Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Costa Fierro]

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Except that all of this is bullshit. Ethnically, that may be the case. But so is most of eastern Ukraine. And you don't see the Russians going after that. It was only ever part of Russia itself when Stalin was in power. That's it. Before and after that, it was always administered as part of the Ukraine.

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia.

The majority of those who voted do. I'm guessing the Russians didn't bother to ask the Ukrainians or the Crimean Tartars living there whether or not they wanted to.

Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

It's illegal, period. Now, quit playing the victim card here. Because no one is going to buy the sanctimonious bullshit you keep spewing. Did I support Kosovo? No. When it happened I was way to young to understand what was happening. But it happened, so fucking deal with it.

[Palmyrene Empire]

So. any news on the Tatars? Heard Russia is stealing their land, but other than that, not much.

[Shofercia]

1897 Russian Census of Crimea (thousands)

Russians - 181
Ukrainians - 65
Crimean Tatars - 194
Others - 107

See? Not even a plurality of ethnic Russians. Let alone a majority.

I said that, and went to point that Russians would've had a plurality, eventually, and that the difference was 2.4%. However, if you want to be that anal about it, I could also point out that if you're going to split up Russians and Ukrainians in 1897, you should also split up the Crimean Tatars into three groups: Tats (55%), Yalibou (30%) and Nogay (15%), which would effectively give Russians a plurality. But that's besides the point, since Russians have a majority now.

Crimea was as much a periphery as Kiev, unless you're counting the Black Sea as a country.

On the order of one third of the population was ethnically Russian, and we're on what is very literally and geographically on the edge of Russian territory.

EDIT: And in case you've forgotten the Ottoman Empire next door, I haven't. Crimea was of critical strategic importance because it was indeed on the edge of Russian-held territories, with an assortment of other polities a stone's throw away over the water.

I think we have a different definition of what periphery means. Using your definition, Boston was also on the periphery of the US, as was Washington DC.

And there was a whopping 2.4 percent keeping the Russians from being a plurality in 1897. Considering immigration rates, i.e. "I can haz land in Crimea, I move there!" had there been no turmoil and a census in 1905, Russians would've had the plurality.

"Had history been different, Russians would have had the plurality," you say. Well, there was turmoil, and all indications are that Crimean Tartars retained a narrow plurality of the local population until such time as the Civil War. Up to and including a Tatar-led government bidding for independence in 1917.

When there's turmoil, revolution, or economic depression, people tend to want to separate from the central government. If only I could think of a modern example of that... something like Crimea perhaps?

You're missing the part where Crimea was ruled by Moscow when it was part of the Russian Empire.

No more and no less than the entire Ukraine. As I pointed out, during the Russian Empire, Crimea was placed under larger administrative units which were both:

(A) Largely ethnically Ukrainian.
(B) Now fall entirely within modern-day Ukrainian borders.

See, Crimea was administratively part of Taurida:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurida_Governorate

(Principally Ukrainian on the whole, with ethnic Russians falling a distant second)

And before that, "New Russia," an even more Ukrainian administrative unit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk_Governorate

I'm not missing those parts of history. I'm putting them in complete context. The fact of the matter is that from 1783-1917, while Crimea was owned by the Russian Empire, so was what is now modern-day Ukraine, and Crimea was viewed as part of one or another largely-Ukrainian piece of it. Exactly corresponding, in other words, to the 1954-1991 status of Crimea as part of the Ukrainian SSR.

The appeal to historical possession you're making is no more and no less the same appeal to historical possession that would be trotted out were Putin to march troops into Kiev itself. The principal historical-ethnic claim on Crimea is Turkic; and the principal political-geographic claim on Crimea is Ukrainian. The predecessor states / administrative units / etc of the modern-day Ukraine owned Crimea 1783-1917 and 1954 up until Ukrainian independence in 1991.

The period in which Crimea has been part of an independent Ukraine (23 years) is nearly as long as the directly "Russian-but-not-Ukrainian" period (32 years), and far more recent. And that's the only historical period you can point to for claiming that Crimea should be Russian-but-not-Ukrainian territory.

Get the point?

Except Crimea was administered from Moscow, since in Imperial Russia, Moscow was the boss. As Emperor Paul I said it: "the only person who was important in Russia was the one speaking to the Emperor, and only while he was so speaking!" Granted, that's an exaggeration, but any Russian Emperor could've subordinated Taurida to any Russian administrative center, and no one would ask twice. The very fact that Crimea was shifted back and forth within the Empire, merely illustrated this concept, and the Russian Navy stationed in Crimea, held Imperial Decrees above local whims.

The argument you're making for Russian ownership of Crimea could be applied equally well, in some cases better, to practically any other part of the former USSR. Estonia... Georgia... Moldova... Kazakhstan... Lithuania...

One of the arguments I made, was Kiev ignoring Crimea, when they had the two plus decades to help out the Peninsula. Did Estonia ignore Estonia? Nope. Perhaps Latvia ignored Latvia? Nope. Hmm, but maybe, just maybe, Lithuania ignored Lithuania? Nope. As for Kazakhstan, the government actually gives a shit about their peripheries. The Government should give that a try, instead of the crap they usually do. They still have a chance with Odessa. But I doubt they'll be smart enough to realize it.

[Shofercia]

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Except that all of this is bullshit. Ethnically, that may be the case. But so is most of eastern Ukraine. And you don't see the Russians going after that. It was only ever part of Russia itself when Stalin was in power. That's it. Before and after that, it was always administered as part of the Ukraine.

Always?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 9090_n.jpg

And why don't you see Russians going after Eastern Ukraine? Purple and blue would look more dashing when they're red

[Geilinor]

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

You would have wanted Yeltsin to try to make Crimea part of Russia again? Yeltsin didn't decide which parts of the USSR would become part of Russia. Also, the Soviet Union illegally took parts of Finnish Karelia and made them part of Russia.

[Shofercia]

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

You would have wanted Yeltsin to try to make Crimea part of Russia again? Yeltsin didn't decide which parts of the USSR would become part of Russia.

Not necessarily Yeltsin, but when the USSR was dissolving, why do SSRs get to declare independence, but not ASSRs?

[Occupied Deutschland]

The argument you're making for Russian ownership of Crimea could be applied equally well, in some cases better, to practically any other part of the former USSR. Estonia... Georgia... Moldova... Kazakhstan... Lithuania...

...
One of the arguments I made, was Kiev ignoring Crimea, when they had the two plus decades to help out the Peninsula. Did Estonia ignore Estonia? Nope. Perhaps Latvia ignored Latvia? Nope. Hmm, but maybe, just maybe, Lithuania ignored Lithuania? Nope. As for Kazakhstan, the government actually gives a shit about their peripheries. The Government should give that a try, instead of the crap they usually do. They still have a chance with Odessa. But I doubt they'll be smart enough to realize it.

So Russia refuses to recognize the principles behind Westphalian sovereignty and are 'justified' in any invasion or international action by the benefit their rule may bring in newly acquired territories?

You've alluded to this in the past, Shof. Perhaps you'd care to state it explicitly? Is Russia justified in invading another country on the grounds of their rule being beneficial?

Edit: Quote tags

[Lemanrussland]

Except that all of this is bullshit. Ethnically, that may be the case. But so is most of eastern Ukraine. And you don't see the Russians going after that. It was only ever part of Russia itself when Stalin was in power. That's it. Before and after that, it was always administered as part of the Ukraine.

Always?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 9090_n.jpg

And why don't you see Russians going after Eastern Ukraine? Purple and blue would look more dashing when they're red

A minor quibble with that map.

How could Lenin have added Budjak to Ukraine in 1922? That was not even part of the USSR's territory in 1922. Bunjak was added to Ukraine in 1939 in the form of the Akkerman (later called Izmail) Oblast, by Stalin. In 54', Izmail was then incorporated into the Odessa Oblast. Stalin did this (and moved Ukrainians and Russians there/deported Romanians and Bulgarians, instead of just leaving Budjak part of the Moldavian SSR) to ensure Soviet control of the Danube Delta.

[Geilinor]

You would have wanted Yeltsin to try to make Crimea part of Russia again? Yeltsin didn't decide which parts of the USSR would become part of Russia.

Not necessarily Yeltsin, but when the USSR was dissolving, why do SSRs get to declare independence, but not ASSRs?

Because ASSRs have fewer powers than SSRs and have lower status. Also, if you wanted ASSRs to declare independence, Russia would have had to accept the loss of many areas, which you probably wouldn't support.

[Shofercia]

Always?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 9090_n.jpg

And why don't you see Russians going after Eastern Ukraine? Purple and blue would look more dashing when they're red

A minor quibble with that map.

How could Lenin have added Budjak to Ukraine in 1922? That was not even part of the USSR's territory in 1922. Bunjak was added to Ukraine in 1939 in the form of the Akkerman (later called Izmail) Oblast, by Stalin. In 54', Izmail was then incorporated into the Odessa Oblast. Stalin did this (and moved Ukrainians and Russians there, instead of just leaving Budjak part of the Moldavian SSR) to ensure Soviet control of the Danube Delta.

Thank you for the correction. I'll ask the hosting to change it, but that could take a while

...
One of the arguments I made, was Kiev ignoring Crimea, when they had the two plus decades to help out the Peninsula. Did Estonia ignore Estonia? Nope. Perhaps Latvia ignored Latvia? Nope. Hmm, but maybe, just maybe, Lithuania ignored Lithuania? Nope. As for Kazakhstan, the government actually gives a shit about their peripheries. The Government should give that a try, instead of the crap they usually do. They still have a chance with Odessa. But I doubt they'll be smart enough to realize it.

So Russia refuses to recognize the principles behind Westphalian sovereignty and are 'justified' in any invasion or international action by the benefit their rule may bring in newly acquired territories?

You've alluded to this in the past, Shof. Perhaps you'd care to state it explicitly? Is Russia justified in invading another country on the grounds of their rule being beneficial?

Edit: Quote tags

No. There's a certain criteria, and the reason that I don't want to state the criteria on NSG, is because several posters, including yourself, love taking what I state in very narrow terms, and give it the broadest meaning possible. For instance when I state that I can support peaceful annexation under some terms, some automatically presume that I support all annexation, no matter what. However, speaking of Crimea, and the dissolution of the USSR in general, I'll ask you a question, if you won't mind answering it: why do SSRs get to decide, but not ASSRs?

Conversely, if the US was to hypothetically fall apart, why shouldn't the people living in Washington DC decide whether they want to be with Virginia, Maryland, or become independent?

[Shofercia]

Not necessarily Yeltsin, but when the USSR was dissolving, why do SSRs get to declare independence, but not ASSRs?

Because ASSRs have fewer powers than SSRs and have lower status. Also, if you wanted ASSRs to declare independence, Russia would have had to accept the loss of many areas, which you probably wouldn't support.

Not necessarily. The ASSRs would still have to have popular support for independence, and be able to function as independent states. Just for the record, I wasn't a fan of the First Chechen War. Which ASSRs do you think that would've left Russia, I would've opposed?

[Lemanrussland]

A minor quibble with that map.

How could Lenin have added Budjak to Ukraine in 1922? That was not even part of the USSR's territory in 1922. Bunjak was added to Ukraine in 1939 in the form of the Akkerman (later called Izmail) Oblast, by Stalin. In 54', Izmail was then incorporated into the Odessa Oblast. Stalin did this (and moved Ukrainians and Russians there, instead of just leaving Budjak part of the Moldavian SSR) to ensure Soviet control of the Danube Delta.

Thank you for the correction. I'll ask the hosting to change it, but that could take a while

So Russia refuses to recognize the principles behind Westphalian sovereignty and are 'justified' in any invasion or international action by the benefit their rule may bring in newly acquired territories?

You've alluded to this in the past, Shof. Perhaps you'd care to state it explicitly? Is Russia justified in invading another country on the grounds of their rule being beneficial?

Edit: Quote tags

No. There's a certain criteria, and the reason that I don't want to state the criteria on NSG, is because several posters, including yourself, love taking what I state in very narrow terms, and give it the broadest meaning possible. For instance when I state that I can support peaceful annexation under some terms, some automatically presume that I support all annexation, no matter what. However, speaking of Crimea, and the dissolution of the USSR in general, I'll ask you a question, if you won't mind answering it: why do SSRs get to decide, but not ASSRs?

Conversely, if the US was to hypothetically fall apart, why shouldn't the people living in Washington DC decide whether they want to be with Virginia, Maryland, or become independent?

>added in 1939
Ah sorry, I fucked up. It was added to Ukraine in August 1940 (Bessarabia was not even occupied until July 1940). My point stands in any case.

[Avenio]

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

See, the problem with this is that this isn't cowboy days of the 1840's anymore. You can't just go running about invading other countries out of a sense of irredentism or national identity, whether true or imagined. There are international laws and treaties to be followed in order to ensure that the given population's wishes are heeded and independence referenda are as transparent as possible.

Had Crimea merely announced its intention to hold a referendum on joining Russia or becoming independent, and the Russians stayed on their side of the border, there would be little to no complaints coming from the international community. UN observers could be sent in to monitor the situation, the Ukrainians would bow to the will of the international community and the results of the referendum, and all this could have been handled peacefully.

Instead, Russia decided to jump the gun and throw the entire situation into the air by invading, invalidate with their presence and the ejection of the UN monitors the referendum that followed, and generally set fire to their own reputation as an honest broker in diplomatic affairs.

[Palmyrene Empire]

This isnt good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crimean- ... z2wtEkRyrq
Looks like some Tatars arent too happy with the Russian occupiers/government.

[Sibirsky]

The same Russia in which oil and gas account for 58% of exports? The same Russia in which half of government revenue comes from oil and gas?

Russia's exports account for 16 percent of Russia's GDP. 58% of that makes that 9.3% of GDP. We know that it took Russia two years to recover from what, even by your estimates a 7-8 percent drop. So this could take what, 3 years? Dude, it's Russia. The country had many chances to practice on the spot survival. Oil & gas, while important, aren't life threatening. That's what I'm saying.

I claimed life threatening? Assuming this actually happened (it won't) the decline would be much larger than 9.3%. Other industries depend on it also.

Hitler invaded and annexed the Sudetenland. Three million ethnic Germans lived there. Nobody did anything, because they did not want a war. And Hitler had the justification of it being populated by Germans.

Hitler grew bolder, since no one did anything.

You were saying?

Apparently not.

https://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/if-you-give-a-putin-a-crimea

Crimea River! Also, from that source: Crimea is also Russia’s only warm-water port on the Black Sea.

Really? What's this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk

But who needs facts when you can talk about mice and cookies: If You Give a Mouse a Cookie is a fine piece of children’s’ literature. What's next, My Pet Goat as the answer to Middle Eastern Problems?

Your joke, is so original. Did Putin help you with that?

You missed the entire fucking point of the comparison.

The reason that comparison to Nazi Germany is stupid, is because you're missing the Genocidal element.

This has been addressed.

A. At that point in time, no genocide has yet occurred.
B. Genocide was not the only thing they did.

[Lemanrussland]

This isnt good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crimean- ... z2wtEkRyrq
Looks like some Tatars arent too happy with the Russian occupiers/government.

I'm sure they knew that was going to happen when they decided to occupy Crimea.

They will not be able to engage in the same brutal tactics that have been used in the Chechen Wars. Any allegations of human rights abuses in counter-insurgency/terrorism operations will be pretty bad PR.

[Shofercia]

Russia's exports account for 16 percent of Russia's GDP. 58% of that makes that 9.3% of GDP. We know that it took Russia two years to recover from what, even by your estimates a 7-8 percent drop. So this could take what, 3 years? Dude, it's Russia. The country had many chances to practice on the spot survival. Oil & gas, while important, aren't life threatening. That's what I'm saying.

I claimed life threatening? Assuming this actually happened (it won't) the decline would be much larger than 9.3%. Other industries depend on it also.

You said "plunge Russian Economy into Great Depression" or something like that. It was such a scary, scary, scary comparison...

Apparently not.

Crimea River! Also, from that source: Crimea is also Russia’s only warm-water port on the Black Sea.

Really? What's this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk

But who needs facts when you can talk about mice and cookies: If You Give a Mouse a Cookie is a fine piece of children’s’ literature. What's next, My Pet Goat as the answer to Middle Eastern Problems?

Your joke, is so original. Did Putin help you with that?

You missed the entire fucking point of the comparison.

No, I didn't. It's a lame comparison made to fearmonger. Boooring.

The reason that comparison to Nazi Germany is stupid, is because you're missing the Genocidal element.

This has been addressed.

A. At that point in time, no genocide has yet occurred.
B. Genocide was not the only thing they did.

The reasons that most people make that comparison is to fearmonger. Been there, heard that. Boooring. Seriously, the whole "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" thing is getting old. Get new material please.

[Palmyrene Empire]

This isnt good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crimean- ... z2wtEkRyrq
Looks like some Tatars arent too happy with the Russian occupiers/government.

I'm sure they knew that was going to happen when they decided to occupy Crimea.

They will not be able to engage in the same brutal tactics that have been used in the Chechen Wars. Any allegations of human rights abuses in counter-insurgency/terrorism operations will be pretty bad PR.

Iyd be intresting to see someone who is Pro Russia to speak on this.

[Shofercia]

This isnt good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crimean- ... z2wtEkRyrq
Looks like some Tatars arent too happy with the Russian occupiers/government.

I'm sure they knew that was going to happen when they decided to occupy Crimea.

They will not be able to engage in the same brutal tactics that have been used in the Chechen Wars. Any allegations of human rights abuses in counter-insurgency/terrorism operations will be pretty bad PR.

There won't be a Crimean Insurgency, at least not an effective one. I've already addressed why: viewtopic.php?p=19060870#p19060870

First, in order to have an effective insurgency of scale, you need the people to be more pissed off at Russians than enjoying their livelyhoods. That's clearly not the case in the Crimea. But alright, let's say that we make them all listen to Beiber and their lives suck.

Second, you need competent insurgency leadership. Quite a few leaders who participated in insurgency ops elsewhere would be known, and be wiped out. But ok, let's assume that Neo does a mind wipe, and Russians forget who fought where. Note, I'm already using Beiber and Matrix, but that's not yet enough.

Third, you need training bases. Where, in the Crimea, shall you find them? Russians have been mapping the region since the times of Catherine the Great. If there are potential training bases, we'd know about it. But let's say that batman and robin stole those maps and those plans.

Fourth, you need a way to get supplies into Crimea. The land route's going to be cut off, and sea routes can easily be radared. But let's say that you send aquaman with the supplies in. Welp, now you have something insurgency-like. How long shall that last? Considering that Tatars live just fine in Kazan... not very long.

Now they might pull off some attacks, but it'll probably be very short lived, or not very effective.

Iyd be intresting to see someone who is Pro Russia to speak on this.

Sure thing

[Occupied Deutschland]

So Russia refuses to recognize the principles behind Westphalian sovereignty and are 'justified' in any invasion or international action by the benefit their rule may bring in newly acquired territories?

You've alluded to this in the past, Shof. Perhaps you'd care to state it explicitly? Is Russia justified in invading another country on the grounds of their rule being beneficial?

Edit: Quote tags

No. There's a certain criteria, and the reason that I don't want to state the criteria on NSG, is because several posters, including yourself, love taking what I state in very narrow terms, and give it the broadest meaning possible. For instance when I state that I can support peaceful annexation under some terms, some automatically presume that I support all annexation, no matter what. However, speaking of Crimea, and the dissolution of the USSR in general, I'll ask you a question, if you won't mind answering it: why do SSRs get to decide, but not ASSRs?

Conversely, if the US was to hypothetically fall apart, why shouldn't the people living in Washington DC decide whether they want to be with Virginia, Maryland, or become independent?

So no, Russia isn't justified in annexing territory based on bringing benefits to the annexed region, but you still use this as a reason for them to do so?
You should probably cut that out so no one mistakes it for something it isn't. Or explain the criteria.

I'm rather weary of you dancing around a clear answer or confrontation of actual points raised, but fine, I'll answer your question:
SSRs got to decide because that's how it was determined the breakup would work.
Not my fault the USSR collapsed, and 'the West' isn't responsible for the fuckery that may have evolved from it. Simultaneously foreign invasion by Russia or any of the former Soviet Republics on their neighbors to correct any fuckery that may have happened isn't justified. If Russia fuckered their organizational districts, that's a problem. That's not a problem whose solution is Russian invasion of the SSR-derived territories based on ethnic reunification.

If Crimea was desired by Russia, there are perfectly legitimate manners in which a claim can be made and a referendum pushed for (I mean come on, it's not like Russia hasn't held the all-consuming gas card over Ukraine for what a decade at least now? Maybe more? If Russia wanted to pressure Ukraine over Crimea's status as a Ukrainian autonomous Republic, that's a damn big string to pull that Russia has been willing to pull before). Russia doesn't get to "correct" the "mistake" of Crimea's being legally transferred to Ukraine via anschluss of the region in blatant contravention of international law and treaties they've signed with Ukraine itself recognizing Crimea as belonging to Ukraine.
Or, I suppose, to be more accurate they don't get to without being called out on being massive imperialist dicks with no justification for doing so beyond the 'ethnic reunification' of the Greater German Reich Russian Federation and the pursuit of their own ambitions whilst flouting every international norm agreed upon.

Now, you can scream 'But yur Kosovo!' as loudly as you want, and perhaps even be correct in NATO having acted similarly. But tu quoque is a fallacy, not a justification.

[Sibirsky]

1. Oh no. He used a "bad" word.

2. NC

3. NC. The articles did not contradict me.

4. I DID ELABORATE. Several times.

5.

1. No shit. But given your history, who knows?

2.

3. Because you are "special."

1. Because using "big boy words" is a great way to forward your opinion.

2.

3. NC

4. NC

5. NC

6. NC

7. I love you too.

8. Oh, so now you are calling me "special"-as in mentally disabled? Wow, calling people names reveals a lot about your debate skills. Not trying to hurt ya, just pointing stuff out.

9. Given my history......what, my nation's founding? Our little war to prevent wayward capitalists from seizing our colony? That history? What does that have to do with anything?

My debate skills are fine. You're not worth the time and effort, because you have deliberately missed the point, several times.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
The reasons that most people make that comparison is to fearmonger. Been there, heard that. Boooring. Seriously, the whole "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" thing is getting old. Get new material please.

Actually the reason most people make the Hitler-->Putin comparison is because of the arguments used to justify their actions (and, to a lesser extent the manner in which the referendum was carried out. IE: Post-anschluss under the gun).

You know, since the justification for the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea is based around reunification of Crimea with their ethnic Russian brothers who desire to be ruled under the Russian state as the Germans in the Sudetenland desired to be ruled under the German state.
Though I guess the comparison isn't entirely valid. Hitler negotiated with the international community in order to twist Czeckoslovakia into ceding the Sudetenland uncontested, whereas Putin just used the threat of overwhelming force and the sudden appearance of 'Crimean self-defense forces with equipment and Russian trucks with license plates linking them to the military district outside of Moscow (21-Chuvashia) and BTRs they bought from the corner store or the Internet.'

[Sibirsky]

I claimed life threatening? Assuming this actually happened (it won't) the decline would be much larger than 9.3%. Other industries depend on it also.

You said "plunge Russian Economy into Great Depression" or something like that. It was such a scary, scary, scary comparison...

No, I didn't. And if I did, a depression is defined as a recession of 10% or more. So that would have been correct.

Your joke, is so original. Did Putin help you with that?

You missed the entire fucking point of the comparison.

No, I didn't. It's a lame comparison made to fearmonger. Boooring.

Lol. Right. ASB has shown why it's valid.

This has been addressed.

A. At that point in time, no genocide has yet occurred.
B. Genocide was not the only thing they did.

The reasons that most people make that comparison is to fearmonger. Been there, heard that. Boooring. Seriously, the whole "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" thing is getting old. Get new material please.

That was not the reason the comparison was made. Besides, being emboldened by making unopposed moves is in no way, a unique trait.

[Greed and Death]

In other news Russia is claiming Brooklyn nets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/2 ... 22228.html

Glad I left new york.

[Sibirsky]

...
The reasons that most people make that comparison is to fearmonger. Been there, heard that. Boooring. Seriously, the whole "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" thing is getting old. Get new material please.

Actually the reason most people make the Hitler-->Putin comparison is because of the arguments used to justify their actions (and, to a lesser extent the manner in which the referendum was carried out. IE: Post-anschluss under the gun).

You know, since the justification for the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea is based around reunification of Crimea with their ethnic Russian brothers who desire to be ruled under the Russian state as the Germans in the Sudetenland desired to be ruled under the German state.
Though I guess the comparison isn't entirely valid. Hitler negotiated with the international community in order to twist Czeckoslovakia into ceding the Sudetenland uncontested, whereas Putin just used the threat of overwhelming force and the sudden appearance of 'Crimean self-defense forces with equipment and Russian trucks with license plates linking them to the military district outside of Moscow (21-Chuvashia) and BTRs they bought from the corner store or the Internet.'

That was explained to him.

That does not compute, since that is a comparison of Hitler (who invaded the glorious USSR, and is therefore satan) to Putin (who has presided over Russia rising from ashes to a considerable power, and is therefore god).

I may have slightly (but only slightly) exaggerated.