Quote (fender @ 7 Oct 2023 08:33)
are you disputing the fact that yanukovych unilaterally withdrew from already agreed upon deals on moscow's behest?
are you disputing the fact that unmarked russian troops repeatedly invaded ukraine prior to the shelling of donbas?
those are the FACTS i presented in order to debunk the simplistic, one-sided characterisations "violent coup by the US" (when in fact it was yanukovych who had protesters killed) and "unprovoked shelling" (when in fact foreign invaders occupied administrative buildings) you subscribe to.
none of your conspiracies to justify russia's war mongering make any sense in the first place: yanukovych's impeachment had overwhelming popular support, and he unsurprisingly fled to his true puppeteers in russia, and pootin himself had to admit publicly that russian troops indeed operated in ukraine. see, that's the problem with your propaganda: you have nowhere to go once the thin layer of bs framing is removed...
Again argument in bad faith and attempt at rephrasing
I’m asking you pretty simple questions that should be easily debunked with evidence you clearly possess as you sound very confident.
Could you please provide me with evidence it was not within Presidential authority vested by the adopted constitution to negotiate on behalf of the country and in the interest of majority that elected him into the office? The fact that you personally don’t like the decision does not remove constitutional rights in a sovereign country. If I’m wrong - I can be easily debunked. Please go ahead.
Could you give me any evidence that it was legal to remove acting president bypassing impeachment procedure provided by the Constitution?
Could you give me an argument without dodging it yet again, as to why citizens of a country that have had a legally elected President overthrown/illegally removed/forced our are not allowed to take up arms and defend themselves once legal options have been exhausted? With or without foreign help.
Ad hominem attacks are not arguments. We are trying to construct arguments here, not win good boy awards. I’m arguing for one side, you argue for the other. My personal traits or allegiances add no value to this discussion, whatever those might be (stop assuming by the way, you’ve been missing the target).