Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Lemanrussland]

Can you just understand that "bloody regime of big Pu" had no desire to invade NATO's "precious" Baltica or Poland. Can you admit already that these "New European" countries just shitted a pile of bricks, and 600 NATO soldiers here are just comforting thier histerics?

Although it is true that they were obviously sent there on a reassurance mission, as stated by NATO themselves, you're claim that 600 troops pathetic is utterly false. It fact, 600 troops is a bit on the high side.

I think the meat of his claim is that "New Europe" is just full of hysterical, irrational puppet states.

I mean, how else could they ever reject Russia and turn towards the West? Russia is self-evidently superior in every way to those highly developed Western European and North American liberal democracies. It's not like Russia did anything bad to "New Europe" since the end of WWII or anything.

Slava Rossiya!

[Shofercia]

Actually you were trying to imply that I was being hypocritical

Do you even understand what "hypocritical" means? Being hypocritical implies being inconsistent in your opinion, more specifically, supporting something when it is convenient for you to do so whilst at the same time denouncing someone else that does.

Here's my original statement:

Haha, nice fucking try. Can't you get it through your head that neither Ukraine nor Moldova are federations? They are unitary republics. Why are you pretending everyone's like Russia? (not that Russia would allow any of this, after all, even spreading separatist views can get you up to 5 yrs in prison)

My argument wasn't that you're inconsistent in your opinion, but rather, overly consistent, to the point that your opinions stop being based in reality and start being based on preconceived ideas on how countries are (or should be) organized, rather. Then I went ahead and hypothesized as to where these preconceived ideas may have come from, it could have just as well been the US or Germany instead of Russia there.

You really should stop commenting on what you think the opinions of others are, because you tend to use your commentary to claim that people who dare to disagree with you are supa-poopa-ubah biased in whatever the fuck you're arguing against. Lame tactic is lame. Also, you stated this: not that Russia would allow any of this, after all, even spreading separatist views can get you up to 5 yrs in prison in a response to me. What was your purpose in stating that? I've previously stated, in a civil debate with Lemanrussland, that Russia was wrong to start the First Chechen War, and that, even though I explained the rationale of that law, I disagreed with it.

because Russia passed a law, which you mistakenly assumed I agreed with

Where did I do that? It was just a sidenote, to point out that although Russia is a federal republic (which may make it more "democratic" in the eyes of fools) , it wouldn't allow even the spreading of separatist views let alone actual secession of one of its subordinated political entities

Federal vs Unitary is not about democracy. It's about autonomy. For instance, a country like Estonia works as a Unitary whatever, cause it's tiny. A country like Russia cannot work as a Unitary thingy. And Ukraine is closer to Russia than to Estonia in terms of demographics and diversity.

bso I had to correct you. As usual.

Right.

I know!

bHowever, my point is that TransDneister developed independently from Moldova.

Militant Irredentism has no place in the 21st century.

People's votes do. It's not about creating a Great Russia, it's about respecting the will of the voters.

And I've even offered to grant that right to every single region in Moldova.

Haha you're what now, that's not for you to offer.

Yikes, almost cut myself on that comment.

bIn my post, I suggested that they vote region by region, instead of the country as a whole, as was hinted at in your post

Yes, that is what I hinted, and it's what I support. Whatever the case may be, in order for Moldova to do anything of what we're discussing here the constitution has to be changed beforehand (otherwise it would violate the "sovereign and independent" clause) . I just hope that when it happens, "unitary" and "indivisible" stay.

Not really, since TransDneister was de facto independent before the Constitution was signed.

bbecause different regions have different values.

..oh you, the vanguard of democracy. It just so happens that this is so convenient for Russia, as has been seen in Ukraine. The reason why they have developed these "different values" as far as Romania vs Russia goes is in large part because of massive Russification and Denationalization both in Soviet and imperial times, and this is not exclusive to Moldova. The consequences of these criminal policies have no place being used to justify federalization or other some such.

Yeah, living in California tends to make one enjoy the Proposition Process. From your comments, I'm guessing that you're either in Texas, Florida, or the part of Arizona influenced by McCain. Additionally, I'm not suggesting federalization for Moldova, I'm suggesting a split, if, and only if, the voters actually approve it; TransDneister to Russia, rest to Romania, special states for Gaugazia.

bWhen the US states voted on things like the US Constitution, they voted state by state.

Irrelevant. I've already said that the US isn't the golden standard of democracy that people (not you) make it out to be.

Please explain how California's state elections aren't the golden standard for Democracy. I'm well aware of America's Federal Electoral Flaws. Now, Cali's state elections, what's wrong with them?

bWell if you don't let the people decide with whom they want to cast their lots, and force it onto them instead, they might not be happy about it.

Right, right.

Why the roll?

bWhat military intervention? TransDneister's de facto Russian. A third of the rest of Moldova is pro-EU, another third are commies, another third is... something. Who in their right mind would throw a military intervention into the mix?

Russia? And is it me or is this a deja vu

I was hypothesizing a situation where, after Moldova would join Romania and indirectly the EU, Russia would (attempt to) move troops into Transnistria in order to ensure its de facto autonomy and/or to "protect ethnic Russians" ( ) and/or to do what they did in Ukraine. Remember this all started with that poster saying "Transnistria and Russia won't be happy" to which I replied, "what are they going to do"?

E: And yes I do realize the former Russian 14th Army is in Transnistria, but they're only about 1000 strong. And remember that by joining Romania, Moldova would not only join the EU but also NATO. It's not unheard of for Russia to annex territory belonging to other countries formerly in its sphere of influence when they turn to the West. After all, this is exactly what happened in Ukraine and, you know, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin allegedly declared at a NATO-Russia summit in 2008 that if Ukraine joined NATO his country could contend to annex the Ukrainian East and Crimea.

Russia doesn't want all of Moldova. Russia just wants TransDneister, if TransDneister wants to be with Russia. Why? Because strategically, Moldova is insignificant, and Moldova's population is split into thirds. As thus, first Russia would have to ensure that a third turns towards Russia, then take on more social obligations to placate the commies, and then... you get the idea. It's little reward, high risk.

bYeah, you make the size so big. Really big. But no matter how big you make it, anyone who actually knows jack shit about the situation, understands that said Constitution was written by Moldova, after TransDneister already seceded, and Moldova failed to win it back, despite military aid from Romania in 1992!

Yeah I was already aware of this, thank you. Not that it would make what Transnistria did lawful by any measure, but you failed anyway

Again, the people on the ground aren't going to follow a piece of paper not signed by them. Your failure to understand this is most amusing.

bThis is exactly what I mean when I'm saying that people make up De Jure bullshit that doesn't recognize De Facto facts on the ground.

orly:

Unrecognised by any United Nations member state, Transnistria is designated by the Republic of Moldova as the Transnistria autonomous territorial unit with special legal status (Unitatea teritorială autonomă cu statut juridic special Transnistria),[2] or Stînga Nistrului ("Left Bank of the Dniester").[3][4][5]

And again, none of this makes Moldova federal. All of its other administrative divisions are unitary, both de jure and de facto.

Yeah, really. Moldova has little de facto control over TransDneister, even though De Jure TransDneister is part of Moldova. Hence the De Facto De Jure split.

bAnd after said statement, you applauded someone calling the local militias, "terrorists". I called you out on double standards.

How the fuck do you get to call me out on "double standards" when that's exactly the point I'm trying to make? This has been my plan all along, to get him to stop falsely calling them "self-defense forces" and to call them what they are, separatists. E: Just as separatist as those countered by the Russians, which are too, exactly that, "separatists". My point wasn't that Russia should stop calling their operations "anti-separatist" but rather that Russophiles should call Ukrainian equivalents the same. You pretty much double failed here by also strawman-ing while trying to call me out on my alleged "double standards".

First you bitched about someone calling someone else "terrorists" over political stuff, then you applauded someone calling self-defense forces, "terrorists" and now you're claiming that's been your plan all along? Brilliant!

[Beta Test]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4eohphF2E&src_vid=uHn-mQwjjZg&feature=iv&annotation_id=channel%3A52406101-0-2d9f-8df2-89e013a2908

I found this piece of bullshit just then from the Russian propaganda feed RT.

[Costa Fierro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4eohphF2E&src_vid=uHn-mQwjjZg&feature=iv&annotation_id=channel%3A52406101-0-2d9f-8df2-89e013a2908

I found this piece of bullshit just then from the Russian propaganda feed RT.

You'll find many of those. How these people call themselves "journalists" is beyond me, but at least some of them there have the mind to reject the Kremlin-fed bile that RT spits out on regular occasions.

[Shofercia]

"Are you his lawyer" seriously? That's your second sentence? Sounds extremely childish. I simply made a post about how I interpreted his comment, no need to Crimea River about it.

Right, like your "Crimea River"?

And you presented it more as something factual than an opinion. Let him speak for himself, I'm pretty sure he's well capable of that.

He might get tired of responding to you after your countless attempts to make what he's saying worse than it actually is.

That doesn't answer my question. You stated, and I quote, because I wouldn't want to misquote such greatness: I hope that common sense will prevail and Russia would stop acting like a small child who's had his toy taken away.

So tell me, would you have made that comment regarding the EU? Because it's not exactly common sense to deliberately try and remove Ukraine from Russia's orbit, knowing how deeply Ukraine's economy is integrated with Russia's, and yet the EU was acting like a small child who had its toy taken away after Yanukovich denied EU the deal in favor of Russia's.

Or did they. How exactly? Perhaps they did, and then deployed joint EU-NATO covert operatives to carry out the uprising against Yanu. [/endsarcasm]

They funded Chesno, and similar organizations whose goal was another anti-Yanukovich revolution, albeit a peaceful one, and then their politicians went out and joined the protests.

Ukraine's been going bonkers for quite a while, way before the Crimean annexation. I don't view Russian soldiers on Russia soil as a threat, anymore than I view NATO soldiers on NATO soil as a threat. Furthermore, Russia's got enough forces to wipe out the pathetic Banderovites and their ilk, as well as the Ukrainian Army, but not enough to invade and hold a territory of 9.5 million people. It's a good balance. Enough to counter anymore stupidity from Kiev, not enough to annex and hold through military force, unless they have massive local support.

It's good that you admit this. Also I guess stupidity = disobedience toward Russia , and the already-debunked "Ukraine r nazzisss lol!!!111" . Russia has no more authority to police Ukraine and go after fringe minority groups on its sovereign territory, no matter how violent, than for example the US has - to go in guns blazing in drug cartel-ridden Mexico and "pacify" things.

I'd much rather have the US go into Mexico guns blazing if the US can target just the cartels, and cause no civvie casualties. I'd have no issues with that, because, guess what, cartels have no issues exporting violence to the US, and then they just run back home and go "nyah, nyah, nyah" fuck that shit. Pwn 'em.

Putin says Internet is CIA plot, discourages Russians from using it. Dude is getting more authoritarian and paranoid day by day. Where is it going to end?

"Wake up sheeple! The CIA is controlling the internet!"
"That's why I am going create my own version so that I can control it!"

What next? Kremlin approved operating systems?

Didn't Al Gore invent the Internet?

That said, I doubt Putin can actually control Internet use in Russia. RuNet is quite powerful and quite tech savvy. That law seems rather... unrealistic to enforce. But I don't want to go too much off topic.

4 OCSE observers, 5 Ukrainian soldiers and a bus driver have been kidnapped in Slaviansk
https://twitter.com/carlbildt


1 Swede, 1 German,1 Dane and 1 Pole.

[inappropriatehumor]

This sounds like the build-up of a bad bar joke.

[/inappropriatehumor]

This reminds me of Polandball

[Beta Test]

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/729556

A bomb exploded at a checkpoint in Odessa, in Southwestern Ukraine near the border with Transnistria. Seven were injured.

EDIT: More reliable source for this as well.

[Lyttenburgh]

Can you just admit that sending in a small number of soldiers is an effective deterrent and sends a political message? 600 soliders is simply not a major shift in American policy towards NATO, we get that. What you don't understand (or simply don't want to admit) is that it shows that the Americans can and will make a major shift if Russia continues to act as if it is some resurgent superpower and decides to vent its petro-aggression on more of it's neighbors.

The US can and will make Poland the new West Germany, if Russia wants to act like an international outcast once again.

No. Either:

1) We have a really (uber!) dangerouse situation here, where the invasion of "New Europe" countries with their spiffingly powerful militay is imminent. In that case, something more than 600 random troopers is required.

2) There is no danger for paranoid Baltica Republics and Poland - they are just their usual attention whores, In that case, no troops are requred - just a stern talk not to "cry wolf" again

[Lemanrussland]

Can you just admit that sending in a small number of soldiers is an effective deterrent and sends a political message? 600 soliders is simply not a major shift in American policy towards NATO, we get that. What you don't understand (or simply don't want to admit) is that it shows that the Americans can and will make a major shift if Russia continues to act as if it is some resurgent superpower and decides to vent its petro-aggression on more of it's neighbors.

The US can and will make Poland the new West Germany, if Russia wants to act like an international outcast once again.

No. Either:

1) We have a really (uber!) dangerouse situation here, where the invasion of "New Europe" countries with their spiffingly powerful militay is imminent. In that case, something more than 600 random troopers is required.

2) There is no danger for paranoid Bltica Republic and Poland - they are just their usual ettention whores, In that case, no troops are requred - just a stern talk not to cy wold again

So there is no valid purpose behind sending a political message? You must either prepare for imminent war or deploy no troops at all?

The world according to master statesman, userperson Lyttenburgh.

[Lyttenburgh]

So there is no valid purpose behind sending a political message? You must either prepare for imminent war or deploy no troops at all?

The world according to master statesman, userperson Lyttenburgh.

What kind of "political nessage"?

Like "Oh, look, We, NATO, still are here! Not dead! Woo-hoo!" one?

And for whom such kind of message is so urgenly required - for Russia or histerical Polska Strong + "We are totally not Nazi-fanboys!" Baltic states?

IF some bright mind in NATO headquarters/Pentagon/Whatever think that Russia will "back off after the demonstration of the Alliance resolve" - well, they should think again and something better. Probably, something not along the lines to provoke Russia.

[Regnum Dominae]

So there is no valid purpose behind sending a political message? You must either prepare for imminent war or deploy no troops at all?

The world according to master statesman, userperson Lyttenburgh.

What kind of "political nessage"?

Like "Oh, look, We, NATO, still are here! Not dead! Woo-hoo!" one?

And for whom such kind of message is so urgenly required - for Russia or histerical Polska Strong + "We are totally not Nazi-fanboys!" Baltic states?

IF some bright mind in NATO headquarters/Pentagon/Whatever think that Russia will "back off after the demonstration of the Alliance resolve" - well, they should think again and something better. Probbaly, something not along the lines to provoke Russia.

The underlined does not make any sense whatsoever.

And the western nations are hardly the provocateurs here.

[Alien Space Bats]

I still wait for someone here saying "Yes, unbiased independant Westrn journos are shamless biased sell-outs". Or something like that - just get off you "morally superior then you, filhty Rushin'" hgh horse. "

I don't have a grudge towards Russians who don't worship at the idol of Greater Russia; indeed, I find many of them engaging and witty.

It's just the Pan-Russian nationalists who earn my contempt.

As for Western journalists all being great, CNN and FOX prove that they're anything but perfect. More to the point, if Western journalists have a single overarching failing, it's that they tend to publish too quickly without checking their facts; this works to the benefit of Ukrainians more often than Russians, who understand that Western journalists work this way and play to this tendency. But the best answer to this is NOT to swallow every idiotic lie that RT and the other Russian media publish; it's to simply wait a few news cycles and see if the latest story actually pans out, rather than jumping on the media bandwagon.

Of course, we knew this a year ago, when CNN soiled itself irrevocably with its incomparable (and I DON'T mean that word in a good way) coverage of the Boston marathon bombing. Why should anything have changed since then?

[Alien Space Bats]

So there is no valid purpose behind sending a political message? You must either prepare for imminent war or deploy no troops at all?

The world according to master statesman, userperson Lyttenburgh.

What kind of "political nessage"?

Like "Oh, look, We, NATO, still are here! Not dead! Woo-hoo!" one?

And for whom such kind of message is so urgenly required - for Russia or histerical Polska Strong + "We are totally not Nazi-fanboys!" Baltic states?

IF some bright mind in NATO headquarters/Pentagon/Whatever think that Russia will "back off after the demonstration of the Alliance resolve" - well, they should think again and something better. Probbaly, something not along the lines to provoke Russia.

You clearly have no idea how a "tripwire" force works.

The idea is rather simple: Putting 600 American troops into Poland, etc., means that ANY Russian invasion of Poland, etc., kills American soldiers. Once American soldiers die, we're all in, and holding back from a full commitment to the defense of Poland, etc., becomes politically untenable.

Really, this is not a new or radical idea; indeed, it's a very old — and very well established — idea.

[Oaledonia]

What kind of "political nessage"?

Like "Oh, look, We, NATO, still are here! Not dead! Woo-hoo!" one?

And for whom such kind of message is so urgenly required - for Russia or histerical Polska Strong + "We are totally not Nazi-fanboys!" Baltic states?

IF some bright mind in NATO headquarters/Pentagon/Whatever think that Russia will "back off after the demonstration of the Alliance resolve" - well, they should think again and something better. Probbaly, something not along the lines to provoke Russia.

You clearly have no idea how a "tripwire" force works.

The idea is rather simple: Putting 600 American troops into Poland, etc., means that ANY Russian invasion of Poland, etc., kills American soldiers. Once American soldiers die, we're all in, and holding back from a full commitment to the defense of Poland, etc., becomes politically untenable.

Really, this is not a new or radical idea; indeed, it's a very old — and very well established — idea.

Berlin was a good example.

[Gravlen]

What's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

He hadn't left the country at that point, he was in Odessa, I think.

That doesn't answer my question. He did leave the country, and has since not returned. So again, what's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

[Gravlen]

Where were the government troops when armed protestors took over the government buildings in...Kiev?

There's a double standard here.

How many people did they hold hostage, torture and/or kill?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'd like to start off by saying that Shof, what you wrote here is a stinking pile of bullshit, overfull with appeals to emotion and unsubstantiated claims. This is perhaps one of the least thought of responses of yours.



Yeah, except he didn't.

When the only option is for the soldiers to either fire on civilians, or withdraw, and they get court martialed for withdrawing, the firing part is clearly implied.

It was not a binary decision, stop pretending it was. I explained why but you apparently ignored that, conveniently. Here, perhaps you missed this:

Right

I love how you try to paint this like the situation had a binary result - either the soldiers shot the civilians or did what they did. Of course you do, it's convenient after all.

One does not simply "surround and detain" soldiers like that. They let themselves be detained. BMDs are machines designed to go off road, through really crappy terrain, dense forests even. It's what they do. Block a road, it won't be a problem for them, they'll go around a block. Try and block roads inside cities even, there are few things separatists could crop up that a BMD won't go around, through or over. You do realize this is criminal behavior, it's called "false imprisonment" and the soldiers had every right to self-defense, including against such acts. As far as civilians spontaneously surrounding BMDs, I'm sorry, as a soldier you shouldn't let yourself be overrun, and even then, if they tried to get out of there peacefully and you jumped in front of their APCs I'm sorry to break it to you but you're the one in the wrong here. They have no obligation (and indeed, no right) whatsoever to succumb to mob rule.

Here, we'll do this: source the claim that they were ordered to fire on unarmed civilians, and you've won this argument.

EDIT: A local amusement.. what the fuck's up with this circus, what a disgrace.

EDIT 2: Link above, 3:55 - "..Ukrainians are still in possession of them, but they've already been surrounded by a crowd of pro-Russian protesters" - Yeah right, I'm sorry, this is utter and complete bullshit. For fuck's sake that's not even inside a city, they're sitting beside a railway , how can BMDs get overrun by unarmed civvies on foot is beyond me. You do realize that this simply does not happen unless the soldiers let it happen, do you?

I explained that he didn't give the order verbally, but he placed the military in a situation where there only option would be shooting unarmed civilians or being court martialed for cowardice. That's not admitting that it was bullshit, that's stating that the order wasn't given directly, but the military was placed in a situation where it had no choice: http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/oleksandr-turchynov/

No, they weren't. And you decided to keep that catchy headline anyways, knowing that even by your rhetoric you were being dishonest.

A bit hard to follow orders when civilians are in your path and refuse to move.

I've already explained this above.

If you would've read my article, and my translation, you'd reason that the article I cited didn't actually have the military giving them weapons. That wasn't the brigade that I was talking about. I even mentioned the name, Shvets. From that very same quote:

Shvets? Google yields nothing. Burden of proof Source your claims next time. Yeah, I'm pretty fucking sure we're talking about the same god dammned 25th Airborne, stop being deliberately dense.

On April 18, 2014 acting President Oleksandr Turchynov disbanded the Brigade after paratroopers lost 6 armoured vehicles to Pro-Russian activists in the town of Kramatorsk during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.

This is exactly it: Vice - Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch Twenty Eight)

Published on Apr 20, 2014

Last week, Ukraine launched an anti-terror campaign to recapture the cities being occupied by pro-Russia protesters. So far, the campaign hasn't been going so well.

On April 16, the second day of the campaign, Ukrainian military moving into Sloviansk — the focal point of the pro-Russia forces — and gave up their equipment. The armory was brought to the center of town where it has become a local amusement.

Elsewhere, crowds of pro-Russia protesters stopped a column of Ukrainian troops in Kramatorsk and made them disarm. VICE News correspondent Simon Ostrovsky was on the scene as Ukrainian forces disarmed their weapons and vehicles.

Still not the same Brigade?

Go ahead, watch the video. Check the dates on your sources and mine. We're talking about the same Brigade, the same situation. The first column gave up their (quote Ostrosky) "equipment" , including 6 APCs as can be seen in the video, and the second column gave up their firing pins, making their AKs unusable. All of my arguments are as relevant to the first column as they are to the second. And they've yet to be addressed.

So, you were either commenting on information not up to date/incomplete , or any sources other than your own are wrong. Which of the two are you going to stand behind?

Here, here. http://www.utro.ru/articles/2014/04/17/1189991.shtml - one of your sources. Check out the pic:



Hmm are we having a deja vu or what, I think I saw that, oh right in Vice's video.

What part of "they did not turn over their weapons" is unclear? But even if that was unclear, you could've easily used Google Translate from the article that I cited: По данным военного ведомства, в переговоры с протестующими вступил командующий высокомобильными десантными войсками Украины Александр Швец. Он достиг соглашения о выходе солдат из окружения с личным оружием и на штатной технике.

He was able to reach and agreement where the soldiers carried out their weapons, and rode on their military vehicles. That story had NOTHING to do with the 6 APCs that were turned over. That was the story I was citing. Get your fucking facts straight, before calling bullshit on others. Cause that was just atrocious. Not only did you ignore the facts, that would've been business as usual. No, you TWISTED the facts in such contortions that truth became lie and lie became truth. When the article clearly states that the weapons and military vehicles were not turned over, you claim that they were. What the actual fuck? Yeah, the APCs were captured, but the 25th wasn't the only operational unit. Have you a source claiming that the APCs that were captured belonged directly to the 25th Brigade? No, you don't. You just go "oh noes, Shof posted something I don't like, here, let me B/S the facts and hope no one notices!" And you wonder why my responses to you include the words "Crimea River!"

This is all just shit, and all of it I've just debunked in this & earlier posts.

Have you a source claiming that the APCs that were captured belonged directly to the 25th Brigade?

Yahoo/AFP good enough, or is it all just American JewNazi propaganda ?

What the fuck? First you brazenly lie about the 25th handing over their weapons and vehicles, which didn't happen according to the source I cited, and then you accuse me of lying? What the actual fuck? Dude, stop. Unless you're here to bait others, just fucking stop.

Oh, so you chose. You're gonna stand behind the argument that any sources other than your own are wrong. Good to know.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Do you even understand what "hypocritical" means? Being hypocritical implies being inconsistent in your opinion, more specifically, supporting something when it is convenient for you to do so whilst at the same time denouncing someone else that does.

Here's my original statement:



My argument wasn't that you're inconsistent in your opinion, but rather, overly consistent, to the point that your opinions stop being based in reality and start being based on preconceived ideas on how countries are (or should be) organized, rather. Then I went ahead and hypothesized as to where these preconceived ideas may have come from, it could have just as well been the US or Germany instead of Russia there.

You really should stop commenting on what you think the opinions of others are, because you tend to use your commentary to claim that people who dare to disagree with you are supa-poopa-ubah biased in whatever the fuck you're arguing against. Lame tactic is lame. Also, you stated this: not that Russia would allow any of this, after all, even spreading separatist views can get you up to 5 yrs in prison

I've already explained this, I don't have to repeat myself just because you choose to ignore whatever you feel is convenient to ignore, only to call me out on issues already addressed.

Federal vs Unitary is not about democracy. It's about autonomy. For instance, a country like Estonia works as a Unitary whatever, cause it's tiny. A country like Russia cannot work as a Unitary thingy. And Ukraine is closer to Russia than to Estonia in terms of demographics and diversity.

Unitary republic, that hard ? I understand you despise them, but you could call them what they are, at least for practicality's sake.

I also love how you call me out on my commentary that you claim implies you have pro-Russian bias , only for that to prove to be true. It's like me making an argument, you strawman-ing and disproving a perceived claim, only for that perceived claim to actually prove to be true

And yes, before you ask, I was referring to the likes of this

(not that Russia would allow any of this, after all, even spreading separatist views can get you up to 5 yrs in prison)

not this

Perhaps removing the bias goggles would help.

Why, you ask? As far as diversity goes, Russians make up almost a full quarter of the total population in Estonia, whereas in Ukraine this number is closer to 17%. Estonia has among others, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Finns, Tatars, Jews, Latvians. Point is, as far as diversity goes, Estonia is either more diverse or on par with Ukraine, and Ukraine is nowhere near as diverse as Russia. As far as demographics go, if by that you mean population, it's obviously closer to many nations in its ballpark, many of which are unitary republics, than it is to huge ass Russia. Same applies for size. Starting from the bottom of the list, federations only really start getting common once you reach a certain size threshold. Ukraine is well below that and I can bet that unitary republics about its size outnumber federative republics by a lot. This is flawed logic on your part.

So, your little attempt at trying to make Ukraine look like Russia (and duh obviously because it's like Russia it's more appropriate for it to be federative) has failed.

And are we beating a dead horse or what?

I know!

Keep telling yourself that, bud.

People's votes do. It's not about creating a Great Russia, it's about respecting the will of the voters.

Right Oh, and you could for once, address the post.

We've already been through this. I've already clarified my position that I'd rather Transnistria fucked off wherever they wanted , as a USSR themepark is nothing but trouble, but you keep on beating this dead horse even deader. The reason we've had this whole argument is that you stated Moldova's regions (with no word from you of this being limited to Transnistria) should individually vote on union with Romania, and when I attacked this, you turned it into a Transnistria issue, and pretended that because Transnistria is autonomous, this somehow invalidates Moldova being a unitary republic as far as all other regions save for Transnistria are concerned. Which I've debunked. Moving goalposts much?

Let me reiterate: Transnistria can fuck off (literally), Moldova is a unitary republic whose population already votes and will vote as such.

Yeah, living in California tends to make one enjoy the Proposition Process.

Irrelevant.

From your comments, I'm guessing that you're either in Texas, Florida, or the part of Arizona influenced by McCain.

You guessed wrong. See, I'm better at guessing than you are.

Additionally, I'm not suggesting federalization for Moldova

Except for the fact that you indirectly are by suggesting Moldova should vote region by region as opposed to nationally. Which you did suggest.

I'm suggesting a split, if, and only if, the voters actually approve it; TransDneister to Russia, rest to Romania

Fine.

, special states for Gaugazia.

Nah, don't think so. It's already autonomous (between you and me, disproportionately large to the actual number of Gagauz) , but a far cry away from Transnistria.

Please explain how California's state elections aren't the golden standard for Democracy. Now, Cali's state elections, what's wrong with them?

Strawman.

I'm well aware of America's Federal Electoral Flaws.

At least we can agree on something.

Again, the people on the ground aren't going to follow a piece of paper not signed by them. Your failure to understand this is most amusing.

No, your failure to understand the difference between de facto and de jure is most amusing. They don't get to sign anything.

Yeah, really. Moldova has little de facto control over TransDneister, even though De Jure TransDneister is part of Moldova. Hence the De Facto De Jure split.

See above. They're about as recognized in the UN as I am on the hardcore porn scene.

Also, this holds:

All of its other administrative divisions are unitary, both de jure and de facto.

First you bitched about someone calling someone else "terrorists" over political stuff, then you applauded someone calling self-defense forces, "terrorists" and now you're claiming that's been your plan all along? Brilliant!

Oh what a bloody hypocrite I am, where the fuck did I do that.

Right, like your "Crimea River"?

And you presented it more as something factual than an opinion. Let him speak for himself, I'm pretty sure he's well capable of that.

He might get tired of responding to you after your countless attempts to make what he's saying worse than it actually is.

I never did that, and you might be confusing Nilf with Lytte .

They funded Chesno, and similar organizations whose goal was another anti-Yanukovich revolution, albeit a peaceful one, and then their politicians went out and joined the protests.

Do you, or anyone else, have any proof whatsoever to suggest that the "West" boosted aid after Yanu refused the EU? If not you lack an argument.

I'd much rather have the US go into Mexico guns blazing if the US can target just the cartels, and cause no civvie casualties. I'd have no issues with that, because, guess what, cartels have no issues exporting violence to the US, and then they just run back home and go "nyah, nyah, nyah" fuck that shit. Pwn 'em.

Well that says a lot about you in general and specifically the way you understand peace and politics.

[United Marxist Nations]

He hadn't left the country at that point, he was in Odessa, I think.

That doesn't answer my question. He did leave the country, and has since not returned. So again, what's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

He hadn't left the country when they forced him out.

[Mefpan]

That doesn't answer my question. He did leave the country, and has since not returned. So again, what's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

He hadn't left the country when they forced him out.

When I read about the whole legality of his impeachment, I'm wondering - the numbers say the 75% majority neccessary for that wasn't there, but I'm much more curious about whether it was 75% of all those who had a say in the matter and chose to say something.

I'm sure it was answered here at some point already, but since it is a close call even with the absolute numbers, might the 75% majority have been reached by way of enough representatives having neglected to vote against it? How is that particular possibility handled, anyway? Or am I just being a moron with no clue about things work in the Ukraine (this one's a given, I guess)?

[Gravlen]

That doesn't answer my question. He did leave the country, and has since not returned. So again, what's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

He hadn't left the country when they forced him out.

Non-responsive. I'll try again: What's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

[United Marxist Nations]

He hadn't left the country when they forced him out.

Non-responsive. I'll try again: What's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

I don't know, but it is irrelevant, because they forced him to leave the country in the first place.

[Geilinor]

So there is no valid purpose behind sending a political message? You must either prepare for imminent war or deploy no troops at all?

The world according to master statesman, userperson Lyttenburgh.

What kind of "political nessage"?

Like "Oh, look, We, NATO, still are here! Not dead! Woo-hoo!" one?

And for whom such kind of message is so urgenly required - for Russia or histerical Polska Strong + "We are totally not Nazi-fanboys!" Baltic states?

IF some bright mind in NATO headquarters/Pentagon/Whatever think that Russia will "back off after the demonstration of the Alliance resolve" - well, they should think again and something better. Probbaly, something not along the lines to provoke Russia.

You're such a hypocrite. Russia can do passes over American ships and not expect a show of force in return?

[Geilinor]

Non-responsive. I'll try again: What's the correct constitutional procedure to deal with a President who've chosen to leave the country and doesn't return to fulfill his duties as president?

I don't know, but it is irrelevant, because they forced him to leave the country in the first place.

No, he left because he couldn't deal with the crisis.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't know, but it is irrelevant, because they forced him to leave the country in the first place.

No, he left because he couldn't deal with the crisis.

He left after they forced him out.

[Geilinor]

He hadn't left the country when they forced him out.

When I read about the whole legality of his impeachment, I'm wondering - the numbers say the 75% majority neccessary for that wasn't there, but I'm much more curious about whether it was 75% of all those who had a say in the matter and chose to say something.

I'm sure it was answered here at some point already, but since it is a close call even with the absolute numbers, might the 75% majority have been reached by way of enough representatives having neglected to vote against it? How is that particular possibility handled, anyway? Or am I just being a moron with no clue about things work in the Ukraine (this one's a given, I guess)?

73% voted to impeach Yanukovych, the rest didn't vote at all. You don't have the right to not vote against something you oppose and then whine about the result. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26304842
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html It could be that some of the representatives weren't present.