Ukraine overthrow: legally speaking an unlawful, unconstitutional coup d'etat

When European representatives came to Africa, they would sign agreements to claim the land of the illiterate African people. Based on what wasn't really the agreement, the representatives then conquered the land, and slew the Africans, enslaved the Africans, or put the Africans into debt slavery. This mala fides agreement method of conquest remains a favourite of the Europe of today.

The European Union was the cause of protests in Ukraine. When the European Union didn't get its way with the country which turned to a better deal from Russia, suddenly there were instigators in the streets, violent rioters who have burnt Kiev into a smouldering wreck, and who remain even now in the streets. These rioters entered the streets to demand more trade with Europe. Europe decided conveniently to mediate the matter.

The EU mediated an agreement, to return to the 1994 Constitution, rather than operate under the 1996 Constitution which gives the president the reigns of the country. The agreement also focussed on a government of national unity to follow. This is not what happened however.

Sensing betrayal, Russia refused to sign the agreement. The president of Ukraine fled the capital. No legal step was then taken to revert to the 1994 Constitution. Acting as though it had been reverted, defecting members of parliament, and the opposition freed the former competitor of the president, a woman sent to jail for corruption. The parliament appointed a hostile speaker and unconstitutionally voted to impeach the president of Ukraine. Without the President lawfully complying with the trojan peace deal however, and reverting the country to the 1994 Constitution, the parliamentary vote was invalid, entirely unlawful and illegal.

The 'protesters' were never really protesters. The instigators were violent, they were armed, they did massive damage and engaged in criminal acts. They still remain in the streets, unsatisfied by the parliamentary coup of the opposition. They have taken over government buildings by force and control these buildings by force.

The use of a mala fides ceasefire to release the opposition leader from prison, and to oust the president and interior minister is a coup d'etat. The elements are there. Of course, unlike the two coup d'etats in Egypt, the question this time not even asked by Western media: when is a coup not a coup? When the west wants to pretend they have the moral high ground.