where does the Crimea belong to?

[Muhammed]

where does the Crimea belong to?​

That's not a question of any opinion. Legally is the Crimea territory of the Ukraine. De facto is the Crimea currently territory of Russia because Russia conquered it with the military terror method "war".

That's not true. Russia took Crimea without firing a shot. After the 2014 coup that ousted the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine, the people in Crimea held a referendum and overwhelmingly voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.

Russia didn't conquer in a war.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's not true. Russia took Crimea without firing a shot.

Russia broke international laws by occupying territory which belonged to the Ukraine. No one thought by the way really that the Russians will be so unbelievable stupid to attack the Ukraine. Russia started to attack the Ukraine since 2008 by sending combatants (soldiers in civil clothing) into the Donbass region. And when the Ukraine became independent also some Crimean tartars came back to the Crimea who had been once displaced from the Soviet Union. Crimean tartars are a Turkish tribe.

Your feeling for justice is also a little desolate. When someone forces you with his gun but without shooting to give him some of your money then this is no robbery in your view to the world and he legally may keep your money?

 

[Muhammed]

Your feeling for justice is also a little desolate. When someone forces you with his gun but without shooting to give him some of your money then this is no robbery in your view to the world and he legally may keep your money?

That's not what happened. There was a coup in Kiev that put Nazi's in charge. The Nazis wanted to outlaw the Russian language. Crimea is ~80% Russian. Of course they were not going to put up with that Nazi bullshit.

THINK!

 

[zaangalewa]

That's not what happened.

This happened. Russia has a criminal government.

There was a coup in Kiev that put Nazi's in charge.

The Nazi is Putin - no one else. Or whatelse than Russian Nazis had been his mercennaries who had always been payed from the Russian taxpayers before they had been integrated into the regular Russian army?

The Nazis wanted to outlaw the Russian language. ...

What a nonsense. Russian and Ukrainian is nearly the same language as far as I know. And the "moral" of the Russians is only hypocritical. Where is the German speaking indegenious population of the Oblast Kaliningrad? Not everyone is a comparable mass-murderer and mass-displacer as are the Russian governments since Lenin.

The Russians, the Jews, the Tartars (Turks) and the Hungarians not had been opressed in the Ukraine. In the underground war in the Donbass region had been murdered much more Ukrainian civilists than Russian combatants. And Jews also mde clear that they had not been opressed from the Ukrainians. Same said the Hungarians who live in the Ukraine. Not only Putin is a liar - also his spitlicker Viktor Orbán is a liar.

 

[Muhammed]

This happened. Russia has a criminal government.



The Nazi is Putin - no one else. Or whatelse than Russian Nazis had been his mercennaries who had always been payed from the Russian taxpayers before they had been integrated into the regular Russian army?



What a nonsense. Russian and Ukrainian is nearly the same language as far as I know. And the "moral" of the Russians is only hypocritical. Where is the German speaking indegenious population of the Oblast Kaliningrad? Not everyone is a comparable mass-murderer and mass-displacer as are the Russian governments since Lenin.

The Russians, the Jews, the Tartars (Turks) and the Hungarians not had been opressed in the Ukraine. In the underground war in the Donbass region had been murdered much more Ukrainian civilists than Russian combatants. And Jews also mde clear that they had not been opressed from the Ukrainians. Same said the Hungarians who live in the Ukraine. Not only Putin is a liar - also his spitlicker Viktor Orbán is a liar.

I don't know what to make of that triggered word salad. What country are you from?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Bullshit. You have the timeline all wrong. The proof that Yanokovitch had the votes is that he won the election.

It's only after 3 oblasts that overwhelmingly supported him seceded from Ukraine that he didn't have the votes. Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk all held referendums and overwhelmingly voted to secede after the US brokered violent bloody coup ousted the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine.

You are either ignorant or are lying with your talk of a “timeline.” I was speaking not of 2010 but of the vote in the Rada for Yansenyuk to replace Viktor Yanukovych — who had already fled to Russia — which took place on February 27th. The results, as I indicated, were overwhelming:

371 members of parliament voted to elect Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister of Ukraine, only two votes short of the record-high 373 votes won by Yulia Tymoshenko in 2005. Note the collapse and capitulation of the Party of Regions, once led by Viktor Yanukovych himself.

​

Faction	Number of members	Yes	No	Abstained	Did not vote	Absent
Party of Regions	123​	94​	1​	0​	8​	20​
Batkivshchyna – United Opposition	88​	85​	0​	0​	0​	3​
UDAR	42​	40​	0​	0​	0​	2​
Svoboda	36​	36​	0​	0​	0​	0​
Communist Party of Ukraine	32​	0​	0​	0​	32​	0​
Not affiliated	59​	51​	0​	2​	2​	4​
Sovereign European Ukraine (group)	37​	34​	0​	0​	1​	2​
Economic Development(group)	32​	31​	0​	0​	0​	1​
All factions	450​	371​	1​	2​	43​	33​

This chart shows that a great majority even of the Eastern-based “Party of Regions” elected Rada delegates supported Yatsenyuk, so disappointed were they with Yanukovych and his double-dealing, of his betrayals of his own previous promises and his fleeing to Russia. Many of these were probably always corrupt opportunists, and perhaps simply voted for Yatsenyuk to keep themselves and their patrons in power, hoping the Maidan “Revolution of Dignity” like the earlier “Orange Revolution” would eventually exhaust itself and allow Russian influence to re-assert itself, as it had so many times in the past.

Of course the “secession” and then joining with Russia of the three oblasts — at first crucially aided by Russian ex-military adventurers or “unmarked” Russian soldiers — in both Crimea and the Donbas … occurred months (or even years) later.

It is certainly true, however, that the Russian-led split-off of Crimea and Donbas (and the loss of their voter base) encouraged further political consolidation of nationalist public opinion in Ukraine against Russia, and allowed for the rapid consolidation of a nationalist government in Kiev and creation of a new Ukrainian patriotic army.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know what to make of that triggered word salad. What country are you from?

Germany. And I fear you block yourselve and your own possibilities to think because you do not like to understand what's really going on in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine.

 

[Muhammed]

You are either ignorant or are lying with your talk of a “timeline.” I was speaking not of 2010 but of the vote in the Rada for Yansenyuk to replace Viktor Yanukovych — who had already fled to Russia — which took place on February 27th.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. There was no vote in the Rada for Yatsenyuk to replace Yanukovych.

The President is voted for in a direct election by the people.

The Prime Minister is appointed by the President and then confirmed by a vote in the Rada.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. There was no vote in the Rada for Yatsenyuk to replace Yanukovych.

The President is voted for in a direct election by the people.

The Prime Minister is appointed by the President and then confirmed by a vote in the Rada.

Yes, so “Constitutionally astute” of you! Obviously, as I said clearly, I am talking about the Rada vote in late February. New general elections necessarily came later, given that the regime had collapsed, the head of government fled to Russia, the special Berkut riot police were disbanded, and many heads of departments (especially Yanukovych men from the Donbas) resigned or fled. It was not a “coup” of the security apparatus, but rather a “revolution” in which the Rada continued to function, providing continuity and legitimacy.

 

[Muhammed]

Yes, so “Constitutionally astute” of you!

Yes the constitution is the law, jackass!

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that if a president travels to a different country, that means he is no longer the president. Therefore the fact that he went to Russia means absolutely nothing. Yet you morons pretend that it means he somehow automatically loses the presidency. But you cannot cite any law to back up your stupid blabbering. When Biden went to Germany, did he lose the presidency?

THINK!

There was no impeachment of President Yanukovych.

It was a violent bloody coup.

 

[ESay]

Yes the constitution is the law, jackass!

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that if a president travels to a different country, that means he is no longer the president. Therefore the fact that he went to Russia means absolutely nothing. Yet you morons pretend that it means he somehow automatically loses the presidency. But you cannot cite any law to back up your stupid blabbering. When Biden went to Germany, did he lose the presidency?

THINK!

There was no impeachment of President Yanukovych.

It was a violent bloody coup.

You are right. There weren't a proper procedure of the impeachment. And it couldn't be. The impeachment clause was written at the Kuchma times in the way that can guarantee the president would never going to be dismissed by the parliament.

 

[zaangalewa]

Yes the constitution is the law, jackass!

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that if a president travels to a different country, that means he is no longer the president. Therefore the fact that he went to Russia means absolutely nothing. Yet you morons pretend that it means he somehow automatically loses the presidency. But you cannot cite any law to back up your stupid blabbering. When Biden went to Germany, did he lose the presidency?

THINK!

There was no impeachment of President Yanukovych.

It was a violent bloody coup.

You are right. There weren't a proper procedure of the impeachment. And it couldn't be. The impeachment clause was written at the Kuchma times in the way that can guarantee the president would never going to be dismissed by the parliament.

What a luck that you are two people. One alone is not able to be so stupid and unreal.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Muhammed]

What a luck that you are two people. One alone is not able to be so stupid and unreal.

Do you have an opposing argument, or are you talking about yourself?

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you have an opposing argument, or are you talking about yourself?

I'm not "opposing" you. I have just simple not any common element with people like you. For me you have not any ability to think at all - nor makes it any sense "to argue". You are for me a totally strange form of existence. Like a Borg or something like this. I don't understand how you can live like that or even want to live like that. You are for me an alien who plays to be a human being. An unreal mimicry existence. But your real species is unknown to me.

 

[Ringo]

 

[skye]

Crimea belongs to Russia.


This is the Romanov Livadia palace in Crimea, they always went there for holidays!

 

[Ringo]

Stage one: Denial

State Department responds to Putin on Alaska: ‘Certainly he’s not getting it back’

The State Department on Monday brushed off reports of Russian President Vladimir Putin ordering his government to look into the nation’s former “real estate” abroad, saying Alaska…

thehill.com