This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup.
Indeed, but it's not irrelevant to the claim I made, which you're currently responding to - that the election was far from legitimate. Please try to keep up with your own claims.
I've already provided you with evidence that international monitors approved the 2010 elections. Here's more:
http://www.utoronto.ca/jacyk/ElectionWatch/Blog/Entries/2010/1/19_International_observers_say_elections_in_Ukraine_held_at_a_high_level-_Jakob_Hedenskog.htmlDespite warnings of large-scale election fraud in the days leading up to Sunday’s vote, officials and international election observers have said the ballot was fair and orderly. The preliminary report of the International Election Observation Mission (OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, European Parliament Mps, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) concluded that the first round of the presidential elections in Ukraine was held in accordance with the majority of obligations taken within the framework of the OSCE and Council of Europe.
Here's the report. It says that, although there were still some problems, the elections were generally fair and transparent:
http://www.enemo.eu/press/Ukraine%202010_ENEMOFinalReport.pdfENEMO observers note that in general the Central Election Commission (CEC) has functioned in a professional, transparent and timely manner. However, throughout these elections the CEC continued its practice of adopting decisions in closed meetings to which observers were not allowed. In addition, CEC has repeatedly failed to issue clear and consistent instructions regarding voter registration during Election Day and mobile voting procedures, which lead to their different implementations by lower-level election commissions across oblasts.
On February 25, 2010 Victor Yanukovich was sworn in as the new President of Ukraine following the final tabulation of results by the Central Election Commission. Prior to that the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine considered a complaint made by the runner-up candidate Yulia Tymoshenko regarding alleged violations of the voting procedures in several oblasts. However, the Court did not have the chance to make a formal decision because the plaintiff dropped the case. ENEMO observers reported that the contestation took place in a climate free of pressure and in keeping with the Ukrainian laws in vigor.
And more:
http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/51830The first round of Ukraine's presidential election was of high quality and showed significant progress over previous elections, meeting most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments, concluded the international election observation mission in a statement published today.
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. You also haven't addressed the fact that it makes no sense to jail Tymoshenko
after the intl community approves of the elections, and
after she's already dropped her legal challenge, if all he want is to keep her from questioning the legitimacy of his presidency.
And you're wrong anyway. Tymoshenko was first charged in December of 2010
Sigh. Have you at least tried Googling it, or are you too "well-informed, thanks" for that kind of stuff? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/7717602/Ukraine-reopens-bribery-case-against-Yulia-Tymoshenko.html
Have I tried Googling it? Is that a joke? You may want to click a few of the many links I've posted and read the documents attached to them. They're full of interesting information on the topic at hand.
Tymoshenko was charged in December of 2010. Your link says: ""At the present moment, a pretrial investigation of the [2005] case has been resumed," its statement said." And May of 2010 is still after February of 2010, when
Tymoshenko dropped her legal challenge to Yanukovych's election. Lexis Nexis.
LexisNexis, the law research tool? I didn't think they do world news, and I'm struggling to find it.
I thought the democratically elected government of Ukraine voted to get rid of the president and replace him with a provisional one until the people of Ukraine can vote on who should run their country.
Russia then invaded and occupied Ukraine because it saw its interests being threatened. That's the coup.
That's certainly the West's viewpoint. Russia claims that the vote to oust Yanukovych was unconstitutional and illegal, and that it was basically coerced by an angry mob. I dunno shit about Ukraine's legal system/constitution, though, so I don't have much of an opinion on that. But, I can understand how Russia would see the new government as the coup. It seems like it's just a matter of perspective.