units of armed forces of foreign states onto the territory of Ukraine;
So the invitation from the President that the Russians provided to the UN to justify their presence is explicitly unconstitutional since that is an explicitly defined function of the legislature, not the President.
I think I understand what you're saying, but if the Parliament is illegally usurped, which then removes members of Constitutional Court, the only legitimate authority left is the President as "guarantor of the state's sovereignty, territorial indivisibility, the observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and human and citizens' rights and freedoms." Presidents are people, who take their own decisions, otherwise those functions would be left to a computer, so there is implicitly some expected variation of action within that remit. If he doesn't object to Russian actions, then there is no person or body in the current scenario which can legitimately object with authority. Maybe the President's invitation is "illegal" but he still is the President and there is now no other legitimate bodies to supersede him or act to the contrary. /legalism
Again, other than refusing to separate themselves from the radical extremist opposition, there is no coherent reason why the opposition couldn't have kept to the agreement they signed, maintaining a legitimate authority with a power-sharing government with reduced Presidential powers, which would have avoided this situation. Their reasoning seems to come down to "because we could". How the Western backers of creating such a god-awful f-ck up can just smile and hail the new power in Kiev pretending there is no consequential problems is beyond me. While calling attention to internationally-infamous extremists within the milieu now in power, Russia's position since the seizure of power has been that following the agreement was the solution they saw, pretty shocking stuff. Regardless, now the SE half of Ukraine seems to be standing up for itself independent of the Kiev revolutionary regime's agenda while the revolutionaries don't seem inclined to back down from claiming total authority.
I think I understand what you're saying, but if the Parliament is illegally usurped, which then removes members of Constitutional Court, the only legitimate authority left is the President as "guarantor of the state's sovereignty, territorial indivisibility, the observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and human and citizens' rights and freedoms." If he doesn't object to Russian actions, then there is no person or body in the current scenario which can legitimately do so with authority. /legalism
Frankly, if both the legislature and President have violated the Constitution, then what it's legally time for is elections, not invasions. The Russian invasion authorization letter from Yanukovych is still blatantly illegal, whether or not the new legislature is as well.
And elections has been what is happening and is planned to happen in Crimea and SE, electing new leaders from local parliaments, and planning referendums. Maybe some of those referendums might be seen as un-Constitutional by the revolutionary regime, but with no remaining legitimate entity to rule them illegal, it doesn't really matter... Likewise, elections organized by the revolutionary regime which is governing alongside Svoboda de facto running much of West Ukraine aren't likely to be accepted as fair or legitimate by other sectors, never mind armed political intimidation in West/Central regions under revolutionary sway making "free representative democracy" seem in doubt. That's what happens when you over-throw a Constitutional order, the breach is opened, yet not everybody necessarily wants to go along with one specific revolution or it's associated factions.