Spirit of Ukraine Independence Day August 24, 2024

[Social Media]

 

As Ukraine marks 33 years of independence on August 24, 2024, the occasion is shadowed by the grim reality of an ongoing war with Russia. This is the third consecutive Independence Day that Ukrainians have observed under the dark clouds of conflict, with the nation locked in an existential struggle against a determined aggressor. Despite immense sacrifices and remarkable resilience, Ukraine faces a formidable adversary that remains relentless in its pursuit to dismantle Ukrainian statehood. 

Tomorrow, we want our support for Ukraine to be heard around the world.

On Ukrainian Independence Day, join us in a moment to make noise for the bravery and resilience of Ukraine. 🇺🇦

See how to get involved here 👉 https://t.co/hxo6misZdM
#MakeNoiseForUkraine pic.twitter.com/3FypF0UWFj

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) August 23, 2024

 

Mykola Bielieskov, a Research Fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and Senior Analyst at the Ukrainian NGO "Come Back Alive," reflects on this dual milestone—the celebration of independence and the somber commemoration of 30 months of Russia's full-scale invasion. Despite suffering significant losses, estimated at 500,000, Russia continues to press forward with its objective of eradicating Ukraine as a sovereign state. However, instead of succumbing to what many anticipated would be a swift Russian victory, Ukraine has shown extraordinary courage and tactical innovation.

 

 

Ukrainian forces have not only repelled Russian advances but have also conducted bold offensives, including a recent operation in Russia's Kursk region. The Ukrainian navy, military intelligence, and security services have secured the Black Sea, ensuring freedom of navigation while pioneering the use of unmanned surface vehicles in combat. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Air Force has begun transitioning to F-16 fighter jets, an essential move that, alongside indigenous long-range firepower capabilities, has enabled Ukraine to strike Russian military installations and oil depots effectively. These achievements are even more impressive considering the delays and complications in receiving military support from the United States and Europe.

 

Yet, despite these military successes, Ukraine has not yet achieved its primary strategic goal: forcing Russia to reassess its ability to win the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin remains confident in Russia's capacity to outlast Western support for Ukraine and to exploit any divisions within Ukrainian society. Bielieskov argues that this precarious situation calls for a well-resourced and comprehensive Western strategy that goes beyond the current ad hoc crisis management approach.

 

 

Western nations must commit to providing Ukraine with the necessary military and technological advantages to shift the balance on the battlefield decisively. Moreover, Ukraine's integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions is essential for a lasting resolution to the conflict and to counter Russia's theory of victory. Such an investment by the West in Ukraine's future will ultimately prove worthwhile, as Ukraine has demonstrated its capability to deliver on its promises.

 

Mariana Budjeryn, a Fellow at the Global Europe Program, emphasizes the extraordinary journey Ukraine has undertaken in its 33 years of independence. For Ukraine, these years have been marked by constant change, often driven by crises and upheavals as much as by periods of stability and growth. Despite the challenges of post-Soviet economic and political transitions, which gave rise to oligarchy and corruption, Ukraine has managed to cultivate a resilient civil society, maintain an independent press, and foster political plurality with regular transitions of power—an exception rather than the rule in the post-Soviet space.

 

 

These achievements, Budjeryn notes, often came at the cost of instability, as they were forged in the crucible of mass protests, such as the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Democracy in Ukraine has been a messy and hard-fought process, but it reflects the values that Ukrainians hold dear: an open society governed by laws, respect for human rights, and a government accountable to its people. The widespread desire among Ukrainians for integration with Euro-Atlantic structures is a testament to the governance model they aspire to emulate.

 

In contrast, Russia, another post-Soviet state, has taken a markedly different path. Under the autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia has become a neo-feudal hierarchy, where state power is unaccountable, and society is subjected to relentless propaganda by state-controlled media. This is the model of governance that few Ukrainians wish for their country. Instead, Ukraine is now engaged in an existential battle, defending its right to pursue a path different from Russia's, at a tremendous cost in lives and resources.

 

As Ukraine continues to fight, Budjeryn urges the international community not to forget the remarkable progress Ukrainians have made in just 33 years. The determination and resilience of ordinary Ukrainians have brought about profound historical changes, and their struggle today is a continuation of that fight for a better future.

 

Tetiana Khutor, Chairwoman of the Institute of Legislative Ideas, highlights the staggering costs of Ukraine's reconstruction, which a joint assessment in February 2024 estimated at $486 billion, with potential losses reaching up to a trillion. Currently, the financial burden falls on Western and Ukrainian taxpayers, while the aggressor state and its enablers evade responsibility. Khutor stresses the urgent need for consistent funding and calls for Western countries to hold those responsible for the war accountable.

 

One critical step in this direction is using proceeds from frozen Russian assets as collateral for a $50 billion loan, a move that should be just the beginning. The ultimate goal is to leverage the full $300 billion in frozen assets as the primary source of compensation for the victims of Russian aggression. Anything less would be inadequate in making the aggressor pay for the devastation it has caused.

 

Khutor also points to the complicity of international corporations that continue to operate in Russia, contributing approximately $20 billion annually in taxes to the Russian state and thus financing the ongoing atrocities. While 409 businesses have exited Russia, over 2,000 remain, undermining Western support for Ukraine. Forcing these companies to leave the Russian market or imposing a "Continued Operations Sanction Toll" could help offset the damages inflicted by the war.

 

Additionally, Khutor suggests that investigations into sanction evasion across Europe and the United States, which generate billions in fines and confiscated assets, could provide a sustainable financial support source for Ukraine. By implementing these measures, the financial burden would be shifted onto Russia and its enablers, deterring future aggression, further isolating Russia economically, and ensuring that wars of aggression do not go unpunished.

 

Dr. Iren Marinova from Colorado State University reflects on the seismic shifts in the EU’s security and defense landscape triggered by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This invasion shattered the illusion of a peaceful continent under the protection of a normative power Europe and forced European leaders to reevaluate the EU's security needs in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. It quickly became clear that Ukraine is an integral part of Europe’s future, and the EU has rallied around this notion over the past two years.

 

However, the conflict has also exposed significant deficiencies in the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), particularly the requirement for unanimity voting, which often leads to stalemates when quick, decisive action is needed. The debate over the implementation of qualified majority voting (QMV) in CFSP has gained traction, with EU High Representative Josep Borrell identifying it as essential for the EU to function as a geopolitical player capable of presenting a unified position in times of crisis.

 

The path to implementing QMV is fraught with challenges, as many member states view it as a threat to their national interests. A balance must be struck between sovereignty concerns and European unity, with the possibility of a "sovereignty safety net" that would reassure skeptical member states that their national interests would still be protected. Despite these challenges, EU leaders have made it clear that a future Europe without Ukraine is inconceivable. Nevertheless, the EU faces a difficult road ahead in terms of political will and policy reforms, with the CFSP being one policy area to watch closely as the region enters the third year of the full-scale invasion and moves closer to Ukrainian EU membership.

 

Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, emphasizes the existential threat Ukraine faces as it endures its "darkest hour." Putin's ultimate goal, Merezhko argues, is to restore the Soviet empire by depriving Ukrainians of their statehood and national identity through a full-scale imperialist war. This war is not just a conflict between two states; it is enabled by a coalition of aggressive totalitarian regimes, including Russia, Belarus, Iran, and North Korea.

 

For Ukraine to survive, Merezhko insists, solidarity among the free democratic world and strong American leadership are crucial. The best security guarantee for Ukraine is its membership in NATO. Russia's narrative that it is waging war against Ukraine because of "NATO enlargement" is both contrary to international law and fundamentally illogical. The reality, as Merezhko sees it, is that Russia views its neighbors as either enemies or vassals, and these countries seek NATO membership not as an act of aggression but as a means of preserving their independence in the face of Russian aggression.

 

To ensure that Russia no longer poses a threat to global order and security, Merezhko argues that Russia must undergo decolonization, demilitarization, and de-Putinization. Only through these processes can Europe and the world become safer. The recent decades have seen a global backsliding of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism, and Merezhko believes that a decisive victory for democratic Ukraine over totalitarian Russia is essential to reversing this trend. Such a victory would reinforce the principles of freedom over tyranny and international law over might, sending a clear message to potential aggressors that international crime does not pay.

 

Mykhailo Minakov, a Senior Advisor at the Kennan Institute, reflects on the profound impact the war has had on Ukrainian studies and scholarly perspectives. In 2021, to mark the 30th anniversary of Ukrainian independence, the Kennan Institute published a scholarly history of contemporary Ukraine that analyzed the country's development in democratic politics, market economy, and other areas. At that time, despite ongoing conflicts in the Donbas, Ukraine was viewed through a lens of peaceful progress and a hopeful future.

 

However, three years later, the war has fundamentally changed how Ukrainian history and development are understood. The conflict has brought about a shift in priorities and perspectives, with Ukrainian studies now focused on issues of survival, resilience, and the existential struggle for national identity and sovereignty. The war has also fostered a deeper appreciation of Ukraine's place in global history, as the nation's fight against Russian aggression has come to symbolize a broader struggle for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

 

As Ukraine continues to endure the hardships of war, its people remain steadfast in their commitment to defending their independence and sovereignty. The 33rd anniversary of Ukraine's independence is a testament to the resilience and determination of a nation that refuses to be subdued. As the world watches, the outcome of this conflict will not only shape the future of Ukraine but also have far-reaching implications for the global order and the principles that underpin it.

 

 

Credit: Wilson Center  2024-08-24

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[nobodysfriend]

I hope that there are many more independence days to come for Ukraine .

[Bkk Brian]

The Russian terrorists need to be kicked out once and for all.

 

[retarius]

I cannot fathom why NATO are supporting this fascist terrorist state. Time to end all financial and military support. 

[zmisha]

 

18 hours ago, Social Media said:

As Ukraine marks 33 years of independence on August 24, 2024,

Why 33 years of independence? Looks very strange for a Z guy like me. Ukraine is an independent country in UN from 26th June 1945.

[MicroB]

Belarus sends best wishes

 

 

A slight  change of tune

 

[MicroB]

17 hours ago, retarius said:

I cannot fathom why NATO are supporting this fascist terrorist state. Time to end all financial and military support. 

 

You got it wrong. NATO isn't funding Russia.

[MicroB]

7 hours ago, zmisha said:

 

Why 33 years of independence? Looks very strange for a Z guy like me. Ukraine is an independent country in UN from 26th June 1945.

 

It was a founding member of the UN, to give the USSR more votes in the General Assembly. Roosevelt agreed to this, while reserving the right  for 2 more US votes to be added to the GA; essentially something like California and New York would get a vote.

 

Quoting the UN Charter:

 

Quote

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

 

The 1933 Montevideo Convention defines what a State is:

 

Quote

Article 1. The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.

 

Ukraine and Belarus met all the conditions except (d); they could not conclude agreements with other states. So in 1944, Stalin amended their constitutions to allow them to enter into agreements with foreign governments.

 

Western jurists rejected the Soviet concept of the republics’ sovereignty, because it was clear that  the republics had a factual and legal dependence on the central government. So no one recognised Stalin's absurdity. Except the UN. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic has been described as "only a hollow institutional caricature of a sovereign state". It was a political accomodation, in 1945, after a devastating world war, and Stalin was doing his bully boy bit.

 

Stalin commited fraud, because the Montevideo Convention also says "The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law".  The USSR was a federation, it doesn't matter if Belarus and Ukraine could conclude international agreements. They failed to qualify for the UN. Stalin's con job did not make Ukraine and independant state in 1944.

 

[zmisha]

5 hours ago, MicroB said:

Stalin commited fraud...

 

OK. Lets assume that Ukraine`s independence before 1991 is a fraud. And what happened next? USSR was rebranded to Russia in the UN and continue to have its place in the Security Council as the successor. But what about Ukraine? The Ukraine says it is still independent from the USSR(since 1991 we call it Russia) like it said before. What has changed? Nothing. So the Ukraine`s independence after 1991 is the fraud of the same kind - the fake independence.
If one day Ukraine will want to get the real independence - it can still follow the procedure of the soviet law 1409 to do it. But before this done Z guys like me will consider Ukraine as part of Russia with fake independence.

[billd766]

On 8/24/2024 at 11:44 AM, retarius said:

I cannot fathom why NATO are supporting this fascist terrorist state. Time to end all financial and military support. 

An independent state that was invaded by Russia. Do you have a problem with the Russian invasion, or do you think it is OK for Russia to invade any independent state that it wishes, regardless of what the population want?

[zmisha]

On 8/24/2024 at 11:44 AM, retarius said:

I cannot fathom why NATO are supporting this fascist terrorist state. Time to end all financial and military support. 

Looks like the western guy above kindly hints Russian Z people what we should do next - we should ask our ministry of foreign affairs to stop calling Ukraine an independent state. And then it will not be invasion any more.

[mfd101]

NATO should admit Ukraine as a member immediately and NATO troops should enter Ukraine and retake the bits stolen by Russia. All with 'conventional' (ie non-nuclear) weapons.

 

Russia would just roll over and walk away.

[AndreasHG]

[candide]

On 8/25/2024 at 5:50 AM, zmisha said:

OK. Lets assume that Ukraine`s independence before 1991 is a fraud. And what happened next? USSR was rebranded to Russia in the UN and continue to have its place in the Security Council as the successor. But what about Ukraine? The Ukraine says it is still independent from the USSR(since 1991 we call it Russia) like it said before. What has changed? Nothing. So the Ukraine`s independence after 1991 is the fraud of the same kind - the fake independence.
If one day Ukraine will want to get the real independence - it can still follow the procedure of the soviet law 1409 to do it. But before this done Z guys like me will consider Ukraine as part of Russia with fake independence.

This law was violated by all USSR republics which became independent, including Russia. Actually, Russia broke it before Ukraine followed. So Russia is a fake state too?

[zmisha]

2 hours ago, candide said:

This law was violated by all USSR republics which became independent, including Russia. Actually, Russia broke it before Ukraine followed. So Russia is a fake state too?

No. Russia in the UN is the successor of the Soviet Union - the rebranded SU. The decision to destroy Soviet Union has never been made de jure. Give me the law number with such decision if I am wrong.

[candide]

42 minutes ago, zmisha said:

No. Russia in the UN is the successor of the Soviet Union - the rebranded SU. The decision to destroy Soviet Union has never been made de jure. Give me the law number with such decision if I am wrong.

You are grasping at straws. Russia and all other former Soviet republics broke the same law you mentioned. So Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, etc... are in the same situation.

 

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was formally dissolved as a sovereign state and subject of international law on 26 December 1991 by Declaration № 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. The Alma Ata protocols also confirmed the dissolution of the Soviet Union before that.

 

It's funny that you make a reference to the UN, which is recognising Ukraine as a fully independent State.

[billd766]

8 hours ago, mfd101 said:

NATO should admit Ukraine as a member immediately and NATO troops should enter Ukraine and retake the bits stolen by Russia. All with 'conventional' (ie non-nuclear) weapons.

 

Russia would just roll over and walk away.

And if Putin decided to retaliate with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons or even ICBMs, what do you think would happen then?

 

Russia is ruled by a sane megalomaniac, who IS the problem.

[zmisha]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

You are grasping at straws. Russia and all other former Soviet republics broke the same law you mentioned. So Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, etc... are in the same situation.

 

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was formally dissolved as a sovereign state and subject of international law on 26 December 1991 by Declaration № 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. The Alma Ata protocols also confirmed the dissolution of the Soviet Union before that.

 

It's funny that you make a reference to the UN, which is recognising Ukraine as a fully independent State.

Let`s do some googling.
You see the link, right?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_no._142-N_of_the_Soviet_of_the_Republics_of_the_Supreme_Soviet_of_the_USSR
And then you just click on the "Русский" to see the document in Russian.
And after that you just copy paste the name of the organ who made this decision in Russian: "СОВЕТ РЕСПУБЛИК ВЕРХОВНОГО СОВЕТА СССР"
And google will show you what you see on the screenshot - 
Let`s copy/paste it into translate.google.com - and you see this - 

The Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR) is the upper chamber of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, created on the basis of the USSR Law of September 5, 1991 N 2392-I "On the Bodies of State Authority and Administration of the USSR during the Transitional Period", but not provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of the USSR.

Did you see this - "but not provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of the USSR". When Gorbachev created this council, he violated the constitution and, according to the law, should have been executed for illegally appropriating power.

[mfd101]

28 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And if Putin decided to retaliate with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons or even ICBMs, what do you think would happen then?

 

Russia is ruled by a sane megalomaniac, who IS the problem.

His sanity would come to the fore.

 

Like all dictators he thinks that the Western democracies are weak, frightened and decadent. And, all too often, that is a not-unreasonable description.  But when the West throws up strong leaders and they act, the dictator's self-preservation interest kicks in and he acts accordingly. 

 

In this instance Putin's chances of survival would be better facing his own people after a withdrawal from Ukraine than facing The West after he launched some nukes.

[billd766]

15 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

His sanity would come to the fore.

 

Like all dictators he thinks that the Western democracies are weak, frightened and decadent. And, all too often, that is a not-unreasonable description.  But when the West throws up strong leaders and they act, the dictator's self-preservation interest kicks in and he acts accordingly. 

 

In this instance Putin's chances of survival would be better facing his own people after a withdrawal from Ukraine than facing The West after he launched some nukes.

The problem with an all out nuclear attack is where would you go to survive one. If you hide inside a mountain for example, you have to hope that the nearest nuclear explosion to you does not cause the mountain to collapse, entombing you. More problems come along when you find out how many people you have to feed and water, and for how many years.

 

The next set of big problems is clean air, water, waste water, trash and power for that many years. Also where do you dispose of people who die?

 

If you can get through those problems and finally open up to the world, you will probably find that there is no world left uncontaminated. No food, nothing would have been manufactured as the majority pf people would have died, so there would be no farmers to grow stuff, no serviceable roads, no fuel, no trucks or drivers, no hospitals etc.

 

There may be a few survivalists who would be armed to the teeth and who would be quite happy to murder you for the little that you have. No police or military to protect you anyway.

 

As for me, I would be happy to go out with my family in the big bang rather than chance living in the mess that follows some idiot setting off the first nuclear weapon.

[candide]

1 hour ago, zmisha said:

Let`s do some googling.
You see the link, right?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_no._142-N_of_the_Soviet_of_the_Republics_of_the_Supreme_Soviet_of_the_USSR
And then you just click on the "Русский" to see the document in Russian.
And after that you just copy paste the name of the organ who made this decision in Russian: "СОВЕТ РЕСПУБЛИК ВЕРХОВНОГО СОВЕТА СССР"
And google will show you what you see on the screenshot - 
Let`s copy/paste it into translate.google.com - and you see this - 

The Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR) is the upper chamber of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, created on the basis of the USSR Law of September 5, 1991 N 2392-I "On the Bodies of State Authority and Administration of the USSR during the Transitional Period", but not provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of the USSR.

Did you see this - "but not provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of the USSR". When Gorbachev created this council, he violated the constitution and, according to the law, should have been executed for illegally appropriating power.

Splitting hairs....

[zmisha]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Splitting hairs....

Using the same method I can create a government body not provided for by the US Constitution and declare that the US ceases to exist. Will this have legal force? Obviously not.

And what about "The Alma Ata protocols" and dozens of similar documents? They are just saying something similar to this -"As [we think that] Soviet Union does not exist, we do this and that". Therefore, they express their opinion that the Soviet Union does not exist, which they have the right to do. After all, expressing one's opinion is not prohibited by law. However, these documents do not make a decision to destroy the Soviet Union. And these people do not have the authority to make such decisions.

[mfd101]

12 minutes ago, zmisha said:

Using the same method I can create a government body not provided for by the US Constitution and declare that the US ceases to exist. Will this have legal force? Obviously not.

And what about "The Alma Ata protocols" and dozens of similar documents? They are just saying something similar to this -"As [we think that] Soviet Union does not exist, we do this and that". Therefore, they express their opinion that the Soviet Union does not exist, which they have the right to do. After all, expressing one's opinion is not prohibited by law. However, these documents do not make a decision to destroy the Soviet Union. And these people do not have the authority to make such decisions.

So the Soviet Union continues to exist? You are a true conservative and conservationist.

[zmisha]

1 minute ago, mfd101 said:

So the Soviet Union continues to exist? You are a true conservative and conservationist.

Half a million plaintiffs including me storm the Supreme Court with a lawsuit. This was organized by the co-founder of the Putin`s United Russia party Eugeny Fedorov and his lawer Olga Smirnova. This will be the biggest lawsuit in the human history. People are demanding that the Supreme Court recognize as illegal Gorbachev's decisions, which he had no right to make under the USSR Constitution. Sorry to say, English speaking journalist don`t want to help Vladimir Putin to make his dreams come true and the journalists do not want to advertise the lawsuit. So you can find information about this only in Russian.
The main problem with this lawsuit is that a lot of participants of these illegal events in 1991 will be jailed. But today they occupy important government positions. So it is not ease to make it accepted finally. Thats why we are planning to reach about a million plaintiffs to sweep away the Supreme Court.

[AndreasHG]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

And if Putin decided to retaliate with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons or even ICBMs, what do you think would happen then?

 

Russia is ruled by a sane megalomaniac, who IS the problem.

 

If Putin decided to retaliate with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, then Ukraine shall immediately receive similar weapons from the West and reciprocate. I am sure this message has already been delivered to Putin.

 

Putin has much more to lose from a nuclear war than most of us. He is used to live in multimillions mansions around Russia (like the $1 billion Italianate palace complex, located on the Black Sea coast near Gelendzhik, Krasnodar Krai, Navalny uncovered before being poisoned).

 

He is not eager to relocate in an underground cave, where he would spend the rest of his days. An especially likely outcome, if he starts throwing nuclear bombs at the doorsteps of Russian territory, and if Ukraine answers in kind. 

 

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, AndreasHG said:

 

If Putin decided to retaliate with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, then Ukraine shall immediately receive similar weapons from the West and reciprocate. 

 

 

Total BS. The West, ie the USA, have shown time and time again in this conflict that they will walk on egg shells to make sure no troops, no permission to use missiles, why do you think that is? Because America does not want a war with nuclear Russia. So the idea that they would give nuclear arms to Ukraine, thereby endangering an even greater nuclear response from Russia, including striking at the US, is simply ludicrous.

[Enoon]

On 8/24/2024 at 5:44 AM, retarius said:

I cannot fathom why NATO are supporting this fascist terrorist state. Time to end all financial and military support. 

 

Because Putins Russia is far, far worse.

 

"My enemies enemy is my friend.".........Defence Policy 1.1.

 

That's why USA allied with Soviet Union in WW2.

 

You really needed it explained to you?

 

 

 

[candide]

18 hours ago, zmisha said:

Half a million plaintiffs including me storm the Supreme Court with a lawsuit. This was organized by the co-founder of the Putin`s United Russia party Eugeny Fedorov and his lawer Olga Smirnova. This will be the biggest lawsuit in the human history. People are demanding that the Supreme Court recognize as illegal Gorbachev's decisions, which he had no right to make under the USSR Constitution. Sorry to say, English speaking journalist don`t want to help Vladimir Putin to make his dreams come true and the journalists do not want to advertise the lawsuit. So you can find information about this only in Russian.
The main problem with this lawsuit is that a lot of participants of these illegal events in 1991 will be jailed. But today they occupy important government positions. So it is not ease to make it accepted finally. Thats why we are planning to reach about a million plaintiffs to sweep away the Supreme Court.

So your claim, about an event which occurred more than 30 years ago has currently no legal status as it hasn't even yet been admitted for consideration by the SC.

 

It seems you don't have much....

[zmisha]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

So your claim, about an event which occurred more than 30 years ago has currently no legal status as it hasn't even yet been admitted for consideration by the SC.

 

It seems you don't have much....

And what will you do if another family from Ukraine begin to live in your house without your permission? What if they say to everyone that the house is theirs for 30 years? De jure the house is yours but de facto it is theirs.

it does not matter 30 years have passed or even 100. If you have the document that the house is yours you can ask the judge to start certain legal actions. If the judge love Ukrainians he might find some legal ways to win some time for them, but this does not change the fact that that the house is yours.

[candide]

8 minutes ago, zmisha said:

And what will you do if another family from Ukraine begin to live in your house without your permission? What if they say to everyone that the house is theirs for 30 years? De jure the house is yours but de facto it is theirs.

it does not matter 30 years have passed or even 100. If you have the document that the house is yours you can ask the judge to start certain legal actions. If the judge love Ukrainians he might find some legal ways to win some time for them, but this does not change the fact that that the house is yours.

What are you talking about?

 

Again, your claim has no legal status as it hasn't even been admitted in court for consideration.

You have nothing.