Three countries form defense alliance against Russia

[Bienenhalde]

If Poland is willing to rejoin the Istanbul Convention and stop tampering with the independence of the judiciary and engaging in egregious homophobic demogogery, perhaps in return western European countries could start supporting this alliance.

[Punished UMN]

Where in your source does it say what you are claiming? I see nothing in the part you have quoted about a defensive pact or alliance.

[Shofercia]

Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine form Lublin Triangle to cooperate against Russian aggression

Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine have agreed to deepen cooperation to help Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression as well as to take joint action to counter the coronavirus pandemic.

In a declaration signed by the Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian foreign ministers in the Polish city of Lublin on Tuesday, the three countries committed to creating the so-called Lublin Triangle, a trilateral platform for political, economic and social cooperation, to achieve these and other goals.

The foreign ministers “decided to organise their regular meetings, also in the margins of multilateral sessions and with the participation of chosen partners”, the document reads. “They also decide to organise consultations of high-level MFA officials and establish liaison-officers within the Ministries of Foreign Affairs.”

The declaration emphasises “the multi-centennial historical and cultural links” between the three nations and notes “common threats in security area as well as [...] pandemic threats”.

“Taking into account the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine, they [the ministers] commit to coordinating their activities in order to uphold the international law” and “declare invariably their strong condemnation of the attempted annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation”.

They also call on Russia to withdraw its troops from the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and reaffirm their support to Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the country's NATO aspirations as well as political and economic reforms.

The ministers also “commit to providing mutual support in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic”.

Basically, Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine have formed a defense pact to protect the three from Russian aggression, what do you think about this in regards to the general geopolitical strategy of Russia, and its interests in Ukraine and Eastern Europe?

Lithuania has an army that can do something? Putin must be shaking in his boots

And what's Poland going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

Ukraine isn’t in NATO this is a non NATO venture

The article at the end discusses that this alliance supports Ukrainian entry into NATO.

And countries that have actually fought a war with Russia, like France, Germany, Italy, etc, oppose it.

Crimean War 2: Electric Boogaloo??? Shame if that happened there won't be a charge of a light brigade and a famous poem to go with it.

Ottomans challenge Russia in Crimea: empire destroyed
French/British challenge Russia in Crimea: empires destroyed
Poles/Lithuanians/Ukrainians challenge Russia in Crimea:

[Minskiev]

Like I thought, AN’s Russian. You realize Russia lost the Crimean War, right?

[Punished UMN]

Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine form Lublin Triangle to cooperate against Russian aggression



Basically, Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine have formed a defense pact to protect the three from Russian aggression, what do you think about this in regards to the general geopolitical strategy of Russia, and its interests in Ukraine and Eastern Europe?

Lithuania has an army that can do something? Putin must be shaking in his boots

And what's Poland going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

The article at the end discusses that this alliance supports Ukrainian entry into NATO.

And countries that have actually fought a war with Russia, like France, Germany, Italy, etc, oppose it.

Crimean War 2: Electric Boogaloo??? Shame if that happened there won't be a charge of a light brigade and a famous poem to go with it.

Ottomans challenge Russia in Crimea: empire destroyed
French/British challenge Russia in Crimea: empires destroyed
Poles/Lithuanians/Ukrainians challenge Russia in Crimea:

lmao what?

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

Poland-Lithuania 2, Modern Tech Boogaloo?

[Shofercia]

If Poland is willing to rejoin the Istanbul Convention and stop tampering with the independence of the judiciary and engaging in egregious homophobic demogogery, perhaps in return western European countries could start supporting this alliance.

Where in your source does it say what you are claiming? I see nothing in the part you have quoted about a defensive pact or alliance.

It's a declaration, involving the mighty army of Lithuania. In response, South Ossetia should declare that they no longer recognize Lithuania, a country that currently has 136 troops deployed abroad. Russia better watch out!

[Heloin]

No offence to the city of Lublin which I assume is lovely but the name Lublin Triangle is bad and they should feel bad.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

Lithuania has an army that can do something? Putin must be shaking in his boots

And what's Poland going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

Chechens and Afghans say hello, lad.

[Minskiev]

No offence to the city of Lublin which I assume is lovely but the name Lublin Triangle is bad and they should feel bad.

The name’s salvageable if you add Ireland into it.

[Punished UMN]

If Poland is willing to rejoin the Istanbul Convention and stop tampering with the independence of the judiciary and engaging in egregious homophobic demogogery, perhaps in return western European countries could start supporting this alliance.

Where in your source does it say what you are claiming? I see nothing in the part you have quoted about a defensive pact or alliance.

It's a declaration, involving the mighty army of Lithuania. In response, South Ossetia should declare that they no longer recognize Lithuania, a country that currently has 136 troops deployed abroad. Russia better watch out!

No it isn't. My point is that there is no such declaration of a defensive alliance.

[Heloin]

No offence to the city of Lublin which I assume is lovely but the name Lublin Triangle is bad and they should feel bad.

The name’s salvageable if you add Ireland into it.

Ah yes, the Lublin Trapezoid.

[Shofercia]

Like I thought, AN’s Russian. You realize Russia lost the Crimean War, right?

And where did I say that Russia won the Crimean War?

Ottomans challenge Russia in Crimea: empire destroyed
French/British challenge Russia in Crimea: empires destroyed

lmao what?

The first Russo-Ottoman War involved, at least partially, Crimea. The second also involved Crimea and the third was fought in Crimea and Azov. In the end, it was Russia's military might that served as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Crimean War enabled the Unification of Germany, from which WWI stemmed, a war that put the Franco-British empires on a path to their ultimate extinction.

[Shofercia]

Lithuania has an army that can do something? Putin must be shaking in his boots

And what's Poland going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

Chechens and Afghans say hello, lad.

Chechens were defeated almost twenty years ago. Afghanistan might become and SCO member, so you can say hello right back!

[Dresderstan]

The first Russo-Ottoman War involved, at least partially, Crimea. The second also involved Crimea and the third was fought in Crimea and Azov. In the end, it was Russia's military might that served as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Crimean War enabled the Unification of Germany, from which WWI stemmed, a war that put the Franco-British empires to their ultimate extinction.

Uhh no that's wrong, Germany united under Prussia because of the Franco-Prussian war, not the Crimean War.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

Chechens and Afghans say hello, lad.

Chechens were defeated almost twenty years ago. Afghanistan might become and SCO member, so you can say hello right back!

the fact that it took you two tries to defeat the first and couldn't defeat the latter really says something about the state of your military

[Punished UMN]

Like I thought, AN’s Russian. You realize Russia lost the Crimean War, right?

And where did I say that Russia won the Crimean War?

Ottomans challenge Russia in Crimea: empire destroyed
French/British challenge Russia in Crimea: empires destroyed

lmao what?

The first Russo-Ottoman War involved, at least partially, Crimea. The second also involved Crimea and the third was fought in Crimea and Azov. In the end, it was Russia's military might that served as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Crimean War enabled the Unification of Germany, from which WWI stemmed, a war that put the Franco-British empires to their ultimate extinction.[/quote]
That's linking a lot of events and expressing it in a way that is incredibly misleading. Normally you wouldn't say something like "Catherine the Great emancipates the nobility: Monarchy falls", the events are undoubtedly linked, but it's in a convoluted manner across a much larger timescale than what your linguistic expression implies.

[Shofercia]

And where did I say that Russia won the Crimean War?




The first Russo-Ottoman War involved, at least partially, Crimea. The second also involved Crimea and the third was fought in Crimea and Azov. In the end, it was Russia's military might that served as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Crimean War enabled the Unification of Germany, from which WWI stemmed, a war that put the Franco-British empires to their ultimate extinction.

Uhh no that's wrong, Germany united under Prussia because of the Franco-Prussian war, not the Crimean War.

The Crimean War enabled the Franco-Prussian War. During the Crimean War, Austria-Hungary refused to back Russia, the result of which was the end of the alliance between Hapsburg and Romanov Houses. This enabled Bismarck to isolate Austria, and the Prussian defeat of Austria was vital to Bismarck's organization of the Franco-Prussian War.

[Shofercia]

Chechens were defeated almost twenty years ago. Afghanistan might become and SCO member, so you can say hello right back!

the fact that it took you two tries to defeat the first and couldn't defeat the latter really says something about the state of your military

The military was backstabbed by the Yeltsin Regime against the Chechens. How's the War in Afghanistan going for the US? How about the Brits a bit earlier? There's a reason that a certain place is known as the Graveyard of Empires.

The first Russo-Ottoman War involved, at least partially, Crimea. The second also involved Crimea and the third was fought in Crimea and Azov. In the end, it was Russia's military might that served as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Crimean War enabled the Unification of Germany, from which WWI stemmed, a war that put the Franco-British empires to their ultimate extinction.

That's linking a lot of events and expressing it in a way that is incredibly misleading. Normally you wouldn't say something like "Catherine the Great emancipates the nobility: Monarchy falls", the events are undoubtedly linked, but it's in a convoluted manner across a much larger timescale than what your linguistic expression implies.

If there's a direct nexus in the timeline, you can. What's the nexus with your emancipation? For instance, I can argue that the murder of Csar Alexander the Liberator led to the fall of the House of Romanov, but I cannot argue that the murder of Csar Paul led to it, because the reign of Csar Alexander the I is the intervening act that breaks the nexus.

Just to expand this point a bit: we know, for a fact, that Csar Nicolas the II couldn't handle the country that he was given to rule. But he might have handled a country that was better equipped, had better power-brokers, etc. So, as long as Csar Nicolas Duo gets the country that he got, there's a direct link between that and the fall of the House of Romanov.

The leader before him was Csar Alexander III. He was a strong leader, who had a choice whether to continue pursuing his father's reforms, or to become a reactionary leader. His father's murder caused him to become a reaction leader. His reactionary, rather than proactive leadership, caused Csar Nicolas to inherit the Russian Empire as it was.

[Punished UMN]

the fact that it took you two tries to defeat the first and couldn't defeat the latter really says something about the state of your military

The military was backstabbed by the Yeltsin Regime against the Chechens. How's the War in Afghanistan going for the US? How about the Brits a bit earlier? There's a reason that a certain place is known as the Graveyard of Empire.

That's linking a lot of events and expressing it in a way that is incredibly misleading. Normally you wouldn't say something like "Catherine the Great emancipates the nobility: Monarchy falls", the events are undoubtedly linked, but it's in a convoluted manner across a much larger timescale than what your linguistic expression implies.

If there's a direct nexus in the timeline, you can. What's the nexus with your emancipation? For instance, I can argue that the murder of Csar Alexander the Liberator led to the fall of the House of Romanov, but I cannot argue that the murder of Csar Paul led to it, because the reign of Csar Alexander the I is the intervening act that breaks the nexus.

Just because there's a direct nexus doesn't mean it's not misleading. Also many historians have noted that the emancipation of the nobility led to the nobility no longer really being a socially useful class to the government, and thus being unable to really justify continuing to hold serfs. The emancipation of the nobility led to the emancipation of the serfs, which led to a shift to more urban modes of production, which led to class contradiction in cities, and ultimately to the revolutions of 1905 and 1917.

What you are doing is going "A, then Z", yes, it is technically true, but it is misleading in the way you have worded it, because it implies direct, rather than ultimate, causation. Event A is the first of a series of events which ultimately leads to Z, but it is not directly the cause of Z, it is the cause of B, which is the cause of C, which is the cause of D, etc. etc. There is a thing to linguistic expression which allows us to craft statements which, while correct, are misleading. For example, "Julius Caesar died prior to the presidency of George W Bush", while true, implies information which is not true.

[Baltenstein]

[Suspiciously well-equipped Russian volunteers spontaneously spawn in, distant hardbass]

You jest, and yet...

Belarus has arrested dozens of Russian mercenaries after receiving information that more than 200 fighters had entered the country to destabilise it before a presidential election, according to Belarusian state media.

The state-controlled Belta news agency said on Wednesday that the mercenaries worked for Wagner, Russia's best-known private military contractor.

Belta said Belarusian special forces had arrested 32 Russian mercenaries in the Minsk area and another person in the south of the country.

"The guests drew attention to themselves because they did not behave like Russian tourists usually do and wore military-style clothing," Belta reported.

The group arrived in Minsk on July 24, it said, noting that each man carried small hand luggage only, but that the group had three big heavy suitcases.

State TV showed the men being arrested in their underwear and broadcast footage of one man's belongings which included a Russian passport, military-style patches and US dollar bills.

Radio Free Europe noted that other belongings captured on camera included Sudanese currency and a Sudanese phone card, suggesting the men may have been en route to Africa.

The Kremlin and the Russian foreign ministry did not immediately react to the report.

The Russian embassy in Minsk said it had not received any official information about the arrest of Russian citizens, the RIA news agency reported.

[Shofercia]

The military was backstabbed by the Yeltsin Regime against the Chechens. How's the War in Afghanistan going for the US? How about the Brits a bit earlier? There's a reason that a certain place is known as the Graveyard of Empire.




If there's a direct nexus in the timeline, you can. What's the nexus with your emancipation? For instance, I can argue that the murder of Csar Alexander the Liberator led to the fall of the House of Romanov, but I cannot argue that the murder of Csar Paul led to it, because the reign of Csar Alexander the I is the intervening act that breaks the nexus.

Just because there's a direct nexus doesn't mean it's not misleading. Also many historians have noted that the emancipation of the nobility led to the nobility no longer really being a socially useful class to the government, and thus being unable to really justify continuing to hold serfs. The emancipation of the nobility led to the emancipation of the serfs, which led to a shift to more urban modes of production, which led to class contradiction in cities, and ultimately to the revolutions of 1905 and 1917.

What you are doing is going "A, then Z", yes, it is technically true, but it is misleading in the way you have worded it, because it implies direct, rather than ultimate, causation. Event A is the first of a series of events which ultimately leads to Z, but it is not directly the cause of Z, it is the cause of B, which is the cause of C, which is the cause of D, etc. etc. There is a thing to linguistic expression which allows us to craft statements which, while correct, are misleading. For example, "Julius Caesar died prior to the presidency of George W Bush", while true, implies information which is not true.

How can a direct nexus be misleading? Your nexus isn't just indirect; it doesn't exist. Catherine the Great ended her reign in 1796, and yet, there were no revolts until 1905... yeah, I'm going to say that there were some intervening factors there. Also, 1905 was a revolt, not a revolution. We're not going from A to Z. We're going from A to B to C, where the chain is unbroken. The very fact that you've yet to come up with an unbroken chain of events, shows your inability to grasp the concept.

Again, to use the murder example: Alexander the Liberator's murder caused two things: first, it caused Paul the First's law on succession to be cemented in stone, meaning that a successor did not need to show adequate skill to come to power; second, it caused Alexander the Third to rule as a reactionary, rather than a proactive leader. The first cause ensured that Nicolas the Second was going to inherit the country, and the second cause showed that Nicolas the Second was to inherit the country that he couldn't lead. I've yet to see a single sane historian argue that Nicolas the Second could've led Russia. Ergo Revolution.

[Shofercia]

[Suspiciously well-equipped Russian volunteers spontaneously spawn in, distant hardbass]

You jest, and yet...

Belarus has arrested dozens of Russian mercenaries after receiving information that more than 200 fighters had entered the country to destabilise it before a presidential election, according to Belarusian state media.

The state-controlled Belta news agency said on Wednesday that the mercenaries worked for Wagner, Russia's best-known private military contractor.

Belta said Belarusian special forces had arrested 32 Russian mercenaries in the Minsk area and another person in the south of the country.

"The guests drew attention to themselves because they did not behave like Russian tourists usually do and wore military-style clothing," Belta reported.

The group arrived in Minsk on July 24, it said, noting that each man carried small hand luggage only, but that the group had three big heavy suitcases.

State TV showed the men being arrested in their underwear and broadcast footage of one man's belongings which included a Russian passport, military-style patches and US dollar bills.

Radio Free Europe noted that other belongings captured on camera included Sudanese currency and a Sudanese phone card, suggesting the men may have been en route to Africa.

The Kremlin and the Russian foreign ministry did not immediately react to the report.

The Russian embassy in Minsk said it had not received any official information about the arrest of Russian citizens, the RIA news agency reported.

Radio Free Europe noted that other belongings captured on camera included Sudanese currency and a Sudanese phone card, suggesting the men may have been en route to Africa.

"Sudanese currency - absolutely vital to the overthrown of European Governments" - interesting claim there Baltenstein.

Security forces have broken up what they say are illegal protests in recent weeks. Last month, Lukashenko accused Russian and Polish forces of trying to discredit him. Russia denied the allegations. Lukashenko, 65, has accused opposition protesters of plotting to overthrow him.

Lukashenko regularly accuses everyone of interfering in Belarussian Elections that he'll end up winning anyway.

[Punished UMN]

Just because there's a direct nexus doesn't mean it's not misleading. Also many historians have noted that the emancipation of the nobility led to the nobility no longer really being a socially useful class to the government, and thus being unable to really justify continuing to hold serfs. The emancipation of the nobility led to the emancipation of the serfs, which led to a shift to more urban modes of production, which led to class contradiction in cities, and ultimately to the revolutions of 1905 and 1917.

What you are doing is going "A, then Z", yes, it is technically true, but it is misleading in the way you have worded it, because it implies direct, rather than ultimate, causation. Event A is the first of a series of events which ultimately leads to Z, but it is not directly the cause of Z, it is the cause of B, which is the cause of C, which is the cause of D, etc. etc. There is a thing to linguistic expression which allows us to craft statements which, while correct, are misleading. For example, "Julius Caesar died prior to the presidency of George W Bush", while true, implies information which is not true.

How can a direct nexus be misleading? Your nexus isn't just indirect; it doesn't exist. Catherine the Great ended her reign in 1796, and yet, there were no revolts until 1905... yeah, I'm going to say that there were some intervening factors there. Also, 1905 was a revolt, not a revolution. We're not going from A to Z. We're going from A to B to C, where the chain is unbroken. The very fact that you've yet to come up with an unbroken chain of events, shows your inability to grasp the concept.

Again, to use the murder example: Alexander the Liberator's murder caused two things: first, it caused Paul the First's law on succession to be cemented in stone, meaning that a successor did not need to show adequate skill to come to power; second, it caused Alexander the Third to rule as a reactionary, rather than a proactive leader. The first cause ensured that Nicolas the Second was going to inherit the country, and the second cause showed that Nicolas the Second was to inherit the country that he couldn't lead. I've yet to see a single sane historian argue that Nicolas the Second could've led Russia. Ergo Revolution.

You could use this exact argument against your own statements. The Crimean War ended in 1856, yet there were no collapses of the French, Ottoman, and British Empires until 1870, 1918, and 1948, respectively... yeah, I'm going to say that there were some intervening factors there.

I'm going to stop here because you're not worth arguing with and refuse to admit when you're wrong. Even Lyttenburgh, a literal Russian history professor who works at the most prestigious academic institution in Russia, has told you, in no uncertain terms, that you do not have a basic grasp of Russian history, or of history in general.

[Shofercia]

How can a direct nexus be misleading? Your nexus isn't just indirect; it doesn't exist. Catherine the Great ended her reign in 1796, and yet, there were no revolts until 1905... yeah, I'm going to say that there were some intervening factors there. Also, 1905 was a revolt, not a revolution. We're not going from A to Z. We're going from A to B to C, where the chain is unbroken. The very fact that you've yet to come up with an unbroken chain of events, shows your inability to grasp the concept.

Again, to use the murder example: Alexander the Liberator's murder caused two things: first, it caused Paul the First's law on succession to be cemented in stone, meaning that a successor did not need to show adequate skill to come to power; second, it caused Alexander the Third to rule as a reactionary, rather than a proactive leader. The first cause ensured that Nicolas the Second was going to inherit the country, and the second cause showed that Nicolas the Second was to inherit the country that he couldn't lead. I've yet to see a single sane historian argue that Nicolas the Second could've led Russia. Ergo Revolution.

You could use this exact argument against your own statements. The Crimean War ended in 1856, yet there were no collapses of the French, Ottoman, and British Empires until 1870, 1918, and 1948, respectively... yeah, I'm going to say that there were some intervening factors there.

I'm going to stop here because you're not worth arguing with and refuse to admit when you're wrong. Even Lyttenburgh, a literal Russian history professor who works at the most prestigious academic institution in Russia, has told you, in no uncertain terms, that you do not have a basic grasp of Russian history, or of history in general.

Lyt's a PhD candidate, not a professor, but lying hasn't stopped you before. I've also been told by plenty of experts that there are WMDs in Iraq, those who hold PhDs, and Lyt never said that I have no grasp of history in general, or Russian History, so now you're just making shit up. For instance Lyt commended my understand of WWII History, so it's a tad hard to understand how someone can have no grasp of basic history, and yet be commended on understanding advanced history, but you do you UMN, you do you. Appealing to someone who was banned from NSG and thus cannot comment, in order to support your personal attack, is rather moronic, but then again, I've learned to expect that.

Also, not sure you're aware of this UMN, but 14 years is not that long in terms of history, and if you've grasped the very basics of basic history, you'd easily grasp that incredibly simple point, and 1870-1856 is 14 years. Also, if you're going to accuse someone of not understanding the basics of any subject, actually bother to read what they're saying, because I stated that:

The first Russo-Ottoman War involved, at least partially, Crimea. The second also involved Crimea and the third was fought in Crimea and Azov. In the end, it was Russia's military might that served as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

That has nothing to do with direct nexus, as I'm not stating that a single event led to it. I'm unsure how anyone daring to comment on the abilities' of others would've misread that, unless they were blatantly projecting.

So, once again: the Franco-Prussian War needed the Austro-Prussian War in order to take place. Hapsburg actions during the Crimean War led to a break in Hapsburg-Romanov relations, which enabled Bismarck to isolate Austria-Hungary.

As for your bullshit claim that I'd never admit that I'm wrong, here's me admitting that I was wrong:

One of the reason's I like NSG, is that it's educational. I'd rather be proven wrong and learn something new, than proven right, repeatedly, although I do have a question: why the heck aren't schools teaching this stuff?

But hey, maybe that text is just in our imagination, at least according to Punished UMN...