Russian Federation (And other forms of Russia)

[Roski]

Oh.
Wait, they revolted and she was forced into conservatism?

It was a pattern which was, sadly, repeated with her grandson. They start off young and idealistic, the the peasants get uppity and they suddenly turn into reactionaries.

She wasn't really FORCED into conservationism, but chose it because she believed that her reforms had encouraged the revolt, and that further liberalization would lead to further rebellions.

Why couldn't she handle rebellions like a real monarch and shoot up the place?

[Seraven]

It was a pattern which was, sadly, repeated with her grandson. They start off young and idealistic, the the peasants get uppity and they suddenly turn into reactionaries.

She wasn't really FORCED into conservationism, but chose it because she believed that her reforms had encouraged the revolt, and that further liberalization would lead to further rebellions.

Why couldn't she handle rebellions like a real monarch and shoot up the place?

You want an early rebellion and early republic?

[Distruzio]

Personally, I find the Russian Federation much more palatable than any of the previous iterations (including Tsarist Russia). It has shown itself genuinely concerned with the welfare of the majority of Russian citizens (if being at the expense of ethnic and other cultural minorities). That is more than I can say for the Tsars and the Soviets.

[Jetan]

If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you'd stop this bullshit. That so called "expression of will" was both illegal and rigged, and you know it.

1) That's deviously written and a strawman. Lyt stated that it was the will of the people to reunite with Russia. Poll after poll after poll agree. 2) Additionally, what's legal in one state is illegal in another. 3) Just because the election might've been rigged, doesn't mean that it didn't express the people's will. There's a concept known as pointless rigging, or when you rig an election where the final result coincides with the people's will. This happens when bureaucrats are idiots and the new cadre hasn't yet been trained. Case in point - the Russian presidential election of 2012 - where there was some rigging, but not enough to breach the Putin-Zyuganov gap, nowhere near those numbers. 4)Oh, and isn't it interesting that Jetan is calling the people's "expression of will" illegal? Good to know your real opinion of democracy. .

1) It is neither. He was clearly referring to the Crimean referendum.
2) What is legal in Russia (or any other country that isn't Ukraine for that matter) is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters in this case is what is legal in Ukraine.
3) Irrespective of whether that's the case or not rigged elections are not legitimate, and that's that.
4) Nice strawman you got there. Built it yourself? We've butted heads enough times that you very well know that I'm for democracy, but it has to follow the law. Some separatists and the neighbouring country rigging illegal referendum is not democracy.

Because it's an authoritarian, imperialistic and backwards shitstate with a penchant for oppressing it's neighbours and whining about the ebul western bloodsuckers conspiring againts the glorious soviet russian motherland.

Jetan, you got any more countries you want to call "shitstates"? I'm just wondering what countries I should add to my tourist list.

Sure. North-Korea, PRC (altough they atleast have an interesting culture), Saudi-Arabia, bunch of african countries, etc. Have fun.

Because it's an authoritarian, imperialistic and backwards shitstate with a penchant for oppressing it's neighbours and whining about the ebul western bloodsuckers conspiring againts the glorious soviet russian motherland.

And the West is better to?

Immensly. It's not perfect by any means, but it's definately light years ahead of Russia.

[Seraven]

I have no idea why people hate Russia. I love Russia... AND SUPPORT IT.

Because it's an authoritarian, imperialistic and backwards shitstate with a penchant for oppressing it's neighbours and whining about the ebul western bloodsuckers conspiring againts the glorious soviet russian motherland.

So you say the imperialistic racist USA is better?

[Geilinor]

Because it's an authoritarian, imperialistic and backwards shitstate with a penchant for oppressing it's neighbours and whining about the ebul western bloodsuckers conspiring againts the glorious soviet russian motherland.

So you say the imperialistic racist USA is better?

Better than Russia, by large amounts.

[Seraven]

So you say the imperialistic racist USA is better?

Better than Russia, by large amounts.

Yeah, well Russia is a benchmark of their own.

[Roski]

Because it's an authoritarian, imperialistic and backwards shitstate with a penchant for oppressing it's neighbours and whining about the ebul western bloodsuckers conspiring againts the glorious soviet russian motherland.

So you say the imperialistic racist USA is better?

>Imperialism involves invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii
>Racism... yea.
>United States of America, with the largest economy in the world, the most influence in the world, and the most powerful military in the world? Lol. Yes.

[Lyttenburg]

>Imperialism involves invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii

And again, Roski, you are dead wrong. Imperialism is not all about "gib me your clay" - this's pretty standard desire of all nations since the dawn of time which, nevertheless, don't make them all "imperialistic". If you need a textbook (and not Marxist) definition, then:

Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

While Marxists definition is:

According to Marxist theorist Vladimir Lenin, imperialism is a natural feature of a developed capitalist nation state as it matures into monopoly capitalism. In his work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", Lenin observed that as capitalism matured in the Western world, the economy shifted away from real commodity production towards banking and finance, as commodity production was outsourced to the empires' colonies. Lenin concluded that the competition between empires and the unfettered drive to maximise profit would lead to wars between the empires themselves, such as World War I in his contemporary time, as well as continued future military invasions and occupations in the undeveloped world to establish and expand markets and exploit cheap labour for the monopolist corporations of the empires.

>United States of America, with the largest economy in the world

Not anymore

the most influence in the world, and the most powerful military in the world? Lol. Yes.

Yeah - and for how long it would stay true?

[United States Kingdom]

So you say the imperialistic racist USA is better?

>Imperialism involves invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii
>Racism... yea.
>United States of America, with the largest economy in the world, the most influence in the world, and the most powerful military in the world? Lol. Yes.

It aint the largest economy in the world anymore

[Roski]

>Imperialism involves invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii
>Racism... yea.
>United States of America, with the largest economy in the world, the most influence in the world, and the most powerful military in the world? Lol. Yes.

It aint the largest economy in the world anymore

It's still very much the most powerful economy. GDP PPP means nothing, at least not in any real world. The US Nominal GDP is what counts, and if someone else's nominal GDP surpasses the US (which hasn't been done, China is still behind by 7 trillion), the GG

[Roski]

>Imperialism involves invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii

And again, Roski, you are dead wrong. Imperialism is not all about "gib me your clay" - this's pretty standard desire of all nations since the dawn of time which, nevertheless, don't make them all "imperialistic". If you need a textbook (and not Marxist) definition, then:

Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

While Marxists definition is:

According to Marxist theorist Vladimir Lenin, imperialism is a natural feature of a developed capitalist nation state as it matures into monopoly capitalism. In his work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", Lenin observed that as capitalism matured in the Western world, the economy shifted away from real commodity production towards banking and finance, as commodity production was outsourced to the empires' colonies. Lenin concluded that the competition between empires and the unfettered drive to maximise profit would lead to wars between the empires themselves, such as World War I in his contemporary time, as well as continued future military invasions and occupations in the undeveloped world to establish and expand markets and exploit cheap labour for the monopolist corporations of the empires.

>United States of America, with the largest economy in the world

Not anymore

the most influence in the world, and the most powerful military in the world? Lol. Yes.

Yeah - and for how long it would stay true?

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

GG dictionaries tell you to shut up. Every country in the world is imperialistic.

[Lyttenburg]

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

GG dictionaries tell you to shut up. Every country in the world is imperialistic.

If this dictionaries are telling me to "shut up", then what are they are telling you, Roski, who calimed that Imperialism is:

invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii

[Washington Resistance Army]

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

GG dictionaries tell you to shut up. Every country in the world is imperialistic.

If this dictionaries are telling me to "shut up", then what are they are telling you, Roski, who calimed that Imperialism is:

invading countries for land. Russia currently matches that description, not the US, and the US hasn't since the invasion of Hawaii

Invading a country for land = extending power through military force.

[United Marxist Nations]

If this dictionaries are telling me to "shut up", then what are they are telling you, Roski, who calimed that Imperialism is:

Invading a country for land = extending power through military force.

By extending power through military force is not always invading a country for land.

[Shofercia]

1) That's deviously written and a strawman. Lyt stated that it was the will of the people to reunite with Russia. Poll after poll after poll agree. 2) Additionally, what's legal in one state is illegal in another. 3) Just because the election might've been rigged, doesn't mean that it didn't express the people's will. There's a concept known as pointless rigging, or when you rig an election where the final result coincides with the people's will. This happens when bureaucrats are idiots and the new cadre hasn't yet been trained. Case in point - the Russian presidential election of 2012 - where there was some rigging, but not enough to breach the Putin-Zyuganov gap, nowhere near those numbers. 4)Oh, and isn't it interesting that Jetan is calling the people's "expression of will" illegal? Good to know your real opinion of democracy. .

1) It is neither. He was clearly referring to the Crimean referendum.
2) What is legal in Russia (or any other country that isn't Ukraine for that matter) is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters in this case is what is legal in Ukraine.
3) Irrespective of whether that's the case or not rigged elections are not legitimate, and that's that.
4) Nice strawman you got there. Built it yourself? We've butted heads enough times that you very well know that I'm for democracy, but it has to follow the law. Some separatists and the neighbouring country rigging illegal referendum is not democracy.

1. Actually, Lyt was responding to this quote: Is sending troops into separatist parts of a country not "military annexation"- that is, bringing the area under the control of the occupying government without a single legal change?

Since when Novorossiya is annexed by Russia? As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia. The West and the Ukraine may cry and wail all they want, but it wouldn't change the situation. If you want to express your displeaser with Russian actions during the Ukrainian civil war - go to "Ukraine Conflict " thread.

He's taking a very broad scope, including Novorossiya, Crimea, the polls and the referendum. Nowhere is it specifically limited to the referendum.

2. Crimea is a de facto part of Russia. If C is a de facto part of R, then R's legal norms matter to C, since they're the only norms being enforced in C. You can argue that it's wrong, illegal, etc, but saying that laws that most Crimeans abide by don't matter, makes that post of yours look rather baffling.

3. So Putin's not a legitimate president of Russia? So when Barack Obama says "president of Russia, Vladimir Putin," he's spreading pro-Russian propaganda?

4. Nice try to get out of the situation you put yourself in, but no cigar, so let me cut through the potentially grotesque amount of bullshit and ask you straight up: if Crimea holds a referendum that's as democratic as the Californian Proposition Process vote, (I challenge anyone to find a more democratic event,) would you accept those results, even if they are to unite with Russia?

Jetan, you got any more countries you want to call "shitstates"? I'm just wondering what countries I should add to my tourist list.

Sure. North-Korea, PRC (altough they atleast have an interesting culture), Saudi-Arabia, bunch of african countries, etc. Have fun.

"A bunch of African countries" - I see that you haven't lost your charm.

And the West is better to?

Immensly. It's not perfect by any means, but it's definately light years ahead of Russia.

The Earth is a sphere. Every spot on said sphere is equal. No spot is light years ahead of another spot. Thus you cannot take a measurement of distance to compare which spot is better. Hope that helps!

Out of curiosity, what's your response to this assessment by the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights?

I read it as a source that be called definitively not pro-West, and the numbers stated there- by an official Russian government source- estimate the turnout and margin of victory for the referendum, hmm, somewhat differently than reported.

To quote: "In Crimea, according to various indicators, 50-60% voted for unification with Russia with a voter turnout (yavka) of 30-50%. This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation. The turnout in the Crimean district of Sevastopol, according to the Council, was higher: 50-80%."

Unless you'd care to enlighten me as to the errors of these statisticians, that means that far less than a simple majority of potential voters voted for annexation, and is a far cry from the reported 97% pro-annexation vote of a turnout of 83% of voters at the time.

That means that poll after poll in the referendum itself went something like this:

Official Kremlin results: 97 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 83 percent, and 82 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.
President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.

Seems a bit odd, no? And those results were after the 'pointless vote rigging' and other such irregularities like armed soldiers at polling places.

I can't read Russian.

He's asking me, and he knows that I can.

That's deviously written and a strawman. Lyt stated that it was the will of the people to reunite with Russia. Poll after poll after poll agree. Additionally, what's legal in one state is illegal in another. Just because the election might've been rigged, doesn't mean that it didn't express the people's will. There's a concept known as pointless rigging, or when you rig an election where the final result coincides with the people's will. This happens when bureaucrats are idiots and the new cadre hasn't yet been trained. Case in point - the Russian presidential election of 2012 - where there was some rigging, but not enough to breach the Putin-Zyuganov gap, nowhere near those numbers. Oh, and isn't it interesting that Jetan is calling the people's "expression of will" illegal? Good to know your real opinion of democracy.

Out of curiosity, what's your response to this assessment by the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights?

I read it as a source that be called definitively not pro-West, and the numbers stated there- by an official Russian government source- estimate the turnout and margin of victory for the referendum, hmm, somewhat differently than reported.

To quote: "In Crimea, according to various indicators, 50-60% voted for unification with Russia with a voter turnout (yavka) of 30-50%. This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation. The turnout in the Crimean district of Sevastopol, according to the Council, was higher: 50-80%."

Unless you'd care to enlighten me as to the errors of these statisticians, that means that far less than a simple majority of potential voters voted for annexation, and is a far cry from the reported 97% pro-annexation vote of a turnout of 83% of voters at the time.

That means that poll after poll in the referendum itself went something like this:

Official Kremlin results: 97 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 83 percent, and 82 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.
President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.

Seems a bit odd, no? And those results were after the 'pointless vote rigging' and other such irregularities like armed soldiers at polling places.

While I'm not going to comment on voting irregularities, in part because I have done so numerous times, in part because at this point it would be pointless, I will repost my response to your other query: viewtopic.php?p=21571197#p21571197

Yes, yes, let's talk about that poll. You see, in order to be legit, you actually need to be legit. That means that if you're defending a poll, all data must be correct, or at the very least, somewhat believable. This, for example, is bullshit to any person capable of intelligent thought: On the other end of the spectrum, taking the lower range, some 15% of Crimeans supported annexation. Even if you take their higher numbers, it's still bullshit, because even the most Russophobic source on the issue admits that the number was at least 41%: http://www.voanews.com/content/intervie ... 45822.html

according to “serious polls” that had been conducted, about 41 percent of voters would have supported annexation.


The 41 percent figure is in response to a poll that asks, (as I mentioned before,) the question for Ukraine as a whole, as opposed to just the respondents’ region. In which case the cause of the discrepancy between it and the two recent polls becomes eminently clear: While Crimeans would very much like to join Russia themselves, they also realize that Lviv, say, wouldn’t be too happy or productive with such an the arrangement. Additionally, instead of maintaining the status quo until the elections – a not unreasonable expectation of an unelected transition government – they have instead pushed to roll back the Russian language, “lustrate” Party of Regions officials, appoint oligarchs to rule the restive eastern provinces, and formalize the status of Right Sector – the armed wing of Svoboda – as a paramilitary force. At the same time, Russian intervention has transformed the prospect of joining Russia from a pipedream held by Soviet nostalgics to a real choice on a paper ballot. In these circumstances, it is almost certain that support for Crimean secession has gone up. And you're telling me that under those conditions, the results would decrease from 41 percent to 15 percent or even 25 percent?

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/04/28-nuanced-views-eastern-ukraine-pifer-thoburn
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ ... 8-2014.pdf
http://www.iri.org/news-events-press-ce ... n-strong-t
http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/ ... 202014.pdf

Oh good, you posted some polls. Except the first poll didn't even ask Crimeans, Of note, from Lugansk:

Ukraine and Russia should unite into one state - 15.9 percent
Just Lugansk should join Russia - 25 percent

Note, how when they were asked if they wanted Ukraine to join Russia, the number was 16 percent, but if it was just limited to their Oblast, the number jumped to 25%. Of course this was before their own government bombed them. In the case of Crimea, the number saying that Ukraine and Russia should unite was 41%. So please, stop trying to pretend that the number would magically decrease to 15 or 25 percent if it's just the Crimea. Anyways, moving on, second source:

Crimeans:
Ukraine should remain united - 12%
Regions should be allowed to secede - 58%
Don't know - 34%

Nice source! From that very same one, also talking about Crimeans: should the government of Kiev recognize the results of the Crimean Referendum:
Yes - 88%
No - 4%
Don't know - 7%

Are you sure that's the source that you want to go with? And again, that was before the bombings picked up. Damn, 88% - that's better than my sources, I'll take that. Thankies

Oh, oh, another gem from said source: Will the May 25th presidential election be fair? (Yes-No)

Ukraine as a whole: 41-50
West Ukraine: 59-33
East Ukraine: 27-63

And another one: is ethnic cleansing a concern?

Yes - 73%
No - 25%

It was 37% yes, 53% no, in 2009...

My sources provide consistent numbers, consistent with other polls, not some 15% bullshit. Seriously, if the lowest margin is 41%, and someone says "oh noes, tis 15%", and you believe him without checking how said number was acquired...

Another poll: http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/201 ... e-deck.pdf

The thing is, not a single properly conducted poll I've seen rates Crimea as below 41%. That was for all of Ukraine. Furthermore, the 41% figure was for Ukraine as a whole, not just Crimea. That question produced a 56.25% margin of disparity in Lugansk, i.e. 16% for Ukraine vs 25% for just Lugansk. That would bring up the 41% to 64% for Crimea. However, Crimeans were pissed off because they were ignored, and now Putin's placing them in the spotlight. That too would bring up their poll numbers, in favor of Union with Russia. Even according to Gallup, 83% of Crimeans thought that the Referendum reflected their viewpoints.

I'm not sure what kind of weed the President’s Human Rights Council was smoking, but I'm curious as to what that was. Scientifically of course

[Jetan]

1) It is neither. He was clearly referring to the Crimean referendum.
2) What is legal in Russia (or any other country that isn't Ukraine for that matter) is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters in this case is what is legal in Ukraine.
3) Irrespective of whether that's the case or not rigged elections are not legitimate, and that's that.
4) Nice strawman you got there. Built it yourself? We've butted heads enough times that you very well know that I'm for democracy, but it has to follow the law. Some separatists and the neighbouring country rigging illegal referendum is not democracy.

1. Actually, Lyt was responding to this quote: Is sending troops into separatist parts of a country not "military annexation"- that is, bringing the area under the control of the occupying government without a single legal change?

Since when Novorossiya is annexed by Russia? As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia. The West and the Ukraine may cry and wail all they want, but it wouldn't change the situation. If you want to express your displeaser with Russian actions during the Ukrainian civil war - go to "Ukraine Conflict " thread.

He's taking a very broad scope, including Novorossiya, Crimea, the polls and the referendum. Nowhere is it specifically limited to the referendum.

2. Crimea is a de facto part of Russia. If C is a de facto part of R, then R's legal norms matter to C, since they're the only norms being enforced in C. You can argue that it's wrong, illegal, etc, but saying that laws that most Crimeans abide by don't matter, makes that post of yours look rather baffling.

3. So Putin's not a legitimate president of Russia? So when Barack Obama says "president of Russia, Vladimir Putin," he's spreading pro-Russian propaganda?

4. Nice try to get out of the situation you put yourself in, but no cigar, so let me cut through the potentially grotesque amount of bullshit and ask you straight up: if Crimea holds a referendum that's as democratic as the Californian Proposition Process vote, (I challenge anyone to find a more democratic event,) would you accept those results, even if they are to unite with Russia?

1) Is that so? Tell me, which part of "As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia." includes Donetsk and Lugansk again? The quote in question:

As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia.

2) Russia has no legal sovereignty over Crimea and thus its laws are irrelevant - the occupying authorities may enforce Russian laws, but the legal laws are the Ukrainian ones.
3) The first part is technically correct, but the second one is just your usual attempts at dismissing stuff by trying to make it look ridicilous.
4) If the referendum was approved of before the fact by Ukraine (in similiar vein as the Scottish referendum was approved of before the fact by UK) then ofcourse I would.

Sure. North-Korea, PRC (altough they atleast have an interesting culture), Saudi-Arabia, bunch of african countries, etc. Have fun.

"A bunch of African countries" - I see that you haven't lost your charm.

Does Africa contain or does it not, many countries with one or more of the following characteristics: dictatorship, poor to horrible living conditions, faminine, instability, lack of human rights or frequent breaking of human rights, ethnic strife, horrible infrastructure, prevalent cencorship, corruption, etc.? Yes or no. "Charm" has nothing to do with it.

Immensly. It's not perfect by any means, but it's definately light years ahead of Russia.

The Earth is a sphere. Every spot on said sphere is equal. No spot is light years ahead of another spot. Thus you cannot take a measurement of distance to compare which spot is better. Hope that helps!

Har har. Because you've never heard of figures of speech before.

[Shofercia]

1. Actually, Lyt was responding to this quote: Is sending troops into separatist parts of a country not "military annexation"- that is, bringing the area under the control of the occupying government without a single legal change?

Since when Novorossiya is annexed by Russia? As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia. The West and the Ukraine may cry and wail all they want, but it wouldn't change the situation. If you want to express your displeaser with Russian actions during the Ukrainian civil war - go to "Ukraine Conflict " thread.

He's taking a very broad scope, including Novorossiya, Crimea, the polls and the referendum. Nowhere is it specifically limited to the referendum.

2. Crimea is a de facto part of Russia. If C is a de facto part of R, then R's legal norms matter to C, since they're the only norms being enforced in C. You can argue that it's wrong, illegal, etc, but saying that laws that most Crimeans abide by don't matter, makes that post of yours look rather baffling.

3. So Putin's not a legitimate president of Russia? So when Barack Obama says "president of Russia, Vladimir Putin," he's spreading pro-Russian propaganda?

4. Nice try to get out of the situation you put yourself in, but no cigar, so let me cut through the potentially grotesque amount of bullshit and ask you straight up: if Crimea holds a referendum that's as democratic as the Californian Proposition Process vote, (I challenge anyone to find a more democratic event,) would you accept those results, even if they are to unite with Russia?

1) Is that so? Tell me, which part of "As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia." includes Donetsk and Lugansk again? The quote in question:

As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia.

2) Russia has no legal sovereignty over Crimea and thus its laws are irrelevant - the occupying authorities may enforce Russian laws, but the legal laws are the Ukrainian ones.
3) The first part is technically correct, but the second one is just your usual attempts at dismissing stuff by trying to make it look ridicilous.
4) If the referendum was approved of before the fact by Ukraine (in similiar vein as the Scottish referendum was approved of before the fact by UK) then ofcourse I would.

1. There were a lot of polls in Crimea, including the ones that I repeatedly cited, polls that reflected the will of the people, which showed that the people wanted to reunite with Russia. A poll by Gallup showed that 83% of Crimeans thought that the Referendum reflected the results of the poll. If he wanted to say "referendum", he would've said "referendum". If he wanted to say "will of the people", he would've said "will of the people" - oh wait, he DID say that! Stop engaging in mental gymnastics, especially since his quote is right in from of you. There are more ways than one to express one's will. I thought you'd get that.

2. Russian laws apply in Crimea, ergo Russia has some legal sovereignty over Crimea. Furthermore, Crimea's listed as de facto Russia and de jure disputed, meaning that said Russian laws have some relevance.

3. It's technically correct but it's completely discredited by a single example?

4. Oh, so if you have a murderous government, from whom the people want to secede, they have to first get said government's approval. And if the government opts to kill the delegation instead? Oh wait, you wouldn't care about that, nevermind.

"A bunch of African countries" - I see that you haven't lost your charm.

Does Africa contain or does it not, many countries with one or more of the following characteristics: dictatorship, poor to horrible living conditions, faminine, instability, lack of human rights or frequent breaking of human rights, ethnic strife, horrible infrastructure, prevalent cencorship, corruption, etc.? Yes or no. "Charm" has nothing to do with it.

So you wouldn't mind if I said that living standards are decreasing in the US, Honduras, and a bunch of European countries. That wouldn't be condescending at all, right?

The Earth is a sphere. Every spot on said sphere is equal. No spot is light years ahead of another spot. Thus you cannot take a measurement of distance to compare which spot is better. Hope that helps!

Har har. Because you've never heard of figures of speech before.

I have. For instance, when someone uses "will of the people" as a figure of speech, I tend to think that it's about the people expressing their will, instead of just pretending that it's all about a single vote.

[Jetan]

1) Is that so? Tell me, which part of "As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia." includes Donetsk and Lugansk again? The quote in question:
2) Russia has no legal sovereignty over Crimea and thus its laws are irrelevant - the occupying authorities may enforce Russian laws, but the legal laws are the Ukrainian ones.
3) The first part is technically correct, but the second one is just your usual attempts at dismissing stuff by trying to make it look ridicilous.
4) If the referendum was approved of before the fact by Ukraine (in similiar vein as the Scottish referendum was approved of before the fact by UK) then ofcourse I would.

1. There were a lot of polls in Crimea, including the ones that I repeatedly cited, polls that reflected the will of the people, which showed that the people wanted to reunite with Russia. A poll by Gallup showed that 83% of Crimeans thought that the Referendum reflected the results of the poll. If he wanted to say "referendum", he would've said "referendum". If he wanted to say "will of the people", he would've said "will of the people" - oh wait, he DID say that! Stop engaging in mental gymnastics, especially since his quote is right in from of you. There are more ways than one to express one's will. I thought you'd get that.

2. Russian laws apply in Crimea, ergo Russia has some legal sovereignty over Crimea. Furthermore, Crimea's listed as de facto Russia and de jure disputed, meaning that said Russian laws have some relevance.

3. It's technically correct but it's completely discredited by a single example?

4. Oh, so if you have a murderous government, from whom the people want to secede, they have to first get said government's approval. And if the government opts to kill the delegation instead? Oh wait, you wouldn't care about that, nevermind.

1) Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Which part of "As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia." did you say included Donetsk and Lugansk?
2) Russia enforces russian laws in Crimea without legal sovereignty. Big difference.
3) In which way exactly has it been discredited? Your asinine Obama quip certainly didn't do that.
4) Because Ukraine was totes murdering Crimean inhabitants when Russia walzed in and occupied the place. Oh wait...

Does Africa contain or does it not, many countries with one or more of the following characteristics: dictatorship, poor to horrible living conditions, faminine, instability, lack of human rights or frequent breaking of human rights, ethnic strife, horrible infrastructure, prevalent cencorship, corruption, etc.? Yes or no. "Charm" has nothing to do with it.

So you wouldn't mind if I said that living standards are decreasing in the US, Honduras, and a bunch of European countries. That wouldn't be condescending at all, right?

Condescencion or decrease of living standards elsewhere have nothing to do with it. Yes or no please. They're big words, I know, but I'm sure you can do it if you put your mind to it!

Har har. Because you've never heard of figures of speech before.

I have. For instance, when someone uses "will of the people" as a figure of speech, I tend to think that it's about the people expressing their will, instead of just pretending that it's all about a single vote.

So I intreteped his post differently than you. Sue me.

[Shofercia]

1. There were a lot of polls in Crimea, including the ones that I repeatedly cited, polls that reflected the will of the people, which showed that the people wanted to reunite with Russia. A poll by Gallup showed that 83% of Crimeans thought that the Referendum reflected the results of the poll. If he wanted to say "referendum", he would've said "referendum". If he wanted to say "will of the people", he would've said "will of the people" - oh wait, he DID say that! Stop engaging in mental gymnastics, especially since his quote is right in from of you. There are more ways than one to express one's will. I thought you'd get that.

2. Russian laws apply in Crimea, ergo Russia has some legal sovereignty over Crimea. Furthermore, Crimea's listed as de facto Russia and de jure disputed, meaning that said Russian laws have some relevance.

3. It's technically correct but it's completely discredited by a single example?

4. Oh, so if you have a murderous government, from whom the people want to secede, they have to first get said government's approval. And if the government opts to kill the delegation instead? Oh wait, you wouldn't care about that, nevermind.

1) Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Which part of "As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia." did you say included Donetsk and Lugansk?
2) Russia enforces russian laws in Crimea without legal sovereignty. Big difference.
3) In which way exactly has it been discredited? Your asinine Obama quip certainly didn't do that.
4) Because Ukraine was totes murdering Crimean inhabitants when Russia walzed in and occupied the place. Oh wait...

1. The Donetsk and Lugansk example was there to show that he was talking about more than one event.
2. The point is that they matter, and that that Crimea's status is de facto Russian, (without a single death,) and de jure disputed.
3. You claimed that an election that reflects the will of the majority isn't legitimate if it's rigged. That's bullshit. If I know that X is going to win, and I don't want X to win, all I have to do is rig the election, and presto, according to Jetan's logic, X isn't a legitimate winner.
4. I was providing yet another example of the stupidity of the claim that one must first get approval from the central government before secession. I wasn't actually claiming that war occurred in Crimea. Nice strawman though.

So you wouldn't mind if I said that living standards are decreasing in the US, Honduras, and a bunch of European countries. That wouldn't be condescending at all, right?

Condescencion or decrease of living standards elsewhere have nothing to do with it. Yes or no please. They're big words, I know, but I'm sure you can do it if you put your mind to it!

My point was that when you said "country X, country Y, and a bunch of shitholes in region Z," - that was a very condescending way to address region Z. I see that's yet another point that flew over your head.

I have. For instance, when someone uses "will of the people" as a figure of speech, I tend to think that it's about the people expressing their will, instead of just pretending that it's all about a single vote.

So I intreteped his post differently than you. Sue me.

My point was that yours wasn't the only interpretation out there, and that when he says "will of the people" he means "will of the people". Thank you for finally understanding that! As for e-lawyering, I think that's a downright pathetic activity... oh wait, you meant "sue me" as a figure of speech. Ahh, yes, that is indeed hilarious. Funnier than anything that was ever said during Shatner's Roast. I'm just clutching my sides laughing at that witty statement.

[Jetan]

1) Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Which part of "As for Crimea - people of that peninsula expressed their will to re-unite with Russia." did you say included Donetsk and Lugansk?
2) Russia enforces russian laws in Crimea without legal sovereignty. Big difference.
3) In which way exactly has it been discredited? Your asinine Obama quip certainly didn't do that.
4) Because Ukraine was totes murdering Crimean inhabitants when Russia walzed in and occupied the place. Oh wait...

1. The Donetsk and Lugansk example was there to show that he was talking about more than one event.
2. The point is that they matter, and that that Crimea's status is de facto Russian, (without a single death,) and de jure disputed.
3. You claimed that an election that reflects the will of the majority isn't legitimate if it's rigged. That's bullshit. If I know that X is going to win, and I don't want X to win, all I have to do is rig the election, and presto, according to Jetan's logic, X isn't a legitimate winner.
4. I was providing yet another example of the stupidity of the claim that one must first get approval from the central government before secession. I wasn't actually claiming that war occurred in Crimea. Nice strawman though.

Condescencion or decrease of living standards elsewhere have nothing to do with it. Yes or no please. They're big words, I know, but I'm sure you can do it if you put your mind to it!

5)My point was that when you said "country X, country Y, and a bunch of shitholes in region Z," - that was a very condescending way to address region Z. I see that's yet another point that flew over your head.

So I intreteped his post differently than you. Sue me.

6)My point was that yours wasn't the only interpretation out there, and that when he says "will of the people" he means "will of the people". Thank you for finally understanding that! As for e-lawyering, I think that's a downright pathetic activity... oh wait, you meant "sue me" as a figure of speech. Ahh, yes, that is indeed hilarious. Funnier than anything that was ever said during Shatner's Roast. I'm just clutching my sides laughing at that witty statement.

1) And it was an incorrect one as he very clearly specifies Crimea.
2)If you don't mind I'll drop this one as we've gone through the whole de facto vs de jure thing plenty of times before. I doubt either of us will convince the other.
3) And according to Shofercias logic all I need to do is rig the election and then claim that I would have won anyway, so it's totally okay.
4) You are the one constructing strawmen here. You asked if I'd support a democratic referendum in Crimea and I answered I would if Ukraine agreed to it. You then proceeded to talk about murderous government and when called out on your bullshit just started your usual mantra of "strawman, skillful strawman!".
5) A simple yes or no. How hard can that be? I'm dissapointed Shof.
6) And you on the other hand are god's gift to NSG.

[Bojikami]

As a Russian, I kind of miss the USSR. It was a time when we were respected and feared, while Putin makes us all look like homophobic jerks.

[Geilinor]

As a Russian, I kind of miss the USSR. It was a time when we were respected and feared, while Putin makes us all look like homophobic jerks.

The USSR was more homophobic.

[Bojikami]

As a Russian, I kind of miss the USSR. It was a time when we were respected and feared, while Putin makes us all look like homophobic jerks.

The USSR was more homophobic.

Not under Lenin. Stalin was the one who made laws again gays.

[Geilinor]

The USSR was more homophobic.

Not under Lenin. Stalin was the one who made laws again gays.

Laws that were only repealed in 1993.