Not accused, they were caught red-handed and more importantly whataboutism, yet again. Will not go into another useless discussion with you.

The Exxon-Rosneft Oil deal is now officially CANCELLED.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/busi ... ussia.html

Puntin's investment isn't paying out....

He's still got the Nord Stream 2 in his pocket.

Dutchy wrote:

Puntin's investment isn't paying out....

Why Putin's? It's Exxon who took the loss, and taxpayers who lost some revenue. Russia's primary issue here is lack of access to Western tech. It will be slowing them down a bit until they establish and invest into their own R&D activities. After that though, there is nothing other than customer and market loss for Western firms. And that's after they've been heavily investing into relationships and reputation in Russia. And all this is over some not so important issue - a gathering of crooks and losers somehow called "Ukrainian democratic leadership".

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Puntin's investment isn't paying out....

Why Putin's? It's Exxon who took the loss, and taxpayers who lost some revenue. Russia's primary issue here is lack of access to Western tech. It will be slowing them down a bit until they establish and invest into their own R&D activities. After that though, there is nothing other than customer and market loss for Western firms. And that's after they've been heavily investing into relationships and reputation in Russia. And all this is over some not so important issue - a gathering of crooks and losers somehow called "Ukrainian democratic leadership".

Oh you are saying:
1. Crimea and Ukraine aren't important? So that is a slab in the face of Putin
2. Putin's regime should have invested in R&D a long time ago, but he failed to do so. So that is a slab in the face of Putin

Dutchy wrote:

Oh you are saying:
1. Crimea and Ukraine aren't important? So that is a slab in the face of Putin
2. Putin's regime should have invested in R&D a long time ago, but he failed to do so. So that is a slab in the face of Putin

I mentioned today’s Kiev junta, not Ukraine or Crimea. Yes, that armed coup and regime that came after it was not (and is not) too important for Western Europeans (and your country as well). But they bumped into their support and now have no choice simply, even though would be happy to get rid of such “honor”. A much more fair and adequate (and smarter, of course) reaction for Europeans would have been just as the one towards Saakashvili in Georgia in 2008 - “he did what he should not have done, now the consequences are up to him, whatever they will be”. Same here - “you seized the power by force, now you handle consequences - keep your country in one piece, handle Russia, etc.”.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh you are saying:
1. Crimea and Ukraine aren't important? So that is a slab in the face of Putin
2. Putin's regime should have invested in R&D a long time ago, but he failed to do so. So that is a slab in the face of Putin

I mentioned today’s Kiev junta, not Ukraine or Crimea. Yes, that armed coup and regime that came after it was not (and is not) too important for Western Europeans (and your country as well). But they bumped into their support and now have no choice simply, even though would be happy to get rid of such “honor”. A much more fair and adequate (and smarter, of course) reaction for Europeans would have been just as the one towards Saakashvili in Georgia in 2008 - “he did what he should not have done, now the consequences are up to him, whatever they will be”. Same here - “you seized the power by force, now you handle consequences - keep your country in one piece, handle Russia, etc.”.

The old Ukraine was essentially owned by Russia. That's why Russia invaded because they felt it was *theirs*. Come on, be honest, we can almost see the Russian viewpoint in that light.

Jouhou wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh you are saying:
1. Crimea and Ukraine aren't important? So that is a slab in the face of Putin
2. Putin's regime should have invested in R&D a long time ago, but he failed to do so. So that is a slab in the face of Putin

I mentioned today’s Kiev junta, not Ukraine or Crimea. Yes, that armed coup and regime that came after it was not (and is not) too important for Western Europeans (and your country as well). But they bumped into their support and now have no choice simply, even though would be happy to get rid of such “honor”. A much more fair and adequate (and smarter, of course) reaction for Europeans would have been just as the one towards Saakashvili in Georgia in 2008 - “he did what he should not have done, now the consequences are up to him, whatever they will be”. Same here - “you seized the power by force, now you handle consequences - keep your country in one piece, handle Russia, etc.”.

The old Ukraine was essentially owned by Russia. That's why Russia invaded because they felt it was *theirs*. Come on, be honest, we can almost see the Russian viewpoint in that light.

Don't blame anrec80 for his views, either a paid troll or pumped full of propaganda and recycles that. Not a critical thinker at all and no criticism allowed on Putin's regime, just blame the west for everything and be done with it.

Jouhou wrote:

The old Ukraine was essentially owned by Russia. That's why Russia invaded because they felt it was *theirs*. Come on, be honest, we can almost see the Russian viewpoint in that light.

Crimean people wanted to join Russia obviously, and after the bloody coup Russia helped them with that. But that was the wish of those people, and this is a separate story. It's done.

Speaking of Ukraine - the tragedy of people living on that territory is that nobody needs any of it. Neither as the whole nor any part. Even people who live there mostly want to get out of it and go live elsewhere. "Democratically elected leadership" just sees this statehood as a business opportunity, as something for sale or to provide services with. Putin certainly doesn't need it - bringing 2.5 million Crimea up to modern standards requires immense billions, and here we have a rundown 40 million country, with old and worn out infrastructure, weak, if at all present, state institutions, no economy, roaming criminal gangs. Why would someone want that?

anrec80 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

The old Ukraine was essentially owned by Russia. That's why Russia invaded because they felt it was *theirs*. Come on, be honest, we can almost see the Russian viewpoint in that light.

Crimean people wanted to join Russia obviously, and after the bloody coup Russia helped them with that. But that was the wish of those people, and this is a separate story. It's done.

Speaking of Ukraine - the tragedy of people living on that territory is that nobody needs any of it. Neither as the whole nor any part. Even people who live there mostly want to get out of it and go live elsewhere. "Democratically elected leadership" just sees this statehood as a business opportunity, as something for sale or to provide services with. Putin certainly doesn't need it - bringing 2.5 million Crimea up to modern standards requires immense billions, and here we have a rundown 40 million country, with old and worn out infrastructure, weak, if at all present, state institutions, no economy, roaming criminal gangs. Why would someone want that?

Do you remember where their corrupt leader who fleeced their nation went? I do.

Jouhou wrote:

Do you remember where their corrupt leader who fleeced their nation went? I do.

When applied to a President, there is nothing called "fleeced". No such notion simply. A President can be impeached, and Ukrainian legislature contains a process for that (including Supreme and Constitutional courts trials), which was not followed of course. Leaving the capital in itself is neither "fleece", nor grounds for impeachment. Anything outside that - is an illegal seizure of power; the hardest of crimes. And the West recognized and supported that.

They could have been better off if they at least killed him somehow. Not that they didn't try, but didn't succeed in this obviously.

anrec80 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Do you remember where their corrupt leader who fleeced their nation went? I do.

When applied to a President, there is nothing called "fleeced". No such notion simply. A President can be impeached, and Ukrainian legislature contains a process for that (including Supreme and Constitutional courts trials), which was not followed of course. Leaving the capital in itself is neither "fleece", nor grounds for impeachment. Anything outside that - is an illegal seizure of power; the hardest of crimes. And the West recognized and supported that.

They could have been better off if they at least killed him somehow. Not that they didn't try, but didn't succeed in this obviously.

We DO have manafort though :3

Jouhou wrote:

We DO have manafort though :3

Yepp, there is Manafort - so far the only suspect that came out of Russian scandal, and even this one has nothing to do with Russia. I think the only his wrongdoing was that he somehow incorrectly declared or documented his earnings and deductions from work with Yanukovich. I kind of feel bad for the guy - did pretty much what everyone in international business in circumtances similar to his are doing, but given all this immense publicity and scrutiny they just had to find at least some wrongdoing and give him max for that. And - when working with Yanukovich, he did keep American interests in mind, e.g. was talking Yanukovich out of moving too close to Russia.

anrec80 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

We DO have manafort though :3

Yepp, there is Manafort - so far the only suspect that came out of Russian scandal, and even this one has nothing to do with Russia. I think the only his wrongdoing was that he somehow incorrectly declared or documented his earnings and deductions from work with Yanukovich. I kind of feel bad for the guy - did pretty much what everyone in international business in circumtances similar to his are doing, but given all this immense publicity and scrutiny they just had to find at least some wrongdoing and give him max for that. And - when working with Yanukovich, he did keep American interests in mind, e.g. was talking Yanukovich out of moving too close to Russia.

... Theres been a lot of indictments. You know that. And many more that are still sealed.

Jouhou wrote:

... Theres been a lot of indictments. You know that. And many more that are still sealed.

Maybe - we’ll see. At some point all this craze will go down, and the guy will find his way out of this.

anrec80 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

... Theres been a lot of indictments. You know that. And many more that are still sealed.

Maybe - we’ll see. At some point all this craze will go down, and the guy will find his way out of this.

Russia could just lay low. The West tends to be too forgiving if you just don't make any waves for awhile.

Jouhou wrote:

Do you remember where their corrupt leader who fleeced their nation went? I do.

After the junta came to power, the standard of living in Ukraine fell in two or even three times. I can see that for the reductions of income from my relatives who live in Ukraine. At the same time President Yanukovych was removed from his post to bypass the Constitution of Ukraine, that is completely unlawful and illegal manner.

Thus we have the acting President of Ukraine who was compelled to ask Russia for asylum because of the threat to the life and lives of his relatives which arose during illegal armed revolution which was supported by the countries of the West contrary to the guarantees given by the same countries of the West.

Scorpius wrote:

during illegal armed revolution

I love when the Russians moan about "illegal" armed revolution, yet they seem to forget that founding moment of the Evil Empire (aka USSR), the legacy of present Russia cherishes so much, was "illegal" armed bolshevik revolution.
If unsure what I mean, please ask your politruk for explanation of the difference between (i)legal and (i)legitimate.

Scorpius wrote:

Thus we have the acting President of Ukraine who was compelled to ask Russia for asylum because of the threat to the life and lives

Poor little Victor. Didn't I read tu204's lecturing the Brits about "harboring crooks and criminals" in the other thread just a few days ago?

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

during illegal armed revolution

I love when the Russians moan about "illegal" armed revolution, yet they seem to forget that founding moment of the Evil Empire (aka USSR), the legacy of present Russia cherishes so much, was "illegal" armed bolshevik revolution.
If unsure what I mean, please ask your politruk for explanation of the difference between (i)legal and (i)legitimate.

Scorpius wrote:

Thus we have the acting President of Ukraine who was compelled to ask Russia for asylum because of the threat to the life and lives

Poor little Victor. Didn't I read tu204's lecturing the Brits about "harboring crooks and criminals" in the other thread just a few days ago?

The opinion of the Czech hysterical Russophobia, unfortunately, of little interest to me, sorry. You've already shown your inadequacy. By the way, L 410 now also belongs to Russia (the wily Russian!).

And Yes - try to examine the reasons for the history of the Great October Socialist revolution, which you so hate. Then you will be able not to look like a fool who does not understand the issue being discussed.

anrec80 wrote:

Crimean people wanted to join Russia obviously, and after the bloody coup Russia helped them with that. But that was the wish of those people, and this is a separate story. It's done.

Interesting.
Would you let the people in the Chechnyan region take a popular vote about their connection to Russia?
I assume you would.

Scorpius wrote:

The opinion of the Czech hysterical Russophobia, unfortunately, of little interest to me, sorry. You've already shown your inadequacy.

I am happy to be declared "inadequate" by a Stalin/communist apologist. I certainly will not waste so much time talking to a Kremlinbot as Dutchy does.
BTW, phobia is defined as: Phobia, an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer.
https://www.britannica.com/science/phobia
There is nothing irrational about my aversion to Russia. It's based on what it stands for, its tyrannical nature, its laughable pig-with-a-lipstick posture, its past and present actions as well as historical experience.

Scorpius wrote:

And Yes - try to examine the reasons for the history of the Great October Socialist revolution, which you so hate.

There was nothing great about the revolution, it took place in November and founding of the USSR was one of the two greatest geopolitical catastrophies of the 20th century. Enough?

By the way, L 410 now also belongs to Russia (the wily Russian!).

Your point?

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

And Yes - try to examine the reasons for the history of the Great October Socialist revolution, which you so hate.

There was nothing great about the revolution, it took place in November and founding of the USSR was one of the two greatest geopolitical catastrophies of the 20th century. Enough?

LOL, the great historian L 410 Turbolet did not know that at the time of the Revolution in Russia acted Julian calendar, according to which the beginning of the Revolution was on October 25, 1917.
The great Revolution was the liberation of the common people of Russia from the yoke of the aristocracy, and that this Revolution was the beginning for the birth of a superpower, which never before was not on the Earth, with this type of social structure that never before in history has practiced.
Your angry cries about the USSR look just pathetic. As a small barn for lion bark, and you bark at the Soviet Union.

Dahlgardo wrote:

Interesting.
Would you let the people in the Chechnyan region take a popular vote about their connection to Russia?
I assume you would.

It is surprising that you do not know a simple fact: the Chechen Republic remained in the Russian Federation following the referendum of 2003. In 2003, the citizens of the Chechen Republic voted for Chechnya remained part of Russia.

What I laugh at is Putin's comment about "if he could change one thing" and he said he would change/stop the break up of the USSR. How very simplistic and short sighted. If he were smart he would change the sale of Alaska to the USA. Because that would have changed the dynamics of everything. From Russia's position in WWII (and reliance on the west for support and lifelines) to a dramatic change in the cold war, to having near complete control of the Arctic.

But then Putin was simply pandering to the Russian public, in particular older citizens that with time now have fonder memories of that time.

Tugg

Scorpius wrote:

Dahlgardo wrote:

Interesting.
Would you let the people in the Chechnyan region take a popular vote about their connection to Russia?
I assume you would.

It is surprising that you do not know a simple fact: the Chechen Republic remained in the Russian Federation following the referendum of 2003. In 2003, the citizens of the Chechen Republic voted for Chechnya remained part of Russia.

I am sure that there were no fraudulent votes. I mean we sure to believe this, right?

Scorpius wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

And Yes - try to examine the reasons for the history of the Great October Socialist revolution, which you so hate.

There was nothing great about the revolution, it took place in November and founding of the USSR was one of the two greatest geopolitical catastrophies of the 20th century. Enough?

LOL, the great historian L 410 Turbolet did not know that at the time of the Revolution in Russia acted Julian calendar, according to which the beginning of the Revolution was on October 25, 1917.
The great Revolution was the liberation of the common people of Russia from the yoke of the aristocracy, and that this Revolution was the beginning for the birth of a superpower, which never before was not on the Earth, with this type of social structure that never before in history has practiced.
Your angry cries about the USSR look just pathetic. As a small barn for lion bark, and you bark at the Soviet Union.

And yet it collapsed. In theory, Marxism is great, in practice, it is proven to be a cathastophic.

Scorpius wrote:

It is surprising that you do not know a simple fact: the Chechen Republic remained in the Russian Federation following the referendum of 2003. In 2003, the citizens of the Chechen Republic voted for Chechnya remained part of Russia.

Okey, so let me put it another way.
Would you accept if some region of Russia was occupied by another nation, and by popular vote (ofcourse only supervised by the occupiers) decided to leave the Russia federation?
Following your logic, that is a completely fine way to redefine borders and violate a sovereign nation.

Dahlgardo wrote:

Okey, so let me put it another way.
Would you accept if some region of Russia was occupied by another nation, and by popular vote (ofcourse only supervised by the occupiers) decided to leave the Russia federation?
Following your logic, that is a completely fine way to redefine borders and violating a sovereign nation.

Only if the newly occupi....errr freed country wanted you there! Then is is OK.

Tugg

Dahlgardo wrote:

Okey, so let me put it another way.
Would you accept if some region of Russia was occupied by another nation, and by popular vote (ofcourse only supervised by the occupiers) decided to leave the Russia federation?
Following your logic, that is a completely fine way to redefine borders and violate a sovereign nation.

A naive attempt to replace facts.
Do you agree that Britain has the right to withdraw from the EU?
Do you agree that Scotland can secede from Britain?
Do you agree that Catalonia seceded from Spain in accordance with the results of a national referendum, and Spain is currently occupied Catalonia country?
Do you agree that Northern Cyprus is an integral part of Greece?
Do you agree that Britain is an occupier in Ireland?
Do you agree that Kosovo is part of Serbia?
Do you agree that Lviv is the territory of Poland?


Personally, I can answer thus to your question:
As a patriot of my country, I am categorically against any division of the territory of my homeland. I consider the division of the USSR into parts absolutely illegal action which was made under the influence of the traitors who were sold to the American and European elites in exchange for guarantees of safety of the stolen capitals.
Moreover, this action took place absolutely illegally, in violation of existing international laws and the Constitution of the USSR. And even against the expressed will of the people, who in the all-Union referendum clearly expressed the opinion that he did not support the idea of dissolution of the USSR.
Due to the above events, as well as how duplicitous was the policy of Western countries in relation to anyone who can not resist them, I believe that international institutions under the control of Western countries do not deserve a drop of confidence. It is the institutions of oppression of the weak, the dissidents and all those who are not willing to bow before the only country who's always yelling about their right to control the world - USA and a bunch of her hangers-on.
If you are not ready to consider Russia's right to return its historically owned territories - then do not try to require Russia to comply with the rules of the game that are convenient to you.

Scorpius wrote:

As a patriot of my country, I am categorically against any division of the territory of my homeland. I consider the division of the USSR into parts absolutely illegal action

Scorpius wrote:

As a patriot of my country, I am categorically against any division of the territory of my homeland. I consider the division of the USSR into parts absolutely illegal action

And there you prove how false you are.

You personally and for your nation claim other nations "the territory of my homeland". Nations are sovereign unto themselves, any agreement with other nations does not supersede a nations integrity or right to separate (and suffer the consequences if that is the case) from an agreement with other nations.

Tugg

Fine, Russia will be a pariah state under your doctrine. But don't complain that you will be treated as such, Scorpius.

Scorpius wrote:

As a patriot of my country, I am categorically against any division of the territory of my homeland.

Your homeland is Russia. USSR was a clusterf*ck of annexed, occupied and stolen territories. A house of cards. Russia can't even govern itself and yet you still dream of restoring the Evil Empire in all its dubious "glory"? Gimme a break.

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, Russia will be a pariah state under your doctrine. But don't complain that you will be treated as such, Scorpius.

Don't complain in such a case that one day our tanks will stand on your streets, Dutchy.
If you are not able to consider anyone's interests but their own, it was going to end.

Scorpius wrote:

in exchange for guarantees of safety of the stolen capitals.

By the way, what do you mean here? "Safety"? From what? You have already stated categorically that Russia will never attack another nation, never do a first strike. So if these are sovereign nations (like Russia, an independent country) what "safety" do they need? There is no threat from Russia so why make the claim that something like this was needed or part of some plan?

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, Russia will be a pariah state under your doctrine. But don't complain that you will be treated as such, Scorpius.

Don't complain in such a case that one day our tanks will stand on your streets, Dutchy.
If you are not able to consider anyone's interests but their own, it was going to end.

Sounds kinda "first strikey" to me... Dutchy has made no mention or indication of any intention or desire to attack Russia so no response and therefore nothing like what you suggest. Its is actually kinda threatening....

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

By the way, what do you mean here? "Safety"? From what? Yuo have already stated catagorically that Russia will never attack another nation, never do a first strike. So if these are sovereign nations (like Russia, an independent country) what "safety" do they need? There is no threat from Russia so why make the claim that something like this was needed or part of some plan?
Tugg

We remember very well how willingly the money stolen from the people of Russia was accepted in Western countries, how Britain hosted the capitals of the Russian oligarchs. None of that money has yet been returned to the people of Russia. We remember that too.

Scorpius wrote:

Don't complain in such a case that one day our tanks will stand on your streets, Dutchy.

Why would allegedly peace loving Russia, the same Russia that pledges never to attack anyone invade the Netherlands? Makes no sense. Have you fallen out of your script?

Scorpius wrote:

Tugger wrote:

By the way, what do you mean here? "Safety"? From what? Yuo have already stated catagorically that Russia will never attack another nation, never do a first strike. So if these are sovereign nations (like Russia, an independent country) what "safety" do they need? There is no threat from Russia so why make the claim that something like this was needed or part of some plan?
Tugg

We remember very well how willingly the money stolen from the people of Russia was accepted in Western countries, how Britain hosted the capitals of the Russian oligarchs. None of that money has yet been returned to the people of Russia. We remember that too.

And you remember all the help and supplies the allies provided during WWII as well? It is all remembered.

I still see a very obvious persecution complex. "We can't do it on our own, you are all being mean and unfair to us."

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Sounds kinda "first strikey" to me... Dutchy has made no mention or indication of any intention or desire to attack Russia so no response and therefore nothing like what you suggest. Its is actually kinda threatening....

Tugg

LOL, do you live in a world of pink unicorns? Or didn't you study history? Then you'd know that the conflict of interests in which one party tries to present itself more worthy and has more right to the other party to end the war.
The history of the whole of Europe over the past three hundred years tells you that Russia's opinion on politics and territorial division in Europe and the world cannot be ignored. It ALWAYS ends in wars and defeat of Europe. And Russia as a result grows new territories. At the same time, Russia is not an aggressor unleashing such wars. You are constantly reminded of this, and constantly Europeans repeat the same mistakes. Trying to accuse Russia of being forced to react to the consequences of your actions - you make yourself look like idiots. Again and again.

Tugger wrote:

And you remember all the help and supplies the allies provided during WWII as well? It is all remembered.

I still see a very obvious persecution complex. "We can't do it on our own, you are all being mean and unfair to us."

Tugg

I also remember that Russia paid for these supplies in the next 50 years, and this aid was not free. Also, I remember that all this time the allies traded the lives of their soldiers for oil, machines and stew because if the Eastern front was not destroyed 80% of Wehrmacht forces - Europe would have fallen completely under the Nazis. Including Britain. But you have obviously forgotten that the Soviet Union has lost 28 million citizens to the dead, while the total losses of the rest of the allies are TEN times smaller figures. At first, Western countries heavily fed the Nazis, and then the Russians with their blood cleaned this infection from the face of the planet. The true face of the Europeans we see now, when throughout Europe desecrated burial of Soviet soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of European cities.

Scorpius wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Sounds kinda "first strikey" to me... Dutchy has made no mention or indication of any intention or desire to attack Russia so no response and therefore nothing like what you suggest. Its is actually kinda threatening....

Tugg

LOL, do you live in a world of pink unicorns? Or didn't you study history? Then you'd know that the conflict of interests in which one party tries to present itself more worthy and has more right to the other party to end the war.
The history of the whole of Europe over the past three hundred years tells you that Russia's opinion on politics and territorial division in Europe and the world cannot be ignored. It ALWAYS ends in wars and defeat of Europe. And Russia as a result grows new territories. At the same time, Russia is not an aggressor unleashing such wars. You are constantly reminded of this, and constantly Europeans repeat the same mistakes. Trying to accuse Russia of being forced to react to the consequences of your actions - you make yourself look like idiots. Again and again.

Wow, that is some impressive excuse making and denial going on there. Russia is not as weak and failed as you make it out to be. You appear so scared by outside nations and actions. Even China figured out that engaging the world is the best path forward.

But again, it just underscores the problems that Russia faces now internally and why it is struggling so. Once your great nation overcomes such things it will continue to be the great nation in reality is and has been.

(I also love the expression"grows new territories" . I wonder how one "grows territory"? )

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Wow, that is some impressive excuse making and denial going on there. Russia is not as weak and failed as you make it out to be. You appear so scared by outside nations and actions. Even China figured out that engaging the world is the best path forward.

But again, it just underscores the problems that Russia faces now internally and why it is struggling so. Once your great nation overcomes such things it will continue to be the great nation in reality is and has been.

Tugg

Our country has existed longer than many European States. It is not for you to tell us about the formation of great Nations. Russian is not the first thousand years show the world that they are already a great nation, while in Europe and America shake their fists young despots who want to rule the world.

Scorpius wrote:

Our country has existed longer than many European States. It is not for you to tell us about the formation of great Nations. Russian is not the first thousand years show the world that they are already a great nation, while in Europe and America shake their fists young despots who want to rule the world.

I am sorry Russia and you feel so persecuted.

Tugg

yeah yeah Scorpius, the great Russia fallacy again. You make me laugh.

Scorpius wrote:

A naive attempt to replace facts.
Do you agree that Britain has the right to withdraw from the EU?

Sure.
When GB joined the union they also accepted terms of how to leave.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you agree that Scotland can secede from Britain?

It requires the laws in the constitution are followed.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you agree that Catalonia seceded from Spain in accordance with the results of a national referendum, and Spain is currently occupied Catalonia country?

Again, if it is in accordance with the constitution.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you agree that Northern Cyprus is an integral part of Greece?

No. Cyprus is a sovereign nation.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you agree that Britain is an occupier in Ireland?

No.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you agree that Kosovo is part of Serbia?

No. But that is a complex situation.
The majority of people are ethnic Albanian.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you agree that Lviv is the territory of Poland?

No. It's a part of Ukraine.

You seem to confuse borders with ethnical majority identity.
They're are not the same.

Scorpius wrote:

Personally, I can answer thus to your question:
As a patriot of my country, I am categorically against any division of the territory of my homeland. I consider the division of the USSR into parts absolutely illegal action which was made under the influence of the traitors who were sold to the American and European elites in exchange for guarantees of safety of the stolen capitals.
Moreover, this action took place absolutely illegally, in violation of existing international laws and the Constitution of the USSR. And even against the expressed will of the people, who in the all-Union referendum clearly expressed the opinion that he did not support the idea of dissolution of the USSR.

What makes you think the USSR was a legal entity from the beginning?
Several nations (non ethnic Russian) were annexed into the USSR.
Quite illegally if you ask me.

Scorpius wrote:

If you are not ready to consider Russia's right to return its historically owned territories - then do not try to require Russia to comply with the rules of the game that are convenient to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the exactly the same excuse for Hitler used when he annexed Austria and Bohemia.

Dahlgardo wrote:

...

1. Ethnically Ukraine is the Russian territory-Ukrainians are one of three branches of the big people who live in the territory
present-day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus for over a thousand years. Even languages are three branches of the same, showing divergence only in the last 100-150 years. The Eastern part of Ukraine does almost without exception is ethnic Russian, there was even most of the cities founded by Russians.

Does this mean that you support the separation of Eastern Ukraine as well as Kosovo?

2.

What makes you think the USSR was a legal entity from the beginning?

Because the USSR was an official and recognized state, which was organized on the basis of an agreement between the founding republics, and the rest of the Soviet republics joined it voluntarily.
But the dissolution of the USSR occurred in violation of the current Constitution of the USSR and against the will of the people expressed in a referendum.
Does it follow from your previous repeated remarks and references to the need to respect the Constitution that you condemn the illegal dissolution of the USSR?

3.

No. It's a part of Ukraine.
You seem to confuse borders with ethnical majority identity.
They're are not the same

.
You allowed Galicia to divide on the basis of ethnic distribution, as did Kosovo. However, in Ukraine the situation is the same-to the East of the Dnieper the vast majority of the population are ethnic Russians, as in Crimea.
It follows from this that you support the division of any territory by ethnicity, including Ukraine, or Britain, or Spain?

4.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the exactly the same excuse for Hitler used when he annexed Austria and Bohemia.

I remember for a fact that it was the division of Czechoslovakia along ethnic lines that was strongly supported by the major European powers, by endorsing the annexation of Sudet and the Tesin province by Nazi Germany and Poland, respectively, as well as the occupation of part of Czechoslovakia by Hungary.

Does it follow that you are guided by Hitler's logic when you propose to divide the territories of States on ethnic grounds?

I also do not recall that the United States was imposed sanctions after they attacked Belgrade contrary to the ban of the UN security Council.
And I don't remember the condemnation of Georgia for ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia and South Ossetia from 1991 to 2008.

Scorpius wrote:

Dahlgardo wrote:

...

1. Ethnically Ukraine is the Russian territory-Ukrainians are one of three branches of the big people who live in the territory
present-day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus for over a thousand years. Even languages are three branches of the same, showing divergence only in the last 100-150 years. The Eastern part of Ukraine does almost without exception is ethnic Russian, there was even most of the cities founded by Russians.

Does this mean that you support the separation of Eastern Ukraine as well as Kosovo?

2.

What makes you think the USSR was a legal entity from the beginning?

Because the USSR was an official and recognized state, which was organized on the basis of an agreement between the founding republics, and the rest of the Soviet republics joined it voluntarily.
But the dissolution of the USSR occurred in violation of the current Constitution of the USSR and against the will of the people expressed in a referendum.
Does it follow from your previous repeated remarks and references to the need to respect the Constitution that you condemn the illegal dissolution of the USSR?

3.

No. It's a part of Ukraine.
You seem to confuse borders with ethnical majority identity.
They're are not the same

.
You allowed Galicia to divide on the basis of ethnic distribution, as did Kosovo. However, in Ukraine the situation is the same-to the East of the Dnieper the vast majority of the population are ethnic Russians, as in Crimea.
It follows from this that you support the division of any territory by ethnicity, including Ukraine, or Britain, or Spain?

4.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the exactly the same excuse for Hitler used when he annexed Austria and Bohemia.

I remember for a fact that it was the division of Czechoslovakia along ethnic lines that was strongly supported by the major European powers, by endorsing the annexation of Sudet and the Tesin province by Nazi Germany and Poland, respectively, as well as the occupation of part of Czechoslovakia by Hungary.

Does it follow that you are guided by Hitler's logic when you propose to divide the territories of States on ethnic grounds?

I also do not recall that the United States was imposed sanctions after they attacked Belgrade contrary to the ban of the UN security Council.
And I don't remember the condemnation of Georgia for ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia and South Ossetia from 1991 to 2008.

I'm not sure I understand your points.
If territories want to become independent or otherwise become a part of another country, it should done in accordance with the constution and international law.
Annexing by acts of war (occupation, ethnic cleansing) is a crime. The same way you claim USSR was a recognized state, so is Ukraine (including Crimea), also by Russia.

Ethnical minorities must be protected and be treated equally with in a state to avoid tensions.
Too much nationalism in a non-homogenic country can break it apart.
I understand eastern Ukraine is mainly ethnic Russian and Western Ukraine is more European oriented.
It does not help either that both Ukraine and Russia are insanely corrupt countries.

I don't understand why you don't think Russia need to accept borders and international law.
The proxy war in Donbass is disgracefull beyond believe.
Putin can't even take responsibility for making the mistake arming incompentent idiots with an advanced anti-aircraft weapon system and the following shooting down a civilian airliner.

Dahlgardo wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the exactly the same excuse for Hitler used when he annexed Austria and Bohemia.

You are indeed wrong. In case of Bohemia he argued with ethnic presence of Germans in the border regions of Bohemia. Hovewer, even back in the days of the Holy Roman Empire, Bohemia was part of it within its present borders (with the exception of the Cheb/Eger westernmost region, that swapped sides like million times):
1000 AD: http://www.ssqq.com/travel/images/rhine ... ny010a.jpg
1789 AD: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 789_en.png
Anyway, tough and twisted talk about "Russia's right to return its historically owned territories" from our Soviet revanchist friend clearly shows what a can of worms it may open. I suppose, when we start talking nonsensical historical rights here or there, then I supppose Putin should be ready among the first ones to drop any claim to Kaliningrad, because with the exception of the brief period 1758–64 it has never belonged to Russia and it has been for 700 years known as Königsberg.

L410Turbolet wrote:

when we start talking nonsensical historical rights here or there, then I suppose Putin should be ready among the first ones to drop any claim to Kaliningrad, because with the exception of the brief period 1758–64 it has never belonged to Russia and it has been for 700 years known as Königsberg.

Of course. And don't forget the South Kuril Islands. I am certain based on Scropuis statements Putin would also agree to relinquishing control of them as well since the historic claim has always been with the Japanese (or maybe Chinese) prior to any Russian involvement.

Tugg

Scorpius wrote:

But you have obviously forgotten that the Soviet Union has lost 28 million citizens to the dead, while the total losses of the rest of the allies are TEN times smaller figures.

Reality is a little more complicated.

First of all WW2 began with nazi Germany and the USSR dividing Poland fifty-fifty among each other.

Only two years later Germany invaded the USSR. In reality it became sort of continuation of the Soviet Civil War and the Holodomor in 1932/33 when other millions, mainly Ukrainians, were starved to dead on Stalin's order. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome made millions of USSR citizens regard the Germans as liberators in 1941.

When WW2 ended, then the nazi west coast fortification here in Denmark (part of the Atlantic Wall) was manned roughly half and half by German and USSR (Russian/Ukrainian) troops. The Germans had for four years told their USSR colleagues that the war would be won next week. When in May 1945 they told them that the war had been lost, then it came to sporadic fighting between the USSR nazis and ordinary German Wehrmacht troops with casualties on both sides. Danish partisans had to separate the German and USSR nazi troops and direct them to separate British POW camps in Northern Germany. From there the USSR troops were sent to a US POW camp in Austria, and in 1946 they were transferred to the USSR. Sure they also became part of the 28 million.

Some twenty years ago a niece of mine took a temporary job as assistent at a nursing home in the extreme north of Norway. At arrival she was puzzled that a large part of the clients were single men, all 80-82 years old, and they spoke Russian with each other. She was told that they were all former Soviet soldiers in the nazi Wehrmacht. When the war ended they had been succesful to hide away in the wilderness, later to become mainly fishermen, and more or less ordinary members of the Norwegian society. And now 60 years later they were spending their evening of life in a Norwegian nursing home. They were likely also counted as part of the 28 million.