World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
If you're not in the U.S., what's up in your part of the world?
Nik wrote: "The troops of Soviet army were rarely composed based on nationalities. They were all fighting together and a regular platoon would likely include Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Jews, etc…not only Ukrainians participated in defense and liberating Crimea, but also in defending Moscow, Stalingrad battle, etc."Come on, Russians, Georgians, Kalmyks, etc fought for the whole of Ukraine. So, if Crimea under your logic belongs to Ukraine for the simple reason that the Red Army of multinationals fought for it, then under the same logic the whole of Ukraine belongs to Russia and the rest of USSR.
We have difference in logic, Mis. If Ukrainians defended Moscow or Stalingrad, does it mean they belong to Ukraine? No. I was just referring to Ian’s argument, excluding Ukrainians from fighting in the Red Army ranks. Crimea belongs to Ukraine based on binding treaties between Russia and Ukraine, recognizing that, which the former insolently violated to grab the peninsula militarily.
Nik wrote: "We have difference in logic, Mis. If Ukrainians defended Moscow or Stalingrad, does it mean they belong to Ukraine? No. I was just referring to Ian’s argument, excluding Ukrainians from fighting in..." We do have differences in logic. If you are proving that Crimea belongs to Ukraine because there were some Ukrainians in the Red Army (about 5%) who fought for Crimea in WW2 then whoever fought for Ukraine should have a stake for it as well. Otherwise what else were you trying to prove a couple of posts earlier? As for the binding treaties - what binding treaties?
As far as I know it's Ukraine who swore fealty to Russia in 1654. Yeah, that treaty was quite binding, yeah.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Also, the thing is: Crimea wasn't conquered. It wasn't a military thing...."Except for the "The Little Green Men". You know the ones, the Russian troops not wearing insignias, but carrying Russian made weapons and speaking Russian. Crimea was annexed by The Russian Federation.
Beau wrote: "I know very little about Russo-Ukrainian relations,..."In all things in this part of the world, it is complicated. Russia does not want Ukraine to become part of NATO. It lost Poland and the Baltics to NATO and Ukraine is in negotiations. Crimea also has an interesting history in that it has bounced back and forth to and from Russia. Lastly, there is an incredibly large ethnic Russian population in the Crimea.
They are called Belovezh accords, my friend, followed by Alma ata protocol and the already mention Budapest memorandum, Russian - Ukrainian treaty on borders, signed by Putin & Kuchma and more
Papaphilly wrote: "Except for the "The Little Green Men". You know the ones, the Russian troops not wearing insignias, but carrying Russian made weapons and speaking Russian. Crimea was annexed by The Russian Federation." Like I said above: not a single shot. Peace troopers or whatever it is that you have in order to prevent violence. Yep, they appeared magically after the referendum and it's a good thing they did or same stuff that happened to drive LDNR to arm themselves would've happened in Crimea. It's not war or annexation if the people voted first. Or what else does all the democracy stand for?
If Ukraine is bothered with anything, why not run another referendum instead of all the weapons clanking?
First try voting: AustriaThen try international treaties: Czechoslovakia
Finally, invasion: Poland
See the pattern?
J. wrote: "First try voting: AustriaThen try international treaties: Czechoslovakia
Finally, invasion: Poland
See the pattern?" No, different cases.
Nik wrote: "They are called Belovezh accords, my friend, followed by Alma ata protocol and the already mention Budapest memorandum, Russian - Ukrainian treaty on borders, signed by Putin & Kuchma and more" To humor you, I've just looked through those... Have you read them?- Belovezh accords are about USSR stopping working and creating CIS. They do not mention Crimea.
- Alma ata protocol does not mention Crimea.
- The Budapest memorandum, I've already told you, it does not apply to anything apart the nukes proliferation. Besides, it refers to 'existing borders of Ukraine'. It does not even say 'existing when'. Had it said 'Ukrainian USSR', it could've made a tiny lick of sense but it doesn't. As is, Crimea by then had never been a part of Ukraine and therefore cannot be considered covered by that document.
All this stuff basically depends on anyone proving that Crimea is Ukrainian. Well, by all means, prove it. It had never ever before the USSR assigned them together been Ukrainian. So unless one can prove it belongs to Ukraine, none of these have any remotest legal link to Crimea.
Russia obtained Crimea in 1783 after 200+ years of wars against Crimean tatars. By then, Crimean tatars had been attacking Russia, Ukraine (it wasn't Ukraine then, of course) and Rzecz Pospolita for about 300 years. Remember the story of Roxolana? A Ukrainian girl who supposedly was taken into slavery by Crimean tatars, sold and resold and supposedly became the fav wife of some sultan? Yep, that's Crimea as it was then. Sound like it was Ukrainian much?
Let's also remember that in 1654 Ukrainian cossacks swore fealty to Russia in order to stop a very large civil war that had been going on between them and Rzecz Pospolita. Sound familiar? (Pre-)Ukraine gets itself into a military mess in 1648 and by 1654 they have asked the Russian tsar 3 times in a row (!) to accept them and protect them from the then mighty Rzecz Pospolita. 3d time was the charm and in 1654 Pereyaslavl rada accepted Ukraine (as it was then) into Russia.
As I see it, both Ukraine and Crimea separately joined Russia, by different tracks, at different times, had different populations, warred against each other since time immemorable and have nothing to do with each other historically. The only thing that binds them together (very loosely!) is that in 1954 some commie assigned the two into the same USSR since they are closely situated.
Considering that all the above mentioned accords are focused on dissolving the USSR, they should've divorced Crimea and Ukraine automatically. Long before the referendum that got all your panties in a twist :)
You are welcome to bring me more reading material. Maybe together we'll manage to find something that proves your point. Yet, so far your attempts have been unsuccessful since you don't read the documents you refer to.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Except for the "The Little Green Men". You know the ones, the Russian troops not wearing insignias, but carrying Russian made weapons and speaking Russian. Crimea was annexed by ..."If you really believe they were peacekeepers, then why not have insignias? They are trying to hide their identities and give Russia plausible deniability.
Papaphilly wrote: "If you really believe they were peacekeepers, then why not have insignias? They are trying to hide their identities and give Russia plausible deniability." Which were they: plausible or deniable? Had they been wearing insignias, you would've been saying now that it was 'Russian regular troops attacking Crimea and annexing it'.
So, they didn't wear the insignias to maybe demonstrate that this was not a military op, not an army attacking anything or other and basically guards guarding. Yet you're still not happy...
I wish you were as critical of Ukrainian army doing ethnic cleansing ops. Yes, they wear insignias all right. Does that make what they do right?
Nik, two things about the Russian defending Crimea. My original statement was the Russians have lost a lot of blood there, so even if some Ukrainian blood was lost, that hardly alters what Russians think of their own sacrifices. The argument was that Russians have lost a lot of blood there, over a long period. The second point is that von Manstein was more than "a German officer". He was the overall commander, and he would be carefully informed about everything he could about the nature of all his opponents. But I suppose if you want to pull the "Red Army" was a conglomerate and think that is important to the outcome, as opposed to my simply saying that the Russians would feel strong;y about Crimea, then it, and for that matter the rest of Ukraine should be returned to the USSR :-)"There is no special advantage of having Crimea over any other part of Ukraine". Oh, really - how do you contest control of the shipping in the Black Sea from Kyiv, or wherever? If von Manstein, almost certainly the best strategic commander of the war, considered control of Crimea essential for any land invasion into Russia, why do you think it is irrelevant from Russia's point of view now? Any reasonable glance at a detailed map and any basic concept of military strategy would indicate Russia cannot afford NATO to control that peninsula and give up all interest in the Black Sea. And anyone knowing the nature of Ukrainian governments would know they would sell missile rights for a fist full off dollars. Yeltsin, asleep at the wheel let that happen to the Baltics without anything, although in fairness to Yeltsin, had he sobered up enough to think, would have realised the Russian military then was in no position to contest anything after he had more or less topped paying them.
"CIA director travelled to Moscow last month. So what?" OK, I'll bite. So what?
Also, you will recall my comment that you had not refuted that Crimea was considered Russian until Khrushchev assigned it to Ukraine for administrative purposes. That, perforce, was well after WW 2, and when I say administrative purposes there was no doubt that Moscow still ruled then.
And no contest about Yanukovich fleeing to Moscow, except I don't see the relevance to whether Russia needs Crimea, other than Moscow would see trouble coming.
Papaphilly wrote: "there is an incredibly large ethnic Russian population in the Crimea."Yep. And that Russian population has been strongly proRussian ever since the 90s.Papaphilly wrote: "Crimea also has an interesting history in that it has bounced back and forth to and from Russia.." I give tou that its history is very interesting since it had been bouncing between different owners for ages. But... Russia never lost it since 1783 other than to Nazi troops during the WW2 or in the 90s when it was a mess.
Misassigned it? Forgot to have a referendum there? I remember there was smth like that about Crimea. I could look it up if you need it.
Misericordia, as you desperately attempt to show even a thin legitimacy, you ignore the basic facts and chronology. The troops appeared FIRST and forced to schedule referendum and kept pouring in to hold the administrative power in the peninsula since. Putin was in such a hurry, after announcing a referendum they rescheduled it to much earlier to finish the play swiftly. No insignia didn’t help, people still struggled to confuse Russians for Martians 👽 . Putin himself admits it - I placed his interview for you, but you keep ignoring even that.
All the accords about dissolution and creating of new states, mentioned current territories of republic and had maps attached.
If it was at least a little legitimate, I bet Russia wouldn’t have problem to have it recognized by more countries than N.Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba..
And hey, the appetite is there. I’m sure Belarus, Kazakhstan and others don’t sleep too well, while Poland, Litha and others thank god to have joined nato for protection and diligently invest their share and above unlike some of Western European countries
Ian, again putting ‘a lot of blood’ when you can’t even say who put more, nor the German you mention, gives no entitlement whatsoever. Russia closed a deal of having a lease in Sevastopol and Ukraine meticulously kept to it. No nato missiles, Russian navy parked, all was good. Except it wasn’t enough, and probably still isn’t.Having Ukrainian blood spilled for defending Russia and Kievan nobility founding Moscow, claiming Russia should be ruled by Ukraine can have even more appeal.
Hungary, Poland may have their territorial claims too, except they don’t, Russia does.
As much as you oppose NATO’s involvement, Syrian rebels and more, looks very inconsistent why Russian military intervention looks good to you. Or you just indorse a theoretical ‘keeping NATO out’ as a sound justification for breaking international law.
Nik wrote: "Misericordia, as you desperately attempt to show even a thin legitimacy, you ignore the basic facts and chronology. "Do I? Is it me listing a bunch of irrelevant memorandums that have nothing to do with Crimea trying to prove a barest shred of validity to the Ukrainian claim? No, wait, that was you. Nik wrote: "All the accords about dissolution and creating of new states, mentioned current territories of republic and had maps attached." Do quote please. What republic? None of them even say 'Ukraine USSR', they just say 'Ukraine' which does not and should not include the Crimea for about over 5 reasons I listed above. Also, they dissolve the USSR which dissolves the Ukraine USSR to which both Ukraine and Crimea were assigned. I don't see how this helps your point.
Nik wrote: "If it was at least a little legitimate, I bet Russia wouldn’t have problem to have it recognized by more countries than N.Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba..." Are you for serious? I'm sure you realise positive view of whatever Russian does is considered a mauvais ton, just as negative of whatever shit the US does is. That's what public Russia phobia does for you.
Anyway, what are the facts proving the Ukraine's claim to Crimea? Are there any? I'd like you to list them since the accords you mentioned don't work for the reasons I listed above. Any more accords? Historical facts? Anything at all beyond empty rhetoric and greed?
Nik wrote: "I’m sure Belarus, Kazakhstan and others don’t sleep too well, while Poland, Litha and others thank god to have joined nato for protection and diligently invest their share and above unlike some of Western European countries"They are not there for protection and you must realise that. They were accepted in there to try and get a leg up in the assured mutual destruction race which is about the only thing keeping our civilization not nuked to hell yet.
History time:Nik wrote: "Ukrainian blood spilled for defending Russia"When?
Nik wrote: "Kievan nobility founding Moscow,"Yuri Dolgoruki would've been surprized what with his being from Rostov/Suzdal (about a 1100 km from Kiev).
Also, at that time there wasn't a Ukraine. There was Kievan Rus which I'm sure you recognise was different from modern Ukraine.
Nik wrote: "Russia should be ruled by Ukraine "It should by your logic. Or what did Russia defend it for? And has been defending since 1654? That's what your 'there were Ukrainians in the Red Army - > they must have fought for Crime in WW2 - > Ukrainians own Crimea' claim leads to.
Nik, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the blood is one aspect of why Russians think they should have Crimea. The idea that Crimea should be Ukrainian because a Ukrainian, Khrushchev, assigned Kyiv the administrative function during the USSR does not make it Ukrainian.There are no NATO missiles NOW, but it was promised to Moscow there would be no such missiles in the Baltics, and change a US President and there they are. A "promise" from Ukraine, which from Kyiv has expressly wished to join NATO, is not worth the paper it was not written on. Why shouldn't Russia object? You think the US would offer to let Russia have missiles on Cuba? Yeah, right, we've seen that.
As for international law, the US has ignored that whenever it feels like it. There is really no such thing because it implies a single International sovereignty and that just simply does not exist.
There is no Ukrainian claim, Mis. Crimea is Ukraine, internationally recognized, occupied by Russia. The accords I mentioned include maps with Crimea on it, belonging to Ukraine, signed by Russia, by Putin himself in 2003. My case needs no help, but Russian does 😎.Using military force to rob a fraternal country is despicable and unjustifiable.
The short list of countries that I brought that recognized it, prove enough.
Yura was a second grade Kievan prince and during brighter periods of a single throne, everything was ruled from Kiev.
‘Bad Ukrainians and bad Ukraine’ in your eyes 👀, doesn’t suggest Russia has anything to do with it. I don’t like the mentality of getting content from satisfaction of own aggressive instincts. You are entitled to admire Vlad though 😋
Ian, Khrushchev is Russian, not Ukrainian to help you better understand the issue. Essentially I’m sure Russia doesn’t recognize any agreements regarding republics going independent, so more actions on its part won’t surprise.The States maybe wanted, but didn’t invade Cuba, only tried to whack Fidel dozens of times😜 The difference is obvious. Even to Iraq, NATO didn’t come to annex.
So, if there are rockets in Baltic’s why is Vlad the brave put up with it. It’s so close to Moscow, he might be really worried and sleepless. Why act upon something i existent and ignore real resisting threats? Only demonstrates it all was just a pretext.
International law is nothing? I remember you were a big adherent in demanding Israel to comply
It’s strange that anything you ask me to show, you don’t refer to when I do, showing nothing in support of your claims🥱
Nik, I apologise. I understood Krushchev's father worked in the Donbas industrial area and i assumed the family was with him, but on checking, it turns out he left his family 11 km east of the current border. However, as I understand it, he was still a child when he went to the Donbas (Donetsk I think) and he more or less stayed there, rising eventually to First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist party. You can understand how this led me to think he was Ukrainian - he lived in Ukraine for his early working life and got to be a very high official as a Ukrainian. Of course, you could say the Donbas region is basically Russian anyway and not true Ukrainian, but that opens another can of worms. Anyway, my statement remains more or less valid. An 11 km error in birthplace doesn't override the formative years of where he worked and wheree his associates were.The States did not invade Cuba because Krushchev backed down and removed the rockets. The US has not backed down in the Baltics and maintains the rockets. My statement was that Kennedy was prepared to ash the world to get those missiles out, because had the USSR fought, it would have been nuclear.
No, NASTO did not try to annex Iraq. That would ahvew requir4ed them to take some sort of responsibility for what followed and they were not going to do that.
Why does P{utin put up with the Baltic missiles? Because they were there for too long before Putin came to power, and even then the Russian military was in a mess, thanks to Yeltsin, who seemed never to pay them on time. The fact is, at the time Putin had an extremely weak hand. It still isn't very strong, but he played it as well as any with Crimea.
I don't recall demanding Israel comply with international law. I have pointed out that they didn't more than once, but it is interesting that you accept they did violate it. My case was it would have been a lot easier to settle the Palestinian issue had they, although I concede it would still not be easy because the Palestinians were making silly demands as well.
It’s not the geography, it’s the ethnicity - Khrusch is ethnically Russian, Stalin -Georgian and so on.Not that it’s super important.
That’s what I’m saying - Putin is acting as a small scale opportunist, promoting his un acceptance of independent republics, while strategically he has much more pressing affairs and threats. If he’s such a macho, snatching a peninsula dwarfs him. Being treated lowly by most of the world, they choose to feel superior over its neighbors. Not very noble and doesn’t promote their craving of a leader of a Slavic world.
As far as I remember it was you who asserted the international law was broken and how awful that was. Good to know you grew over it :)
Nik, the biggest problems Putin has are around the internal economy and it is unclear that he is making adequate progress on that, but he most certainly did a better job than Yeltsin. Whether NK was Ukrainian or Russian by birth is irrelevant, but he did seem to have his formative years in what is now Ukraine. The relevance of that is that it was NK's administrative assignment that is the only case established so far why Kyiv even has a claim on Crimea, and of course Yeltsin's drunkenness. However, while you may disagree with Putin's views from a strategic point of view he does seem to have achieved the goal of keeping NATO out of Ukraine, at least for now. I am reasonably confident there would be a NATO i.e. US base there now if the Western Ukrainian nationalists had their way..
It’s still ongoing. Russian appetite is far from being saturated 😎 Best way to keep NATO out is to recapture it all…
Nik wrote: "‘Bad Ukrainians and bad Ukraine’ in your eyes" Whoever said a thing about bad Ukrainians? Moronic? Quite often in my personal experience.
Criminal? Definitely. Thats what endorcing a bunch of war crimes does to one, makes one a criminal.
Corrupt? Yes. All that money going down the Ukrainian drain is quite impressive.
Bad? That's not a quality I was considering, however. It's probably thinking in terms of black and white that's been making Ukraine so problematic since ages.
Nik wrote: "There is no Ukrainian claim, Mis. Crimea is Ukraine, internationally recognized, occupied by Russia."Well, if you think this claim is valid, you need to bring forth some proof. You've yet to provide a shred thereof other than trying to refer to questionable authority ('everyone knows it', 'iternationally recognised').
Even if aliens get internationally recognised I still will want a proof of their existence and validity of their recognition.
So, yet it's a Ukrainian claim, an outrageous one and you still need to prove it. If there are maps and they are referred to, quote it. What did the accords i recently reviewed contain of the kind that proves that Crimea is Ukrainian, I welcome you to quote any such thing.
Also, let's note that I've brought up about 5 different pieces of evidence proving Crimea's Russian so you would need to bring more evidence and it would need to be even more overwhelming.
Nik wrote: "Using military force to rob a fraternal country is despicable and unjustifiable." Now, that's also only your opinion. I can equally say that Ukraine trying to rob Russia of Crimea that there tons of evidence belongs to Russia since long before such thing as a Ukraine existed, is quite despicable and unjustifiable.
Attacking its own Lugansk citizens with military planes is despicable and unjustifiable.
Not recognising its own citizens' referendum is despicable and unjustifiable.
Failing to run a referendum on Crimea's independence long before shit hit the fan is despicable and unjustifiable.
Trying to get in bed with NATO is despicable and unjustifiable since it's betraying its fraternal countries' best interests.
Considering that Russia didn't rob Ukraine but instead has been feeding 3 extra regions, 2 disputable and the Crimea, I think treating Russia as anything less than saintly is despicable and unjustifiable.
LOL, appealing to emotion gets old, right? Don't pull that manipulation on me ever.
Nik wrote: "It’s not the geography, it’s the ethnicity - Khrusch is ethnically Russian, Stalin -Georgian and so on.Not that it’s super important.
That’s what I’m saying - Putin is acting as a small scale oppo..."Ukrainian or Russian - it's irrelevant. The relevant thing is that Khruschev was an undereducated admin who made a mistake in admin stuff and it doesn't mean that Crimea is Ukrainian.
A brief:
1) The Russian conquest of Crimea (200+ years due to about 300 years of it attacking Russia, preUkraine and Rzecz Pospolita),
2) The separate acceptance of both Ukraine and Crimea into Russia, a century+ apart from each other,
3) The Crimean tatars attacked and looted Ukraine for centuries, and the Ukranian cossacks paid in kind,
4) Separateness of Ukraine and Crimea until USSR assigned them together in 1954, For instance, between 1945 and 1954, Crimea was a separate USSR. Before that as well since the dawn of time.
5) Crimea was inhabited by tatars not Ukrainians until the USSR ran relocations
6)All the USSRs were dissolved along with the USSR (by the same accords you love so much), so the Ukrainian one should've been as well making Crimea separate from everyone.
7) The 1st Crimean referendum should've made it into an autonomy: 20 Jan 1991 the Crimeans/citizens of Sevastopol voted in a referendum fir the Crimean authonomy for the 1st time. So, who robbed Crimea of autonomy? Ukraine.
Next... 5 May 1992 The Chief Council of Сrimea ratified pact on independence which they were planning to let Crimean people vote for or against on a referendum planned in Aug 1993. But on the 13th May 1992 the Ukrainian Duma decided to cancel democracy and the referendum. So who's undemocratic and stealing now? Ukraine.
Bonus:
8) Frankly, I'm nor persuaded Ukraine doesn't belong to Russia as well. Kievan Rus, you said? Yep, it's definitely one and the same country and people. Both Russia and Ukraine belong to the same agglomerate and should be united, duh. Since, yeah, Kievan Rus and 1654 pact, still undissolved.
So, you need to bring forth about 9 pieces of evidence more illuminating than just going 'rah-rah'.
Sure, Mis, I’ll leave emotions to you about how criminal, moronic and whatever Ukrainians are. Nothing of it justifies sending Russian troops. I wonder why doesn’t anyone feel excited about righteous, brave and noble Russians as you do. And why don’t they proudly wear their insignia while invading other nations. As of the rest - it’s kinda less interesting for you just use my words and revert them to Ukraine returning on the same arguments that I’ve already refuted with facts. If you think it convinces anyone - then fine 😎 At least Ian understands how super important Crimea is and how bad is NATO, so you have an excellent chance of recognizing Crimea’s annexation by a single Newzealander 🥱👍🇷🇺 /🇳🇿
In post 1232 you were more doubtful about the referendum, Mis, so my congrats on convincing yourself!For the people here, who may have some interest in the chronology and other aspects of the event, it's pretty well described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexat... . It also mentions all the accords where Russia recognized Crimea being a part of Ukraine..
Nik, "And why don’t they proudly wear their insignia while invading other nations." Exactly what nations are you referring to, leaving aside Crimea because there is a dispute between us as to what it really was.As for invading other nations, the US clearly takes the cake in recent times, but yes, they do wear insignias. When under a military invasion or occupation, I doubt too many of the civilians being shot at or dodging bombs bother about the insignias, though. Staying alive is more important.
Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Wagner fighters and more. Sure, not the insignia is important, everyone knows a Russian from a mile away, it’s just telling that even Russians themselves don’t see it as a legitimate action
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "If you really believe they were peacekeepers, then why not have insignias? They are trying to hide their identities and give Russia plausible deniability." Which were they: plaus..."What part of showing up with advanced Russian weapons does not make this a military operation? These were Russian advance troops. As I have said before Crimea has an interesting history with both Russia and Ukraine. I am not criticizing Russia per se, I am pointing out the fallacy to say this was anything but an annexation with Russian troops.
This was a Russian attempt to bully Ukraine into submission and bring it back into the Russian sphere. It failed miserably
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Russia never lost it since 1783 other than to Nazi troops during the WW2 or in the 90s when it was a mess...."Uh no, it was part of the Ukraine since 1954.
Nik wrote: "Or you just indorse a theoretical ‘keeping NATO out’ as a sound justification for breaking international law...."It is actually sound policy for Russia to keep NATO out when you look at the history and why Russia took Eastern Europe to begin with. Ukraine is vital to their defense interests.
Papaphilly wrote: "☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Russia never lost it since 1783 other than to Nazi troops during the WW2 or in the 90s when it was a mess...."Uh no, it was part of the Ukraine since 1954."
It was assigned to Ukraine for administrative purposes by Khrushchev. In that assignment there was never any suggestion that its would not be under the overall control of Moscow. Anyone who thinks Kyiv could carry out any foreign policy independent of Moscow at the time was not paying attention. But it was easier to delegate Kyiv the duty to manage supplies, etc to the Crimea than having to go back to Moscow for everything. Any leader in Kyiv that tried independent pro-western policy would receive a visit from those guys probably not wearing the insignia with the sword and shield.
Misery, have you figured out yet that Nik is for real, not someone making up a past in Ukraine? He didn't defend himself against your insinuations, but he's been here a long time, and we know who he is. Unlike you. When I look at your page, I get no info or credentials that would make me believe you have any background or knowledge of the the things you espouse. What are your credentials? I'd believe Nik over you every time.
Papaphilly wrote: "It is actually sound policy for Russia to keep NATO out when you look at the history and why Russia took Eastern Europe to begin with. Ukraine is vital to their defense interests. ..."As much as NATO designed to be an anti-Russian bloc, it hasn't done any actual damage to Russia. That all Warsaw pact "friends" switched sides from their own volition and are better of in North Atlantics should be telling.
Ukraine obviously doesn't agree to be a Russian pawn and pays the price for it. Using military force against fraternal Slavic nations solves little, while causes greater estrangement and resentment towards Russia. There are other instruments that Russia's establishment is probably unfamiliar with or they go against their mentality....
Scout wrote: "I'd believe Nik over you every time...."Thanks for the vote of confidence, Scout!
That NATO was designed as an anti USSR bloc, once the USSR disintegrated, then what was the point. That the US put missiles in the Baltics sends a signal to Moscow. Now what do you think that signal says? To say NATO hasn't done any actual damage yet to Russia is irrelevant - first, Russia has not done any damage to NATO either, and second, up to the beginning of 1940 Hitler hadn't done any damage to the USSR either. Strategy involves thinking if the future based on signals from the present.Αs for "all Warsaw pact "friends" switched sides from their own volition and are better of in North Atlantics should be telling." Yes, it tells that the US is an economic superpower. They want the money, and also some. like Poland, have a general hatred, legitimately, of Russia from the damage done in WW2.
Leaving aside the Crimea, Russia has not done anything to Ukraine, except help the Eastern rebels defend themselves from Ukrainian bombing of civilians. If Russia really wanted to take something from Ukraine, why didn't it take Mariupol? That would have made it a lot easier to service the Crimea.
Ian wrote: "Leaving aside the Crimea, Russia has not done anything to Ukraine, except help the Eastern rebels defend themselves from Ukrainian bombing of civilians...."How can you leave aside Crimea - it's the first military grab after ww2 in Europe. Do you really buy this shit, Ian? I thought you'd have a more discerning eye :)
They are in NATO for defenses in EU - for money. And it's not just Poland, it's all the Baltics, Czech and all the rest...
Scout wrote: "Misery, have you figured out yet that Nik is for real, not someone making up a past in Ukraine? He didn't defend himself against your insinuations, but he's been here a long time, and we know who h..."No, he isn't. No true Ukrainian calls a Vladimir Vlad, you know? His grasp of the culture is generally off.
But I do like talking to bots :)
Nik wrote: "Sure, Mis, I’ll leave emotions to you about how criminal, moronic and whatever Ukrainians are. Nothing of it justifies sending Russian troops. I wonder why doesn’t anyone feel excited about righteo..." That's diagnosis not emotions. I'm having fun now not fuming.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "But I do like talking to bots :)..."Or being one
Nik wrote: "In post 1232 you were more doubtful about the referendum, Mis, so my congrats on convincing yourself!For the people here, who may have some interest in the chronology and other aspects of the even..."I've looked up the 1990s. Done a bit of research. I like to be either informed or doubtful. And I never would dream referring to some accords I've never read w/o reading them first (ulike someone who mixes up Vladislav and Vladimir, LOL)
Yeah, Vlad is the main thesis, I get it
Nik wrote: "NATO designed to be an anti-Russian bloc, it hasn't done any actual damage to Russia."When it finally will have done something, we'll all be dead if we are lucky.
Or hiding in the nuke bomb shelters, if we are less lucky.
It's best to consider the global interests of the planet and rate them higher than Ukraine willing to be a US pawn and not a Russian one.
Nik wrote: kinda less interesting for you just use my words and revert them to Ukraine returning on the same arguments that I’ve already refuted with facts.-" You did not use facts :) You used emotions. I demonstrated that emotions belong to both sides and you'd need facts to be reasonable)
Papaphilly wrote: "What part of showing up with advanced Russian weapons does not make this a military operation? "Wait. What advanced Russian weapons?Ukraine used automatic weapons (guns of different types), Grads, Phosphor bombs, Tochka-Us, military planes, Bairaktar drones.
Rebels used Grads, automatic weapons (guns of different types).
So who is more advanced here?
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Nik wrote: "NATO designed to be an anti-Russian bloc, it hasn't done any actual damage to Russia."When it finally will have done something, we'll all be dead if we are lucky.
Or hiding in the nuk..."
Annihilation can happen, unfortunately. Ukraine needs to get out of patronage. Russian is definitely more dangerous to it...
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
1984 (other topics)Common Sense (other topics)
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (other topics)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (other topics)
Lolita (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Mel Brooks (other topics)Victor Davis Hanson (other topics)
Peter Zeihan (other topics)
Bobby Fischer (other topics)
Jordan B. Peterson (other topics)
More...
The troops of Soviet army were rarely composed based on nationalities. They were all fighting together and a regular platoon would likely include Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Jews, etc…not only Ukrainians participated in defense and liberating Crimea, but also in defending Moscow, Stalingrad battle, etc. For example, heroes of the Soviet Union during ww2 (the highest reward of honor) received roughly 8k Russians, 2k Ukrainians - pretty much pro rata to their percent in general population. Look how many marshals and generals are of Ukrainian origin.
There is no special advantage of having Crimea over any other part of Ukraine, Ian. Don’t know why are you so stubborn in attempting to create one. Russia somehow managed with it being Ukrainian for over 20 years and nothing bad happened. It’s just ‘punishing Ukraine’ and satisfying expansionist thirst.
CIA director travelled to Moscow last month. So what?
Under an understanding with the protesters Yanukovich was to stay for at least another year! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agree... instead Russia snatched him.
Re: weaponry: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busi...