There is no question that Ukraine’s government is illegal, and this has been explained in detail as a matter of law, and has been privately stated by both of its post-coup Presidents, Poroshenko and Zelensky; and in Poroshenko’s instance the statement was filed at the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, but to be activated, there, only if the persons who were threatening to kill or otherwise forcibly remove him from office acted on their threats, which they did not do (because they had carried out the coup and didn’t want to jeopardize its results). So, there never has been a court-ruling upon this matter. Fortunately, however, the documentary evidence regarding it is not merely voluminous, and all confirmatory, that this government is illegal, but the evidence even includes a smoking gun whose authenticity is unchallengeable and which can be interpreted in no other way than that the U.S. Government in February 2014 successfully installed Ukraine’s government by means of a bloody coup that was hidden behind mass protests that the U.S. Goverrnment had hired and trained Ukraine’s and other neo-nazis to perpetrate, behind the scenes of the demonstrations that had themselves been organized by those U.S.-Government-trained-and-hired nazis (some of whom were trained in Poland). All of this will here be documented, in the present article’s links.
When a democratically elected Government (such as Ukraine had during 2010-2014) is overthrown in a coup, and the individuals who masterminded and carried out the coup then select a new person to head that nation’s new government, then it is morally obligatory for the international community of nations, the United Nations, to reject that new government. If the U.N. fails this moral obligation, and the coup-imposed new national ‘government’ then faces rejection and rebellion by residents in some of its regions — especially in regions that had voted more than 70% for the head-of-state that the coup-perpetrators had illegally overthrown and replaced — then the U.N. has a moral obligation (irrespective of any other type of obligation) to grant respect and recognition to the rebelling region as being an independent country and not treat its residents as slaves to and owned by the coup-imposed regime. For the U.N. to behave otherwise than this is for it to violate its moral obligation and its own legitimacy, as the U.N. has done in this case and as will here be documented: the coup that the United States Government perpetrated against the residents of Ukraine in February 2014, when the U.S. imposed its regime upon Ukrainians — went to war against them, as it then did and still does.
On 12 March 2014, the first and best composite documentary video was posted at youtube displaying that it had been a U.S. coup and not a ‘democratic revolution’ as the U.S. regime claimed and still claims:
“Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told”
Except for the narrator’s flub of using the word “2013” instead of “2014” at 0:23 in that video as having been the year in which the U.S. culminated its coup against Ukraine, that video is 100% accurate — it’s history — in every detail. I have carefully checked it out in every detail. Then, at 0:37, the narrator refers to “a phone conversation between EU foreign-policy chief Cathy Ashton and Estonia’s foreign minister Urmas Paet, which was leaked to the public on March fifth” of 2014. At 0:50 in this compilation-video, Paet is heard telling Ashton about a certain “oligarch” in Ukraine who “had, so to say, some sort of trust among all those Maidan people” that were seeking the elected President’s resignation, and the “oligarch” there referred actually to Poroshenko himself, who subsequently, on 25 May 2014, became elected — but by only Ukrainians in the parts of Ukraine that hadn’t broken away from Ukraine — to rule over all of Ukraine (including the breakaway regions). Paet, in the compilation-video, says that this “oligarch” told him that it had been a coup, not a revolution, which had just occurred. Paet then said there, regarding a female medical doctor whom Paet had also spoken with, that “she also showed me some photos” confirming that it had been a coup. And here is that entire phone-conversation:
“Breaking: Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton discuss Ukraine over the phone”
and here is its transcript along with explanations of what they were referring-to, so that non-participants in the event can understand it.
Then, continuing now at 3:40 in the compilation-video, we hear clips of the captured smoking gun from the U.S. White House, the recording of Barack Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland running the coup, telling his Ambassador in Kiev on January 27th whom to place in power in Kiev at the end of the coup, which instruction from her became carried out at the end of the coup on February 27th, precisely a month later. The installation of that temporary stooge-leader, whom Nuland had selected (and who promptly started the ethnic-cleansing ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ or “ATO” to get rid of enough people in the regions that had voted over 70% for the elected President so as to make the new regime last through future elections), also displays how carefully planned and controlled this White House operation actually was.
Here is that full phone conversation, between those two Obama-agents:
“Nuland-Pyatt leaked phone conversation _COMPLETE with SUBTITLES”
and here is its transcript along with explanations of what they were referring-to, including the rabid neocon Nuland’s famous “Fuck the EU” comment against and disregarding the EU’s desire for a less-nazi person to lead any successor-Government.
As regards the illegality of the U.S.-imposed regime: any government that is imposed by means of a coup is intrinsically illegal, and cannot be accepted under the laws of any democratic country as being a valid entity to do business with, or to have any enforceable contract with. Any coup-created government does not represent the residents upon its claimed land, any more than a slave’s master represents the slave (something that can be done only in a dictatorship, never in a democracy). If the U.N. accepts a coup-created government, then the U.N. is not an organization of democracies. The U.N.’s Constitution, or “Charter,” never even once uses the word “democracy,” or any such term, and fails to assert any obligations or rights of “membership.” The U.N.’s “Model United Nations” says “All UN Member States are represented in the General Assembly. Each Member State has one vote.” That’s the democratic principle: one-person-one-vote. However, the U.N.’s Charter, which is the organization’s supreme legal document, says, directly to the contrary, in its Article 9, “Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.” Nowhere in the Charter is explained how some member-nations’ up-to-five-votes are to be determined or allocated. So, even 78 years after its creation in 1945, the U.N. is still simply a mess, as regards its constitution and organization. It is ruled actually by power, not by any rights and obligations.
Objections might be raised that though the coup in Ukraine had no legitimacy, its subsequent governments do because they were ‘elected by all Ukrainians’, but they weren’t: the residents in the breakaway regions, which were areas that had voted 70+% for Yanukovych in Crimea, and 90+% for Yanukovych in Donbass, were excluded from being able to vote, though Ukraine’s junta-imposed government said that those were still, nonetheless, parts of Ukraine. They can’t have it both ways: “They are Ukrainians, but they can’t, and mustn’t, and won’t be allowed, to vote in our elections.”
The man who seized Ukraine in February 2014, Barack Obama, insisted that his regime there must have it both ways. As I documented on 2 October 2015, under the headline “Obama v. Putin: Their Debate on Crimea”, Barack Obama argued that the only legitimate way in which a land can break away from its existing national Government is if that national Government allows it to happen: the residents on that land have no right. The land belongs to its existing government, whatever that is, and the people who live on it are owned by that government; those residents there don’t own any government, and so have no right to its land. On this basis, America and its ‘allies’ (vassal-nations or “colonies”) argue that the breakaway regions from Ukraine, after America’s coup there, belong to America’s vassal-nation, this coup-government of Ukraine, and NOT to the people who live on it. Those people are the subjects of this Ukraine, not citizens of a country. That is the argument of America, and of its ‘allies’.
In fact, part of Obama’s plan for his coup to grab Ukraine was, at least as-of June of 2013, that he would grab Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and remains) in Crimea (where it has been since 1783), and to transform it into yet another U.S. naval base. Putin blocked that part of Obama’s plan from succeeding.
Obama’s plan — which he started to formulate only after he and his Secretary-of-State Hillary Clinton both had privately failed to persuade the newly elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2010 to abandon Ukraine’s neutrality and go instead for Ukraine joining the EU and ultimately NATO — also included some highly secret agents working in both Poland and Georgia, in order to hire and train the paramilitaries to execute it.
So: the evidence of the post-coup Ukrainian regime’s illegality is extensive. And, since Ukraine’s breakaway regions will never again be voting in what had been Ukraine’s elections, there will never again be a Ukrainian Government that represents all of the territory that Ukraine represented prior to the coup. That Ukraine is only prior history, gone forever; Obama destroyed it. Biden wants to complete the job. America’s European ‘allies’ are committed to helping him to do it. The present U.N. is irrelevant.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.