Well, I don't give a damn actually, neither about Texas nor Mexico, but the Crimeans did just the same, yet you, I'm sure, denied them their right to join Russia and I take it you're not ignorant but on the contrary smart, right?
Crimea was invaded and conquered by Russia, then after moving a large portion of Russian citizens into Crimea, Russia held illegal elections that were not acknowledged by any free country. It's the same playbook that Stalin used in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, China and North Korea and North Vietnam in 1945.
 
Crimea was invaded and conquered by Russia, then after moving a large portion of Russian citizens into Crimea, Russia held illegal elections that were not acknowledged by any free country. It's the same playbook that Stalin used in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, China and North Korea and North Vietnam in 1945.
Aaaaaaaaah, shut up. It was a little hasty of me to call you smart. You're an asshole, I stand corrected, sorry.
 
You are appallingly ignorant. Neither Texas nor California was invaded OR conquered by the USA. Both revolted against Santa Ana's Mexican dictatorship, were independent republics and then elected to join the USA via a popular vote of the inhabitants INCLUDING the ex-Mexican citizens. The USA wasn't involved in the revolts at all.
Texas was a rebellious part of Mexico as Donbass was a rebellious part of Ukraine. It was inner business of Mexico until the USA invaded Mexico. More or less the same situation de jury. But from the moral point of view Russian posture looks much better.
 
Crimea was invaded and conquered by Russia, then after moving a large portion of Russian citizens into Crimea, Russia held illegal elections that were not acknowledged by any free country. It's the same playbook that Stalin used in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, China and North Korea and North Vietnam in 1945.
Russia annexed Crimea years before the USA declared their independence, invaded it decades before it, and the first Russian settlers came here centuries before Spain discovered the USA. And we simply don't care about what do you recognise or not recognise. You are simply irrelevant, ignorant things.
 
Well, I don't give a damn actually, neither about Texas nor Mexico, but the Crimeans did just the same, yet you, I'm sure, denied them their right to join Russia and I take it you're not ignorant but on the contrary smart, right?

How many regions ruled by Russia would vote for independence if they were allowed to vote?
 
If you say so. Is that why it's been going on for almost 3 years now?

Why wouldn't Chechnya vote for independence?
What would it need that for? There's this stupid so called state of Ukraine as an example of what independence may do to a once wealthy and prosperous land. You may look at the picture and compare before and after. It's in Ukrainian but you don't need to know the language to see the difference, which is almost in oders of magnitude, hope you know what that is, and it's not in favor of after. The prices of basic commodities in local currency.
IMG_20241227_111917_010.jpg
 
Because every region that got the chance left.
What was the vote in Chechnya?
There was the voting for the Constitution of Chechen Republic (which determines, among other things, that Chechen Republic is a part of the Russian Federation). More than 90% voted for it.
 
In recent months, the discussion on whether the time has come to stop or at least freeze the war in Ukraine has visibly intensified. When contemplating various scenarios of how this could be done, pundits in both the United States and Europe focus on security guarantees and economic assistance that should be provided to Ukraine or on leverages the West could apply to persuade Kyiv to agree to an inescapably painful would-be agreement.
A lot less attention is paid to possible trade-offs that could be demanded from or negotiated with Moscow. It seems that Western diplomats and analysts, sensing the war fatigue in their respective societies, presume that a similar sentiment exists in Russia, or rather, in the Russian leadership.
To think so would be a mistake. The moment to assume that the Kremlin might be ready to seek a peace deal, if it has ever existed, has long since passed. At this point, Vladimir Putin looks confident that time is on his side. His calculus can, of course, still prove to be wrong, but for now, this is the basis for his decisions.
There are two fundamental sets of arguments that likely drive Putin’s thinking.
The first one is that Russia has preserved, and in some areas even increased, its capacity to wage war, including a war of attrition. In the autumn of 2023, Russian troops seized the initiative and currently are advancing. True, casualties are significant. But this is no novelty: this is how both the imperial and the Soviet armies fought for centuries.
Russia has maintained the necessary numbers of manpower, and Western economic sanctions have had a very limited impact on the Russian economy. Again, Russia’s resources are not endless, but for the time being, the Kremlin has enough money to finance the war, to pay salaries to soldiers or compensations to their families in case of a soldier’s death, and to make sure the defense industry will be able to function.
Russia’s budget deficit at war is smaller than that of many Western countries at peace.
Inside Russia, only a minority opposes the war. For the majority, it is extremely difficult to abandon their positive attitudes. It is worth reminding that 86 percent of Russian citizens welcomed the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Whereas support for the full-scale war against Ukraine has been lower, people are unwilling to accept the loss of the Crimean Peninsula. The “rally-around-the-flag” effect played a role in Putin’s reelection as president in March 2024.
Last but not least, Russia does not feel internationally isolated. It engages with the so-called “Global South,” with China playing the leading part in enabling Russia to continue the war. Countries like Iran and North Korea have become important suppliers of weapons, ammunition, and, in the latter case, also manpower.
The second line of argumentation is that Putin needs to achieve an unquestionable victory not only over Ukraine but, by extension, also over the West.

Putin had a peace deal that was ready to be signed by Ukraine in April 2022, but the WarMongers WEF, BlackRock, Biden and the MIC ordered him to tear it up. Half a million young Ukrainians would still be alive
 
I agree that Putin can be more patient once Trump was elected President

He knows Trump promised a quick solution and has little tolerance for negotiation.

Putin will wait us out and take the casualties. But, like the US found out in Afghanistan and Vietnam, maintaining an occupying Army gets expensive. If Russia is not looked at as liberators and there is a resistance movement, it will become an economic burden.

There is also the question of lifting economic sanctions
Wrong on every count

Well done!

The Providence that voted OVERWHELMINGLY to rejoin Russia, and now reunited with Russia. Russian were Liberators, not Occupiers
 
Wrong on every count

Well done!

The Providence that voted OVERWHELMINGLY to rejoin Russia, and now reunited with Russia. Russian were Liberators, not Occupiers

The same Russian led elections that keep electing Putin
 

Forum List

Back
Top