this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
424 points (94.5% liked)

World News

32290 readers
535 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not irrelevant - he was illegally removed from power, meaning it was literally a coup. Then, after he was removed, the people against the coup government refused to participate in the elections. Democracy collapsed after Euromaidan

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; French for 'stroke of state'), or simply a coup, is an illegal and overt attempt by the military or other government elites to unseat the incumbent leader.

  • Wikipedia

The people are neither military nor government, and even parliament isn't government (but legislative) so... no. You're misusing the term. If anything you could call it a revolution but even that's a misnomer as nothing really changed about state organisation itself. The Berkut got abolished, such things, but that's reform not revolution. As said: Special electoral operation, I'm not even using the term tongue in cheek.

Then, after he was removed, the people against the coup government refused to participate in the elections.

First off: He fled. The presidential office was vacant. There was de facto no Ukrainian president as the de jure incumbent was AWOL. Other people would have had the dignity to resign from office -- quite a bit earlier, before shooting at protesters.

Then, boycotting elections is those people's own fucking fault. How else was the situation to be cured? Imagine yourself in the Rada those days, what would your proposal have been? How else could democracy, which you apparently claim to value so much, have been restored but with elections?