Crimea has only one airport, in Simferopol' afaik.
And it wasn't working for 1 day, i guess? Other time it works as stable as always.
Isn't the airspace still closed for civil use, cause of the occupation ? So it's not running at all.
Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
semmeL
Germany85 Posts
March 06 2014 16:23 GMT
#4481
Crimea has only one airport, in Simferopol' afaik. And it wasn't working for 1 day, i guess? Other time it works as stable as always. Isn't the airspace still closed for civil use, cause of the occupation ? So it's not running at all. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
March 06 2014 16:26 GMT
#4482
On March 07 2014 01:12 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:10 HellRoxYa wrote: On March 07 2014 01:07 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On March 07 2014 00:42 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Can someone at least tell me, why do almost everyone blame Russia because Crimea wants to be part of Russia so hard that they did even move referendum on same date as 30stm will give concert in Moscow? Will everyone blame Russia after Donetsk and Kharkiv will have their referendums? Ofc. It's just sad to see because it seems like 95% of TL think that a) Russia have totalitarism, dictator and other stuff; b) Russia is fucking agressor, when we hadn't declared a war for ages and throughout history we were almost everytime defending instead of offending anyone; Even in fucking 2008 West was claiming that we declared war to Georgia when OSCE's delegation ran from Tskhinvali 3 hours before Georgian army started to bomb it. Ffs. Sorry dudes, didn't want to offend anyone. Because they walked in there with large amount of heavily armed troops, under the false pretence of protection against facists (who do not exist) and violence against russians in crimea (which did not happen). Now that they have everyone at gunpoint suddenly ukrainian soldiers are outlaws. If crimea wanted independence they should have just held the referendum and follow things though from there. Maybe eventually join russia. Now they have no choice and russia just claimed them. LOL You seriously think that they have no choice and Russia just claimed them? I start to realise why do people hate us now. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. If you want to know how a legitimate separation process is held, look towards Scotland. Crimeans do not have a choice, no. And it's hilarious (and sad) that you think so. Donetsk, who's going to have referendum soon as well don't have choice either, i guess? Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:12 Gorsameth wrote: On March 07 2014 01:07 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On March 07 2014 00:42 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Can someone at least tell me, why do almost everyone blame Russia because Crimea wants to be part of Russia so hard that they did even move referendum on same date as 30stm will give concert in Moscow? Will everyone blame Russia after Donetsk and Kharkiv will have their referendums? Ofc. It's just sad to see because it seems like 95% of TL think that a) Russia have totalitarism, dictator and other stuff; b) Russia is fucking agressor, when we hadn't declared a war for ages and throughout history we were almost everytime defending instead of offending anyone; Even in fucking 2008 West was claiming that we declared war to Georgia when OSCE's delegation ran from Tskhinvali 3 hours before Georgian army started to bomb it. Ffs. Sorry dudes, didn't want to offend anyone. Because they walked in there with large amount of heavily armed troops, under the false pretence of protection against facists (who do not exist) and violence against russians in crimea (which did not happen). Now that they have everyone at gunpoint suddenly ukrainian soldiers are outlaws. If crimea wanted independence they should have just held the referendum and follow things though from there. Maybe eventually join russia. Now they have no choice and russia just claimed them. LOL You seriously think that they have no choice and Russia just claimed them? I start to realise why do people hate us now. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. As has been said time and time again if all those troops were inside there base just watching this wouldn't be a big deal. But there out in the streets blockading airports, sea ports. surrounding Ukrainian military bases. And do you really think people will assume any action made to join Russia now is made out of there own free will or because they are being occupied and blockades by an army. Crimea has only one airport, in Simferopol' afaik. And it wasn't working for 1 day, i guess? Other time it works as stable as always. Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:09 ZeromuS wrote: On March 07 2014 01:07 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On March 07 2014 00:42 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Can someone at least tell me, why do almost everyone blame Russia because Crimea wants to be part of Russia so hard that they did even move referendum on same date as 30stm will give concert in Moscow? Will everyone blame Russia after Donetsk and Kharkiv will have their referendums? Ofc. It's just sad to see because it seems like 95% of TL think that a) Russia have totalitarism, dictator and other stuff; b) Russia is fucking agressor, when we hadn't declared a war for ages and throughout history we were almost everytime defending instead of offending anyone; Even in fucking 2008 West was claiming that we declared war to Georgia when OSCE's delegation ran from Tskhinvali 3 hours before Georgian army started to bomb it. Ffs. Sorry dudes, didn't want to offend anyone. Because they walked in there with large amount of heavily armed troops, under the false pretence of protection against facists (who do not exist) and violence against russians in crimea (which did not happen). Now that they have everyone at gunpoint suddenly ukrainian soldiers are outlaws. If crimea wanted independence they should have just held the referendum and follow things though from there. Maybe eventually join russia. Now they have no choice and russia just claimed them. LOL You seriously think that they have no choice and Russia just claimed them? I start to realise why do people hate us now. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. Three years? So when the helicopters flew people in and the ships came to port and blockade'd the seaport, where were they before last week? Everyone on vacation for national Russian holidays for I don't even know how long? Please ... We don't have national holidays, at least now, sorry :D And i dunno where did you get number 3 as well, but ok. .. You said almost no one was moved from Russian side and all the Russian troops there have been in Crimea for three years, thats where I get three from. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. How is it possible that there have been that many Russian troops in Crimea for so long and now with video proof of helicopters and ships moving in that werent there before can you say those troops were always there. | ||
zatic
Zurich15300 Posts
March 06 2014 16:27 GMT
#4483
On March 07 2014 01:23 semmeL wrote: Show nested quote + Crimea has only one airport, in Simferopol' afaik. And it wasn't working for 1 day, i guess? Other time it works as stable as always. Isn't the airspace still closed for civil use, cause of the occupation ? So it's not running at all. It is not, but here is a gimmick: Flights from Simferopol to Kiev now leave from the international terminal instead of the domestic one: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/world/europe/crimea-russia.html?hp | ||
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
March 06 2014 16:35 GMT
#4484
On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote: Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master. Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment. In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn have been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour. If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Not only that. The crimean representatives were elected in a completely different socio-political climate and the legitimacy as a representative body for the people of Crimea therefore has to be questioned to begin with, when they are making as drastic decissions as they do. | ||
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
March 06 2014 16:59 GMT
#4485
Can you imagine Obama pulling that kind of trick? There's a limit on how many times you can be elected because there's a danger of someone shrewd (or ruthless) enough turning himself into an absolute ruler. Putin has been the no1 (in all but name for a few years) for what, 14+ years now? Not just the same party, the same person. Merkel talked about him living 'in another world'. How far from the truth is that really? | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
March 06 2014 17:03 GMT
#4486
On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote: Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master. Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment. In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour. If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Hmm, well put, both posts. To add Crimea was promised in the early nineties that "soon" all regions that want to will be able to have referendum on independence or at least on returning to the old constitution. Of course once situation stabilized that promise was reneged upon, and Ukraine will never allow them to leave peacefully. On March 07 2014 01:35 radiatoren wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote: Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master. Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment. In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn have been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour. If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Not only that. The crimean representatives were elected in a completely different socio-political climate and the legitimacy as a representative body for the people of Crimea therefore has to be questioned to begin with, when they are making as drastic decissions as they do. "Not only that" seems to imply that you agree with him, but your point seems to go against what I see as his argument. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
March 06 2014 17:05 GMT
#4487
Could have been much weaker... | ||
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
March 06 2014 17:12 GMT
#4488
| ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
March 06 2014 17:12 GMT
#4489
+ Show Spoiler + As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two times two equals five’ is not without its attractions.” Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort. 1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea. The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians. 2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. 3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption. 4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine. The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country. 5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum. The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees. 6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat. The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents. 7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat. The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action. 8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine. The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents. 9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea. The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada. 10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists. The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm | ||
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
March 06 2014 17:13 GMT
#4490
On March 07 2014 01:01 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Russia was in Crimea for ages, i dunno how can you say that we did intervene it. Don't forget, Russia can have 25000 troops there legally and there are still 16000 like always. Good point. "CIA director John Brennan told a senior lawmaker Monday that a 1997 treaty between Russia and Ukraine allows up to 25,000 Russia troops in the vital Crimea region, so Russia may not consider its recent troop movements to be an invasion, U.S. officials said. The number of Russian troops that have surged into Ukraine in recent days remains well below that threshold, Brennan said, according to U.S. officials" source Also Spiegel.de agrees with Putin that Janukowitsch is the sole legal president of Ukraine (as others have pointed out in this thread already). | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
March 06 2014 17:17 GMT
#4491
| ||
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
March 06 2014 17:17 GMT
#4492
| ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
March 06 2014 17:19 GMT
#4493
On March 07 2014 02:17 Silvanel wrote: Who cares what spiegel thinks lol? Ukrainians dont want him as president that all whats matters. Who cares what ukrainians think lol? Putin wants crimea that's all that matters. See what i did there? | ||
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
March 06 2014 17:22 GMT
#4494
On March 07 2014 02:17 Silvanel wrote: Who cares what spiegel thinks lol? Ukrainians dont want him as president that all whats matters. Then they should use the ways their legal system offers them if they're not happy with their government. They have democratic processes in place for exactly those cases. Ignoring rules & laws, as soon as they're inconvenient is more of a trait I would expect form a dictatorship, not a democracy. | ||
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
March 06 2014 17:23 GMT
#4495
On March 07 2014 02:03 mcc wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote: Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master. Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment. In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour. If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Hmm, well put, both posts. To add Crimea was promised in the early nineties that "soon" all regions that want to will be able to have referendum on independence or at least on returning to the old constitution. Of course once situation stabilized that promise was reneged upon, and Ukraine will never allow them to leave peacefully. Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:35 radiatoren wrote: On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote: Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master. Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment. In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn have been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour. If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Not only that. The crimean representatives were elected in a completely different socio-political climate and the legitimacy as a representative body for the people of Crimea therefore has to be questioned to begin with, when they are making as drastic decissions as they do. "Not only that" seems to imply that you agree with him, but your point seems to go against what I see as his argument. I am not going against his main delineations and it may be a silly detail, but he is using Crimeans as if it were a majority of the community. My point is that it is the provinsial leaders and not necessarily the crimeans as a people pushing it through. If we are talking authorities, the destinction seems important. | ||
oo_Wonderful_oo
The land of freedom23126 Posts
March 06 2014 17:24 GMT
#4496
On March 07 2014 01:26 ZeromuS wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 01:12 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:10 HellRoxYa wrote: On March 07 2014 01:07 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On March 07 2014 00:42 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Can someone at least tell me, why do almost everyone blame Russia because Crimea wants to be part of Russia so hard that they did even move referendum on same date as 30stm will give concert in Moscow? Will everyone blame Russia after Donetsk and Kharkiv will have their referendums? Ofc. It's just sad to see because it seems like 95% of TL think that a) Russia have totalitarism, dictator and other stuff; b) Russia is fucking agressor, when we hadn't declared a war for ages and throughout history we were almost everytime defending instead of offending anyone; Even in fucking 2008 West was claiming that we declared war to Georgia when OSCE's delegation ran from Tskhinvali 3 hours before Georgian army started to bomb it. Ffs. Sorry dudes, didn't want to offend anyone. Because they walked in there with large amount of heavily armed troops, under the false pretence of protection against facists (who do not exist) and violence against russians in crimea (which did not happen). Now that they have everyone at gunpoint suddenly ukrainian soldiers are outlaws. If crimea wanted independence they should have just held the referendum and follow things though from there. Maybe eventually join russia. Now they have no choice and russia just claimed them. LOL You seriously think that they have no choice and Russia just claimed them? I start to realise why do people hate us now. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. If you want to know how a legitimate separation process is held, look towards Scotland. Crimeans do not have a choice, no. And it's hilarious (and sad) that you think so. Donetsk, who's going to have referendum soon as well don't have choice either, i guess? On March 07 2014 01:12 Gorsameth wrote: On March 07 2014 01:07 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On March 07 2014 00:42 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Can someone at least tell me, why do almost everyone blame Russia because Crimea wants to be part of Russia so hard that they did even move referendum on same date as 30stm will give concert in Moscow? Will everyone blame Russia after Donetsk and Kharkiv will have their referendums? Ofc. It's just sad to see because it seems like 95% of TL think that a) Russia have totalitarism, dictator and other stuff; b) Russia is fucking agressor, when we hadn't declared a war for ages and throughout history we were almost everytime defending instead of offending anyone; Even in fucking 2008 West was claiming that we declared war to Georgia when OSCE's delegation ran from Tskhinvali 3 hours before Georgian army started to bomb it. Ffs. Sorry dudes, didn't want to offend anyone. Because they walked in there with large amount of heavily armed troops, under the false pretence of protection against facists (who do not exist) and violence against russians in crimea (which did not happen). Now that they have everyone at gunpoint suddenly ukrainian soldiers are outlaws. If crimea wanted independence they should have just held the referendum and follow things though from there. Maybe eventually join russia. Now they have no choice and russia just claimed them. LOL You seriously think that they have no choice and Russia just claimed them? I start to realise why do people hate us now. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. As has been said time and time again if all those troops were inside there base just watching this wouldn't be a big deal. But there out in the streets blockading airports, sea ports. surrounding Ukrainian military bases. And do you really think people will assume any action made to join Russia now is made out of there own free will or because they are being occupied and blockades by an army. Crimea has only one airport, in Simferopol' afaik. And it wasn't working for 1 day, i guess? Other time it works as stable as always. On March 07 2014 01:09 ZeromuS wrote: On March 07 2014 01:07 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: On March 07 2014 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On March 07 2014 00:42 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Can someone at least tell me, why do almost everyone blame Russia because Crimea wants to be part of Russia so hard that they did even move referendum on same date as 30stm will give concert in Moscow? Will everyone blame Russia after Donetsk and Kharkiv will have their referendums? Ofc. It's just sad to see because it seems like 95% of TL think that a) Russia have totalitarism, dictator and other stuff; b) Russia is fucking agressor, when we hadn't declared a war for ages and throughout history we were almost everytime defending instead of offending anyone; Even in fucking 2008 West was claiming that we declared war to Georgia when OSCE's delegation ran from Tskhinvali 3 hours before Georgian army started to bomb it. Ffs. Sorry dudes, didn't want to offend anyone. Because they walked in there with large amount of heavily armed troops, under the false pretence of protection against facists (who do not exist) and violence against russians in crimea (which did not happen). Now that they have everyone at gunpoint suddenly ukrainian soldiers are outlaws. If crimea wanted independence they should have just held the referendum and follow things though from there. Maybe eventually join russia. Now they have no choice and russia just claimed them. LOL You seriously think that they have no choice and Russia just claimed them? I start to realise why do people hate us now. And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. Three years? So when the helicopters flew people in and the ships came to port and blockade'd the seaport, where were they before last week? Everyone on vacation for national Russian holidays for I don't even know how long? Please ... We don't have national holidays, at least now, sorry :D And i dunno where did you get number 3 as well, but ok. .. You said almost no one was moved from Russian side and all the Russian troops there have been in Crimea for three years, thats where I get three from. Show nested quote + And once again. Those troops were there for years lol. Almost noone was moved from Russian side. How is it possible that there have been that many Russian troops in Crimea for so long and now with video proof of helicopters and ships moving in that werent there before can you say those troops were always there. I still can't find where did i write "three" lol. But ok, it doesn't matter. On March 07 2014 01:59 Taguchi wrote: About people thinking of Putin as an autocrat (basically): The guy won consecutive presidential elections and then, since he couldn't try for a 3rd term due to constitutional limits, he got Medvedev to play the part of president for a term while he was prime minister, then they exchanged roles again next election. They gamed a loophole in the system. Can you imagine Obama pulling that kind of trick? There's a limit on how many times you can be elected because there's a danger of someone shrewd (or ruthless) enough turning himself into an absolute ruler. Putin has been the no1 (in all but name for a few years) for what, 14+ years now? Not just the same party, the same person. Merkel talked about him living 'in another world'. How far from the truth is that really? We don't have best democracy in the world i guess but i will tell you one thing. There are absolutely ZERO new faces in politics since 93. And noone is different from each other. And about election times. Tell it to Roosevelt probs? | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
March 06 2014 17:25 GMT
#4497
On March 07 2014 02:22 Zocat wrote: Ignoring rules & laws, as soon as they're inconvenient is more of a trait I would expect form a dictatorship, not a democracy. Yes but you did notice that is that Yanukovych did behave in the exact same fashion, right? If he'd fulfilled his role as a president then the people should wait to vote him out. But if you stuff the people's money into your own pockets and are as corrupt as it gets, it's only fair that you get treated the same way. If you punch me in the face I'm allowed to defend myself and punch you back, that's all the Ukrainian people did. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
March 06 2014 17:26 GMT
#4498
| ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
March 06 2014 17:28 GMT
#4499
On March 07 2014 02:26 zlefin wrote: Russia sure is asking for it. Sad, truly quite sad, and despicable. The issue is they know that no real consequences will come of it. The US and EU will puff their chests, say some things, make some meaningless sanctions, and in the end they won't make any serious sanctions, they won't risk a real war, and russia will get to keep crimea. It's very sad. | ||
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
March 06 2014 17:39 GMT
#4500
On March 07 2014 02:25 Nyxisto wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2014 02:22 Zocat wrote: Ignoring rules & laws, as soon as they're inconvenient is more of a trait I would expect form a dictatorship, not a democracy. Yes but you did notice that is that Yanukovych did behave in the exact same fashion, right? If he'd fulfilled his role as a president then the people should wait to vote him out. But if you stuff the people's money into your own pockets and are as corrupt as it gets, it's only fair that you get treated the same way. If you punch me in the face I'm allowed to defend myself and punch you back, that's all the Ukrainian people did. Vigilante justice is something most countries forbid by law. You're not allowed to take the punishment into your own hands. That said, in case of a crime they could've used article 111 of the constitution to get rid of him. They didn't. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Soulkey 2167 Dota 2Light 563 Shuttle 490 Mini 322 Zeus 314 Stork 284 BeSt 281 firebathero 240 Last 181 hero 98 [ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Adnapsc2 17 StarCraft: Brood War• poizon28 15 • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamezSOOP • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel • sooper7s Dota 2 League of Legends |
PassionCraft
BSL: ProLeague
Sziky vs Dienmax
Jimin vs RaNgeD
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
Replay Cast
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SC Evo Complete
|
|