I'm using this version [1] to find anything that would explicitly declare "NATO" or "military" with regard to the "bloc" status, and so far I couldn't find it. Can you cite the amendment that mentions it? I'm particularly interested in the military bloc alliances, as EU is a political and economic entity that even the documents of 1990 have no restrictions about.

> But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):

> aware of our responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future
generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991,
approved by the national vote of 1 December 1991, adopts this Constitution — the Fundamental Law of Ukraine.

They deliberately include responsibility before the "past generation" to convey the idea of succession (that the new sovereign state doesn't come from a void but from a sequence of historical events and relations), and they make it clear that the principles of that succession are guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991. That's the document we reviewed above, the resolution act that only has a few pages to declare the implementation of the principles of the state sovereignty outlined in the document of July 1990.

It is clear that one can argue that the succession was selective, and that the guidelines do not necessarily include all aspects of the declaration of July 1990, but this is the point where principles cease to exist and the non-aesthetic side of geopolitics takes over. Basically, it's the same place where other side's arguments stem from. Besides, if there was a selective guding on the principles mentioned in the document of 1990 (and I keep referencing it because the doc of 1996 references the doc of 1991 that references the doc of 1990), the document of 1996 should have been mentioning these exceptions explicitly to avoid most of the potential doublespeak, as this is basic jurisprudence 101. Unfortunately, I cannot find such exceptions that would suggest selective guding.

> It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.

Let's take a look at this claim of constitutionality of the events. Did the president break a law when he broke his political promise? I am not aware of such law existing prior 2014. Was armed rioting (you can call it armed revolution instead) constitutional? I am not aware of that constitutional right be granted to Ukrainians by their constitution (the US constitution has that right declared explicitly). But I'm aware that the Article 27 says that "Everyone has the right to protect his or her life and health, the lives and health of other persons against unlawful encroachments".

At this point we've already got armed rioters, while not being granted the right to revolt, being after the president that didn't break a law. The Article 27 of the constitution grants the president the right to protect his life when rioters approach his place of residence. It does not mention the means of pretecting the life so I asume that fleeing the country under a threat to one's life is a legitimate act for the sitting president to have. Now, in order to establish whether a president of any country is able to perform their duty while being away from it, we need to come up with a legal framework that defines "ability to perform president's duty at a distance". I am not aware of that legal framework to exist, but I know it as a matter of fact that presidents of this world do travel outside their respective countries a lot, and that it doesn't affect their ability to perform their duty.

So, what exactly is the difference between a travelling president and the president that had to flee its own country to save his life due to armed rioters chasing him, in terms of their ability to perform their duty? Last time I checked, the ability of the fled party to perform their duty as a legitimate representative of the will of the people was the foundation for Taiwan government's claims of their legitimate successor status of "the China". Would you rather suggest that due to Taiwan governemnt's inability to perform their duty on the mainland territory of China they are no longer able to represent the "One China" principle?

And does it still look democratic to you? To me it looks more like an opportunistic power grab. The whole sequence in terms of principles is similar to an act of violence where a better armed side forces the weaker side to flee before declaring a referendum and the rule of a new law in a newly controlled territory. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2014....