Ukrainian Crisis

[Jinwoy]

Source.

It said so in the article he already cited.

Can you repost, because I cannot find a link to that particular article anywhere?

[Sun Wukong]

Putin don't lie.

Putin is not a singular noun.

It's a verb.

[Blazedtown]

I'm pretty sure its from the video for All Nightmare Long by Metallica.

I just watched the music video, and couldn't find that part.

Damn Metallica and their 8 minute songs. I posted before I watched the whole thing.

[Shnercropolis]

It said so in the article he already cited.

Can you repost, because I cannot find a link to that particular article anywhere?

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=235&sid=28922097&s_cid=rss-235
It's an article from the associated press. I would trust it.

[Mefpan]

Putin don't lie.

Putin is not a singular noun.

That could just as well have been an exclamation aimed at Putin himself, just with botched punctuation.

I think I'm going to roll with that interpretation.

[Estruia]

Putin is not a singular noun.

It's a verb.

Careful, Ukraine... Don't get Putin the corner!

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Putin don't lie.

Putin is not a singular noun.

I know. I've honored him by using the plural form for "to do".

Ex: He doesn't vs they don't

[Connori Pilgrims]

Putin is not a singular noun.

I know. I've honored him by using the plural form for "to do".

Ex: He doesn't vs they don't

So he is Putin for they are many?

[United States of Devonta]

It said so in the article he already cited.

Can you repost, because I cannot find a link to that particular article anywhere?

Can't find it but people will have to find it for me, I'm off for the night. Read it on Wikipedia earlier.

[Jinos]

So, despite the fact that your own link clearly contradicts yourself (a large amount of people identify as Ukrainian, and the majority favor staying in Ukraine) you still use it?

Bravo.

You didn't read it well then. It says that only 14% consider themselves Ukrainian.

14% is a hullava lot more than "no one"

Especially when you consider that if pressed, the Tatars would all chose 'Ukrainian' over 'Russian'

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

I know. I've honored him by using the plural form for "to do".

Ex: He doesn't vs they don't

So he is Putin for they are many?

I suppose. It is a longstanding tradition to use plural form as an honorific for certain people.
I call it the "royal they"

[Occupied Deutschland]

It's a verb.

Careful, Ukraine... Don't get Putin the corner!

Russia Today insists that the West is being a big ol' meanie towards Russia's invasion reunification anschluss peacekeeping mission.

Crimea river Russia Today.
...
I'll see myself out.

[Wolfenium]

Careful, Ukraine... Don't get Putin the corner!

Russia Today insists that the West is being a big ol' meanie towards Russia's invasion reunification anschluss peacekeeping mission.

Crimea river Russia Today.
...
I'll see myself out.

'Peacekeeping'... just another word for military force without actual shooting (yet).

[Estruia]

Careful, Ukraine... Don't get Putin the corner!

Russia Today insists that the West is being a big ol' meanie towards Russia's invasion reunification anschluss peacekeeping mission.

Crimea river Russia Today.
...
I'll see myself out.

10/10 would read again.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Can you repost, because I cannot find a link to that particular article anywhere?

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=235&sid=28922097&s_cid=rss-235
It's an article from the associated press. I would trust it.

That source doesn't say a Russian spokesperson stated that, just a says Ukrainian one.

[Costa Fierro]

I know. I've honored him by using the plural form for "to do".

Ex: He doesn't vs they don't

So he is Putin for they are many?

Yes. Putin has many human suits. One of them is labelled "Snowden", another is labelled "Medvedev" and, rather surprisingly, one is labelled "Gorbachev".

[Shnercropolis]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=235&sid=28922097&s_cid=rss-235
It's an article from the associated press. I would trust it.

That source doesn't say a Russian spokesperson stated that, just a says Ukrainian one.

Um...

A Russian defense ministry spokesman is dismissing that report as nonsense, but he's refusing to elaborate.

[Srboslavija]

12 videos showing why southeast Ukraine fears and stands up to radical nationalists
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-fears-video-674/

[Regnum Dominae]

12 videos showing why southeast Ukraine fears and stands up to radical nationalists
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-fears-video-674/

RT? No thanks.

Real source please.

[Estruia]

12 videos showing why southeast Ukraine fears and stands up to radical nationalists
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-fears-video-674/

Russia Today, the InfoWars of Russia.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

That source doesn't say a Russian spokesperson stated that, just a says Ukrainian one.

Um...

A Russian defense ministry spokesman is dismissing that report as nonsense, but he's refusing to elaborate.

Ummm...what?

It denied by the Russian government but confirmed by the Russian Black Sea Fleet spokesperson... Very confusing?

That quote from the article is not a "Russian Black Sea Fleet spokesperson." confirming the ultimatum. No in fact, it's the very opposite.

[Connori Pilgrims]

12 videos showing why southeast Ukraine fears and stands up to radical nationalists
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-fears-video-674/

Why are you even bothering? You're convincing no one.

Just get it over with already. That rumored ultimatum should've ended by now...

[Srboslavija]

12 videos showing why southeast Ukraine fears and stands up to radical nationalists
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-fears-video-674/

RT? No thanks.

Real source please.

It videos, but whatever.

Let's stick with the reliable Twitter updates of the ebil Russian invasion, huh.

[Shofercia]

Damn, that post sound extremely butthurt. "Kindly fuck off" - that's a very butthurt thing to say (1). Anyways, what happened is that you made a stupid claim, I explained why said claim would be stupid, you defended said claim, and I made fun of said defense (2). Then you went off to pretend that I'm butthurt, when I kept on making fun of it (3). Additionally, you used the term, "insurgency", which implies a revolt of some kind (4). You furthermore linked that to the Chechen Insurgency, which was, at least, partially effective until 2006 (5). Now you're claiming that what you said, wasn't actually what you said (6). In case you need a memory refresher, here is what you said:


(7)
And now you're telling us that post didn't imply an effective insurgency? Still waiting for that insurgency OD.

1) Not really. More just annoyed at constant explanation falling on deaf ears.

2) Not really. I made a claim based on what the leader of the Tatars said. You explained why what he said they'd do would be ineffective. I defended said claim. You got butthurt and reference it at the drop of a hat.

3) See above.

4) A+. You know the definition of insurgency.

5) Sure. Purpose of the linkage was because it was also anti-Russia. I made no claim as to the effectiveness of a potential Tatar insurgency.

6) No, you're just reading much more into what I said than is there. You're seeing snakes in the grass when you're on a mowed lawn.

7) Yep, that's what I said. You'll notice it doesn't reference how effective the campaign would be.

Here, I'll admit, Chechnya/Ichkeria is the only anti-Russia insurgency I could think of off the top of my head to compare a potential Tatar one to. It's likely not a good comparison because it was semi-sorta effective. Happy?

When someone is making fun of a stupid claim, like your "oh noes, here comes the Crimean Tatar insurgency", that doesn't mean that they get butthurt. You, on the other hand, are acting quite butthurt. Look, it's very simple, no matter how hard you try to weasel out of it. First you said: Should the Russians come waltzing in, they'd more likely than not face an insurgency similar to that that occurred in Ichkeria/Chechnya.

When that didn't happen, you claimed that I blew up as if I said any Tatar resistance would be effective and that my long explanation of how wrong [you were]
is impressive if [I assumed] that's what [you] said. Which it wasn't.

That means that you now claim that you didn't say that Tatar resistance would be semi-effective. That happened after you claimed that it it would be semi-effective. You referenced how semi-effective the campaign might be, by comparing it to Chechnya, the worst insurgency that Russia faced in the 21st century. You said, and I quote: an insurgency similar to that that occurred in Ichkeria/Chechnya and that was semi-effective. Now you're saying that you didn't reference how effective that would be, because Chechnya was the only anti-Russian Insurgency that you could think of. Did it ever occur to your mind that most people are unable to think of an ineffective insurgency, and thus by you remembering an eight year old insurgency, it's implied that said insurgency had to be, at least, semi-effective?

You just pulled a flip flop, all the while calling me "butthurt" after making statements like kindly fuck off which imply butthurt, but you simply claim that it's annoyance. Oh, well, I guess no Crimean Tatar insurgency for me. Bummer man!

Nevertheless, since I'm a nice guy, I have a solution for you:

1. Understand that I'm making fun of your comment. That's all there's to it. Shof see stupid comment, Shof make fun of said comment.
2. Realize that claiming that any Crimean Insurgency would be semi-effective, and/or compare it to Chechnya's, would be Russophobic, since that fails to take into account that all of the groups in the Crimea also reside in Kazan, where they get along quite well, is rather Russophobic.

[Geilinor]

RT? No thanks.

Real source please.

Let's stick with the reliable Twitter updates of the ebil Russian invasion, huh.

No, let's stick with internationally renowned sources, like the BBC and Reuters, for example.