Russian Anti-Corruption Protests "Biggest Since 2012"

[Shofercia]

If people like you represented the majority of Americans, I would cheer the American effort against Russia in Crimea, because the end result would be utter humiliation for the US. Thankfully, you don't represent the majority, and my advice is to stop challenging Russia on the issue of Crimea; only humiliation awaits on that front. If the Demographic and Economic data on Ukraine and Crimea doesn't tell you the story, nothing will.

The majority of Americans think negatively of Russia you know.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2422
So I do represent the majority on this.

I doubt the majority have such passion about such cluelessness.

Oh Really? How?
The status quo is fine for us, just strengthen the sanctions.
I know you have these dreams Ukraine is going to join Russia or something but they are silly.

And yes, look at the economic and demographic data. The places in Ukraine doing best economically and demographically are in the WEST.

Better than Crimea? Because there's a war in Donetsk and Lugansk, so places without war generally do better than places with war. So, are you saying that Western Ukraine is doing better than Crimea, demographically and economically? I just want to understand your argument before slaughtering it, so that you cannot pretend to mean something else when your argument is slaughtered.

The Ukrainian ecnomy is growing, albeit slowly, driven by argiculture from the west.
It grew in 2.2% in 2016 which is faster than Russia BTW.

Yes, your ability to cherry pick statistics is known to me. Ukraine's economy: http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/ukraine

Here's the GDP in billions of American Dollars:
2011: 163
2012: 173
2013: 180
2014: 131 (and yes, 2014 is when Maidan happened, sponsored partially by USAID)
2015: 87
2016: 89 (that's assuming that your statistic is correct)

So three years after USAID sponsored Maidan, Ukraine lost half of its GDP, but Novus is cheering 2.2% growth. Hey, that's like saying "I know our basketball team lost 101-21, but did you see that amazing 3 pointer at the end?" Of course looking at the demographic decline, the boost is very much temporary.

The places in Ukraine with the highest birthrates are in the west.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra ... 2011ua.PNG

As time goes on support for Russia in Ukraine will continue to drop, and economic and political power will continue to shift west.

Sure you got Crimea, and you will keep it. And you got some ruins in the Donbass.
But you lost the rest of Ukraine as a result. Russia actually sped up the process considerably by removing the most pro Russian areas.

Russian actions in Ukraine were an act of desperation. To keep what they could before they lost the entire thing.

Not a horrible outcome for us at all.

Always good to see you following the logic of Napoleon the III. Thing is, we don't want Western Ukraine. We have plenty of land. If Western Ukraine wants to go off and play with NATO - let them go. Just another albatross around the EU's neck, just like South Kosovo. And Europeans - take note. Americans like Novus are more than happy to hang albatrosses on your neck. Think about that, and then decide - have you had enough to start working on your own foreign policy, or are you going to continue to live in fear of a mythical invasion?

[Novus America]

The majority of Americans think negatively of Russia you know.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2422
So I do represent the majority on this.

I doubt the majority have such passion about such cluelessness.

Oh Really? How?
The status quo is fine for us, just strengthen the sanctions.
I know you have these dreams Ukraine is going to join Russia or something but they are silly.

And yes, look at the economic and demographic data. The places in Ukraine doing best economically and demographically are in the WEST.

Better than Crimea? Because there's a war in Donetsk and Lugansk, so places without war generally do better than places with war. So, are you saying that Western Ukraine is doing better than Crimea, demographically and economically? I just want to understand your argument before slaughtering it, so that you cannot pretend to mean something else when your argument is slaughtered.

The Ukrainian ecnomy is growing, albeit slowly, driven by argiculture from the west.
It grew in 2.2% in 2016 which is faster than Russia BTW.

Yes, your ability to cherry pick statistics is known to me. Ukraine's economy: http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/ukraine

Here's the GDP in billions of American Dollars:
2011: 163
2012: 173
2013: 180
2014: 131 (and yes, 2014 is when Maidan happened, sponsored partially by USAID)
2015: 87
2016: 89 (that's assuming that your statistic is correct)

So three years after USAID sponsored Maidan, Ukraine lost half of its GDP, but Novus is cheering 2.2% growth. Hey, that's like saying "I know our basketball team lost 101-21, but did you see that amazing 3 pointer at the end?" Of course looking at the demographic decline, the boost is very much temporary.

The places in Ukraine with the highest birthrates are in the west.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra ... 2011ua.PNG

As time goes on support for Russia in Ukraine will continue to drop, and economic and political power will continue to shift west.

Sure you got Crimea, and you will keep it. And you got some ruins in the Donbass.
But you lost the rest of Ukraine as a result. Russia actually sped up the process considerably by removing the most pro Russian areas.

Russian actions in Ukraine were an act of desperation. To keep what they could before they lost the entire thing.

Not a horrible outcome for us at all.

Always good to see you following the logic of Napoleon the III. Thing is, we don't want Western Ukraine. We have plenty of land. If Western Ukraine wants to go off and play with NATO - let them go. Just another albatross around the EU's neck, just like South Kosovo. And Europeans - take note. Americans like Novus are more than happy to hang albatrosses on your neck. Think about that, and then decide - have you had enough to start working on your own foreign policy, or are you going to continue to live in fear of a mythical invasion?

You did not slaughter my argument, you in fact completely failed to address it.
But I see you getting worked up which is funny.

Sorry, the majority of Americans want sanctions on Russia.

The economy of Ukraine is now growing, that is a simple fact. Sure it will take it a long time before it fully recovers from the war and territorial losses.
Sure the Ukrainian economy did horribly in 2014 and 2015. Sure it will never be wealthy country any time soon, if ever.

But Ukraine is no longer in recession. Its economy is growing. And the growth is in the west, of the territory it controls. Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine, de facto. Lviv is the most successful city of Ukraine right now. Also the places with the highest birthrate are in the west.
Neither fact did you actually dispute.

Funny too your beautiful hypocrisy. You crow about Russia having slight growth projected for 2017, even though it is actually lower than what Ukraine had in 2016.

So those are the simple facts. Economic and political power in Ukraine will increasingly move West.
The pro Russian parties have been ruined.

But it is not just Western Ukraine you lose, it is the vast majority of the country. You got Crimea and part of the Donbass. You lost the rest.
And again western Ukraine is the part doing the best right now, so that would be the most desirable part of the remainder. Good farm land is always valuable.

You will not be getting Kiev either.

And Europe does make its own foreign policy already. It has decided it does want to bring Ukraine more into its orbit. Which it will.
The older more pro Russian people, already a minority now thanks to Russian action will die off, and economic and political power will go west.

Ukraine will move further away from Russia politically and economically. Russian influence in it will decline.

Sure you got Crimea and part of the Donbass. You lost the rest. That is the score.
Is that the score you wanted?

And the US has suffered no harm from it.
So why would the US not want to continue on as it has?

[Shofercia]

I doubt the majority have such passion about such cluelessness.




Better than Crimea? Because there's a war in Donetsk and Lugansk, so places without war generally do better than places with war. So, are you saying that Western Ukraine is doing better than Crimea, demographically and economically? I just want to understand your argument before slaughtering it, so that you cannot pretend to mean something else when your argument is slaughtered.





Yes, your ability to cherry pick statistics is known to me. Ukraine's economy: http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/ukraine

Here's the GDP in billions of American Dollars:
2011: 163
2012: 173
2013: 180
2014: 131 (and yes, 2014 is when Maidan happened, sponsored partially by USAID)
2015: 87
2016: 89 (that's assuming that your statistic is correct)

So three years after USAID sponsored Maidan, Ukraine lost half of its GDP, but Novus is cheering 2.2% growth. Hey, that's like saying "I know our basketball team lost 101-21, but did you see that amazing 3 pointer at the end?" Of course looking at the demographic decline, the boost is very much temporary.




Always good to see you following the logic of Napoleon the III. Thing is, we don't want Western Ukraine. We have plenty of land. If Western Ukraine wants to go off and play with NATO - let them go. Just another albatross around the EU's neck, just like South Kosovo. And Europeans - take note. Americans like Novus are more than happy to hang albatrosses on your neck. Think about that, and then decide - have you had enough to start working on your own foreign policy, or are you going to continue to live in fear of a mythical invasion?

You did not slaughter my argument, you in fact completely failed to address it.
But I see you getting worked up which is funny.

Here's what I said: Are you saying that Western Ukraine is doing better than Crimea, demographically and economically? I just want to understand your argument before slaughtering it, so that you cannot pretend to mean something else when your argument is slaughtered.

In other words, I am asking you to confirm what your argument is, before slaughtering it. If I did not yet start to slaughter your argument, that means that I did not yet slaughter your argument.

Sorry, the majority of Americans want sanctions on Russia.

The economy of Ukraine is now growing, that is a simple fact. Sure it will take it a long time before it fully recovers from the war and territorial losses.
Sure the Ukrainian economy did horribly in 2014 and 2015. Sure it will never be wealthy country any time soon, if ever.

Thanks in part to USAID.

But Ukraine is no longer in recession. Its economy is growing. And the growth is in the west, of the territory it controls. Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine, de facto. Lviv is the most successful city of Ukraine right now. Also the places with the highest birthrate are in the west.
Neither fact did you actually dispute.

I didn't dispute that war torn regions have less births than non war torn regions. You are right about that. Good job!

Funny too your beautiful hypocrisy. You crow about Russia having slight growth projected for 2017, even though it is actually lower than what Ukraine had in 2016.

Amazingly enough, different economies in different countries, function differently. Pointing that out is not hypocritical.

So those are the simple facts. Economic and political power in Ukraine will increasingly move West.
The pro Russian parties have been ruined.

*yawns*

But it is not just Western Ukraine you lose, it is the vast majority of the country. You got Crimea and part of the Donbass. You lost the rest.
And again western Ukraine is the part doing the best right now, so that would be the most desirable part of the remainder. Good farm land is always valuable.

Actually, we'll be taking all of Donetsk and Lugansk. And perhaps a few more Oblasts. The rest we don't care about.

You will not be getting Kiev either.

Kiev changed hands so many times, I've lost count. But then again I actually know the History of Kiev.

And Europe does make its own foreign policy already. It has decided it does want to bring Ukraine more into its orbit. Which it will.
The older more pro Russian people, already a minority now thanks to Russian action will die off, and economic and political power will go west.

That's just like your opinion, man.

Ukraine will move further away from Russia politically and economically. Russian influence in it will decline.

Sure you got Crimea and part of the Donbass. You lost the rest. That is the score.
Is that the score you wanted?

And the US has suffered no harm from it.
So why would the US not want to continue on as it has?

Once again, dear Europeans, note Novus' point: the US didn't suffer harm from it, so the US should continue its policy. Even if Europe suffers. That's how modern America makes foreign policy, and that's been the case since Billy Clinton came to power. Second point - I'd rather not have wars and coups. So no, that's not the score I wanted. But once the couped in "leadership" was in place, after that, well then I won't mind the score. I'm also a bit confused how Russia "lost" Lvov considering that Russia didn't control Lvov. Must be magic. As for Russian influence, of course it'll decline, especially ones Ukraine stops being a transit country. Speaking of that, Ukraine's GDP is around 90 billion. How much of that comes from the transit? Oh oh, looks like after 2019, another decline's on the horizon, because that contract won't be renewed.

But you don't give a shit about Ukrainians, Europeans, or Russians. In your mind, US scored against Russia, and that's what counts. In reality, Crimea's anti-corruption resurgence spreading to other Russian regions is going to benefit Russia more than control over parts of Ukraine through criminals like Yanukovich. So Novus can be happy that US scored, Russians can be happy with Crimea, and Europeans and Ukrainians can be fucked for all he cares.

[Novus America]

You did not slaughter my argument, you in fact completely failed to address it.
But I see you getting worked up which is funny.

Here's what I said: Are you saying that Western Ukraine is doing better than Crimea, demographically and economically? I just want to understand your argument before slaughtering it, so that you cannot pretend to mean something else when your argument is slaughtered.

In other words, I am asking you to confirm what your argument is, before slaughtering it. If I did not yet start to slaughter your argument, that means that I did not yet slaughter your argument.

Sorry, the majority of Americans want sanctions on Russia.

The economy of Ukraine is now growing, that is a simple fact. Sure it will take it a long time before it fully recovers from the war and territorial losses.
Sure the Ukrainian economy did horribly in 2014 and 2015. Sure it will never be wealthy country any time soon, if ever.

Thanks in part to USAID.

But Ukraine is no longer in recession. Its economy is growing. And the growth is in the west, of the territory it controls. Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine, de facto. Lviv is the most successful city of Ukraine right now. Also the places with the highest birthrate are in the west.
Neither fact did you actually dispute.

I didn't dispute that war torn regions have less births than non war torn regions. You are right about that. Good job!

Funny too your beautiful hypocrisy. You crow about Russia having slight growth projected for 2017, even though it is actually lower than what Ukraine had in 2016.

Amazingly enough, different economies in different countries, function differently. Pointing that out is not hypocritical.

So those are the simple facts. Economic and political power in Ukraine will increasingly move West.
The pro Russian parties have been ruined.

*yawns*

But it is not just Western Ukraine you lose, it is the vast majority of the country. You got Crimea and part of the Donbass. You lost the rest.
And again western Ukraine is the part doing the best right now, so that would be the most desirable part of the remainder. Good farm land is always valuable.

Actually, we'll be taking all of Donetsk and Lugansk. And perhaps a few more Oblasts. The rest we don't care about.

You will not be getting Kiev either.

Kiev changed hands so many times, I've lost count. But then again I actually know the History of Kiev.

And Europe does make its own foreign policy already. It has decided it does want to bring Ukraine more into its orbit. Which it will.
The older more pro Russian people, already a minority now thanks to Russian action will die off, and economic and political power will go west.

That's just like your opinion, man.

Ukraine will move further away from Russia politically and economically. Russian influence in it will decline.

Sure you got Crimea and part of the Donbass. You lost the rest. That is the score.
Is that the score you wanted?

And the US has suffered no harm from it.
So why would the US not want to continue on as it has?

Once again, dear Europeans, note Novus' point: the US didn't suffer harm from it, so the US should continue its policy. Even if Europe suffers. That's how modern America makes foreign policy, and that's been the case since Billy Clinton came to power. Second point - I'd rather not have wars and coups. So no, that's not the score I wanted. But once the couped in "leadership" was in place, after that, well then I won't mind the score. I'm also a bit confused how Russia "lost" Lvov considering that Russia didn't control Lvov. Must be magic. As for Russian influence, of course it'll decline, especially ones Ukraine stops being a transit country. Speaking of that, Ukraine's GDP is around 90 billion. How much of that comes from the transit? Oh oh, looks like after 2019, another decline's on the horizon, because that contract won't be renewed.

But you don't give a shit about Ukrainians, Europeans, or Russians. In your mind, US scored against Russia, and that's what counts. In reality, Crimea's anti-corruption resurgence spreading to other Russian regions is going to benefit Russia more than control over parts of Ukraine through criminals like Yanukovich. So Novus can be happy that US scored, Russians can be happy with Crimea, and Europeans and Ukrainians can be fucked for all he cares.

I am not saying compared to Crimea, I do not have a breakdown of the statistics between the two.
Though certainly parts of Western Ukraine do seem to have higher fertility rates than Crimea. Those number were before the war BTW, now the East will be even worse, and the west even further ahead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... 2011ua.PNG
But the point on Crimea is moot, because Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine in reality, and Ukraine is not getting it back.
So I will NOT say West Ukraine is necessarily doing better than Crimea. Maybe some oblasts are, maybe not. I have not seen a detailed comparison between the two. But you are welcome to provide one.

And no, you will not be likely be getting the rest of the Donbass or any other oblasts either, you have what you are going to get. There is not sign you are getting any more.
But enjoy it having that part of the Donbass. Checked coal prices lately? You got some coal, when coal is a dying industry anyways and you already had more than you ever needed. And some blown up steel mills. Yeah the steel global steel industry is also struggling from overcapacity. Only the most efficient and modern mills can survive. Those do not fit the bill.

And I do in fact know the history of Kiev, but more importantly it is quite clear that Kiev is controlled and surrounded by pro western areas. So sorry, no Kiev for you.

And again you failed to address the key points. But it seems you are conceding Russia will not be getting most of Ukraine.
So that is that.

And you are missing the point. The US and Europe make separate decisions sometimes.
Europe makes their own sanctions. Sure the issue is more complicated for them, but they have decided sanctions are the best option for them as well.
That is their decision to make. We made ours, they made theirs. The US did not hurt Europe. In fact we toned down our sanctions to "match" European ones. We were in fact very deferential to European concerns.

See when you controlled the government of Ukraine, you had the whole of the country, including Lviv. And sure the Russian Federation never had Lviv, but your beloved Soviet Union did. It is still in that post Soviet space you seek to control.

You have still lost influence over a large part of that post Soviet space.

Sure Ukraine will have disruptions while transitioning its economy, no one said it would be easy, but the transition will continue.

And you do not give a shit about Ukrainians, Europeans, or Americans, you just want Russia to win.
I obviously want my side to win. But I would rather no one get hurt. I am not claiming what happened was ideal at all.
But you play with the cards you are dealt, not the ones you wish you had.

And this proves challenging Russia in post Soviet states outside the Baltics is NOT futile, it can in fact reduce Russian influence and increase yours.

And the anti corruption drive is just protests the Russian government shut down. Oh wait, that is why we have this thread.
Cleary the corrupt Russian government is not so happy with people demanding less corruption.

[Baltenstein]

Always good to see you following the logic of Napoleon the III. Thing is, we don't want Western Ukraine. We have plenty of land. If Western Ukraine wants to go off and play with NATO - let them go. Just another albatross around the EU's neck, just like South Kosovo. And Europeans - take note. Americans like Novus are more than happy to hang albatrosses on your neck. Think about that, and then decide - have you had enough to start working on your own foreign policy, or are you going to continue to live in fear of a mythical invasion?

You'll find that most Europeans will prefer uncaring Americans like Novus over Russia, sorry.

Besides, your country (and its state-funded mouthpieces) is the one that constantly demonizes us as liberal gay globalists/4th Reich Nazis/both, that constantly violates EU countries' airspace and territorial waters and that is endorsing parties/political movements with the explicit agenda of breaking up the EU.
The American-European relationship, on the other hand, has worked infinitely better on all levels, and will continue to do so, even under Trump.

[Shofercia]

Here's what I said: Are you saying that Western Ukraine is doing better than Crimea, demographically and economically? I just want to understand your argument before slaughtering it, so that you cannot pretend to mean something else when your argument is slaughtered.

In other words, I am asking you to confirm what your argument is, before slaughtering it. If I did not yet start to slaughter your argument, that means that I did not yet slaughter your argument.




Thanks in part to USAID.




I didn't dispute that war torn regions have less births than non war torn regions. You are right about that. Good job!




Amazingly enough, different economies in different countries, function differently. Pointing that out is not hypocritical.





*yawns*




Actually, we'll be taking all of Donetsk and Lugansk. And perhaps a few more Oblasts. The rest we don't care about.




Kiev changed hands so many times, I've lost count. But then again I actually know the History of Kiev.




That's just like your opinion, man.




Once again, dear Europeans, note Novus' point: the US didn't suffer harm from it, so the US should continue its policy. Even if Europe suffers. That's how modern America makes foreign policy, and that's been the case since Billy Clinton came to power. Second point - I'd rather not have wars and coups. So no, that's not the score I wanted. But once the couped in "leadership" was in place, after that, well then I won't mind the score. I'm also a bit confused how Russia "lost" Lvov considering that Russia didn't control Lvov. Must be magic. As for Russian influence, of course it'll decline, especially ones Ukraine stops being a transit country. Speaking of that, Ukraine's GDP is around 90 billion. How much of that comes from the transit? Oh oh, looks like after 2019, another decline's on the horizon, because that contract won't be renewed.

But you don't give a shit about Ukrainians, Europeans, or Russians. In your mind, US scored against Russia, and that's what counts. In reality, Crimea's anti-corruption resurgence spreading to other Russian regions is going to benefit Russia more than control over parts of Ukraine through criminals like Yanukovich. So Novus can be happy that US scored, Russians can be happy with Crimea, and Europeans and Ukrainians can be fucked for all he cares.

I am not saying compared to Crimea, I do not have a breakdown of the statistics between the two.
Though certainly parts of Western Ukraine do seem to have higher fertility rates than Crimea. Those number were before the war BTW, now the East will be even worse, and the west even further ahead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... 2011ua.PNG
But the point on Crimea is moot, because Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine in reality, and Ukraine is not getting it back.
So I will NOT say West Ukraine is necessarily doing better than Crimea. Maybe some oblasts are, maybe not. I have not seen a detailed comparison between the two. But you are welcome to provide one.

And no, you will not be likely be getting the rest of the Donbass or any other oblasts either, you have what you are going to get. There is not sign you are getting any more.

Considering the sheer level of corruption and ineptitude in Ukraine, Russia can take it covertly. What's anyone going to do? Europe isn't going to fight Russia over Ukraine, nor will the United States. But good job using terms such as "likely", anything to avoid stating something that you can be called out on. Stellar political skills.

But enjoy it having that part of the Donbass. Checked coal prices lately? You got some coal, when coal is a dying industry anyways and you already had more than you ever needed. And some blown up steel mills. Yeah the steel global steel industry is also struggling from overcapacity. Only the most efficient and modern mills can survive. Those do not fit the bill.

Thank you, it's actually a great place to have. Good, hardworking people, relatively inexpensive, and quite humble. Great workers, great farm soil, just needs better management.

And I do in fact know the history of Kiev, but more importantly it is quite clear that Kiev is controlled and surrounded by pro western areas. So sorry, no Kiev for you.

What battle led to the sack of Kiev by the Mongols? Yeah, you don't know the History of Kiev. Nice try being bold though, I laughed.

And again you failed to address the key points. But it seems you are conceding Russia will not be getting most of Ukraine.
So that is that.

Conceding? When did I say that Russia, territorial speaking, will be getting most of Ukraine? And maybe Russia will. I haven't measured the actual territorial distance of each oblast.

And you are missing the point. The US and Europe make separate decisions sometimes.
Europe makes their own sanctions. Sure the issue is more complicated for them, but they have decided sanctions are the best option for them as well.
That is their decision to make. We made ours, they made theirs. The US did not hurt Europe. In fact we toned down our sanctions to "match" European ones. We were in fact very deferential to European concerns.

This coming from someone who said "it didn't hurt the US, so why shouldn't we do it?" Now that you've been called out on it, you're singing a different tune.

See when you controlled the government of Ukraine, you had the whole of the country, including Lviv. And sure the Russian Federation never had Lviv, but your beloved Soviet Union did. It is still in that post Soviet space you seek to control.

You have still lost influence over a large part of that post Soviet space.

If you actually understood what I said, you'd know that I was talking about the time period after the Fall of the USSR.

Sure Ukraine will have disruptions while transitioning its economy, no one said it would be easy, but the transition will continue.

Ahh yes, the birthpangs of Democracy. The argument just never tires. Hey, maybe that argument is the eternal generator? So easy to fool people with it.

And you do not give a shit about Ukrainians, Europeans, or Americans, you just want Russia to win.

Are you deliberately not reading parts of my post?

Second point - I'd rather not have wars and coups. So no, that's not the score I wanted. I do give a shit about most Ukrainians, most Europeans, and most Americans. I don't give a flying fuck about Ukrainians and Russians who supported Maidan. They can enjoy the "Birthpangs of Democracy" as far as I am concerned. But the lives of the elderly who did nothing wrong and had their pensions cut, the poor children who were burned alive in Odessa, those are the types of people that I care about. Deeply.

I obviously want my side to win. But I would rather no one get hurt. I am not claiming what happened was ideal at all.
But you play with the cards you are dealt, not the ones you wish you had.

And this proves challenging Russia in post Soviet states outside the Baltics is NOT futile, it can in fact reduce Russian influence and increase yours.

And the anti corruption drive is just protests the Russian government shut down. Oh wait, that is why we have this thread.
Cleary the corrupt Russian government is not so happy with people demanding less corruption.

And now you're quoting Rumsfeld's sorry ass excuse. You go to war with the army you have... Oh, and the protests, they've wittled down to a few dozen people. You see, for those of us who actually know the region, we know when protests are real, and when they're laughable. The Truckers' Rally, that shit was real. They got what they wanted. This? Laughable. And if there's so much corruption in Russia, why is it that most Russians continue to support Putin? Oh yeah, one more thing: if there's so much corruption, why couldn't the protesters just bribe their way out of jail? Happened in the 1990s.

I can already predict Novus' response to this: "they were poorly treated under Yeltsin, so anything's an improvement!" - even though Yeltsin's thankfully been out of power, officially since 1999.

[Shofercia]

Always good to see you following the logic of Napoleon the III. Thing is, we don't want Western Ukraine. We have plenty of land. If Western Ukraine wants to go off and play with NATO - let them go. Just another albatross around the EU's neck, just like South Kosovo. And Europeans - take note. Americans like Novus are more than happy to hang albatrosses on your neck. Think about that, and then decide - have you had enough to start working on your own foreign policy, or are you going to continue to live in fear of a mythical invasion?

You'll find that most Europeans will prefer uncaring Americans like Novus over Russia, sorry.

Besides, your country (and its state-funded mouthpieces) is the one that constantly demonizes us as liberal gay globalists/4th Reich Nazis/both, that constantly violates EU countries' airspace and territorial waters and that is endorsing parties/political movements with the explicit agenda of breaking up the EU.
The American-European relationship, on the other hand, has worked infinitely better on all levels, and will continue to do so, even under Trump.

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

[Novus America]

I am not saying compared to Crimea, I do not have a breakdown of the statistics between the two.
Though certainly parts of Western Ukraine do seem to have higher fertility rates than Crimea. Those number were before the war BTW, now the East will be even worse, and the west even further ahead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... 2011ua.PNG
But the point on Crimea is moot, because Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine in reality, and Ukraine is not getting it back.
So I will NOT say West Ukraine is necessarily doing better than Crimea. Maybe some oblasts are, maybe not. I have not seen a detailed comparison between the two. But you are welcome to provide one.

And no, you will not be likely be getting the rest of the Donbass or any other oblasts either, you have what you are going to get. There is not sign you are getting any more.

Considering the sheer level of corruption and ineptitude in Ukraine, Russia can take it covertly. What's anyone going to do? Europe isn't going to fight Russia over Ukraine, nor will the United States. But good job using terms such as "likely", anything to avoid stating something that you can be called out on. Stellar political skills.

But enjoy it having that part of the Donbass. Checked coal prices lately? You got some coal, when coal is a dying industry anyways and you already had more than you ever needed. And some blown up steel mills. Yeah the steel global steel industry is also struggling from overcapacity. Only the most efficient and modern mills can survive. Those do not fit the bill.

Thank you, it's actually a great place to have. Good, hardworking people, relatively inexpensive, and quite humble. Great workers, great farm soil, just needs better management.

And I do in fact know the history of Kiev, but more importantly it is quite clear that Kiev is controlled and surrounded by pro western areas. So sorry, no Kiev for you.

What battle led to the sack of Kiev by the Mongols? Yeah, you don't know the History of Kiev. Nice try being bold though, I laughed.

And again you failed to address the key points. But it seems you are conceding Russia will not be getting most of Ukraine.
So that is that.

Conceding? When did I say that Russia, territorial speaking, will be getting most of Ukraine? And maybe Russia will. I haven't measured the actual territorial distance of each oblast.

And you are missing the point. The US and Europe make separate decisions sometimes.
Europe makes their own sanctions. Sure the issue is more complicated for them, but they have decided sanctions are the best option for them as well.
That is their decision to make. We made ours, they made theirs. The US did not hurt Europe. In fact we toned down our sanctions to "match" European ones. We were in fact very deferential to European concerns.

This coming from someone who said "it didn't hurt the US, so why shouldn't we do it?" Now that you've been called out on it, you're singing a different tune.

See when you controlled the government of Ukraine, you had the whole of the country, including Lviv. And sure the Russian Federation never had Lviv, but your beloved Soviet Union did. It is still in that post Soviet space you seek to control.

You have still lost influence over a large part of that post Soviet space.

If you actually understood what I said, you'd know that I was talking about the time period after the Fall of the USSR.

Sure Ukraine will have disruptions while transitioning its economy, no one said it would be easy, but the transition will continue.

Ahh yes, the birthpangs of Democracy. The argument just never tires. Hey, maybe that argument is the eternal generator? So easy to fool people with it.

And you do not give a shit about Ukrainians, Europeans, or Americans, you just want Russia to win.

Are you deliberately not reading parts of my post?

Second point - I'd rather not have wars and coups. So no, that's not the score I wanted. I do give a shit about most Ukrainians, most Europeans, and most Americans. I don't give a flying fuck about Ukrainians and Russians who supported Maidan. They can enjoy the "Birthpangs of Democracy" as far as I am concerned. But the lives of the elderly who did nothing wrong and had their pensions cut, the poor children who were burned alive in Odessa, those are the types of people that I care about. Deeply.

I obviously want my side to win. But I would rather no one get hurt. I am not claiming what happened was ideal at all.
But you play with the cards you are dealt, not the ones you wish you had.

And this proves challenging Russia in post Soviet states outside the Baltics is NOT futile, it can in fact reduce Russian influence and increase yours.

And the anti corruption drive is just protests the Russian government shut down. Oh wait, that is why we have this thread.
Cleary the corrupt Russian government is not so happy with people demanding less corruption.

And now you're quoting Rumsfeld's sorry ass excuse. You go to war with the army you have... Oh, and the protests, they've wittled down to a few dozen people. You see, for those of us who actually know the region, we know when protests are real, and when they're laughable. The Truckers' Rally, that shit was real. They got what they wanted. This? Laughable. And if there's so much corruption in Russia, why is it that most Russians continue to support Putin? Oh yeah, one more thing: if there's so much corruption, why couldn't the protesters just bribe their way out of jail? Happened in the 1990s.

I can already predict Novus' response to this: "they were poorly treated under Yeltsin, so anything's an improvement!" - even though Yeltsin's thankfully been out of power, officially since 1999.

I obviously cannot predict the future with certainty. But it is quite clear that the majority in Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia, and no amount of Russian shady shit will change that. Certainly their is no indication whatsoever Russia is getting more.
And Putin has not annexed the Donbass, nor recognized them or their claims.
He wants them just to cause instability in Ukraine, he does not actually want them as part of Russia.

The Siege of Kiev led to the sack of Kiev...
Obviously. But this is you just trying to escape the fact that Russia is not getting Kiev, and it is deep in pro west territory. Surely you are going to say a battle before is the battle you were talking about, and that you think that was more important, so that I am wrong, and whatever.

But again just distractions, 0/10, no Kiev for you.

And so tell me, just how much of Ukraine do you think Russia is going to get?
Oh apparently you have not read the news since 2015.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/05/29 ... oject/i96u
Sorry, time to change your sig. "Novorossiya" is dead. Putin already gave up on that silliness.
Your God Emperor betrayed you.
Your imperialist dreams are not coming to fruition. Sorry.

You are not even officially getting that part of the Donbass, as Russia will not even openly claim it. And good farm land? Toxic waste is not good for farms.
But you will just be subsidizing the part you occupy without owning it, or getting anything back from it. Saves Kiev money in fact, as they no longer have to subsidize it.

I would rather not have coups or wars either, but you are the one supporting coups and wars to steal territory from Ukraine, not me. You seem quite happy with the coups in the Donbass. And the failed sad coup attempt in Odessa.

And I see, you only care about those who agree with you politically. But then you must not care about the majority of Americans, who are not fans of Putin (who is in fact much more moderate than you are so they would disagree with you even more). And the very fact Maiden upsets you so shows it was not a unqualified victory for Russia.

But the fact that the US was (too) deferential to Europe does not change my point. Maybe you can argue Europe should differently as a result, but the US is not the same as Europe. Europe makes their own decisions. Often our interest coincide, but they are not always identical.
But Europe has decided the sanctions and supporting Ukraine are in their interests.

Oh and now your favorite, Iraq. You always have to try to drag Iraq in. So you must be running out of arguments when you pull the Iraq card.

I would rather not have the war happen, and would rather the government transition peacefully. But when conflict started, we had to adapt to it, do what we could within the circumstances.

And are your really claiming there is no corruption in Russia?! Russia does very poorly in all corruption rankings. Corruption is rampant. And yes it is better than it was under Yeltsin, but is still bad. Yes I am going to make that point because it is a valid point. Relatively better than absolute shit does not equal good.

And about those truckers...
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/russian-truck ... 35502.html
Sure fixed that eh?

They are protesting again and getting arrested!
"Authorities this week detained a number of strike coordinators, according to OVD-Info, an NGO that tracks arrests of political activists, including Vazhutin, who was put under arrest for two weeks Monday."

So yeah, clearly Russia has not fixed that bit of corruption either.

There is a ton of corruption in the Russian government, and the oligarchs do not want people stopping it, obviously.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Just because Putin is popular in Russia does not change the fact that many in the government are corrupt.

Oh but you keep hiding from the whole reason we got into this.

Challenging Russia in post Soviet States is clearly not always futile, as the EU and US are beating Russia in most of Ukraine.
Heh.

You can be infuriating, but you are also sometimes quite entertaining.

[Novus America]

You'll find that most Europeans will prefer uncaring Americans like Novus over Russia, sorry.

Besides, your country (and its state-funded mouthpieces) is the one that constantly demonizes us as liberal gay globalists/4th Reich Nazis/both, that constantly violates EU countries' airspace and territorial waters and that is endorsing parties/political movements with the explicit agenda of breaking up the EU.
The American-European relationship, on the other hand, has worked infinitely better on all levels, and will continue to do so, even under Trump.

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

Does not change the fact the Europeans much prefer the US, flaws and all of Russia.

And the gas will continue to flow, because Russia needs the money. No gas, no money. Funny how that works. And before you scream "China", China has finite demand, and moreover the gas Russia sells to China comes from different fields via different pipelines. So it cannot be diverted just like that.
Sugar Daddy Xi is not going to bail you out always.

So Russia is not shutting off gas, and there are also other sources of energy not just solar and gas, so sorry, not going to happen. But reducing European dependence on Russian gas is good.

And there are plenty of other ways Europe can get energy. You do know the UK has oil wells and nuclear reactors right? Plus only 13.5% of British gas is Russian.
https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from

And there are other ways to get gas too. Worse thing that would happen to Europe is prices would go up. And then Azeri, US and Kuwaiti gas would fill the gap. In fact 35% of European gas comes from Russia, not the majority.

And what evidence do you have saying Europeans prefer Russia over the US? Hmmm?

Plus this is a non sequitur and a moot point, the US is not demanding Europe stop using Russian gas and Russia is not stopping gas shipments.
Either Russia will continue to ship through Ukraine, or ship it via other routes.

[New Werpland]

You'll find that most Europeans will prefer uncaring Americans like Novus over Russia, sorry.

Besides, your country (and its state-funded mouthpieces) is the one that constantly demonizes us as liberal gay globalists/4th Reich Nazis/both, that constantly violates EU countries' airspace and territorial waters and that is endorsing parties/political movements with the explicit agenda of breaking up the EU.
The American-European relationship, on the other hand, has worked infinitely better on all levels, and will continue to do so, even under Trump.

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-azerbaijan-to-start-work-on-new-mega-gas-pipeline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79790&NewsCatID=348
Pretty decent alternative imo.

[Novus America]

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-azerbaijan-to-start-work-on-new-mega-gas-pipeline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79790&NewsCatID=348
Pretty decent alternative imo.

Or,
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/news/is ... ependence/

There are plenty of other places to get gas if needed. The majority of European gas is NOT from Russia.
LNG is also competive now, in fact the U.K. gets more gas form LNG ships than Russia.

So you can get it from the good old US of A.

But Russia knows this. They are not stupid, and are not going to be cutting off gas to Europe.
Russia needs the money, and cannot afford to lose its European market share.

[Gim]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-azerbaijan-to-start-work-on-new-mega-gas-pipeline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79790&NewsCatID=348
Pretty decent alternative imo.

Or,
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/news/is ... ependence/

There are plenty of other places to get gas if needed. The majority of European gas is NOT from Russia.
LNG is also competive now, in fact the U.K. gets more gas form LNG ships than Russia.

So you can get it from the good old US of A.

But Russia knows this. They are not stupid, and are not going to be cutting off gas to Europe.
Russia needs the money, and cannot afford to lose its European market share.

Don't they have gasoline as well?

[Novus America]

Or,
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/news/is ... ependence/

There are plenty of other places to get gas if needed. The majority of European gas is NOT from Russia.
LNG is also competive now, in fact the U.K. gets more gas form LNG ships than Russia.

So you can get it from the good old US of A.

But Russia knows this. They are not stupid, and are not going to be cutting off gas to Europe.
Russia needs the money, and cannot afford to lose its European market share.

Don't they have gasoline as well?

Well gasoline is usually not used for heating. But there are alternatives to natural gas for heating yes. Electric, oil, even coal and wood.

[Volitopia]

Wish 'em luck.

[Gim]

Don't they have gasoline as well?

Right, right. They have an entire taiga.
Well gasoline is usually not used for heating. But there are alternatives to natural gas for heating yes. Electric, oil, even coal and wood.

[Shofercia]

Considering the sheer level of corruption and ineptitude in Ukraine, Russia can take it covertly. What's anyone going to do? Europe isn't going to fight Russia over Ukraine, nor will the United States. But good job using terms such as "likely", anything to avoid stating something that you can be called out on. Stellar political skills.




Thank you, it's actually a great place to have. Good, hardworking people, relatively inexpensive, and quite humble. Great workers, great farm soil, just needs better management.




What battle led to the sack of Kiev by the Mongols? Yeah, you don't know the History of Kiev. Nice try being bold though, I laughed.




Conceding? When did I say that Russia, territorial speaking, will be getting most of Ukraine? And maybe Russia will. I haven't measured the actual territorial distance of each oblast.




This coming from someone who said "it didn't hurt the US, so why shouldn't we do it?" Now that you've been called out on it, you're singing a different tune.




If you actually understood what I said, you'd know that I was talking about the time period after the Fall of the USSR.




Ahh yes, the birthpangs of Democracy. The argument just never tires. Hey, maybe that argument is the eternal generator? So easy to fool people with it.




Are you deliberately not reading parts of my post?

Second point - I'd rather not have wars and coups. So no, that's not the score I wanted. I do give a shit about most Ukrainians, most Europeans, and most Americans. I don't give a flying fuck about Ukrainians and Russians who supported Maidan. They can enjoy the "Birthpangs of Democracy" as far as I am concerned. But the lives of the elderly who did nothing wrong and had their pensions cut, the poor children who were burned alive in Odessa, those are the types of people that I care about. Deeply.





And now you're quoting Rumsfeld's sorry ass excuse. You go to war with the army you have... Oh, and the protests, they've wittled down to a few dozen people. You see, for those of us who actually know the region, we know when protests are real, and when they're laughable. The Truckers' Rally, that shit was real. They got what they wanted. This? Laughable. And if there's so much corruption in Russia, why is it that most Russians continue to support Putin? Oh yeah, one more thing: if there's so much corruption, why couldn't the protesters just bribe their way out of jail? Happened in the 1990s.

I can already predict Novus' response to this: "they were poorly treated under Yeltsin, so anything's an improvement!" - even though Yeltsin's thankfully been out of power, officially since 1999.

I obviously cannot predict the future with certainty. But it is quite clear that the majority in Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia, and no amount of Russian shady shit will change that. Certainly their is no indication whatsoever Russia is getting more.
And Putin has not annexed the Donbass, nor recognized them or their claims.
He wants them just to cause instability in Ukraine, he does not actually want them as part of Russia.

Contrary to American Propaganda, Putin isn't all powerful overlord of Russia, and I doubt he'll stand in the way if Russian Special Interests want to annex it.

The Siege of Kiev led to the sack of Kiev...
Obviously. But this is you just trying to escape the fact that Russia is not getting Kiev, and it is deep in pro west territory. Surely you are going to say a battle before is the battle you were talking about, and that you think that was more important, so that I am wrong, and whatever.

But again just distractions, 0/10, no Kiev for you.

Oh hey, you don't know the difference between a siege and a battle, what else is new?

And so tell me, just how much of Ukraine do you think Russia is going to get?
Oh apparently you have not read the news since 2015.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/05/29 ... oject/i96u
Sorry, time to change your sig. "Novorossiya" is dead. Putin already gave up on that silliness.
Your God Emperor betrayed you.
Your imperialist dreams are not coming to fruition. Sorry.

> Imperialist Dreams
> Novorissiya

I guess that's what happens when people take their propaganda seriously.

You are not even officially getting that part of the Donbass, as Russia will not even openly claim it. And good farm land? Toxic waste is not good for farms.
But you will just be subsidizing the part you occupy without owning it, or getting anything back from it. Saves Kiev money in fact, as they no longer have to subsidize it.

Kiev subsidizing DonBass

You have a source? Of course not.

I would rather not have coups or wars either, but you are the one supporting coups and wars to steal territory from Ukraine, not me. You seem quite happy with the coups in the Donbass. And the failed sad coup attempt in Odessa.

I was actually against the coup in Kiev, and I'm not entirely sure how you can steal a region with the people's consent. So far you're just taunting.

And I see, you only care about those who agree with you politically. But then you must not care about the majority of Americans, who are not fans of Putin (who is in fact much more moderate than you are so they would disagree with you even more). And the very fact Maiden upsets you so shows it was not a unqualified victory for Russia.

Actually, when it comes to countries, the leader's job is caring for his citizens. Asking Putin to care about the interests of citizens of other countries is phenomenally fucking stupid! And the reason Maidan upsets me, is because it was the spark that started a chain reaction that led to so much poverty and destruction in Ukraine. But did you see the way that China prevented Maidan in Hong Kong with Russia's aid? Fucking classic.

But the fact that the US was (too) deferential to Europe does not change my point. Maybe you can argue Europe should differently as a result, but the US is not the same as Europe. Europe makes their own decisions. Often our interest coincide, but they are not always identical.
But Europe has decided the sanctions and supporting Ukraine are in their interests.

Oh and now your favorite, Iraq. You always have to try to drag Iraq in. So you must be running out of arguments when you pull the Iraq card.

Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda - the failures of US presidents aren't just limited to Iraq. Interestingly enough, in places where Putin intervened and fully controlled, there's no ISIS. In Iraq, well... yeah, there is. Your claim of "oh noes, he brought up Iraq again!" doesn't invalidate a single point. You screaming "Kiev will not be yours" like a juvenile - now that's truly hilarious.

I would rather not have the war happen, and would rather the government transition peacefully. But when conflict started, we had to adapt to it, do what we could within the circumstances.

Did it ever occur to you that dropping bombs on people's heads might not bring Democracy? Like ever?

And are your really claiming there is no corruption in Russia?!

Only to those who deliberately misread my posts. Like you.

Russia does very poorly in all corruption rankings. Corruption is rampant. And yes it is better than it was under Yeltsin, but is still bad. Yes I am going to make that point because it is a valid point. Relatively better than absolute shit does not equal good.

That point expired. So to you, a battle and a siege are the same thing, an expired point might be a good one...

There is a ton of corruption in the Russian government, and the oligarchs do not want people stopping it, obviously.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Just because Putin is popular in Russia does not change the fact that many in the government are corrupt.

Hey, I now understand why you think that a battle and a siege are the same thing, it's because you can't tell the difference between the Siloviks and Oligarchs either.

Oh but you keep hiding from the whole reason we got into this.

Challenging Russia in post Soviet States is clearly not always futile, as the EU and US are beating Russia in most of Ukraine.
Heh.

You can be infuriating, but you are also sometimes quite entertaining.

That's the reason we got into this? Heck, why not, I mean if a battle is a siege, that's certainly the reason we got into this, and the Moon is 100% made of cheese...

[Shofercia]

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

Does not change the fact the Europeans much prefer the US, flaws and all of Russia.

And the gas will continue to flow, because Russia needs the money. No gas, not money. Funny how that works. And before you scream "China", China has finite demand, and moreover the gas Russia sells from China comes from different fields via different pipelines. So it can be diverted just like that.
Sugar Daddy Xi is not going to bail you out always.

So Russia is not shutting off gas, and there are also other sources of energy not just solar and gas, so sorry, not going to happen. But reducing European dependence on Russian gas is good.

And there are plenty of other ways Europe can get energy. You do know the UK has oil wells and nuclear reactors right? Plus only 13.5% of British gas is Russian.
https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from

And there are other ways to get gas too. Worse thing that would happen to Europe is prices would go up. And then Azeri, US and Kuwaiti gas would fill the gap. In fact 35% of European gas comes from Russia, not the majority.

And what evidence do you have saying Europeans prefer Russia over the US? Hmmm?

Plus this is a non sequitur and a moot point, the US is not demanding Europe stop using Russian gas and Russia is not stopping gas shipments.
Either Russia will continue to ship through Ukraine, or ship it via other routes.

In case you haven't noticed, China's population is quite big. And the demand will increase. So yes, China would be a valid point. And besides, Russia needs to get off the whole raw materials thing. Thankfully the sanctions are giving Russians a way to take back a part of the Russian market, so I guess I should be thankful for that. And yes, natural gas pipelines can be built to go to China. You're claiming that Russia needs to export gas to Europe, but you're not in Europe. So if your claim is wrong, perhaps because you confused a battle with a siege, you bear no negative consequences; Europeans do. And LNG is more expensive than Russia's gas, due to logistics, perhaps you've heard of that? A battle and a siege, they require different logistics.

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-azerbaijan-to-start-work-on-new-mega-gas-pipeline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79790&NewsCatID=348
Pretty decent alternative imo.

Let's see how it works out. I doubt it'll be a good replacement.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-azerbaijan-to-start-work-on-new-mega-gas-pipeline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79790&NewsCatID=348
Pretty decent alternative imo.

Or,
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/news/is ... ependence/

There are plenty of other places to get gas if needed. The majority of European gas is NOT from Russia.
LNG is also competive now, in fact the U.K. gets more gas form LNG ships than Russia.

So you can get it from the good old US of A.

But Russia knows this. They are not stupid, and are not going to be cutting off gas to Europe.
Russia needs the money, and cannot afford to lose its European market share.

So if you're wrong, will you voluntarily freeze with the Europeans out of solidarity? Unlikely.

Don't they have gasoline as well?

Well gasoline is usually not used for heating. But there are alternatives to natural gas for heating yes. Electric, oil, even coal and wood.

Yes, wood - that'll work wonders when used on a massive scale!

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-europe-smog.html

Heavy pollution enveloping much of Europe prompted emergency measures across the continent on Tuesday. A toxic cocktail of extreme cold, no wind and heavy burning of coal and wood for heating has left many regions shrouded in smog. In many countries, including Britain, France and Brussels, officials have cautioned against physical exertion for children and the elderly, and for people with respiratory problems.

What a great recommendation from Novus America, eh Balt?

[Novus America]

I obviously cannot predict the future with certainty. But it is quite clear that the majority in Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia, and no amount of Russian shady shit will change that. Certainly their is no indication whatsoever Russia is getting more.
And Putin has not annexed the Donbass, nor recognized them or their claims.
He wants them just to cause instability in Ukraine, he does not actually want them as part of Russia.

Contrary to American Propaganda, Putin isn't all powerful overlord of Russia, and I doubt he'll stand in the way if Russian Special Interests want to annex it.

The Siege of Kiev led to the sack of Kiev...
Obviously. But this is you just trying to escape the fact that Russia is not getting Kiev, and it is deep in pro west territory. Surely you are going to say a battle before is the battle you were talking about, and that you think that was more important, so that I am wrong, and whatever.

But again just distractions, 0/10, no Kiev for you.

Oh hey, you don't know the difference between a siege and a battle, what else is new?

And so tell me, just how much of Ukraine do you think Russia is going to get?
Oh apparently you have not read the news since 2015.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/05/29 ... oject/i96u
Sorry, time to change your sig. "Novorossiya" is dead. Putin already gave up on that silliness.
Your God Emperor betrayed you.
Your imperialist dreams are not coming to fruition. Sorry.

> Imperialist Dreams
> Novorissiya

I guess that's what happens when people take their propaganda seriously.

You are not even officially getting that part of the Donbass, as Russia will not even openly claim it. And good farm land? Toxic waste is not good for farms.
But you will just be subsidizing the part you occupy without owning it, or getting anything back from it. Saves Kiev money in fact, as they no longer have to subsidize it.

Kiev subsidizing DonBass

You have a source? Of course not.

I would rather not have coups or wars either, but you are the one supporting coups and wars to steal territory from Ukraine, not me. You seem quite happy with the coups in the Donbass. And the failed sad coup attempt in Odessa.

I was actually against the coup in Kiev, and I'm not entirely sure how you can steal a region with the people's consent. So far you're just taunting.

And I see, you only care about those who agree with you politically. But then you must not care about the majority of Americans, who are not fans of Putin (who is in fact much more moderate than you are so they would disagree with you even more). And the very fact Maiden upsets you so shows it was not a unqualified victory for Russia.

Actually, when it comes to countries, the leader's job is caring for his citizens. Asking Putin to care about the interests of citizens of other countries is phenomenally fucking stupid! And the reason Maidan upsets me, is because it was the spark that started a chain reaction that led to so much poverty and destruction in Ukraine. But did you see the way that China prevented Maidan in Hong Kong with Russia's aid? Fucking classic.

But the fact that the US was (too) deferential to Europe does not change my point. Maybe you can argue Europe should differently as a result, but the US is not the same as Europe. Europe makes their own decisions. Often our interest coincide, but they are not always identical.
But Europe has decided the sanctions and supporting Ukraine are in their interests.

Oh and now your favorite, Iraq. You always have to try to drag Iraq in. So you must be running out of arguments when you pull the Iraq card.

Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda - the failures of US presidents aren't just limited to Iraq. Interestingly enough, in places where Putin intervened and fully controlled, there's no ISIS. In Iraq, well... yeah, there is. Your claim of "oh noes, he brought up Iraq again!" doesn't invalidate a single point. You screaming "Kiev will not be yours" like a juvenile - now that's truly hilarious.

I would rather not have the war happen, and would rather the government transition peacefully. But when conflict started, we had to adapt to it, do what we could within the circumstances.

Did it ever occur to you that dropping bombs on people's heads might not bring Democracy? Like ever?

And are your really claiming there is no corruption in Russia?!

Only to those who deliberately misread my posts. Like you.

Russia does very poorly in all corruption rankings. Corruption is rampant. And yes it is better than it was under Yeltsin, but is still bad. Yes I am going to make that point because it is a valid point. Relatively better than absolute shit does not equal good.

That point expired. So to you, a battle and a siege are the same thing, an expired point might be a good one...

There is a ton of corruption in the Russian government, and the oligarchs do not want people stopping it, obviously.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Just because Putin is popular in Russia does not change the fact that many in the government are corrupt.

Hey, I now understand why you think that a battle and a siege are the same thing, it's because you can't tell the difference between the Siloviks and Oligarchs either.

Oh but you keep hiding from the whole reason we got into this.

Challenging Russia in post Soviet States is clearly not always futile, as the EU and US are beating Russia in most of Ukraine.
Heh.

You can be infuriating, but you are also sometimes quite entertaining.

That's the reason we got into this? Heck, why not, I mean if a battle is a siege, that's certainly the reason we got into this, and the Moon is 100% made of cheese...

I love how you just skipped over most of my points to babble on about a siege not being a battle. Poor truckers get no notice?

So I guess you concede all those points. Tip, losing on the main points and wining on one little piece of irrelevant minutiae does not mean you win.

But anyways, I should not, as just as I predicted that the Kiev history mention was obviously a desperate attempt to derail as you flail...
Sieges can be battles. Not all battles are sieges of course. But sieges can still be battles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... van_Rus%27

"The Mongols chose to assault the city. Batu Khan destroyed the forces of the Rus vassals, the Chorni Klobuky,[5] who were on their way to relieve Kiev, and the entire Mongol army camped outside the city gates, joining Möngke's troops.

On November 28 the Mongols set up catapults near Kiev's Lech gates (today - vicinity of Maidan Nezalezhnosti), one of the three gates of old Kiev and where tree cover extended almost to the city walls The Mongols then began a bombardment that lasted several days. On December 6, Kiev's walls were breached, and hand-to-hand combat followed in the streets. The Kievans suffered heavy losses and Dmytro was wounded by an arrow.

When night fell the Mongols held their positions while the Kievans retreated to the central parts of the city. Many people crowded into the Church of the Tithes. The next day, as the Mongols commenced the final assault, the church's balcony collapsed under the weight of the people standing on it, crushing many. After the Mongols won the battle, they plundered Kiev."

See, you know guys fighting with swords is a battle. So when a siege involves guys fighting with swords, it is also a battle.

I guess the Siege of Leningrad was not a battle eh? All those million Soviet soldiers died from what exactly? I guess them fighting to protect the city is not a battle?
Oh try saying that in Russia.

So now that we killed that point, let us, oh actually talk about the argument at hand, not your attempts to derail it.

And yes I do have a source on subsidies to the Donbass... Sources, actually
https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/it-p ... omy-donbas
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/kie ... s-go-35591
See as I said, coal and steel are not doing so well right now. Coal mines in the Donbass needs subsidies to stay afloat. All you got is the Ukrainian equivalent of West Virginia.
Just all shot up.

You were against the pro Russian government falling in Ukraine yes. But all for the coups in Donetsk and Luhansk. And the failed coup attempt in Odessa, that only resulted in tragedy. So I see, you are only for coups when Russia is backing them.

And you directly advocated trying to use corruption to take more territory from Ukraine without consent. That would be imperialism and stealing.

And sorry "Novorossiya" is dead. And is not coming back. No, sorry, nobody is going to go around Putin to build it. It died, because
"DNR Foreign Minister Alexander Kofman said that the idea hadn’t attracted enough support outside the separatist territories."
So taking those territories without support would be imperialism...

China preventing a Maidan in Hong Kong? They shut down some protests. And no they did not need any help from Russia. Source Russia sent the police that crushed the Hong Kong protests?

But I see you think protests should not be allowed and support the tyrannical Chinese government.

And I am not going into you "Iraq bad", "Libya bad" shit.

Because it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. And did the US drop bombs on Kiev?
No. So your tu quoque is still a fallacy. Like it always is. And also, irrelevant.
But true Soviet tradition no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_a ... ng_Negroes

In Soviet Russia, you no make argument, you just say US bad.

Your argumentum ad populum is also still a fallcy too. Putin being popular in Russia does not mean he never does bad things.

So far I have seen a lot of fallacies and attempts at deflections. Iraq, Libya, some 1240 battle not being a battle because it was also a siege, and fucking Hong Kong?
I mean really?

Want to actually discuss the matter at hand? I guess not.

As for Siloviks and oligarchs.
The definition of oligarch.
"a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarch

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Silovik and an oligarch, especially if you use your position in the intelligence services to acquire a crony capitalist business empire.

And there are plenty of oligarchs who are not Silovik still in Russia you know.

But again, trying to escape the point by bogging down the argument in semantics and minutiae that do not really matter.

Putin being popular still does not change the fact that the Russian government has a big problem with corruption.

But okay, instead of going line by line trying to fight over semantics what is your main point? What are you even trying to say here?

"It's almost as if challenging Russia in the former SSRs, outside of the Baltics, is really fucking dumb."

You original quote. Turns out challenging Russia in Ukraine was not so dumb for the US after all.
As you conceded, the west made some gains.

am done with arguing with you on this thread. You are just making up arbitrary definitions, strawmanning and making the same unsppuported claims. We will just run endlessly in circles getting nowhere. Thankfully you are not in charge of Russia so we do not have to worry about his anyways. Keep dreaming your dreams of Russia stronk. They will have no bearing on reality.

[Novus America]

Does not change the fact the Europeans much prefer the US, flaws and all of Russia.

And the gas will continue to flow, because Russia needs the money. No gas, not money. Funny how that works. And before you scream "China", China has finite demand, and moreover the gas Russia sells from China comes from different fields via different pipelines. So it can be diverted just like that.
Sugar Daddy Xi is not going to bail you out always.

So Russia is not shutting off gas, and there are also other sources of energy not just solar and gas, so sorry, not going to happen. But reducing European dependence on Russian gas is good.

And there are plenty of other ways Europe can get energy. You do know the UK has oil wells and nuclear reactors right? Plus only 13.5% of British gas is Russian.
https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from

And there are other ways to get gas too. Worse thing that would happen to Europe is prices would go up. And then Azeri, US and Kuwaiti gas would fill the gap. In fact 35% of European gas comes from Russia, not the majority.

And what evidence do you have saying Europeans prefer Russia over the US? Hmmm?

Plus this is a non sequitur and a moot point, the US is not demanding Europe stop using Russian gas and Russia is not stopping gas shipments.
Either Russia will continue to ship through Ukraine, or ship it via other routes.

In case you haven't noticed, China's population is quite big. And the demand will increase. So yes, China would be a valid point. And besides, Russia needs to get off the whole raw materials thing. Thankfully the sanctions are giving Russians a way to take back a part of the Russian market, so I guess I should be thankful for that. And yes, natural gas pipelines can be built to go to China. You're claiming that Russia needs to export gas to Europe, but you're not in Europe. So if your claim is wrong, perhaps because you confused a battle with a siege, you bear no negative consequences; Europeans do. And LNG is more expensive than Russia's gas, due to logistics, perhaps you've heard of that? A battle and a siege, they require different logistics.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-azerbaijan-to-start-work-on-new-mega-gas-pipeline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79790&NewsCatID=348
Pretty decent alternative imo.

Let's see how it works out. I doubt it'll be a good replacement.

Or,
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/news/is ... ependence/

There are plenty of other places to get gas if needed. The majority of European gas is NOT from Russia.
LNG is also competive now, in fact the U.K. gets more gas form LNG ships than Russia.

So you can get it from the good old US of A.

But Russia knows this. They are not stupid, and are not going to be cutting off gas to Europe.
Russia needs the money, and cannot afford to lose its European market share.

So if you're wrong, will you voluntarily freeze with the Europeans out of solidarity? Unlikely.

Well gasoline is usually not used for heating. But there are alternatives to natural gas for heating yes. Electric, oil, even coal and wood.

Yes, wood - that'll work wonders when used on a massive scale!

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-europe-smog.html

Heavy pollution enveloping much of Europe prompted emergency measures across the continent on Tuesday. A toxic cocktail of extreme cold, no wind and heavy burning of coal and wood for heating has left many regions shrouded in smog. In many countries, including Britain, France and Brussels, officials have cautioned against physical exertion for children and the elderly, and for people with respiratory problems.

What a great recommendation from Novus America, eh Balt?

And yes, LNG can be more expensive in many cases. If it was always cheaper, it would be the only source. As I said, if Russia cut off gas, prices would increase.
But Europe would not die, and Russia would lose market share.

See it is simply a matter of money. There is more than enough gas to go around. And yes, if Russia did shut off gas to Europe, prices would go up a lot. If Russian gas was not cheaper for them then some other sources, they would not buy it. But prices going up is different than freezing. The US would get richer and Russia poorer.

Yes pipelines can be built to China, but that takes time. And money. And again China does not have infinite demand nor money. They might not be willing or able to buy the same amount or at the same price. Especially as China has other sources of gas.
China allows Russia to diversify its customers, not entirely replace its biggest. Europe is a bigger customer for Russian gas.

And I said "even coal and wood", which as your source proved, are still being used in Europe. I never advocated using them exclusively, and sure they do create pollution (but so does gas although it produces less). I was simply pointing out other sources exist, not saying that they are better.

The point remains that Europe would not in fact freeze because they could get heating from other sources.

But again this whole point it moot because Russia is not going to cut off all gas to Europe.

And as far as my advice? When did I ever say Europe should suddenly stop buying all Russian gas? I did not. Strawman.
I am not advocating Europe place a blockade on Russian gas, just pointing out, that if Russia really was that idiotic to cut off all gas, Europe would have alternatives.

But see, Russia is not that idiotic.

[Baltenstein]

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

As has been pointed out, Russia won't cut the gas because they want and need the money. You do mention an important point though: The compromised nature of Russian gas supplies is a crucial incentive for the EU countries to diversify their energy providers and increase policies aiming at eventual energy autarky. The French have their nuclear plants, other European countries are improving their renewables. Denmark, for example, already saturates a third of its total energy consumption through renewables and is aiming to become 100 % energy independent by 2050.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable ... in_Denmark

Germany has increased its RE electricity generation from 6 % to 34 % over the past 16 years, and is aiming for saturating 60 % of its total energy consumption through RE by 2050.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable ... ny#Targets

You mentioned that European sanctions are providing Russia with the incentive to reconquer its domestic market with its own manufacture. The same is also true vice versa, in relation to energy policies. If Russian gas is plentiful and cheap and its delivery guaranteed, Europeans will buy. If it's compromised, Europe will either look elsewhere or develop its own alternatives, as is currently happening.
Should Russia actually cut off the gas (which of course it won't), that development would only accelerate. So Russia actually needs to continue to supply Europe with cheap gas, not only for the revenue, but also to slow down Europe's shift towards RE.

[Lady Scylla]

Could be a turning point in both countries with their respective governments shedding the old bureaucracy. I don't imagine Russians are enjoying the sanctions, nor care for Putin that much. Proof they meddled in our nation might spark enough outrage in both countries to reform, and maybe become friendlier afterwards.

It doesn't really matter what you do or don't imagine. Reality matters. And in reality, the Russians will gladly take sanctions to keep Crimea. In reality, Putin is the most popular Russian leader since Csar Alexander the Liberator. That's reality. But you're free to imagine otherwise.

They're glad to take sanctions over Crimea? Then I guess we'll need to increase them until there's food riots. I've long felt Obama was too compliant on Russia, and the sanctions weren't doing enough -- I want Moscow to feel the West breathing down their neck; I want their banks to crash, their companies to go belly-up, and their oil money dry up. If the Russian public thinks this is hardship -- well, it can always get much, much worse. If it takes driving Russia into complete economic ruin before they realise they can't wantonly step out-of-line, then so be it. Will they be alright with those sanctions then? I doubt it.

Of course, I have no problem putting warheads on Russia's doorstep. Putin's approval rating has had an alleged resurgence from his ~63% in 2013. According to state media. But globally, Russia maintains a negative opinion outside of only two nations -- Vietnam (70%) and China (54%). Though, how am I to take the word of an American over that of Russian citizens? Have you ever lived in Russia -- especially recently? What's your experience on this? Do elaborate.

[Shofercia]

It doesn't really matter what you do or don't imagine. Reality matters. And in reality, the Russians will gladly take sanctions to keep Crimea. In reality, Putin is the most popular Russian leader since Csar Alexander the Liberator. That's reality. But you're free to imagine otherwise.

They're glad to take sanctions over Crimea? Then I guess we'll need to increase them until there's food riots. I've long felt Obama was too compliant on Russia, and the sanctions weren't doing enough -- I want Moscow to feel the West breathing down their neck; I want their banks to crash, their companies to go belly-up, and their oil money dry up. If the Russian public thinks this is hardship -- well, it can always get much, much worse. If it takes driving Russia into complete economic ruin before they realise they can't wantonly step out-of-line, then so be it. Will they be alright with those sanctions then? I doubt it.

Of course, I have no problem putting warheads on Russia's doorstep. Putin's approval rating has had an alleged resurgence from his ~63% in 2013. According to state media. But globally, Russia maintains a negative opinion outside of only two nations -- Vietnam (70%) and China (54%). Though, how am I to take the word of an American over that of Russian citizens? Have you ever lived in Russia -- especially recently? What's your experience on this? Do elaborate.

Russia produces a lot of its own food. So that's a "no" on food riots. Heck, if you've been paying attention, you'd know that Russia doubled down specifically on the food sanctions. What you want is unrealistic. Russia is the World's biggest country, and is self sustainable if need be. Furthermore, if you don't like how the Referendum in Crimea went - too bad. Numerous polling agencies said that Crimea wants to be with Russia. If 75% of the people in Ukraine said "we want to be with Russia" - you think that Putin would hesitate with the annexation? I doubt it. As far as people living in Russia recently, I'm in touch with people actually living in Russia, and the ones who never supported Putin, do, partly because of the Crimean Reclamation.

Let me just demonstrate one issue: gas prices. The EU leadership wants Russia to deal through Ukraine. Russia offered North Stream, South Stream, Turkish Stream, etc. Most Europeans just want gas, they don't care how it comes into the country. And yet, the leadership, feels that aiding Ukraine is vital, thus risking the warmth of their citizenry over a geopolitical cause to help a failed state. That's just one example, but hey, keep on using old polls, I'm sure they'll keep EU citizens warm during the winter. Because once 2017 rolls around, no more gas through Ukraine for the EU, so the EU can either work on sensible alternatives, or freeze. Or go solar. Lots of sun in London... oh wait, London isn't...

As has been pointed out, Russia won't cut the gas because they want and need the money. You do mention an important point though: The compromised nature of Russian gas supplies is a crucial incentive for the EU countries to diversify their energy providers and increase policies aiming at eventual energy autarky. The French have their nuclear plants, other European countries are improving their renewables. Denmark, for example, already saturates a third of its total energy consumption through renewables and is aiming to become 100 % energy independent by 2050.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable ... in_Denmark

Germany has increased its RE electricity generation from 6 % to 34 % over the past 16 years, and is aiming for saturating 60 % of its total energy consumption through RE by 2050.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable ... ny#Targets

You mentioned that European sanctions are providing Russia with the incentive to reconquer its domestic market with its own manufacture. The same is also true vice versa, in relation to energy policies. If Russian gas is plentiful and cheap and its delivery guaranteed, Europeans will buy. If it's compromised, Europe will either look elsewhere or develop its own alternatives, as is currently happening.
Should Russia actually cut off the gas (which of course it won't), that development would only accelerate. So Russia actually needs to continue to supply Europe with cheap gas, not only for the revenue, but also to slow down Europe's shift towards RE.

I do find the think tanks' opinion in the EU to be quite hilarious. They assisted a very anti-Russian force in Ukraine in coming to power, are continuing to support it, albeit rather hilariously, and now they want Russia to subsidize it by keeping it as a transit country? That's like paying money to your enemy because the EU demanded it. That's stupid.

I'm all for renewable energy, specifically solar, wind, and in limited cases, hydro. I applaud the EU in an effort to move themselves towards energy renewal, since it proves that parts of the EU still function... somehow. I cannot applaud the EU's stupidity in demanding that Russia keep a hostile government funded through gas transfer fees. If that happens when contract expires, and the EU leadership gets booted out in the cold, the fault is their, and theirs alone. That's my point.

[Shofercia]

I love how you just skipped over most of my points to babble on about a siege not being a battle. Poor truckers get no notice?

You do comprehend that points is plural. Please name another point that skipped over?

So I guess you concede all those points. Tip, losing on the main points and wining on one little piece of irrelevant minutiae does not mean you win.

You keep on saying that you had a lot of points. Your proof was a single article, about a single event. But hey, way to pat yourself on the back there. Speaking of battles and sieges, it's actually not a minor point, since it proves that when it comes to Russia, you don't know what you're talking about. When you claimed to know the History of Kiev, you failed to mention a battle that forecast Kiev's demise. You talk a lot about things you know very little about.

But anyways, I should not, as just as I predicted that the Kiev history mention was obviously a desperate attempt to derail as you flail...
Sieges can be battles. Not all battles are sieges of course. But sieges can still be battles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... van_Rus%27

"The Mongols chose to assault the city. Batu Khan destroyed the forces of the Rus vassals, the Chorni Klobuky,[5] who were on their way to relieve Kiev, and the entire Mongol army camped outside the city gates, joining Möngke's troops.

The reason that I asked that specific question, is to ensure that it's something that an actual student of Russian History would easily know, but also something that you cannot look up on Google without knowledge of the events. You've proven my hypothesis of your lack of History of Kiev to be 100% on point.

See, you know guys fighting with swords is a battle. So when a siege involves guys fighting with swords, it is also a battle.

So you see, guys eating on airplanes and moving towards their destination of choice, while sitting down. Guys also eat on trains, while moving towards their destination of choice, while sitting down. So that proves that trains are airplanes /Novus America Logic.

I guess the Siege of Leningrad was not a battle eh? All those million Soviet soldiers died from what exactly? I guess them fighting to protect the city is not a battle?
Oh try saying that in Russia.

Right, it wasn't a battle. It was a siege. Soldiers die during a siege. Congratulations on making that phenomenal discovery, Novus America. And yes, you can call it the Siege of Leningrad in Russia. You will be fine.

So now that we killed that point

As in the royal "we"? Aren't you an American? Wasn't there a whole War of Independence against the royal "we", and now you're shamelessly using that in a debate? Ay caramba!

And yes I do have a source on subsidies to the Donbass... Sources, actually
https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/it-p ... omy-donbas
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/kie ... s-go-35591
See as I said, coal and steel are not doing so well right now. Coal mines in the Donbass needs subsidies to stay afloat. All you got is the Ukrainian equivalent of West Virginia.
Just all shot up.

An op ed commentary, and a magazine who's hypo is that the region is worthless. Stellar sources as always, Novus America, I've learned to expect that from you.

You were against the pro Russian government falling in Ukraine yes. But all for the coups in Donetsk and Luhansk. And the failed coup attempt in Odessa, that only resulted in tragedy. So I see, you are only for coups when Russia is backing them.

The Odessa Demonstration, was a demonstration, not a coup, just like a battle is not a siege. And those people were burned alive, merely for trying to demonstrate for something they believed in. Now you're trying to cast it as a coup, clearly showing how little you care for Human Rights outside of the United States. Why am I not surprised? And in case you haven't noticed, Ukraine is split apart, so an Eastern Demonstration against a Western couped in force is perfectly natural to expect. But if you see coups everywhere...

And you directly advocated trying to use corruption to take more territory from Ukraine without consent. That would be imperialism and stealing.

Isn't that what American Advisers did in Russia in the 1990s? Are you callign America an Imperialist Thief? First you used the royal "we", not you're calling America an Imperialist Thief - that's so unpatriotic!

And sorry "Novorossiya" is dead. And is not coming back. No, sorry, nobody is going to go around Putin to build it. It died, because
"DNR Foreign Minister Alexander Kofman said that the idea hadn’t attracted enough support outside the separatist territories."
So taking those territories without support would be imperialism...

Oh, so can you show me where I advocated taking said territories without local support? No, you can't. And a battle is still not a siege.

China preventing a Maidan in Hong Kong? They shut down some protests. And no they did not need any help from Russia. Source Russia sent the police that crushed the Hong Kong protests?

But I see you think protests should not be allowed and support the tyrannical Chinese government.

And I am not going into you "Iraq bad", "Libya bad" shit.

Of course not, since you have no argument on that front. Or on any fronts for that matter.

Because it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. And did the US drop bombs on Kiev?
No. So your tu quoque is still a fallacy. Like it always is. And also, irrelevant.
But true Soviet tradition no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_a ... ng_Negroes

In Soviet Russia, you no make argument, you just say US bad.

US bad because US pokes its nose in areas that the US has little to no cultural understanding, and instability, followed by civil war and/or unrest, results. Let's take a look at Russia's Wars: South Ossetia and Abkhazia - relatively peaceful. Crimea - very peaceful. Now let's look at America's Wars: Afghanistan - insurgency; Iraq - ISIS and civil war; Libya - insurgency, civil war; Somalia - fucked up. Kosovo - always troublesome.

Your argumentum ad populum is also still a fallcy too. Putin being popular in Russia does not mean he never does bad things.

Where did I argue that he never did bad things? I specifically criticized him over Gay Rights issues and the lack of support for Libya. Do you not understand what the term "never" means?

So far I have seen a lot of fallacies and attempts at deflections. Iraq, Libya, some 1240 battle not being a battle because it was also a siege, and fucking Hong Kong?
I mean really?

If you didn't know the History of Kiev, you could've just said "I don't know", but since you have to have an opinion on almost everything, irrespective of how little you know about the actual subject matter, I do bring that stuff in. Not to deflect, since I know you'll be wrong about Ukraine. Just for my own entertainment. You mirror US Foreign Policy in terms of knowledge, and so debating that mirror is entertaining for me.

Want to actually discuss the matter at hand? I guess not.

As for Siloviks and oligarchs.
The definition of oligarch.
"a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarch

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Silovik and an oligarch, especially if you use your position in the intelligence services to acquire a crony capitalist business empire.

Erm, not sure if you know this, but a Silovik is tied the land, project, agency, etc. The Siloviks make the most money if their Oblasts, projects, agencies, etc, do phenomenally well. An Oligarch is just tied to money. So in one case you have a performance bonus, in another - a reward for scamming. Which, under your definition, is all the same.

And there are plenty of oligarchs who are not Silovik still in Russia you know.

Plenty? Ok, name 20. Since there are plenty, it shouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, you won't, you'll most some op-ed instead.

But again, trying to escape the point by bogging down the argument in semantics and minutiae that do not really matter.

Ignorance of Kievan History - minutea for Novus America. Interesting.

Putin being popular still does not change the fact that the Russian government has a big problem with corruption.

But okay, instead of going line by line trying to fight over semantics what is your main point? What are you even trying to say here?

"It's almost as if challenging Russia in the former SSRs, outside of the Baltics, is really fucking dumb."

You original quote. Turns out challenging Russia in Ukraine was not so dumb for the US after all.
As you conceded, the west made some gains.

I conceded that the gains were greater than the losses? Where did I concede that? In a place where the Moon is made of cheese? Oh, and the whole Ukraine thing, it's less like a battle and more like a siege. It takes time. A very large amount of time. And if you knew the History of the Region, you'd know that. Instead, you're prematurely doing something, that's reminiscent of a leader we both know. You're doing this:

[Shofercia]

And yes, LNG can be more expensive in many cases. If it was always cheaper, it would be the only source. As I said, if Russia cut off gas, prices would increase.
But Europe would not die, and Russia would lose market share.

See it is simply a matter of money. There is more than enough gas to go around. And yes, if Russia did shut off gas to Europe, prices would go up a lot. If Russian gas was not cheaper for them then some other sources, they would not buy it. But prices going up is different than freezing. The US would get richer and Russia poorer.

So you're saying that the EU should force its consumers to pay more for gas, in order to attempt to force Russia to treat Ukraine as a transit country, and arguably fail?

Yes pipelines can be built to China, but that takes time. And money. And again China does not have infinite demand nor money. They might not be willing or able to buy the same amount or at the same price. Especially as China has other sources of gas.
China allows Russia to diversify its customers, not entirely replace its biggest. Europe is a bigger customer for Russian gas.

It's kind of hilarious how you phrase things. When it came to EU's reliance on Russia, you used the term plurality not majority but when it came to Russia's gas to the EU, you stated that the EU was a bigger customer. So you phrased the exact same thing in two different ways.

But hey, completely unbiased Novus America /sarcasm

And I said "even coal and wood", which as your source proved, are still being used in Europe. I never advocated using them exclusively, and sure they do create pollution (but so does gas although it produces less). I was simply pointing out other sources exist, not saying that they are better.

Coal and wood are not going to be used as big heating sources in places like France and Germany, without popular outcry. Poor suggestion. But feel free to defend it.

The point remains that Europe would not in fact freeze because they could get heating from other sources.

But again this whole point it moot because Russia is not going to cut off all gas to Europe.

And as far as my advice? When did I ever say Europe should suddenly stop buying all Russian gas? I did not. Strawman.
I am not advocating Europe place a blockade on Russian gas, just pointing out, that if Russia really was that idiotic to cut off all gas, Europe would have alternatives.

But see, Russia is not that idiotic.

You keep on claiming that Russia is not going to cut off gas, which is funny. Russia offered to build several pipelines into the EU, going around Ukraine. The EU is busy finding ways to reject those pipelines. Thus, the EU is saying that Russia must either use Ukraine as a transit country, or lose the EU as a customer. This isn't just business. It's the EU demanding that Russia prop up a group in Kiev that's anti-Russia, via transit fees, or lose the European market. Bending down to said gangster mentality - now that's fucking idiotic.

[Novus America]

I love how you just skipped over most of my points to babble on about a siege not being a battle. Poor truckers get no notice?

You do comprehend that points is plural. Please name another point that skipped over?

So I guess you concede all those points. Tip, losing on the main points and wining on one little piece of irrelevant minutiae does not mean you win.

You keep on saying that you had a lot of points. Your proof was a single article, about a single event. But hey, way to pat yourself on the back there. Speaking of battles and sieges, it's actually not a minor point, since it proves that when it comes to Russia, you don't know what you're talking about. When you claimed to know the History of Kiev, you failed to mention a battle that forecast Kiev's demise. You talk a lot about things you know very little about.

But anyways, I should not, as just as I predicted that the Kiev history mention was obviously a desperate attempt to derail as you flail...
Sieges can be battles. Not all battles are sieges of course. But sieges can still be battles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... van_Rus%27

"The Mongols chose to assault the city. Batu Khan destroyed the forces of the Rus vassals, the Chorni Klobuky,[5] who were on their way to relieve Kiev, and the entire Mongol army camped outside the city gates, joining Möngke's troops.

The reason that I asked that specific question, is to ensure that it's something that an actual student of Russian History would easily know, but also something that you cannot look up on Google without knowledge of the events. You've proven my hypothesis of your lack of History of Kiev to be 100% on point.

See, you know guys fighting with swords is a battle. So when a siege involves guys fighting with swords, it is also a battle.

So you see, guys eating on airplanes and moving towards their destination of choice, while sitting down. Guys also eat on trains, while moving towards their destination of choice, while sitting down. So that proves that trains are airplanes /Novus America Logic.

I guess the Siege of Leningrad was not a battle eh? All those million Soviet soldiers died from what exactly? I guess them fighting to protect the city is not a battle?
Oh try saying that in Russia.

Right, it wasn't a battle. It was a siege. Soldiers die during a siege. Congratulations on making that phenomenal discovery, Novus America. And yes, you can call it the Siege of Leningrad in Russia. You will be fine.

So now that we killed that point

As in the royal "we"? Aren't you an American? Wasn't there a whole War of Independence against the royal "we", and now you're shamelessly using that in a debate? Ay caramba!

And yes I do have a source on subsidies to the Donbass... Sources, actually
https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/it-p ... omy-donbas
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/kie ... s-go-35591
See as I said, coal and steel are not doing so well right now. Coal mines in the Donbass needs subsidies to stay afloat. All you got is the Ukrainian equivalent of West Virginia.
Just all shot up.

An op ed commentary, and a magazine who's hypo is that the region is worthless. Stellar sources as always, Novus America, I've learned to expect that from you.

You were against the pro Russian government falling in Ukraine yes. But all for the coups in Donetsk and Luhansk. And the failed coup attempt in Odessa, that only resulted in tragedy. So I see, you are only for coups when Russia is backing them.

The Odessa Demonstration, was a demonstration, not a coup, just like a battle is not a siege. And those people were burned alive, merely for trying to demonstrate for something they believed in. Now you're trying to cast it as a coup, clearly showing how little you care for Human Rights outside of the United States. Why am I not surprised? And in case you haven't noticed, Ukraine is split apart, so an Eastern Demonstration against a Western couped in force is perfectly natural to expect. But if you see coups everywhere...

And you directly advocated trying to use corruption to take more territory from Ukraine without consent. That would be imperialism and stealing.

Isn't that what American Advisers did in Russia in the 1990s? Are you callign America an Imperialist Thief? First you used the royal "we", not you're calling America an Imperialist Thief - that's so unpatriotic!

And sorry "Novorossiya" is dead. And is not coming back. No, sorry, nobody is going to go around Putin to build it. It died, because
"DNR Foreign Minister Alexander Kofman said that the idea hadn’t attracted enough support outside the separatist territories."
So taking those territories without support would be imperialism...

Oh, so can you show me where I advocated taking said territories without local support? No, you can't. And a battle is still not a siege.

China preventing a Maidan in Hong Kong? They shut down some protests. And no they did not need any help from Russia. Source Russia sent the police that crushed the Hong Kong protests?

But I see you think protests should not be allowed and support the tyrannical Chinese government.

And I am not going into you "Iraq bad", "Libya bad" shit.

Of course not, since you have no argument on that front. Or on any fronts for that matter.

Because it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. And did the US drop bombs on Kiev?
No. So your tu quoque is still a fallacy. Like it always is. And also, irrelevant.
But true Soviet tradition no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_a ... ng_Negroes

In Soviet Russia, you no make argument, you just say US bad.

US bad because US pokes its nose in areas that the US has little to no cultural understanding, and instability, followed by civil war and/or unrest, results. Let's take a look at Russia's Wars: South Ossetia and Abkhazia - relatively peaceful. Crimea - very peaceful. Now let's look at America's Wars: Afghanistan - insurgency; Iraq - ISIS and civil war; Libya - insurgency, civil war; Somalia - fucked up. Kosovo - always troublesome.

Your argumentum ad populum is also still a fallcy too. Putin being popular in Russia does not mean he never does bad things.

Where did I argue that he never did bad things? I specifically criticized him over Gay Rights issues and the lack of support for Libya. Do you not understand what the term "never" means?

So far I have seen a lot of fallacies and attempts at deflections. Iraq, Libya, some 1240 battle not being a battle because it was also a siege, and fucking Hong Kong?
I mean really?

If you didn't know the History of Kiev, you could've just said "I don't know", but since you have to have an opinion on almost everything, irrespective of how little you know about the actual subject matter, I do bring that stuff in. Not to deflect, since I know you'll be wrong about Ukraine. Just for my own entertainment. You mirror US Foreign Policy in terms of knowledge, and so debating that mirror is entertaining for me.

Want to actually discuss the matter at hand? I guess not.

As for Siloviks and oligarchs.
The definition of oligarch.
"a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarch

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Silovik and an oligarch, especially if you use your position in the intelligence services to acquire a crony capitalist business empire.

Erm, not sure if you know this, but a Silovik is tied the land, project, agency, etc. The Siloviks make the most money if their Oblasts, projects, agencies, etc, do phenomenally well. An Oligarch is just tied to money. So in one case you have a performance bonus, in another - a reward for scamming. Which, under your definition, is all the same.

And there are plenty of oligarchs who are not Silovik still in Russia you know.

Plenty? Ok, name 20. Since there are plenty, it shouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, you won't, you'll most some op-ed instead.

But again, trying to escape the point by bogging down the argument in semantics and minutiae that do not really matter.

Ignorance of Kievan History - minutea for Novus America. Interesting.

Putin being popular still does not change the fact that the Russian government has a big problem with corruption.

But okay, instead of going line by line trying to fight over semantics what is your main point? What are you even trying to say here?

"It's almost as if challenging Russia in the former SSRs, outside of the Baltics, is really fucking dumb."

You original quote. Turns out challenging Russia in Ukraine was not so dumb for the US after all.
As you conceded, the west made some gains.

I conceded that the gains were greater than the losses? Where did I concede that? In a place where the Moon is made of cheese? Oh, and the whole Ukraine thing, it's less like a battle and more like a siege. It takes time. A very large amount of time. And if you knew the History of the Region, you'd know that. Instead, you're prematurely doing something, that's reminiscent of a leader we both know. You're doing this:

Again, more semantics, deflections, Iraq, Tu Quoque, and no substantial points actually being made. And a meme picture.

A siege can also be a battle too, the two are not mutually exclusive. Not sure what you do not understand about that. A siege battle is different than a field battle, which is different than a naval battle. But they are all types of battles. Hence why sieges that are battles go on lists of battles. Hence why the article says the sack happened "after the battle". But this is just you making unsupported semantic claims. Not actually addressing anything.
Battle: "a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces".
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/battle
So yeah, when two military forces fight, it is a battle. It might also be a siege. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Cleary the Siege of Kiev was by definition, a battle. It was also a siege, and a city fight, and hence a battle too. Because military forces fought. Not all battles are sieges, obviously. But sieges may also be battles. What do you fail to understand?

And your argument about Siloviks is silly. It is based on you pulling arbitrary definitions out of you know where. I actually used a real definition, with a source. You just made one up.
Like the thing with sieges never being battles even when they are both sieges and battles you just make up your own definitions as you go along.

And when did the US take territory from Russia in the 90s? What territory did the US gain?

But sure,
keep dreaming that the Novorossiya thing is still alive, and will miraculously come to fruition, and huge amounts of Ukraine will join Russia. Ultra-nationalist fantasies are not reality though. But keep dreaming.

And what did the US lose? So clearly we won more than we lost.
Obviously the situation was less than ideal and others lost, but Russia lost a lot of influence in a post Soviet country. So the whole Russia stronk, cannot be defeated thing is clearly not the case.
Russia lost influence in the vast majority of Ukraine, and again your fantasies aside, things are not getting any batter for you. Only worse.

So clearly the US should not just let Russia do what it wants in the Americas, without responding in kind nearer to Russia. Both are maneuvering for influence. And in this case the US gained influence, and Russia lost influence.

When Yanukovych fled leaving a power vacuum, (which we did not expect) we had to react. If he had not been such a cowardly incompetent fool and had been able to manage a protest properly, things would have been better, but that was not the case.