|
|
On March 03 2014 18:17 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 18:14 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 17:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 17:37 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source. The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago. What do you mean? 'Cancel Sochi' refers to the G8 meeting planned in Sochi that has already been cancelled. 'Revisit the missile shield' probably refers to the request by Poland for additional securities in light of Russian aggression. "Kick out of G8' was also done yesterday. If you mean Rubio's : 'The very credibility of the post-Cold War world and borders is at stake here' you need to explain yourself. Of course I mean the nonsense about Cold War legacy being threatened. I read it again and all the really stupid stuff was Rubio's. Graham with his noose was also funny. I asked you to explain why that is silly. I haven't seen Rubio's speech, so I don't know the context, but I would assume this refers to the pre 2014 state where Russia was a partner to NATO and a member of G8 such that conflicts of interests were solved at high level diplomatic meetings. Also, regarding borders, the main issue is the territorial integrity of Ukraine (UN charter, 97 RU-UKR agreement, 94 Budapest memorandum).
I see absolutely no amount of context that could make the quoted sentences anything but pompous nonsense of buzz-words put together to evoke instinctive response in target audience.
If I wanted to search for some sense in it, then there was never any credibility of post-Cold War borders to begin with. Even if there was, it would be long gone. Also the talk about legacy of their victory being threatened, how does that even matter at all. Who cares about some nonsensical American legacy in this situation. Same as Russians talking about nazis threatening legacy of their victory in WW2. At least in that case there is some legacy, though the sentiment is mostly coverup for the intervention.
|
Janukowitsch disappeared too fast, he ran to his big brother Putin, to ask helping kill the meanies all over ukraine.
|
On March 03 2014 18:35 plgElwood wrote:
Janukowitsch disappeared too fast, he ran to his big brother Putin, to ask helping kill the meanies all over ukraine.
TBH nobody gonna miss him.
|
Well Putin showed his true face here. He was always only interested in Crimea, and didn't care for Ukraine. Once his puppet was removed from power he took what he wanted by force.
And if anyone thinks the "elections" on 30th of March are going to be democratic... I bet he will bring people over from Russia to vote.
I know that the world will not recognize Crimea becoming a separate country, but still Putin will try to show like the people democratically voted to be separate.
|
On March 03 2014 18:30 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 18:17 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 18:14 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 17:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 17:37 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source. The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago. What do you mean? 'Cancel Sochi' refers to the G8 meeting planned in Sochi that has already been cancelled. 'Revisit the missile shield' probably refers to the request by Poland for additional securities in light of Russian aggression. "Kick out of G8' was also done yesterday. If you mean Rubio's : 'The very credibility of the post-Cold War world and borders is at stake here' you need to explain yourself. Of course I mean the nonsense about Cold War legacy being threatened. I read it again and all the really stupid stuff was Rubio's. Graham with his noose was also funny. I asked you to explain why that is silly. I haven't seen Rubio's speech, so I don't know the context, but I would assume this refers to the pre 2014 state where Russia was a partner to NATO and a member of G8 such that conflicts of interests were solved at high level diplomatic meetings. Also, regarding borders, the main issue is the territorial integrity of Ukraine (UN charter, 97 RU-UKR agreement, 94 Budapest memorandum). I see absolutely no amount of context that could make the quoted sentences anything but pompous nonsense of buzz-words put together to evoke instinctive response in target audience. If I wanted to search for some sense in it, then there was never any credibility of post-Cold War borders to begin with. Even if there was, it would be long gone. Also the talk about legacy of their victory being threatened, how does that even matter at all. Who cares about some nonsensical American legacy in this situation. Same as Russians talking about nazis threatening legacy of their victory in WW2. At least in that case there is some legacy, though the sentiment is mostly coverup for the intervention.
I did not understand what you're talking about. Explaining things should make it clear what your interpretation is, not make it more difficult to understand it. What is the credibility of post-Cold War borders? What is meant by this legacy? Why isn't there one?
|
It would be best if the Ukraine accepted to hold a referendum on Crimea in exchange for a Russian withdrawal. The fairness of the referendum should then be guaranteed by the international community. Unfortunately there is no proper Ukrainian government acknowledged by all parties.
I always thought that it is madness to uphold territorial integrity when majorities in clearly defined regions with large enough populations are for a separation from the main country. If a majority of the people in Bavaria would actually vote for secession in a well prepared and fair referendum I would accept it. I don't see the benefit in holding ill-formed countries together just because a majority ethnicity has no problem with suppressing localized minorities or because a secession hurts their national pride.
The current course is dangerous for Russia itself, however. Russia was one of the main proponents of the concept of territorial integrity in past conflicts and they will have a hard time arguing like that in the future if Crimea should secede.
|
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
|
I'm interested to see how he's gonna do that
|
On March 03 2014 17:54 r.Evo wrote:
Do you genuinely believe that by comparing Putin to Hitler you're making an effort to de-escalate the situation?
No, I genuinely believe it accurately describes Russia's policy towards the "near abroad". They have been using "oppression" of ethnic Russians in neighboring countries to justify saber-rattling for the past two decades, and have now invaded a sovereign country on that exact pretext.
|
|
|
On March 03 2014 19:11 -Archangel- wrote:
Well Putin showed his true face here. He was always only interested in Crimea, and didn't care for Ukraine. Once his puppet was removed from power he took what he wanted by force.
And if anyone thinks the "elections" on 30th of March are going to be democratic... I bet he will bring people over from Russia to vote.
I know that the world will not recognize Crimea becoming a separate country, but still Putin will try to show like the people democratically voted to be separate.
It is doubtful they will need to rig the elections, the support should be there on its own. And I would assume Russia would prefer having puppet controlling the whole Ukraine than Crimea joining.
|
On March 03 2014 18:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Btw, random question, is it Estonia or Latvia that celebrates the SS and other Nazi German military divisions from WW2?
I'll answer that random question with a random go fuck yourself.
EDIT: And yes, I see the mod note. You're being a colossal dick.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 03 2014 19:12 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 18:30 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 18:17 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 18:14 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 17:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 17:37 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source. The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago. What do you mean? 'Cancel Sochi' refers to the G8 meeting planned in Sochi that has already been cancelled. 'Revisit the missile shield' probably refers to the request by Poland for additional securities in light of Russian aggression. "Kick out of G8' was also done yesterday. If you mean Rubio's : 'The very credibility of the post-Cold War world and borders is at stake here' you need to explain yourself. Of course I mean the nonsense about Cold War legacy being threatened. I read it again and all the really stupid stuff was Rubio's. Graham with his noose was also funny. I asked you to explain why that is silly. I haven't seen Rubio's speech, so I don't know the context, but I would assume this refers to the pre 2014 state where Russia was a partner to NATO and a member of G8 such that conflicts of interests were solved at high level diplomatic meetings. Also, regarding borders, the main issue is the territorial integrity of Ukraine (UN charter, 97 RU-UKR agreement, 94 Budapest memorandum). I see absolutely no amount of context that could make the quoted sentences anything but pompous nonsense of buzz-words put together to evoke instinctive response in target audience. If I wanted to search for some sense in it, then there was never any credibility of post-Cold War borders to begin with. Even if there was, it would be long gone. Also the talk about legacy of their victory being threatened, how does that even matter at all. Who cares about some nonsensical American legacy in this situation. Same as Russians talking about nazis threatening legacy of their victory in WW2. At least in that case there is some legacy, though the sentiment is mostly coverup for the intervention. I did not understand what you're talking about. Explaining things should make it clear what your interpretation is, not make it more difficult to understand it. What is the credibility of post-Cold War borders? What is meant by this legacy? Why isn't there one?
I was saying that what they said has no actual meaning, that it is only word play intended to play on the instinctive reactions of the audience.
|
On March 03 2014 20:11 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 19:11 -Archangel- wrote:
Well Putin showed his true face here. He was always only interested in Crimea, and didn't care for Ukraine. Once his puppet was removed from power he took what he wanted by force.
And if anyone thinks the "elections" on 30th of March are going to be democratic... I bet he will bring people over from Russia to vote.
I know that the world will not recognize Crimea becoming a separate country, but still Putin will try to show like the people democratically voted to be separate. It is doubtful they will need to rig the elections, the support should be there on its own. And I would assume Russia would prefer having puppet controlling the whole Ukraine than Crimea joining.
The puppet pro-Russia 'president' got 4% support in the last Crimean elections. Russia will not agree to any deal which forces them to move away from Crimea before the elections, unless they no longer care about the result.
Regarding JudicatorHammurabi's allusions towards Nazis in Estonia and Latvia, it's preposterous propaganda. Both countries were conquered by Germany in 1941, the Germans killed a large part of population (Tartu University in Estonia was especially badly hit), and forced many young men to join the foreign legion of the German army, generally placing them in situations which got them killed. This happened sufficiently recently that families still mourn their loved ones lost. To suggest that Estonians and Latvians somehow support these Nazis is ignorant and offensive.
|
On March 03 2014 20:11 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 18:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Btw, random question, is it Estonia or Latvia that celebrates the SS and other Nazi German military divisions from WW2? I'll answer that random question with a random go fuck yourself. EDIT: And yes, I see the mod note. You're being a colossal dick.
It is off-topic, and he is unnecessarily provocative, but to answer, it is happening in Latvia as far as I know.
|
On March 03 2014 12:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:09 TokO wrote:On March 03 2014 11:29 Sub40APM wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 03 2014 11:11 TokO wrote:
Don't you guys think there is good reason for Russian occupation? Even though the revolution 'looked' as if there was many supporters, there's not actually a lot of evidence about the amount of people supporting it. And looking at the reactions to the Russian occupation, it seems like the country was split in quite a few communities. I think that Russia was a very different perspective of internal affairs as it has had a lot more issues with dissent and terrorism than western countries. If there was even the possiblity of a milder syrian-esque civil war, then pre-emptive non-violent intervention by Russia is a lot better than a violent intervention after the fact.
Judging by the events, it doesn't seem like the occupation is of malicious intent, (however, it will probably ultimately reverse the achievements of the revolution, but a dialogue is necessary to solve it peacefully), so I don't see why you couldn't just start co-operation between Ukrainian and Russian forces aimed at internal stabilisation and safety.
And the western media, holy shit, I could go full Destiny on how stupid it is, I don't understand why they would be so sensationalist in a situation like this, repeating 'declaration of war', without there being a violent conflict yet.
Obviously these actions by Russia is very bully-ish, but the response by western countries is just as bully-ish, and it doesn't help the situation.
Imagine if tomorrow some random Russian in Oslo goes on TV and says "Help me Putin, the Norwegians are preparing genocide against me!" and Putin's response is "I cant stand genocide of Russian people, anywhere!" and suddenly there are Russian troops on Norwegian Army bases demanding that Norwegian soldiers give up their arms. Is that acceptable to you? Because that is what is happening in Crimea right now. There have been no attacks on Russians, there have been no actions by any 'fascists.' The Kiev government has announced that elections will be held in May. On the other hand, the Russian government has recently announced that Russia has the right to invade any country where ethnic Russians feel threatened, and now Russian armed forces are blockading and threatening Ukrainian Army units into submission. I think you are painting an incomplete picture that leaves out important circumstances (but so was probably I in my initial post). If there was reasonable doubt that Norwegian security could defend the people living in its country, and there was reason to believe that there were threats towards those people, why shouldn't another military force intervene. I am not saying that there isn't a million better ways to do it, because there is. I am just saying that using military to harshly discourage any further violence is better than the worst case scenario where violence escalates in an unconventional fashion. I am also saying that the two armed forces principally should have the same aim, and that is to provide safety for civilians, and in that case, cooperation is better than aggressive posturing. And the reason why a force that looks at race as a justification of 'stabilization' is more valid than a peacekeeping force of more neutral is preferred against an imaginary threat is preferred because?
It's not preferred, it's just that it is impossible to organise a neutral non-violent peacekeeping force pre-emptively to an imaginary threat. The UN doesn't respond to imaginary threats, and once a conflict escalates, it does not respond in a comprehensive way that avoids and discourages conflict escalation.
On March 03 2014 12:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +If Obama can use this reasoning of defending American citizens and interests to justify drone strikes, then Russia should have the same rights, shouldn't they? These military actions are also much more comprehensive and covers many more Russians than Drone Strikes helps defending US Citizens. What has Ukraine to do with Obama?
It has to do with using unauthorised military power in other nations in order to protect each of their respective peoples.
On March 03 2014 12:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +
Unless you are saying that there is absolutely no threat of any escalation of unconventional violence (extremists, ethnic clashes etc.). Russian occupation has achieved at least as much as the status quo in that situation, and if you agree that there is any threat of the above kind, then I think Russian occupation has achieved at least a little bit. To adress the demilitarisation of Ukrainian bases in Crimea, I think that if Ukrainian armed forces take a stance of no dialogue, then Russian armed forces has to take precautions.
I dont even understand your position here. Although nothing was happening and no actual evidence of any ethnic conflict has been show, the fact that the Russian military launched a military invasion is better than the status quo because now...Russians definitely will not be exterminated and the Ukrainian army is at fault for not surrendering quickly enough?
The point is that if something was to happen, and the Ukrainian military was unable to stabilise the country in a peaceful manner, then a Russian intervention would be guaranteed to be bloody and result in the loss of lives. You are saying that just because there is no evidence that any conflict is taking place, this is an arguement that no conflict will ever take place. I am saying that there is some possibility that a conflict could take place and that the Russian intervention reduces that possbility to effectively zero.
It doesn't matter that the most probable event does not include any unconventional conflict. In safety issues you have to account for all possibilities. Obviously, there is a mismatch in perspectives between Russia and the West, Russia perceives the threat to be much greater than the West. Which is probably why my point is so uncomprehendable to most people.
On March 03 2014 12:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote + And given what I know and don't know, I can more easily rationalise the actions of Russia compared to Ukraine and western leaders.
...why? There has been lots of accusations from the pro-Russian side about fascists and nazis but so far what we see is a country with a tradition of corrupt yet pluralistic elections where parties representing all spectrum of politics , from nazi to communist, can participate and win and lose support (and where a new round of elections have been announced in 3 months) is being invaded by a country where one leader, with a cult of personality, and one party rule supreme. An this invasion is launched under the pretext of ethnic unity and is targeting an autonomous Republic where the local population has extensive political rights and all three languages of the major ethnic groups in it: Ukrainians, Russians and Tatars, are equally respected before the law.
Because in every stage of the conflict you should do everything to avoid escalation of a major regional conflict. We can both agree that Russia made a bad first move in that sense. But now we move on to the second stage where the West responds, and the should do things that reduce the possiblity of a regional conflict. Instead, they pull out their economic and rhetorical guns. It's like a parent threatening to take away a kids allowance, it's an alright approach to most kids, but not to an extremist holding a gun.
On March 03 2014 13:16 radscorpion9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 03 2014 12:09 TokO wrote:
I think you are painting an incomplete picture that leaves out important circumstances (but so was probably I in my initial post). If there was reasonable doubt that Norwegian security could defend the people living in its country, and there was reason to believe that there were threats towards those people, why shouldn't another military force intervene. I am not saying that there isn't a million better ways to do it, because there is. I am just saying that using military to harshly discourage any further violence is better than the worst case scenario where violence escalates in an unconventional fashion...
If Obama can use this reasoning of defending American citizens and interests to justify drone strikes, then Russia should have the same rights, shouldn't they? These military actions are also much more comprehensive and covers many more Russians than Drone Strikes helps defending US Citizens. I think that you're treating the territorial integrity of another country a bit too lightly here. Its a pretty significant move to actually invade another country's territory because of what is really a non-existent threat violence against Russians living in Crimea. It would be pretty insane for any Ukrainian to actually provoke Russia or to start attacking Crimean Russians; all that the people of Ukraine wanted was a better government that also didn't kill its own people during protests, and their system is set up so that if things get bad enough a new election can be called. I think you need a credible argument as to why Ukraine would actually want to start killing people in Crimea or why they would be unable to protect Crimeans from clashes with other ethnic groups in the region. They may be in financial difficulties but they still have a system of law and order and clearly a military that is ready to defend itself and assist in maintaining order if necessary. At the very least Russia could have offered support or even unilaterally promised to step in if any Crimeans of Russian descent were under a serious threat by the government or another ethnic group. But they're going way over the line by actually invading another country's territory as a preventative measure; there is just no reason to go that far based on the evidence that's currently available. And about Obama, drone strikes are carried out against terrorist groups that for the most part operate in remote areas (of course there are the controversial cases, but its not the same generally). But even if you could claim that Obama is doing something wrong, it wouldn't somehow exempt Putin; his actions are still unjustifiable.
I am treating territorial integrity lightly because principles, justice and other political jazz in the international stage tend to be prone to disagreements and therefore inefficient in safeguarding civilians. You claim that the threat I am saying is a possibility is non-existant. People can have different perspectives of the situation. Think of it as Russia wearing a seatbelt in a car, you don't need a credible argument that a car accident will happen, you only need a credible argument that the car accident could happen. Your argument that the threat is non-existent insinuates that it is impossible for anyone in the whole of Ukraine to commit a violent act against a Russian. I am saying that we cannot accurately predict the actions of all parts of Ukraine's population, and therefore there is a logical reason to account for imaginary possiblities.
I agree that there were many different ways that Russia could have approached the situation that would uphold international standards and preserve Ukraine's sovereign rights, but I doubt that any of those would lead to any satisfaction of Russian goals.
I am not using the Drone strike example to justify the actions of Putin, I am using it to emphasise that we should give fair and equal treatment of comparable use of military power violating other nations territorial integrity.
|
On March 03 2014 20:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 20:11 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 18:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Btw, random question, is it Estonia or Latvia that celebrates the SS and other Nazi German military divisions from WW2? I'll answer that random question with a random go fuck yourself. EDIT: And yes, I see the mod note. You're being a colossal dick. It is off-topic, and he is unnecessarily provocative, but to answer, it is happening in Latvia as far as I know.
Russia invaded our country in 1939 under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and deported/murdered a large portion of our population. The Germans invaded, and kicked them out. When the Russians invaded again, the only way to fight them was to join the Wehrmacht. We honor the Estonians who fought against foreign invaders, not the uniforms they were forced to wear while doing it.
When moralizing about WW2, the West conveniently forgets the division of Europe between Hitler and Stalin, and the fact that when Germany invaded Poland from the west, the USSR invaded from the east and they met in the middle to shake hands.
|
On March 03 2014 20:20 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 20:11 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 19:11 -Archangel- wrote:
Well Putin showed his true face here. He was always only interested in Crimea, and didn't care for Ukraine. Once his puppet was removed from power he took what he wanted by force.
And if anyone thinks the "elections" on 30th of March are going to be democratic... I bet he will bring people over from Russia to vote.
I know that the world will not recognize Crimea becoming a separate country, but still Putin will try to show like the people democratically voted to be separate. It is doubtful they will need to rig the elections, the support should be there on its own. And I would assume Russia would prefer having puppet controlling the whole Ukraine than Crimea joining. The puppet pro-Russia 'president' got 4% support in the last Crimean elections. Russia will not agree to any deal which forces them to move away from Crimea before the elections, unless they no longer care about the result. Regarding JudicatorHammurabi's allusions towards Nazi's in Estonia and Latvia, it's preposterous propaganda. Both countries were conquered by Germany in 1941, the Germans killed a large part of population (Tartu University in Estonia was especially badly hit), and forced many young men to join the foreign legion of the German army, generally placing them in situations which got them killed. This happened sufficiently recently that families still mourn their loved ones lost. To suggest that Estonians and Latvians somehow support these Nazis is ignorant and offensive.
Latvians had a rather big number of Nazi collaborators and that past is not solved like in Germany.
Supposedly yearly occurance
|
On March 03 2014 20:34 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 20:21 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 20:11 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 18:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Btw, random question, is it Estonia or Latvia that celebrates the SS and other Nazi German military divisions from WW2? I'll answer that random question with a random go fuck yourself. EDIT: And yes, I see the mod note. You're being a colossal dick. It is off-topic, and he is unnecessarily provocative, but to answer, it is happening in Latvia as far as I know. Russia invaded our country in 1939 under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and deported/murdered a large portion of our population. The Germans invaded, and kicked them out. When the Russians invaded again, the only way to fight them was to join the Wehrmacht. We honor the Estonians who fought against foreign invaders, not the uniforms they were forced to wear while doing it. When moralizing about WW2, the West conveniently forgets the division of Europe between Hitler and Stalin, and the fact that when Germany invaded Poland from the west, the USSR invaded from the east and they met in the middle to shake hands.
I know that history very well, I went to Polish school, for some reason it was important topic  I understand where the people in the Baltics were coming from, but committing atrocities while helping Germans is not easily excused. Celebrating those people has no excuse whatsoever.
|
Zurich15353 Posts
On March 03 2014 20:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 20:20 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 20:11 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 19:11 -Archangel- wrote:
Well Putin showed his true face here. He was always only interested in Crimea, and didn't care for Ukraine. Once his puppet was removed from power he took what he wanted by force.
And if anyone thinks the "elections" on 30th of March are going to be democratic... I bet he will bring people over from Russia to vote.
I know that the world will not recognize Crimea becoming a separate country, but still Putin will try to show like the people democratically voted to be separate. It is doubtful they will need to rig the elections, the support should be there on its own. And I would assume Russia would prefer having puppet controlling the whole Ukraine than Crimea joining. The puppet pro-Russia 'president' got 4% support in the last Crimean elections. Russia will not agree to any deal which forces them to move away from Crimea before the elections, unless they no longer care about the result. Regarding JudicatorHammurabi's allusions towards Nazi's in Estonia and Latvia, it's preposterous propaganda. Both countries were conquered by Germany in 1941, the Germans killed a large part of population (Tartu University in Estonia was especially badly hit), and forced many young men to join the foreign legion of the German army, generally placing them in situations which got them killed. This happened sufficiently recently that families still mourn their loved ones lost. To suggest that Estonians and Latvians somehow support these Nazis is ignorant and offensive. Latvians had a rather big number of Nazi collaborators and that past is not solved like in Germany. Supposedly yearly occurance
This is really off topic. Can we keep it on Ukraine please and take stuff like this to PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TwDdIEY.jpg)
