It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ukrainian opposition lawmakers have demanded the dismissal of the country's foreign and defense ministers, blaming them for allowing a U.S. naval ship to enter the port of Feodosiya in Crimea last week without the required parliamentary authorization.
Natalya Vitrenko, leader of a political party influential on the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, accused Yushchenko of ignoring legislation which requires parliamentary approval before any foreign military troops or ships enter Ukrainian territory. She also noted that parliament had earlier this year voted to bar foreign troops from participating in military exercises in Ukraine.
“On May 27, an act of high treason was committed by Ukraine’s top officials,” Vitrenko said.
Anti-NATO protests have been underway in the Crimean port of Feodosiya since May 27 and turned into a round-the-clock, open-ended rally in the port on June 1. Protesters aim to disrupt preparations for Sea Breeze-2006, a major naval and ground-force exercise. On May 27 the U.S. transport ship, Advantage, brought military equipment and personnel to Feodosiya to prepare that exercise. The ship was unable to unload the equipment or land the technical personnel during three days amid local protests. Led by the Party of Regions and leftist pro-Russia groups, protesters claimed that the preparations were unlawful in the absence of parliamentary approval for the exercise. On May 30, the equipment -- including arms and ammunition, Humvees and other military vehicles, container-type structures, and construction materials -- was finally ashore, but the accompanying technical personnel had to turn back with the ship. Pickets blocked all exits from the port to prevent the equipment from being moved to its destination at the Staryy Krym training range.
Led by the Party of Regions and leftist pro-Russia groups, protesters claimed that the preparations were unlawful in the absence of parliamentary approval for the exercise.
Responding to the Feodosiya situation, a May 31 statement by NATO Headquarters in Brussels points out that Sea Breeze is not a NATO exercise, but rather a Ukrainian-U.S. exercise in which NATO countries participate; and that delivery of equipment is a bilateral U.S.-Ukrainian matter, in which NATO as such is not involved. While impeccably accurate for a Western audience, those distinctions will only sound like defensive casuistry to anti-NATO groups in Ukraine, where propaganda from Moscow and local misconception traditionally paints any Western forces with the broad black brush as "Natovtsy." For its part, official Kyiv correctly links the exercises with NATO and the goal to strengthen Ukraine's relations with the alliance. Meanwhile, the public approval rating of NATO in Ukraine is said to be steadily declining (Kyiv Post, May 18).
This situation underscores the urgent need for an information campaign about NATO for the Ukrainian public. However, driven by short-term electoral calculations, Orange leaders (with the notable exception of Minister of Foreign Affairs and Rukh party leader Borys Tarasyuk) have avoided addressing the public forthrightly on this unpopular issue. Without an early start to a public information campaign, the Orange leadership's goal for Ukraine to be invited into NATO by 2010 cannot be successful -- and might even become moot if Yushchenko is swayed into opting for a coalition government with the Party of Regions.
Serbia (the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution), Georgia (the 2003 Rose Revolution), Ukraine (the 2004 Orange Revolution), and (though more violent than the previous ones) Kyrgyzstan
The BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) Oil Pipeline was begun in 2002 after four years of intense international dispute. It cost some $3.6 billion, making it one of the most expensive oil projects ever. The main backer was BP, whose chairman Lord Browne is a close adviser to Britain’s Tony Blair. BP built it in a consortium including Unocal of the US and Turkish Petroleum Inc., and other partners.
Since there has been no parliamentary approval for US/NATO forces operations in Crimea, any such activity is illegal under democratic laws of Ukraine.
What law makes it illegal for a friendly but foreign warship to be in port without parliament's approval?
Originally posted by iskander
The constitution! With out the VOTE of the Parliament, it's called an INVASION and or occupation.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by iskander
The constitution! With out the VOTE of the Parliament, it's called an INVASION and or occupation.
I just want to know what specific section of the Ukrainian constitution says that friendly nations can't conduct military exercises in its land and sea borders. Whats the wording?
Originally posted by newtron25
It's called a basic recognition of sovereignity, or have you handed over all your brain cells to the United States of the World?
I just want to know what specific section of the Ukrainian constitution says that friendly nations can't conduct military exercises in its land and sea borders. Whats the wording?
Constitutional Response to an Illegal Incursion by Armed Foreign Troops onto US Soil
So what you are saying is that there is no law preventing this from occuring, and that its not illegal.
Natalya Vitrenko, leader of a political party influential on the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, accused Yushchenko of ignoring legislation which requires parliamentary approval before any foreign military troops or ships enter Ukrainian territory. She also noted that parliament had earlier this year voted to bar foreign troops from participating in military exercises in Ukraine.
“On May 27, an act of high treason was committed by Ukraine’s top officials,” Vitrenko said.
Originally posted by iskander
What gives? Are you dense or driven?
Because if you are getting payed to spread crapp on the net
accused Yushchenko of ignoring legislation which requires parliamentary approval
parliament had earlier this year voted to bar foreign troops from participating in military exercises in Ukraine
Article 17
To protect the sovereignty and territorial indivisibility of Ukraine, and to ensure its economic and informational security are the most important functions of the State and a matter of concern for all the Ukrainian people.
The defence of Ukraine and the protection of its sovereignty, territorial indivisibility and inviolability, are entrusted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Ensuring state security and protecting the state border of Ukraine are entrusted to the respective military formations and law enforcement bodies of the State, whose organisation and operational procedure are determined by law.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations shall not be used by anyone to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens or with the intent to overthrow the constitutional order, subvert the bodies of power or obstruct their activity.
The State ensures the social protection of citizens of Ukraine who serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and in other military formations as well as of members of their families.
The creation and operation of any armed formations not envisaged by law are prohibited on the territory of Ukraine.
The location of foreign military bases shall not be permitted on the territory of Ukraine.
Dense. So you'll have to explain it to me v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. What part of the Ukrainian Consitution states that parliament, and not the President, is the one to give approval here.
Again, as far as I know, it does say it, I have merely asked, where does it actually say this.
Because if you are getting payed to spread crapp on the net
Waitaminute. A guy that is ignoring the russian attempts to assasinate Yuschenko and gain control of the Ukraine as a pupet state, is saying that I'm spreading crap on the internet?
quote: accused Yushchenko of ignoring legislation which requires parliamentary approval
Which is it, legislation, or the constitution?
I don't know enough about Ukrainian parliamentary procedure to know if thats at all meaningful. Maybe the consitution gives this power to the Presidency, maybe there is a loophole in the law, maybe it was just a bill and not signed into law, maybe it was illegitimate.
Originally posted by iskander
No, again, that had nothing to do with >alleged< assassination attempt on Yushenko.
1.) It has never been acknowledged as assassination by anybody, even the poisoning scenario is still only a speculation.
And when a car blew up outside of his offices prior to that?? That was just spontaneous formation of high explosives?
How can you see a threat in a military exercise, but don't see that the russians are trying to exert control over the Ukraine??
The constitution says that " of any armed formations not envisaged by law " is not permitted. Does not the action of the presidency make the operation legal? Though it does seem like an explanation is needed. But the US is saying that there are no troops there anyway, no?