Did a coup d’état take place at the end of February 2014 in Ukraine?

​

At the end of February 2014, i.e. 10 years ago, Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was unconstitutionally removed from office.

At that time, Western politicians and Western media tried to present this ousting as a legitimate act; see below a citation from the BBC website:

Spoiler

However, you can yourself read Article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine below and find what is required for removal of Ukrainian President from office; this text is translated from the official website of the President of Ukraine:

The constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada are 450 deputies; see below a citation from the official website of the Verkhovna Rada:

Three-fourths of 450 Members of Parliament of Ukraine are 337 MPs; however only 328 Ukrainian MPs voted for removal of Viktor Yanukovych from office.

And there were neither opinion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine nor the one of the Supreme Court at all, although such opinions are required by Article 111 of Ukrainian Constitution.

Now you can read in Wikipedia what the word “coup d’état” means:

Therefore, all relevant criteria of a coup d'état were met in the case of Yanukovych’s removal from office:

• It was an illegal action;
• It was performed by a government elite, i.e. by Ukrainian Members of Parliament;
• It was performed to unseat an incumbent leadership.

Source

 

That's Ukraine's problem. Not ours. Couldn't care less... So long as they keep Russia out of NATO countries, they can do whatever the hell they want.

 

It wasn't an impeachment, so that section of the constitution isn't relevant. It was an unprecedented situation so whatever happened was going to be an unprecedented response. The President had abandoned his post and (like a number of other members of his party) was trying to flee the country.

The steps the Ukrainian parliament took at that point allowed for an end to the protests and, subsequently, for democratic elections to be held. It certainly wasn't perfect but I don't think anything they did at that point could have been.

 

Wow, I'm sure it is just a coincidence that Russia described it as a coup too.

Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych’s ouster to what it portrays as a violent, “neo-fascist” coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular uprising. The Kremlin has cited this assertion, along with historical ties, as the main justification for its annexation of Crimea in March and its subsequent support for an armed revolt by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s industrial heartland in the east. Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin’s line.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/...r-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html

 

It was illegal.
Please read definition of a coup d'état in the first post of this thread.

 

It certainly wasn't illegal on the basis you gave, because it was never presented as an impeachment. If you want to present what actually happened as illegal, you'd need to identify the legal basis you're basing that on.

It seems that the Ukrainian constitution was (and still is) silent on the correct procedure in the circumstances they found themselves in after the President fled. The legality of any of what happened could have been challenged in the Ukrainian courts or under international law, but nobody chose to do that.

 

All legal reasons for termination of powers of the President of Ukraine are listed below; pls. see his official website:

Every other reasons are illegal.

 

Fleeing the country is construed as resignation.

See how easy that was?

 

First, don't misrepresent my posts with selective quoting please. I only said it wasn't illegal for the reasons you stated (that they didn't have enough representatives present to vote for impeachment).

Their constitution doesn't explicitly state that any other way in with a president is removed from office are automatically illegal. It could also be argued that Yanukovych had already broken that clause since he had abandoned his post and so wasn't exercising his powers. The fact remains that nothing in the constitution (or general Ukrainian law I expect) was written to cover such an unusual and unexpected situation but they had to do something to re-establish the stability of the nation. I don't see how making technical arguments about legality has much point if you're not going to consider what should or could have been done at the time instead, especially ten years after the fact when Ukraine has more immediate issues to deal with.