Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[Farnhamia]

FIRST OFF:

Keep on topic. You are not the topic of this thread. Nor is any other player here. Don't try and make it about you, or them. This is about the conflict that's been ongoing in the Ukraine.

Nationalism - put a lid on it. We get it, there's a lot of strong feelings, but please. Time and place.

Personal attacks - don't do it. Been there, got the tshirt, it sucks.

Links to Sources - please do, please provide, please post your opinion on said piece of information. You know. Contribute meaningfully if possible. Shock, awe.

Political Nicknaming - Since it has been proven that some have had difficulty in knowing where to stop on this, perhaps its best to avoid using them. Some are not inflammatory. Others are very inflammatory. Using none results in no problems, however. This is not a rule for the thread, but it is a very strong suggestion to keep trouble from developing.

-----------------------------------------------------

Fact: The Ukraine has been in turmoil since the ousting of its previous leadership earlier this year, which was a result of decisions made concerning 'who to snuggle up with politically'.

Fact: The Crimean region has been absorbed by Russia following a vote to secede. Said voting has been questioned as to its legitimacy.

Fact: The Russians have been accused of meddling in Ukranian affairs, up to and including sending troops and military equipment to pro-Russian rebels.

Fact: Russia has vehemently denied these claims.

Fact: Everyone and their dog seems to have an opinion on all of this, and it has generally upset folks from all over the globe.

Fact: People posting in here simply to snark or cause trouble will be dealt with firmly. Testing this statement is not recommended.

-----------------------------------------------------

So there you are. Have at it, keep it civil, and kindly remember we aren't at war here on the forum. Don't make a warzone out of this thread.

Part One

[The Highland Enclaves]

First! my life has hit rock bottom

[United Marxist Nations]

RIP Ukraine Crisis of House Megathread, Third of its Name, King of the Russophiles, Russophobes, and the Shitposts, Lord of the Seven Boards, and Moderator of the Forum.

Long Live Ukraine Crisis of House Megathread, Fouth of its Name, King of the Russophiles, Russophobes, and the Shitposts, Lord of the Seven Boards and Moderator of the Forum!


On a more serious note, trying to recover from the lock of original thread that the old argument was in:

1) And for all intents and purposes, it was safe. Up until that point, no one knew that the rebels possessed any kind of anti-aircraft weaponry that was capable of downing aircraft at altitudes higher than 5,000 meters. All the aircraft shot down prior to MH-17 were shot down at levels lower than 10,000 meters, out of a combination of the fact that most people assumed 10,000 meters was the limit for the weapons the rebels were thought to possess and the fact that all the aircraft shot down prior to MH-17 were military aircraft that were flying at lower altitudes. The highest altitude any Ukrainian government aircraft was flying at when it was shot down was an AN-26 transport aircraft flying at 6,400 meters (21,000 feet), at least three thousand meters below the minimum height that civilian airliners were allowed to fly at.

2) No one knew the rebels had that kind of military hardware at that time. Even suggesting that the flight crew were aware of the threat and continued anyway is absolutely ridiculous, because flight crews are only advised of any kinds of changes if the airline tells them of any changes to fight paths. Moreover, the Ukrainian government did issue a warning to various European countries about Ukrainian air space safety as well as a total ban on civilian air traffic under 10,000 meters.

Indeed. But the blame still rests on them because they are the ones that shot it down. If someone shoots someone dead, who are you going to blame? The victim or the shooter? Saying "whilst it's tragic, the person shouldn't have been there when he pulled the gun out" is a retarded way of justifying 3) what can be described in legal terms as manslaughter.

Intentional or not, those rebelss that were manning the missile launcher at the time, still need to be held accountable for their actions.

1 & 2) The rebels had announced on 14 June that they had captured a ЗРК «9К37М1» (более известное, как «Бук») launcher from an airbase in the Ukraine, this was 3 days prior to the incident.

3) I would agree with that, what I don't like is people saying it was murder (murder is premeditated), or intentional, as Estruia (spelling?) was saying.

[The Highland Enclaves]

RIP Ukraine Crisis of House Megathread, Third of its Name, King of the Russophiles, Russophobes, and the Shitposts, Lord of the Seven Boards, and Moderator of the Forum.

Long Live Ukraine Crisis of House Megathread, Fouth of its Name, King of the Russophiles, Russophones, and the Shitposts, Lord of the Seven Boards and Moderator of the Forum!


On a more serious note, trying to recover from the lock of original thread that the old argument was in:

1) And for all intents and purposes, it was safe. Up until that point, no one knew that the rebels possessed any kind of anti-aircraft weaponry that was capable of downing aircraft at altitudes higher than 5,000 meters. All the aircraft shot down prior to MH-17 were shot down at levels lower than 10,000 meters, out of a combination of the fact that most people assumed 10,000 meters was the limit for the weapons the rebels were thought to possess and the fact that all the aircraft shot down prior to MH-17 were military aircraft that were flying at lower altitudes. The highest altitude any Ukrainian government aircraft was flying at when it was shot down was an AN-26 transport aircraft flying at 6,400 meters (21,000 feet), at least three thousand meters below the minimum height that civilian airliners were allowed to fly at.

2) No one knew the rebels had that kind of military hardware at that time. Even suggesting that the flight crew were aware of the threat and continued anyway is absolutely ridiculous, because flight crews are only advised of any kinds of changes if the airline tells them of any changes to fight paths. Moreover, the Ukrainian government did issue a warning to various European countries about Ukrainian air space safety as well as a total ban on civilian air traffic under 10,000 meters.

Indeed. But the blame still rests on them because they are the ones that shot it down. If someone shoots someone dead, who are you going to blame? The victim or the shooter? Saying "whilst it's tragic, the person shouldn't have been there when he pulled the gun out" is a retarded way of justifying 3) what can be described in legal terms as manslaughter.

Intentional or not, those rebelss that were manning the missile launcher at the time, still need to be held accountable for their actions.

1 & 2) The rebels had announced on 14 June that they had captured a ЗРК «9К37М1» (более известное, как «Бук») launcher from an airbase in the Ukraine, this was 3 days prior to the incident.

3) I would agree with that, what I don't like is people saying it was murder (murder is premeditated), or intentional, as Estruia (spelling?) was saying.

It was manslaughter and Ukraine had issued a warning so people would be safe. It's the pilot's or the airline's fault.

[The Carlisle]

RIP Ukraine Crisis of House Megathread, Third of its Name, King of the Russophiles, Russophobes, and the Shitposts, Lord of the Seven Boards, and Moderator of the Forum.

Long Live Ukraine Crisis of House Megathread, Fouth of its Name, King of the Russophiles, Russophones, and the Shitposts, Lord of the Seven Boards and Moderator of the Forum!


On a more serious note, trying to recover from the lock of original thread that the old argument was in:



1 & 2) The rebels had announced on 14 June that they had captured a ЗРК «9К37М1» (более известное, как «Бук») launcher from an airbase in the Ukraine, this was 3 days prior to the incident.

3) I would agree with that, what I don't like is people saying it was murder (murder is premeditated), or intentional, as Estruia (spelling?) was saying.

It was manslaughter and Ukraine had issued a warning so people would be safe. It's the pilot's or the airline's fault.

No. How about we blame the people who actually shot down the plane and murdered those people instead of scapegoating the victims. Its the same exact thing as saying "Its her fault she got raped! She shouldn't have been walking down that street at night/shouldn't have gone to that nightclub!".

[The balkens]

It was manslaughter and Ukraine had issued a warning so people would be safe. It's the pilot's or the airline's fault.

No. How about we blame the people who actually shot down the plane and murdered those people instead of scapegoating the victims. Its the same exact thing as saying "Its her fault she got raped! She shouldn't have been walking down that street at night/shouldn't have gone to that nightclub!".

Pretty much.

[United Marxist Nations]

It was manslaughter and Ukraine had issued a warning so people would be safe. It's the pilot's or the airline's fault.

No. How about we blame the people who actually shot down the plane and murdered those people instead of scapegoating the victims. Its the same exact thing as saying "Its her fault she got raped! She shouldn't have been walking down that street at night/shouldn't have gone to that nightclub!".

It was not murder, as it was not intentional.

Also, the whole "it is like blaming the rape victim" is a complete strawman. An action of attacking one's enemy in wartime, but being mistaken, isn't in any way comparable to deliberately attacking a defenseless person and forcing yourself upon them.

[Geilinor]

It was manslaughter and Ukraine had issued a warning so people would be safe. It's the pilot's or the airline's fault.

No. How about we blame the people who actually shot down the plane and murdered those people instead of scapegoating the victims. Its the same exact thing as saying "Its her fault she got raped! She shouldn't have been walking down that street at night/shouldn't have gone to that nightclub!".

Murder is intentional, but it's on whoever will try the rebels to prove that they intended to kill innocent passengers.

[The Carlisle]

No. How about we blame the people who actually shot down the plane and murdered those people instead of scapegoating the victims. Its the same exact thing as saying "Its her fault she got raped! She shouldn't have been walking down that street at night/shouldn't have gone to that nightclub!".

It was not murder, as it was not intentional.

Also, the whole "it is like blaming the rape victim" is a complete strawman. An action of attacking one's enemy in wartime, but being mistaken, isn't in any way comparable to deliberately attacking a defenseless person and forcing yourself upon them.

Regardless, it was still illegal killing.

The analogy still applies as it puts fault on the victim for going a specific path and "should have known better" instead of the attacker who shouldn't have been attacking them in the first place.

[United Marxist Nations]

It was not murder, as it was not intentional.

Also, the whole "it is like blaming the rape victim" is a complete strawman. An action of attacking one's enemy in wartime, but being mistaken, isn't in any way comparable to deliberately attacking a defenseless person and forcing yourself upon them.

Regardless, it was still illegal killing.

The analogy still applies as it puts fault on the victim for going a specific path and "should have known better" instead of the attacker who shouldn't have been attacking them in the first place.

The most I could see it being is manslaughter.

The attackers had repeatedly designated their territory as a conflict zone and specified that they would shoot down Ukrainian military aircraft, and had done so on several occasions leading up to that point in time. The danger was known by those who were directing the flight of the plane. This is why Malaysia Airlines has paid compensation to families of victims and (to the best of my knowledge) several families have sued the Airline, as it was aware of the danger, and was negligible as well.

[The Carlisle]

Regardless, it was still illegal killing.

The analogy still applies as it puts fault on the victim for going a specific path and "should have known better" instead of the attacker who shouldn't have been attacking them in the first place.

The most I could see it being is manslaughter.

The attackers had repeatedly designated their territory as a conflict zone and specified that they would shoot down Ukrainian military aircraft, and had done so on several occasions leading up to that point in time. The danger was known by those who were directing the flight of the plane. This is why Malaysia Airlines has paid compensation to families of victims and (to the best of my knowledge) several families have sued the Airline, as it was aware of the danger, and was negligible as well.

Ah, so they are negligent, not the fuckers who didn't use radar or identified the plane. No... Malaysian Airlines is more negligent than people who basically fired blind with a dangerous weapon and killed hundreds of people

Brilliant fucking logic there.

Also, Airlines shouldn't have to assume that people are going to shoot down their planes. In fact, it was pretty clear with the "Ukrainian Aircraft" that they weren't going after them in the first place. Adding to the fact that they are 10,000 meters above the conflict zone and Ukrainian aircraft fly much lower, it was safe to assume that it was fine to fly over. Which is why when the plane was hit, it was so out of nowhere and so surprising. Nobody assumed the rebels were that negligent to fire blind at a plane. Nobody, which is why people are still making excuses and conspiracy theories about it.

Airlines shouldn't have to assume that they are going to be hit by SAMs when they fly over warzones. Nobody should. In fact, that is the international standard. Getting identified and told to turn away? Sure. Avoiding no-fly zones? Sure! Getting hit out of nowhere with no warning at all? No. Fuck no. Fucking fuck no. There was no precedent to assume that Ukraine was not safe to fly over.

[Estruia]

I'm just tagging this so I can check it later on!

My contribution: Apparently Russia has decided to build/purchase additional Nuclear-capable ICBMs. Any chance that it could have to do with the Russia v. the West tensions from the Ukraine Crisis?

[United Marxist Nations]

The most I could see it being is manslaughter.

The attackers had repeatedly designated their territory as a conflict zone and specified that they would shoot down Ukrainian military aircraft, and had done so on several occasions leading up to that point in time. The danger was known by those who were directing the flight of the plane. This is why Malaysia Airlines has paid compensation to families of victims and (to the best of my knowledge) several families have sued the Airline, as it was aware of the danger, and was negligible as well.

Ah, so they are negligent, not the fuckers who didn't use radar or identified the plane. No... Malaysian Airlines is more negligent than people who basically fired blind with a dangerous weapon and killed hundreds of people

Brilliant fucking logic there.

Also, Airlines shouldn't have to assume that people are going to shoot down their planes. In fact, it was pretty clear with the "Ukrainian Aircraft" that they weren't going after them in the first place. Adding to the fact that they are 10,000 meters above the conflict zone and Ukrainian aircraft fly much lower, it was safe to assume that it was fine to fly over. Which is why when the plane was hit, it was so out of nowhere and so surprising. Nobody assumed the rebels were that negligent to fire blind at a plane. Nobody, which is why people are still making excuses and conspiracy theories about it.

Airlines shouldn't have to assume that they are going to be hit by SAMs when they fly over warzones. Nobody should. In fact, that is the international standard. Getting identified and told to turn away? Sure. Avoiding no-fly zones? Sure! Getting hit out of nowhere with no warning at all? No. Fuck no. Fucking fuck no. There was no precedent to assume that Ukraine was not safe to fly over.

More than one party can be negligent. This incident has, at least, four negligent parties; the rebels, the Airline, the Ukrainian government, and the Dutch government (which had been warned of the possibility by the Ukrainian government, but had not passed the warning along to airlines).

Also, the rebels did not have access to the materials to identify a plane, which is why they openly announced that they would assume a plane flying over the conflict zone was an enemy plane (in this case, they thought it carried paratroopers). They weren't just going to let every plane (which would have included military planes) go as they pleased, so they told everyone to stay away (hence their confusion when they found the wreckage, one rebel in-particular yelling "why were they flying here?").

[The balkens]

I'm just tagging this so I can check it later on!

My contribution: Apparently Russia has decided to build/purchase additional Nuclear-capable ICBMs. Any chance that it could have to do with the Russia v. the West tensions from the Ukraine Crisis?

Probably. Pointing a gun to the head of the world is not helping their whole case for Russian imperialism in the former USSR.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm just tagging this so I can check it later on!

My contribution: Apparently Russia has decided to build/purchase additional Nuclear-capable ICBMs. Any chance that it could have to do with the Russia v. the West tensions from the Ukraine Crisis?

Probably. Seems unnecessary to me. May also be doing it to stimulate some industry in the wake of some of the economic troubles.

[The Carlisle]

Ah, so they are negligent, not the fuckers who didn't use radar or identified the plane. No... Malaysian Airlines is more negligent than people who basically fired blind with a dangerous weapon and killed hundreds of people

Brilliant fucking logic there.

Also, Airlines shouldn't have to assume that people are going to shoot down their planes. In fact, it was pretty clear with the "Ukrainian Aircraft" that they weren't going after them in the first place. Adding to the fact that they are 10,000 meters above the conflict zone and Ukrainian aircraft fly much lower, it was safe to assume that it was fine to fly over. Which is why when the plane was hit, it was so out of nowhere and so surprising. Nobody assumed the rebels were that negligent to fire blind at a plane. Nobody, which is why people are still making excuses and conspiracy theories about it.

Airlines shouldn't have to assume that they are going to be hit by SAMs when they fly over warzones. Nobody should. In fact, that is the international standard. Getting identified and told to turn away? Sure. Avoiding no-fly zones? Sure! Getting hit out of nowhere with no warning at all? No. Fuck no. Fucking fuck no. There was no precedent to assume that Ukraine was not safe to fly over.

More than one party can be negligent. This incident has, at least, four negligent parties; the rebels, the Airline, the Ukrainian government, and the Dutch government (which had been warned of the possibility by the Ukrainian government, but had not passed the warning along to airlines).

Also, the rebels did not have access to the materials to identify a plane, which is why they openly announced that they would assume a plane flying over the conflict zone was an enemy plane (in this case, they thought it carried paratroopers). They weren't just going to let every plane (which would have included military planes) go as they pleased, so they told everyone to stay away (hence their confusion when they found the wreckage, one rebel in-particular yelling "why were they flying here?").

Maybe they shouldn't have been firing a fucking SAM without the ability to identify planes. That is beyond negligence and into the realm of insanity. Also, the only warning was about Ukrainian Military Aircraft, not civilian. Fuck, the leader deleted the "We did warn you"post when they found out they downed a civilian airliner. Clearly they intended that warning to the Ukrainian Military to scare them from flying with their planes.

Not fucking civvies.

[Estruia]

More than one party can be negligent. This incident has, at least, four negligent parties; the rebels, the Airline, the Ukrainian government, and the Dutch government (which had been warned of the possibility by the Ukrainian government, but had not passed the warning along to airlines).

Also, the rebels did not have access to the materials to identify a plane, which is why they openly announced that they would assume a plane flying over the conflict zone was an enemy plane (in this case, they thought it carried paratroopers). They weren't just going to let every plane (which would have included military planes) go as they pleased, so they told everyone to stay away (hence their confusion when they found the wreckage, one rebel in-particular yelling "why were they flying here?").

Maybe they shouldn't have been firing a fucking SAM without the ability to identify planes. That is beyond negligence and into the realm of insanity. Also, the only warning was about Ukrainian Military Aircraft, not civilian. Fuck, the leader deleted the "We did warn you"post when they found out they downed a civilian airliner. Clearly they intended that warning to the Ukrainian Military to scare them from flying with their planes.

Not fucking civvies.

I've gone around and around with UMN on this. He is very adamant that the Rebels are not at fault.

[Shofercia]

I'm just tagging this so I can check it later on!

My contribution: Apparently Russia has decided to build/purchase additional Nuclear-capable ICBMs. Any chance that it could have to do with the Russia v. the West tensions from the Ukraine Crisis?

Probably. Seems unnecessary to me. May also be doing it to stimulate some industry in the wake of some of the economic troubles.

More likely to stimulate military R&D and appease the hardliners. They didn't raise a big stink when Putin offered the Italian Detente to the EU, so maybe this is their reward. Anyways: http://lenta.ru/news/2015/06/21/saaka/

Бедность Украины «противоречит законам природы». Об этом заявил в интервью изданию Le Journal du Dimanche бывший президент Грузии, губернатор Одесской области Михаил Саакашвили. Саакашвили напомнил, что сейчас Украина — беднейшая страна в Европе. «Основываясь на ВВП, Украина беднее, чем Молдавия, которая раньше была самой бедной, беднее Армении, беднее Албании, беднее Косово. И это катастрофа, потому что, если сравнить ресурсы Украины с ресурсами других стран, это противоречит всем законам природы», — приводит слова одесского губернатора «ИноТВ».

У Украины, по мнению Саакашвили, есть все условия для экономического роста, в том числе природные ресурсы, функционирующая промышленность, образованные люди и «сказочные земледельцы, которые могли бы кормить всю Европу». Если побороть коррупцию и создать более эффективную систему, можно быстро добиться результатов, несмотря на войну в Донбассе, выразил уверенность бывший президент Грузии. Ранее Саакашвили заявил, что при благоприятных условиях развития экономики Украина вновь достигнет уровня 2013 года лишь спустя 20 лет. Чтобы достичь показателей времен президентства Виктора Януковича, ВВП Украины должен расти на четыре процента в год, отметил губернатор Одесской области.

30 мая на сайте президента Украины Петра Порошенко появился указ, предоставляющий Саакашвили украинское гражданство. На следующий день украинский лидер представил его в качестве руководителя Одесской ОГА. До вступления в должность главы Одесской области Саакашвили с 2004 по 2013 год занимал пост президента Грузии. После ухода с поста главы государства он занимался преподавательской деятельностью и практически не жил на родине, где против него было возбуждено несколько уголовных дел. В частности, в Грузии он обвиняется в превышении полномочий и растрате бюджетных средств.

Yes, I'm quoting Saakashvili. That's how bad the situation in Ukraine is, Saakashvili has little to steal. Let's recap: Saakashvili, who plundered Georgia's wealth after the plunder of the 1990s in one of the USSR's poorest Caucasian SSRs, finds grave poverty in Ukraine. That's how bad things are. Anyways, I'll hit up some of the things he said: "Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe. It's poorer than Moldova... and Kosovo. It will take Ukraine 20 years to reach 2013 levels of prosperity, that Ukraine enjoyed under Victor Yanukovich under the most optimistic scenario that has some sense in reality."

Yep, that's coming from Saakashvili. Any other countries out there wanting Maidan? Georgia, why are you following Armenia towards the bear? Azerbaijan, come back here! Moldova, you too?! Belarus, eh, that was expected go to Putin. Greece?! What the fuck are you doing, come back here Greece! Noooooo! Not EU member Greece! Puuutiiiiin!!!

[Costa Fierro]

1 & 2) The rebels had announced on 14 June that they had captured a ЗРК «9К37М1» (более известное, как «Бук») launcher from an airbase in the Ukraine, this was 3 days prior to the incident.

And who would have believed them?

More than one party can be negligent. This incident has, at least, four negligent parties; the rebels, the Airline, the Ukrainian government, and the Dutch government (which had been warned of the possibility by the Ukrainian government, but had not passed the warning along to airlines).

Again, stop blaming the victims. It's not difficult. The rebels didn't have the proper identification equipment which would have been present at the base where they acquired the BUK system. If they were able to effectively operate a basic BUK TEL system with basic radar and not have any issues, they could have just as easily taken other radar and radio equipment with them. But they didn't.

Also, civilian airliners were forbidden from flying lower than 7,800 meters in altitude because of said threats. It was assumed at the time by the Ukrainian government that the rebels didn't have anything that was capable of taking out aircraft at higher altitudes as most military aircraft would be flying lower than the given altitude, including military transport aircraft. Indeed, the highest altitude that an aircraft was shot down prior to MH17 was an AN26 shot down at a height of 6,400 meters.

I am not going to accept that the airline, the Dutch government or the Ukrainian government as responsible for what happened.

Also, the rebels did not have access to the materials to identify a plane, which is why they openly announced that they would assume a plane flying over the conflict zone was an enemy plane (in this case, they thought it carried paratroopers). They weren't just going to let every plane (which would have included military planes) go as they pleased, so they told everyone to stay away (hence their confusion when they found the wreckage, one rebel in-particular yelling "why were they flying here?").

Then they should have done so. The Ukrainian government isn't going to keep several batteries of BUK missiles and not have the necessary radar equipment to effectively identify civilian and military aircraft. Also, the rebels warnings of telling people to stay away was obviously not going to be taken seriously and would have likely not been seen by most authorities capable of enforcing or declaring avoidance zones over any given country's air space.

[New Werpland]

Lithuania will openly send weapons to the Ukrainians.
Thoughts?

[United Marxist Nations]

Lithuania will openly send weapons to the Ukrainians.
Thoughts?

The Ukraine has plenty of weapons, they don't need military aid, they need economic aid. Their economy has gone down the shitter.

[New Werpland]

Lithuania will openly send weapons to the Ukrainians.
Thoughts?

The Ukraine has plenty of weapons, they don't need military aid, they need economic aid. Their economy has gone down the shitter.

How are they going to protect what's left of it?

[United Marxist Nations]

The Ukraine has plenty of weapons, they don't need military aid, they need economic aid. Their economy has gone down the shitter.

How are they going to protect what's left of it?

Like I said, it isn't a lack of weapons that is the problem. The Ukraine has huge stockpiles. What it needs is training and economic aid. The rebels aren't expanding very much, and the Ukrainian government can hold its own as long as there is no major Russian intervention, and, if there was such an intervention, Lithuania sending a few weapons is going to do jack shit to stop it.

[Shofercia]

Lithuania will openly send weapons to the Ukrainians.
Thoughts?

Expected. Their leader has been insane for quite some time.

The Ukraine has plenty of weapons, they don't need military aid, they need economic aid. Their economy has gone down the shitter.

How are they going to protect what's left of it?

Ukraine is disintegrating primarily over economic reasons. Yatsenuyk's approval rating is at 1.6%. Even if it's 0 in the East, it's still below 5% in the West. They cannot maintain infrastructure. When I pay my taxes to Sacramento, I know exactly what I'm getting, so I don't mind paying 'em. When I pay my taxes to Washington, honestly, I want to pay at a lower rate, because I'm getting less, than I get from Sacramento, and I'm paying more. If I got nothing from Washington, and still had to pay my taxes, well, erm, I'd start evading. What does Kiev provide for residents of Odessa? Kharkov? Dnepropetrovsk? At least Washington provides security, some semblance of healthcare, decent education loans, etc. If the capital doesn't provide but only takes, why the fuck would the districts/oblasts need the capital?

Ukraine can disintegrate into four parts, excluding Crimea. The worse the economy, the more likely the disintegration. It's not that Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia, it's that it's their only choice that guarantees survival. What's there to protect if there's nothing left?

[Germanic Templars]

tagging for later.