Post removed

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. For the thousandth time, there was no coup. No coup.

I actually made that clear in my prior post, but you appear to read what you want to read and ignore the rest. Just like your "Our Ukrainian" misreading.

The word coup, or more specifically, coup d'état, has a very specific meaning. As Webster's defines it,

: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9tat

First, you have to consider that the Maidan protests were huge. There were literally hundreds of thousands of people at those protests. So you can't say that the Maidan protesters initiated a coup against Yanukovych, since they were by no means a "small group."

Then you have to consider the fashion in which Yanukovych left power. Now, if it were a coup, you would think that he'd either be arrested, killed, kidnapped against his will, or frantically fleeing in imminent fear for his life.

The problem was, none of that ever happened. Yanukovych left the country, but he did so under his own voluntary willpower with no one forcing him to leave. He actually took three days, at the very height of the Maidan protests when protesters were being shot by the dozens, to pack up his mansion by the truckloads, including his vast collection of valuable oil paintings and other precious antiques. When all was said and done, he flew away in his own private fleet of helicopters and went off to Russia.

How do I know this? Well, plain and simple. There's video. Security camera footage at his mansion captured the moving job and the departure.

(The first video is rather long, but Yanukovych himself is seen at 13:45 in the video)

So if a characteristic of "coup" is that they are typically characterized by force and/or urgency, then no, again the situation does not fall into the proper usage of that word. Yanukovych isn't being arrested or kidnapped and thrown into a sack. He's not being carted around by gunmen at gunpoint. And he's clearly not acting out of any sense of imminent danger or concern for his life, unless you think someone who takes the time to have dozens of valuable oil paintings carefully packed away frantically fleeing for his life.

So both you and the author of the piss-poor piece that the OP posted are begging the question by automatically assuming that there was a "coup" when there's no such evidence to support such an assertion.

And then you have the issue of the cables, which prove absolutely nothing to the ultimate argument. All it shows is that eight years ago, Poroshenko--already a rather prominent Ukrainian politician--had a few conversations with the US State Department where he basically gossiped about some of his colleagues. How that is supposedly smoking gun proof that eight years later, the US would supposedly orchestrate a "coup" and then "stage" a closely scrutinized election to get Poroshenko into office, I have no idea. The SCR piece distorts the situation by making it sound like Poroshenko was a paid patsy of the U.S. State Department, who was plucked out of obscurity for some nearly decades long scheme to violently overthrow the Ukrainian government and getting himself installed into power. The evidence just doesn't support that. SCR is a shit source.

Honestly, I could have alerted the OP on the grounds that SCR is a conspiracy theorist website and therefore against the TOS, but I'd much rather keep it open and hope against hope that what I'm telling you is a teachable moment for you and your like minded friends here. It's up to you to listen, however.