The Weight of Chains
@ Tito
In deference to your argument, I listened to it. The whole thing. And watched most of it.
All two hours.
I couldn't weight for it to be over.
Because of the handy voice-over, stock footage, largely unknown interviewees and tired arguments, from the Palestinians to the Quebecois, to the Basques, to American Separatists, I could literally CTRL+C, Insert (Protonationalist Group Name), CTRL+V and BAM:
The Weight of Chains, Scotland Edition.
---
Apologies for hijacking the thread about the Ukraine.
I don't think anyone wants to colonize the Ukraine. China already stuck its toe in and the Ukranians fncked them on the promised grain shipments.
Which is probably a good thing. As if Putin needs a reason to go to war with China.
- James Bissett (Canada)
- John Bosnitch (Canada)
- Michel Chossudovsky (Canada)
- Lewis MacKenzie (Canada)
- John Perkins (USA)
- Jože Mencinger (Slovenia)
- Scott Taylor (Canada)
- Michael Parenti (USA)
- Serge Trifkovic (USA)
largely unknown interviewees? tired arguments? No really tell me, when was last time you had 30 days vacation, PAYED? When was last time when you tried to make a better world and end up collapsing and being invaded by 30 states and mass media demonize your people?
Yes, those people are largely unknown. Doesn't mean they're not right, also doesn't mean they're not wrong. It does mean that one cannot objectively determine their expertise based on the information available, much less than from the information available on the video.
Examples of KNOWN PEOPLE *shown but not interviewed* would be Slobo, Ferdinand (actor), Clinton, Blair, Tito, Hitler, Albright etc.
The arguments ARE TIRED.
They are the same arguments used by every wannabe subnational group with aspirations to nationhood. You can read Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book or just use my guide.
The formula is as follows:
- There is a 'people' linked by culture, history, shared challenges, past nationality, "race" or whatever [People]
- 'The people' are being oppressed by evil outside forces. These outside forces conspire to put 'the people' down. 'The evil' is also usually also a 'people' (not always) - but is always one or more enemies that can be clearly identified [Evil].
- 'The people' are ALSO somehow superior to their oppressors, so the oppression cannot be the natural order/willed by God. They will usually cite experts, and point to famous members of 'the people' as proof of their claim [Superiority].
- Those amongst 'the people' who don't agree with those claiming to represent the interests of 'the people'. These apostates are either coddled as misinformed or castigated as enemies. The informal fallacy engaged is of the form "no true scotsman" (ad hoc resuce) [Traitors].
- IF the people unite AND are granted their demands (or seize what is 'theirs') AND 'the evil' they bring is cast out THEN The people will live in the Utopia of their making [Utopia].
- Usually there is a leader or group which has all the answers, and will lead the people to Utopia [Vanguard].
For fun, put in your own [People], [Evil], [Traitors], [Utopia] and [Vanguard]! You have just designed your own revolution!
Here's an Example
- The [Lefties] are linked by culture, history and shared challenges.
- The Lefties are oppressed by [Righties] who portray left-handed people as 'sinister'. They make the world for right-handed people! Cars, Guns, Writing, even SCISSORS are MADE FOR RIGHT HANDED PEOPLE. Lefties are treated as SECOND CLASS CITIZENS, even though they are as GOD MADE THEM.
- Scientists say that left-handed people are always right-brained. Jesus was left-handed, as was Mohammed, Abraham, Moses and Buddah.
- There are [Ambidextrious] people who were born True Lefties, but use their Right Hands sometimes. These people are NOT true Lefties. No True Lefty would use their Right Hand. Some may only need to be Educated to Left Thinking. Those who resist are clearly traitors.
- If all of the Lefties leave Rightland and have their own [Leftland], the oppression of the Right Handed will end.
Lefties will live in peace and harmony, and all will be well.
-[The Left Hand] will lead All True Lefties to Leftland, where we will make our own world. If blood is shed, it is because the Right Handers will not surrender to us that which is left-fully ours, By God and Biology. We ask for nothing that isn't ours, by Left.
I have had 30 days paid vacation, but most people haven't, admittedly. Was the paid vaction the reason why NATO invaded? Or was this a symptom of a highly inefficent economy with a surplus of labor?
I don't want to make A Better World, all I could ever hope for was to make This World Better. And I am minimally wise enough to know that personal autonomy is the only prescription for that -- I cannot know another's happiness.
Was Serbia attacked and invaded for making This World Better?
If anyone besides you and me should read this, maybe they could spare me from being unkind.
Ask a Croatian, ask a Slovene, ask a Montenegren, ask a Bosnian. Why did they secede from Yugoslavia?
Yeah and other educated people with PhD's have called it serbian propaganda with most of the "facts" taken out of context ...it's like zeitgeist and similiar movies ...you watch it and think "holy shit this dudes have proven that jesus never existed" ...then you dig a little and find out that zeitgeist is shit taken out of context by the director so he can achieve his "I WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH" moment ...any idiot can make a documentary really.
Ono sto mi je najvise smetalo je kako lik zvuci cijeli film ...kao da se preserava.
I didn't want to bring up Zeitgeist, but that is the first film that came to mind whilst I was encumbered by The Weight of Chains - except that the deception level of TWoC is slightly less: I don't think that The Kid had yet learned that Big Lies are more economical than Small Lies (basically the formula is Size of Lie x Belief in Cause).
Fewer people will believe the Big Lie, but they will be much more slavish to the cause, so Big Lies generally work better amongst the general population.
I listened to the whole movie, I only watched part of it. When one listens (vs. watches) the gaps in logical validity become more apparent. And you can't get through the first sentence of the movie without bumping into elementary problems with logic.
I merely commented that (largely) I hadn't heard of the sources. In briefly researching each one you listed, yes, I did read some Parenti many years ago (his textbook), and I had heard of Perkin's book (Hitman).
You have asked me to experience TWoC TWICE, pausing after each sentence. This I will not do, as I will already die wanting those 2h back. However, The very first sentence of the movie: "Who in their right mind would actually want to be a colony" is a 'Complex' or 'loaded' question - and an informal fallacy. The question presupposes that:
1. The subject of the 'documentary' is crazy to desire the current state of affairs (in former Yugoslavia).
2. The current state of affairs (in former Yugoslavia) is a colony.
The usual form of this fallacy is: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Then the presenter goes back to his childhood, and correlates the economic well-being and harmony of Yugoslavia to his feelings of economic security and harmony as a child. The syllogism is also flawed, a formal fallacy (affirming the consequent).
P1. When I was young, I thought things were good.
P2. I was in Yugoslavia when I was young.
C. Therefore Yugoslavia was good when I was young.
Next the presenter brings in an American who positively contrasts the presenter's recollections of the presenter's childhood with contemporary American life, to put the Reactionary headstone on the grave-that-was-the-paradise of the past. This is the first 2 minutes. It isn't even good propaganda.
---
As to whether Yugoslavia had a 'successful' economy, the Yugoslavian socialist economy was one of the most successful planned economies.
This does not mean that it was a successful economy, contrasted to other economies.
---
Later you engage in a similar fallacious reasoning:
"Serbia was invaded so it could be colonized ... imperialism still survives ... (and) proves that communism was right."
p1. Serbia was invaded
p2. It was invaded so it could be colonized.
p3. The colonization proves that imperialism still survives.
c. Therefore Communism was right.
EVEN if one accepts p1-3 as being valid and sound (I don't) it does not demonstrate the conclusion.
---
Re: Why former Yugoslavian republics seceded
Ok, everything you know, observe and reason through tells you that republics seceded because of external pressure.
Is there any evidence in the world that one could, in theory, show you which would change your mind?
For example, no evidence presented to me would convince me that my mother doesn't love me, but (it would take a lot of evidence) I could be convinced that evolution/natural selection is not the origin of species on earth.
---
The reason I drew the syllogism of 'lefties and righties' was to demonstrate the absurdity of the formula.
93% crimeans voted to join Russia, we won comrades! o7
Venice wants to secede from Italy, it seems they follow our example. After them comes Catalonia from Spain, Burgundy from France, Scotland & Wales from England, Kurdistan from Turkey, 16 states from Germany and 50 states from USA o7
Our example? ...populating an area then calling the teritory your own?
Yea but when over 90% albanian population wants independent Kosovo thats bullshit? ...i have to say Tito, you are a hypocrite in so many ways ...good day, im done with this thread.
But those are only Albanians. And Albanians and Serbs have had a bad history, so Tito thinks that Albania ethicly cleansed Kosovo. But Kosovo was for a long time been part of Serbia, Serbians fought for it. As for Crimea, it was given to Ukraine. So that's a reason why Tito thinks that Crimea should be Russian while Kosovo should not be a country.
I listened to the whole movie, I only watched part of it. When one listens (vs. watches) the gaps in logical validity become more apparent. And you can't get through the first sentence of the movie without bumping into elementary problems with logic.
Citer:
Lol, thats like hearing your neighboor having sex and the girl is screaming and her voice is attractive, but after that you see her through the window when she left the building and she is fat and ugly. So dont jump to hasty conclusions.
No, it isn't. Because what I hear is sounds. I can choose to assume that they're having sex, but I don't draw conclusions based on the lack of evidence.
You have asked me to experience TWoC TWICE, pausing after each sentence. This I will not do, as I will already die wanting those 2h back. However, The very first sentence of the movie: "Who in their right mind would actually want to be a colony" is a 'Complex' or 'loaded' question - and an informal fallacy.
Then the presenter goes back to his childhood, and correlates the economic well-being and harmony of Yugoslavia to his feelings of economic security and harmony as a child. The syllogism is also flawed, a formal fallacy (affirming the consequent).
P1. When I was young, I thought things were good.
P2. I was in Yugoslavia when I was young.
C. Therefore Yugoslavia was good when I was young.
Next the presenter brings in an American who positively contrasts the presenter's recollections of the presenter's childhood with contemporary American life, to put the Reactionary headstone on the grave-that-was-the-paradise of the past. This is the first 2 minutes. It isn't even good propaganda.
---
As to whether Yugoslavia had a 'successful' economy, the Yugoslavian socialist economy was one of the most successful planned economies.
This does not mean that it was a successful economy, contrasted to other economies.
I dont understand, it seems like you deny that. Isnt it true that in America 1/3 have 2 jobs so they can pay loans, credits, mortgage an medicine(40,000,000 americans doesnt have health insurance, that number is growing by 2 million every year, 2 mil. americans going bankrupt because unable to pay expensive medicine). Now i wont ask where is the normal life but where is the life there at all? That man after finishing 2 shifts in the factory isnt for nothing, he cant educate his kids, talk normal to his wife because probably he is nervous and tired, and his wife is tired from working all day at home. Then comes drinking, fighting, separations, kids ending up in center of children. When i think of USA i only see trauma. When i think of Yugoslavia, i see good old slow life we had, without pressure, stress and fast food.
I think we all understand you don't understand.
Clearly the whole logical validity, facts, critical thinking, reasoning etc. doesn't mean anything to you.
You are the perfect target for propagandists.
I have nothing more to say. Because we are literally talking two different languages.
I think we all understand you don't understand.
Clearly the whole logical validity, facts, critical thinking, reasoning etc. doesn't mean anything to you.
You are the perfect target for propagandists.
I have nothing more to say. Because we are literally talking two different languages.
I gave you all the facts presented in that movie. Parenti, Chossudovsky, Taylor and Trifkovic explained all, they served you the story like mother serves the food to her baby - simple. There are no ''higher being'' than those folks. They gave you perfectly good reasons and results(action-reaction, action-consequences) what-when-why happened. They elatorated it in their topics, published their works some of them early as 1996. Yet, you keep repeating how i dont understand. And yes, i cant understand how albanians want to be a colony. Yes, i dont understand from where european greed and american evil come from. Yes i cant imagine the horror germans did to eastern europe and to the israelis. We are different. I was raised in moral society without crime, where everything was harmonized to exist in peace.
Just because these deluded folks claim something to be true, doesn't mean it is. Also, there is a vast difference between the truth of a statement, and the logical validity of the statement. I don't think you're capable of understanding the difference, so I'll stop with the logical arguments with you. They don't work.
Which of these statements do you disagree with:
Yugoslavia was a dictatorship.
Those who spoke against the State were jailed or executed.
Dictatorship is immoral.
Jailing/murdering political dissenters is immoral.
This is the society you grew up in.
As soon as there was no Tito, dissent began. As soon as people could leave, they left.
I think we all understand you don't understand.
Clearly the whole logical validity, facts, critical thinking, reasoning etc. doesn't mean anything to you.
You are the perfect target for propagandists.
I have nothing more to say. Because we are literally talking two different languages.
So i cant understand how USA have 10 million gangmembers(black, mexicans, cubans, colombians, nazis, mafia), 40 million people without healthcare, 10 million people without job, 150 million people with only elementary school, 250 million people without basic knowledge.
---
Preface: I strenuously object to your characterizations of 'gang members'. Moving on.
Previously when I have asked you to cite sources, you'll provide me with one of the following:
- Nothing.
- Non-generalizable anecdotal experience (worse than nothing).
- A non-sequitur (much worse than nothing).
- Zeitgeist-like fiction (much worse than nothing and more time consuming).
Since you're unable to cite sources, for the sake of argument, I will grant you that America is a violent, under-educated, superstitious, criminal society, filled with inequity and inequality. Historically, Americans have committed genocidal acts against its aboriginal peoples. It enslaved generations of Africans, even those born on American soil, and women weren't universally politically enfranchised until 1920. These are among the evils Americans have done to their brother and sister Americans. America's evil doesn't stop at its borders.
Many of these historical problems are still with America, in a different form. Most of the problems you mention, having to do with inequity, don't exist because we are financially unable to address them. We lack a national will/consensus to address them.
To the best of my knowledge, no external force, country, or entity, is *really* to blame for any of America's current ills.
93% crimeans voted to join Russia, we won comrades! o7
Venice wants to secede from Italy, it seems they follow our example. After them comes Catalonia from Spain, Burgundy from France, Scotland & Wales from England, Kurdistan from Turkey, 16 states from Germany and 50 states from USA o7
I see the Evil Hand of America and/or Germany and/or NATO behind all of these nationalist movements.
So what if some of these sentiments go back hundreds of years? American scientists built a time-machine, went back and caused the problems. Here is proof!
Just because these deluded folks claim something to be true, doesn't mean it is.
Citer:
I got you! >deluded, calling like that people with PhD in economics, politics and sociology. You see only what you want to see. You want to see how America is right and brave, helping countries and nations in need, while in fact America had gone fascist where minorities doesnt have rights, workers doesnt have healthcare and nation doesnt have proper school system in the richest country on the world.
The 'argument from authority' carries little weight. Again, another informal logical fallacy.
I ask you to cite evidence, you give me fiction (TWoC).
I ask you to cite evidence, you give me stories about your life.
I ask you to cite evidence, you give me a diatribe on how evil the USA is.
I ask you to cite evidence, you ignore my request.
I ask you to cite evidence, you reply with a personal attack (new).
Which of these statements do you disagree with:
Yugoslavia was a dictatorship.
Socialist Yugoslavia was dictatorship of the single party. Multi-party system wasnt allowed. But not many people care about politics so it doesnt matter.
Those who spoke against the State were jailed or executed.
Citer:
That happened only from 1948-1953 (tito-stalin split) during Informbiro. Tito didnt wanted to risk rebellion or insurgency. I dont support it, it was bad, but not more bad than germans did to poles, jews and russians or americans to african americans. They didnt had rights until 1970 lol (plus there is still kkk, racism and now fascism, so dont talk me about democracy and freedom)
So you're actually telling me that the violent suppression of dissent in Yugoslavia ceased in 1953? You and I both know that's a lie.
Absolutely, some African Americans were killed for their political beliefs. Some African Americans still don't have full political franchise even today, and many had full political franchise from the founding of America through today (it depended on where people lived). That has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Germany doesn't deny their awful mistakes. America doesn't either.
This is why both countries are able to *change* and *improve*.
Not always. Tsar's dictatorship of justice was the best politic-economic-socio system. We like to put one man in charge so we can turn back to our own business, let him lead and if he's bad there is nothing easier than impeachment. You have quasi-democracy because you cant live in different system. Anything else and your country would turn to totalitarism in split of a second, starting the holocaust again.
Ok then. In your opinion, dictatorship is moral. Most people would not agree with you.
Your version of morality is not rooted in human freedom.
We disagree.
As soon as there was no Tito, dissent began. As soon as people could leave, they left.
Citer:
Yugoslav borders were opened, Yugoslavia wasnt closed isolated country, people could leave. Dissent started around 1984 during Sarajevo Winter Games. DB(state security) was fighting CIA and started losing when CIA used old trick of recruiting fascists and nazis into their ranks on the terrain. Dissent started when infiltrated cia agents bribed butthurt politicians, sour entrepreneurs, pathetic news reporters, that lasted until 1989 when real troubles started.
By 'people' I meant 'republics'. And by leave, I meant secede from Yugoslavia.
So we agree that Soc. Yugoslavia was a dictatorship, that Yugoslavia jailed and murdered political dissenters.
We disagree as to when the murders stopped, and to the morality of dictatorship.
To the best of my knowledge, no external force, country, or entity, is *really* to blame for any of America's current ills.
See what I did there?
I do
I wish someone else than Tito would provide their views of the Russian side of this issue. Someone that's really interested in discussion and sharing their opinion. Not just spreading propaganda on the AW forums.
I've read through most of this thread. I find some of the patriotic/propaganda stuff comical. But really, what it is is sad. I'm afraid that some kid reading this thread will actually believe it without questioning.
Thanks zombi for trying to point out some of major flaws, providing your perspective and genuinely trying to debate the issue.
To the best of my knowledge, no external force, country, or entity, is *really* to blame for any of America's current ills.
See what I did there?
I do
I wish someone else than Tito would provide their views of the Russian side of this issue. Someone that's really interested in discussion and sharing their opinion. Not just spreading propaganda on the AW forums.
I've read through most of this thread. I find some of the patriotic/propaganda stuff comical. But really, what it is is sad. I'm afraid that some kid reading this thread will actually believe it without questioning.
Thanks zombi for trying to point out some of major flaws, providing your perspective and genuinely trying to debate the issue.
To the best of my knowledge, no external force, country, or entity, is *really* to blame for any of America's current ills.
See what I did there?
I do
I wish someone else than Tito would provide their views of the Russian side of this issue. Someone that's really interested in discussion and sharing their opinion. Not just spreading propaganda on the AW forums.
I've read through most of this thread. I find some of the patriotic/propaganda stuff comical. But really, what it is is sad. I'm afraid that some kid reading this thread will actually believe it without questioning.
Thanks zombi for trying to point out some of major flaws, providing your perspective and genuinely trying to debate the issue.
Thank you too!
No nation is pure -- but in representative governments, there will never be a change unless one acknowledges the flaws. The nations that once composed Yugoslavia (and the USSR, and Eastern Europe, and Asia) haven't had much experience with representative government, so OF COURSE there will be reactionaries, and opportunists, and corruption. There will be two steps forward and one step back, frequently.
The United States has vast wealth, no threat of being conquered (and faces the least threat of nuclear annihilation of any country because the USA is the most dangerous nuclear threat) and has about 230 continuous years of ever-increasing political enfranchisement of its citizens and
IT IS A MESS
.
The goal of 'democracy' is the process of democracy: not wealth, power, or security - democracy is about the means, not the ends. The United States is far from a perfect democracy, and is unlikely to ever be a perfect democracy, because it is a constitutional, federal, presidential, representative republic, heavily oriented to maintaining the status quo. Democracy is not an economic system. The only goal of democracy is more political freedom for its citizenry.
Wealth, power, security etc. are not goals of democracy.
Putin is not usually foolish. Crimea appears to be a foolish move.
I don't speak to the legitimacy of Putin's claim, only on the wisdom of his actions.
If Putin triumphs (gets Crimea)
-- He gains no new supporters in Russia.
-- Likely the EU starts to disengage from Russia, dependence on Russian energy and resources.
-- Probably Ukraine is driven into NATO and the EU.
-- Possibly Ukraine expands its current agreements with China to include security guarantees.
-- The stage is set for NATO to consider the next attempt by Putin to be the 'Chamberlain' moment. The Russian incursion into Georgia went unanswered (militarily) by the West. Is Georgia 'Austria', 'Czechoslovakia' or is it 'Poland'?
If Putin fails (does not get Crimea)
- He loses some of his current support, and certainly gains no new supporters. He, and Russia, are politically weakened.
- The EU disengages anyway, the Ukraine still flees to the EU. NATO leaders are still primed for a Chamberlain moment. China's influence in the Ukraine still grows.
If pushed militarily, I find it very likely (95%) that the Ukraine backs down.
BUT if it does not, it has a real chance at military victory (withdrawal of Russian military forces from Ukraine, tacit recognition that Crimea is Ukrainian territory). I put the odds that Ukraine fights at 1 in 20. Because if it does fight, it has a real chance to cause Russia to back down.
My argument: 'Russia' has done poorly over the last 30 years fighting wars in or at their borders.
Chechen Wars
- Completely within the borders of the former USSR, the Russian Federation took 13 years, and at least 7000 casualties, in order to meet its aims.
- The Chechen forces lost about 16,000, about a 2/1 kill ratio.
- Chechen rebels had no armor, no air support, no missiles beyond man-portable, and essentially no artillery besides mortars.
Soviet Afghan War
- On the border of the former USSR, the USSR lost 15,000 troops and were unable to meet their war aims.
- About 90,000 Afghani combatant deaths, or about a 6/1 kill ratio.
- The Afghanis managed to capture some armor and artillery, and later in the war had effective MANPAD, but was essentially comprised of irregular light infantry.
In both of these conflicts the Soviet, then Russian armies, met irregular, lightly armed forces.
Ukraine's military is numerically inferior to that of the Russian Federation, but not technologically inferior - in other words, the Ukrainian military would be the strongest adversary, by far, that the Russian military has fought since WW2. The Ukrainian military has 90k troops active, and reserves of about a million. The Russian military has about 3 million troops, active and reserve. One assumes that the Ukraine *can* mobilize nearly all of its troops for the defense of Ukraine, but Russia cannot mobilize all of its troops to attack Ukraine. The Ukrainian military has air and anti-air assets, armor, missiles, artillery and mature C3I infrastructure.
From the standpoint of classical military doctrine, Putin cannot even muster the 3/1 superiority required for conquest. If NATO (or the US, unilaterally) simply rings the Crimea, on uncontested Ukrainian soil (non-contiguous with Russia), Putin risks losing to NATO, the US, and the Ukraine. If this unlikely scenario were to manifest, he risks attacks from those to the right AND left of him.
If Putin wins, he wins little, but if he loses, he loses big.
---
I have never thought Putin a fool. Is there something that I am missing?
Putin is not usually foolish. Crimea appears to be a foolish move.
I don't speak to the legitimacy of Putin's claim, only on the wisdom of his actions.
Putin is just a president of Russia. Russia has semi-presidential system, that mean parliament, lawmakers and senate have their say as well. Compared to totalitarian regime like USA where they have presidential system and no law can pass without presidential approval. Thats not democratic. President is meant to represent the nation in international events, advise government and parliament.
-- Likely the EU starts to disengage from Russia, dependence on Russian energy and resources.
UK, France, holland and spain can disengage, but Germany(80% of whole EU economy) is good friend with Russia and buys 90% of russian gas, oil and other goods. German economy cannot stop or slow down just because russians from krim wants to join russians in Russia and america is crying because of that. Therefore EU(Germany) will not sanction Russia, italy, france and other unimportant countries can sanction Russia.
-- Probably Ukraine is driven into NATO and the EU.
Current nazi government in Ukraine is pushing toward NATO and EU, but russians in east ukraine remain normal and dont obey Nazi Ukraine. If Ukraine join NATO and EU, East Ukraine with capital in Kharkov will secede like Krim and join Russia. New referendum to cry about. East Ukraine is heavily populated, with large cities and industry complex, if East Ukraine secede Kiev and western nazis will 70% of national economy. Lvov and Kiev with western ukraine can then join NATO, with their agriculture and farms.
-- Possibly Ukraine expands its current agreements with China to include security guarantees.
That wont change much, China maybe proceed but they wont support fascists. They will probably retreat and support east ukraine as there they have assets and investition.
-- The stage is set for NATO to consider the next attempt by Putin to be the 'Chamberlain' moment. The Russian incursion into Georgia went unanswered (militarily) by the West. Is Georgia 'Austria', 'Czechoslovakia' or is it 'Poland'?
CIA funded geogrian government with arms and money to provoke Russia. They started to torture and harass russians, abkhazians and ossetians so it is normal Russia to interfere. Because it was on their border plus to protect russians and other people from tyranical regime. Russians and Ossetians are now free from Georgia, living in their own republics of South Ossethia and Abkhazia.
If Putin fails (does not get Crimea)
- He loses some of his current support, and certainly gains no new supporters.
He can stop showing up on tv, and going on meetings concerning Ukraine and Krim, russians will still secede from nazi ukraine and join Russia. You cant stop the people from democraticaly made decisions. So he cant lose support.
Politica strenth(on international stage) doesnt mean much today where we have 80% ignorant people and countries. Diplomacy for them is for pussies and they know only the military language. Many think Russia is politically weak but Russia is winning politican and diplomatical victories all around the world(stopped invasion on syria, invasion on iran, stopped sanctions on iran, won krim, deal with germany about resources, made bric, alliance with china, sco, commonwealth, euroasian zone).
- The EU disengages anyway, the Ukraine still flees to the EU. NATO leaders are still primed for a Chamberlain moment. China's influence in the Ukraine still grows.
Western ukraine with nazi government and economically crippled join EU, rich east ukraine join Russia with its population and industry.
If pushed militarily, I find it very likely (95%) that the Ukraine backs down.
BUT if it does not, it has a real chance at military victory (withdrawal of Russian military forces from Ukraine, tacit recognition that Crimea is Ukrainian territory). I put the odds that Ukraine fights at 1 in 20. Because if it does fight, it has a real chance to cause Russia to back down.
Ukrainian Admiral(commander of ukrainian navy) already fled and joined Krim navy. Therefore ukraine already lost chief commander of the seas. Ukrainians are deserting from ukrainian army. New fascist government is arming nazis, they recrutied 100,000 by now. They tried to send tanks, infantry and artillery to east ukraine to invade/or prevent russian attack, they failed to deploy their troops as russians from east ukraine stopped them. That mean if Russia invade, 50% ukraine(eastern) will be russian in 30 minutes, russians wont oppose brothers russians. Also if Russia invade, 50,000 of those nazis will surrender or flee the army as they are 15-17 years old, still scared children. Other 50,000 light infantry wont be able to stop Russian heavy infantry with artillery support.
EDIT: War will be like in Yugoslavia - air force and tank forces wont be used as there are too many bazookas and SAM missiles. Infantry and artillery is enough. (just like on atwar, infantry is op in real life as well. tanks are expensive and not effective, bombers too)
My argument: 'Russia' has done poorly over the last 30 years fighting wars in or at their borders.
Chechen Wars
- Completely within the borders of the former USSR, the Russian Federation took 13 years, and at least 7000 casualties, in order to meet its aims.
- The Chechen forces lost about 16,000, about a 2/1 kill ratio.
- Chechen rebels had no armor, no air support, no missiles beyond man-portable, and essentially no artillery besides mortars.
USSR collapsed and Russia had economic crisis, social crisis and political crisis. Chechen terrorists used that chance and made islamic emirate from russian republic of Chechenya. First War did little results as Russian Army fought the guerrila, terrorists use tactic ''hit&run'' as they cant fight the strongest army on the plant. Second War was victoriuous, terrorists killed and free chechenya restored.
Soviet Afghan War
- On the border of the former USSR, the USSR lost 15,000 troops and were unable to meet their war aims.
- About 90,000 Afghani combatant deaths, or about a 6/1 kill ratio.
- The Afghanis managed to capture some armor and artillery, and later in the war had effective MANPAD, but was essentially comprised of irregular light infantry.
Same story like Chechenya. Afghans used guerrila warfare, hit&run tactic. Not even americans could oppose that in Vietnam. But Soviet goal was achieved, they stopped taliban take over of aghani government.
Ukraine's military is numerically inferior to that of the Russian Federation, but not technologically inferior - in other words, the Ukrainian military would be the strongest adversary, by far, that the Russian military has fought since WW2.
That made me laugh. Ukraine doesnt maintain their military equipment since USSR era. No money. Their tanks, helix, fighters are all rusty, engines wont start. If Ukraine-Russia war start, ukraine would show poor results. Even Georgia would seem that opposed Russia more.
The Ukrainian military has 90k troops active, and reserves of about a million. The Russian military has about 3 million troops, active and reserve. One assumes that the Ukraine *can* mobilize nearly all of its troops for the defense of Ukraine, but Russia cannot mobilize all of its troops to attack Ukraine. The Ukrainian military has air and anti-air assets, armor, missiles, artillery and mature C3I infrastructure.
Ukrainian army collapsed, they have nazi paramilitary now without enough ammo yet. Reserve wont fight and risk their lifes because russians seceded to join Russia.
From the standpoint of classical military doctrine, Putin cannot even muster the 3/1 superiority required for conquest. If NATO (or the US, unilaterally) simply rings the Crimea, on uncontested Ukrainian soil (non-contiguous with Russia), Putin risks losing to NATO, the US, and the Ukraine. If this unlikely scenario were to manifest, he risks attacks from those to the right AND left of him.
NATO and USA wont interfere like they didnt in Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 because they tremble on the name of Russia. No one is that stupid(beside germans and hitler) to invade mighty Russia, the largest country on the plant.
I have never thought Putin a fool. Is there something that I am missing?
Putin was KGB agent. KGB didnt recruit fools. Yes you are missing informations on the russian army and russian military history. But i doubt you can research as there are little information on the internet or if there is - it is on russian. USSR and Russia doesnt brag like USA about its achievements and military power. Thats why we know everything about m16, apache, f16, f22, stealth f35(canceled), zumwald class, b-2 spirit while NATO and USA doesnt know anything about russian military.
For future reference: Hitting the quote button and typing does not constitute a reply.
I'll type the same thing, Tito-style. The difference: I will tell the truth.
Russia cannot win a war against Ukraine if Ukraine chooses to fight. Russians are not good fighters. This is proven by history and facts.
Putin is stupid for Crimea action.
He wins, he gains no more support than he already had.
He loses, he looks like a fool.
No matter if he wins or loses, Ukraine goes to EU and maybe NATO, and maybe Putin's next move will push EU over the edge, and they will do to Putin what they did to Slobo, or maybe Russian people will do to Putin what Brezhnev did to Khrushchev.
- In Chechen War(s) Russian federation troops kill about 2 Chechens for each Russian dead. Chechens armed with only small arms. Russians had tanks, helicopters, planes, AFVs etc.
- In Afghan War USSR and allies kills only 6 Mujaheddin for each Soviet dead. Armed with only MANPADs, small arms and stolen Soviet equipment. Russians had tanks, helicopters, planes, AFVs etc.
- In WW2, about 10 million Soviet troops dead, most of these Russian.
More than all of the Axis troop deaths COMBINED (Italy, Germany, Japan, Romania and Hungary = 8 million).
This is the last time that Russia/USSR faced a similarly equipped and numerically-similar foe.
USSR and its allies won, but many Russians died for each German, Romanian or Hungarian killed.
- In Vietnam War USA and allies kill 18 NVA/Vietcong for each American dead, 1m NVA/Vietcong dead. NVA had tanks, planes and SAMs.
---
Russians have 3 million active and reserve troops. Ukraine has 1 million active and reserve troops.
Not all Russian troops can engage Ukraine, but all Ukraine troops can defend.
Ukraine military is not as well equipped as Russian military, but it is much better equipped than Chechen or Mujahedin forces.
Probably Ukraine does nothing, but if it does Russia may lose.
History proves that Russian soldiers are good at dying, but not good at killing.
---
Putin is a fool. KGB recruited fools.
Why did USSR lose the Cold War? KGB outsmarted by CIA!
And CIA is not smart because the didn't even know Berlin wall falls until the bricks hit the street!
So CIA is dumb, and KGB is dumber.
KGB didn't even know that Communism was failing, how dumb is that?
Chargement...
Chargement...
Black Shark Ce compte a été effacé
19.03.2014 - 10:41
Black Shark Ce compte a été effacé
Oh my fucking god...
Russia cannot win a war against Ukraine if Ukraine chooses to fight. Russians are not good fighters. This is proven by history and facts.
Putin is stupid for Crimea action.
So I supposed they were bad fighters for fighting 70 percent of the German force in WW2? In all of the German-Russian wars Germany lost and did not succeed.
2. But the USA did not succeed in their goal to prevent a communist Vietnam.
3. USSR lost the cold war because collective farms and forcing peasents to manufacture iron was a bad idea, caused economic problems. And then Gorbachev ended the cold war because of Stalin's stupidity.
4. Russia has the advantage since Ukraine hasn't paid its troops well. They will desert, defect and have low morale versus the Russian troops. And Russia would have better air control, thus can bomb supply lines.
Russia cannot win a war against Ukraine if Ukraine chooses to fight. Russians are not good fighters. This is proven by history and facts.
Putin is stupid for Crimea action.
So I supposed they were bad fighters for fighting 70 percent of the German force in WW2? In all of the German-Russian wars Germany lost and did not succeed.
For each German killed, many Russians had to die. I didn't say Russians weren't brave, I didn't say Russians were cowards.
They are not skilled at defending their lands or conquering the enemy. They are skilled at dying.
Do the math: 10 Million Dead Soviet troops. All Axis troops dead: 8 Million - 6 million European Axis troops, 2 million Japanese Axis troops.
USSR didn't fight Japan until after the first Atomic bomb was dropped in August 1945. So USSR killed almost no Japanese troops. So they killed no more than 6 million Axis troops.
British, American, Yugoslavian, Polish, even Indonesian and Indian troops fought the Axis too, so USSR didn't even kill all 6 million Axis troops. Let's just assume that they killed about 80%, or 5 million.
This means that USSR killed 5 million Axis troops for a loss of 10 million Soviet (mostly Russian) troops.
TWO Soviets died for every Axis troop they killed.
This proves they were not skilled killers.
Citer:
2. But the USA did not succeed in their goal to prevent a communist Vietnam.
I did not claim they did. But 18 NVA/Vietcong died for every American killed.
As an aside, the Vietnam war signaled to China and the USSR a very clear message:
The USA is willing to go 13000 miles across the earth and fight for 10 years to prevent Communist expansion in Vietnam.
Imagine what horror the USA will bring when its real interests (Western Europe, Central America, South America) are threatened?
In the decade the USA fought the Vietnam war it also sent men to the moon, matched the Warsaw Pact in Europe, invented the Internet, and put billions of dollars into missiles and put the missiles into the ground or under the sea.
Stated war goals are rarely the actual political aims.
Citer:
3. USSR lost the cold war because collective farms and forcing peasents to manufacture iron was a bad idea, caused economic problems. And then Gorbachev ended the cold war because of Stalin's stupidity.
I actually said that to sound like Tito. My personal opinion isn't that the USSR lost the Cold War - it negotiated with the West to bring the Cold War to an end. A negotiated end to the Cold War was a win for both sides.
Then the USSR broke apart. The end of the Cold War didn't cause the USSR to break up.
Citer:
4. Russia has the advantage since Ukraine hasn't paid its troops well. They will desert, defect and have low morale versus the Russian troops. And Russia would have better air control, thus can bomb supply lines.
Russia undoubtedly has the military advantage. More troops, better equipment, and some practice in Chechnya and Georgia.
But no Russian currently serving in the Russian military has any experience fighting a war against a modern military, and historically, over and over again, Russians cannot fight well.
I can't speak to the morale of Russian troops vs. Ukrainian troops should a war break out. Ukrainians will be defending their home against Russian invaders. I can think of no better justification for putting one's life at risk than for defending their homeland, on their home soil. Russians will know they are invaders, and Ukrainians will know they are defending their land.
Ukrainians as a separate force are untested (though there were definitely Ukrainian troops in Soviet Afghan war).
Will there be a war? Probably not.
If there is a war, will they win? Maybe, maybe not. They don't have to conquer Russia if there is a war, they only have to make Russia leave.
I'll type the same thing, Tito-style. The difference: I will tell the truth.
Citer:
Your posts are pure guessing, no proofs and documentation at all.
Source: Wikipedia commons
Do you dispute 10 million Soviet military War dead? The chart I cite shows about 11 million. So it's worse than I remembered. Probably some Great Patriotic War historian in love with the Russian myth.
Or do you dispute 8 million total Axis military deaths? My memory was good there.
Or is it the 2 million Japanese Axis deaths? Again, memory served.
Or that the USA, UK, Yugoslavia, Poland, French, Indians, Canadians etc. also participated in WW2, in Europe.
Do you dispute that the USSR didn't fight the Japanese until 1945?
Is 8-2 = 6 what you dispute? 8 million - 2 million = 6 million European Axis military War dead.
Let's assume that only the USSR killed European Axis troops. UK, USA, Yugoslavia, Poland, Free French, Canadians killed ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
That still leaves 10 million USSR military war dead, and 6 million Axis war dead.
So that's about 1.7 Soviet military deaths for every Axis military death. Do you dispute 10/6 is about 1.7?
Maybe you dispute 1.7 is greater than 1?
And remember, every fascist killed by a Yugoslavian, American, Brit, or any other ally of Uncle Joe Stalin makes the USSR's average kill ratio fall.
Facts.
History.
Proof.
Truth.
Russians are not good fighters.
They are exceptionally skilled at dying, which probably indicates bravery.
Chargement...
Chargement...
Black Shark Ce compte a été effacé
19.03.2014 - 12:59
Black Shark Ce compte a été effacé
Of course more soldiers would die if you have more population. Russia had 50 million more people in 1941, which means more troops could die. And the Germans had better equipment, technology and the element of surprise. But in Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow they were defeated. Remember that Leningrad was under seige for quite some time, Moscow was attacked 3 sides. So how could you say that Russians are bad fighters? The reasons why Chechen Rebels were hard to defeat was because of morale. Russia won WW2 and a big factor was morale. British troops in South Africa were beaten badly by some militias because the militias had morale. A Brit general was killed by a 12 year old Boar!
And Russians helped beat Napoleon. No, you can't use the claim 'Napoleon conquered Moscow'' since the Russians let them into Moscow, and I heard the Russians themselves burnt it down. 500k soldiers went to Russia yet they were defeated. By Russian brains and soldiers. 370k dead, 100k captured and 27k fit for battle.
As for Ukraine, who wants to defend a fascist regime? The government in Kiev is unelected. I doubt many Ukrainians would want to fight for fascists.
The Russians also won wars against Sweden, Poland, Ottoman Empire. Logic is flawed.
Of course more soldiers would die if you have more population. Russia had 50 million more people in 1941, which means more troops could die.
More population does not lead to more MILITARY deaths. I am talking about MILITARY deaths. If anything, more population leads to more troops, and more troops should lead to more ENEMY military deaths!
Citer:
And the Germans had better equipment, technology and the element of surprise. But in Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow they were defeated.
I don't dispute that in 1941 the Germans had better equipment. But it was roughly similar, from tanks to field artillery, to small arms. And by 1943, with American imports (esp. trucks) and native Soviet designs and production (e.g. the T-34, PPD)
the Soviet equipment outmatched German equipment. Between American support and Soviet production, the USSR had 2x the machines of contemporary warfare (machine guns, tanks, SPGs etc.) and many many more trucks.
Citer:
Remember that Leningrad was under seige for quite some time, Moscow was attacked 3 sides. So how could you say that?
Weren't German cities under siege? Did Germany fall without a fight? Weren't many fascists killed by Allied troops in the Fascist retreat from 1944 forward?
Citer:
The reasons why Chechen Rebels were hard to defeat was because of morale. Russia won WW2 and a big factor was morale. British troops in South Africa were beaten badly by some militias because the militias had morale. A Brit general was killed by a 12 year old Boar!
Stop.
I am talking about how effective Russian troops are, not how brave. They're brave.
Knowing that 2 must die to kill one enemy is the epitome of bravery.
Citer:
And Russians helped beat Napoleon. No, you can't use the claim 'Napoleon conquered Moscow'' since the Russians let them into Moscow, and I heard the Russians themselves burnt it down. 500k soldiers went to Russia yet they were defeated. By Russian brains and soldiers. 370k dead, 100k captured and 27k fit for battle.
I was of course discussing warfare in the modern era. Because I am discussing how poorly the USSR does in killing lightly armed irregular troops. I thought everyone was aware of how poorly, but bravely, the USSR fared in WW2. I was wrong.
As for Ukraine, who wants to defend a fascist regime? The government in Kiev is unelected. I doubt many Ukrainians would want to fight for fascists.
Several answers:
1. Ask the 8 million Axis military dead. They all died at the behest of Fascist regimes.
2. Ask the 10 million Soviet dead. They all died at the behest of an unelected government.
3. Ask the Ukrainians who fought against the USSR in WW2. This is how much they hated Stalin. Also ask the Ukrainians who fought to liberate the USSR from fascists, this is how much they hated invaders.
4. An unelected government is by no means a fascist government, and fascist governments frequently come to power through democratic means. Hitler was appointed Chancellor after the Nazis won elections.
5. The current Ukrainian government may or may not be fascist. The Ukrainians have fought for fascists, against fascists, for Communists, and against Communists: The common thread is that they have fought against those they deemed invaders.
I don't think they will go to war for Crimea. But if they do, they will be a largely untested force against an army that sometimes wins, sometimes loses but always dies frequently and bravely.
I'll type the same thing, Tito-style. The difference: I will tell the truth.
Your posts are pure guessing, no proofs and documentation at all.
Source: Wikipedia commons
Do you dispute 10 million Soviet military War dead? The chart I cite shows about 11 million. So it's worse than I remembered. Probably some Great Patriotic War historian in love with the Russian myth.
Or do you dispute 8 million total Axis military deaths? My memory was good there.
Or is it the 2 million Japanese Axis deaths? Again, memory served.
Or that the USA, UK, Yugoslavia, Poland, French, Indians, Canadians etc. also participated in WW2, in Europe.
Do you dispute that the USSR didn't fight the Japanese until 1945?
Is 8-2 = 6 what you dispute? 8 million - 2 million = 6 million European Axis military War dead.
Let's assume that only the USSR killed European Axis troops. UK, USA, Yugoslavia, Poland, Free French, Canadians killed ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
That still leaves 10 million USSR military war dead, and 6 million Axis war dead.
So that's about 1.7 Soviet military deaths for every Axis military death. Do you dispute 10/6 is about 1.7?
Facts.
History.
Proof.
Truth.
Russians are not good fighters.
I think you are calling fore retaliation. Same amount of germans and russians have to die in one war? if one side have more deaths that mean they are weaker? Is that just your individual logic?
Germany had 25 million troops in WW2(overall), USSR had 20 million(overall), 11 million russian soldiers died and 6 million germans. But Germany lost around 2-4 million civilians while USSR lost 20-25 million. USSR was fighting alone on the eastern front against Germany. 1v1. Whole germany pured into Russia to try and destroy Russia, it was 4 years long war. No one was there to distract german war machine in 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944. First distraction started with normandy invasion in 1944 but it was too late then, russians already beat germans out of Russia and were closing to Berlin. Thats the proof USA and UK landed in empty france only to take some territory so they can claim they participated in WW2. But the fact is Russia liberated Europe by destroying 90% of the german army on the eastern front.
Americans and europeans cant stand cold like russians can. americans and europeans cant survive long without food like russians can. americans and europeans cant march long withouth ending up dead like russians can. Russians worked 25h daily in tank factories during WW2 while americans needed mexicans, women and children to work so they can supply their army. No one can oppose russian strength.
In french-russian war 500,000 french died, and 200,00 russians, ratio is 1:2,3 does that tell french are weak fighters and only suitable for dying?
Your theory is one of the most stupid ive ever heard. ''whoever have most casulties - is weak''.
You said I had no documentation, so I provided it.
The facts are available for all to see, you ignore them.
It's the Tito bait-and-switch, as I previously identified.
Tell small lies.
Shout down those that dispute them.
Invent truths from fiction, ignore inconvenient facts.
And when that doesn't work (where we are at), tell outright lies.
Citer:
Your theory is one of the most stupid ive ever heard. ''whoever have most casulties - is weak''.
I never said this at all.
Another Tito lie.
I never called the Russian/Soviet military weak. Or cowards. I applaud their bravery, and brave you must be, to know that for each fascist you kill, two comrades must die.
I never said that the Russian military always loses. They have a mixed record, some wins, some losses.
I did say that they are bad fighters. Because if they were good fighters, fewer of them would die.
===
I would think, as the namesake of the vaunted Partisan, a one-man fascist killing machine, that you would appreciate this.
Instead you let your lust for shirtless Putin-and-all-things-strongman get in the way of your own national pride.
shame on you.
J.B. Tito is sad ...
... because he has been replaced in your heart ....
As an aside, the Vietnam war signaled to China and the USSR a very clear message:
The USA is willing to go 13000 miles across the earth and fight for 10 years to prevent Communist expansion in Vietnam.
Imagine what horror the USA will bring when its real interests (Western Europe, Central America, South America) are threatened?
In the decade the USA fought the Vietnam war it also sent men to the moon, matched the Warsaw Pact in Europe, invented the Internet, and put billions of dollars into missiles and put the missiles into the ground or under the sea.
Citer:
USA fought uknown country for them called Vietnam to ''show how they fight back to communism'' but keep it silent and obey to USSR when Cuba comes to question. If USA was willing to fight communism they would start with closest socialists state - Cuba. Yet they didnt, too afraid of USSR.
The USA honored its agreement with Khrushchev. Hands off Cuba. In return, ISA removes nukes from Turkey, and USSR stops fomenting revolution in the Americas.
The men who made the agreement are dead. One of the governments that was a party to that agreement is dead. Yet America still honors its word.
Do you think the USA fears Russia over Cuba now?
Would Russia even lift a finger if the USA invaded?
So again, another Tito bait-and-switch. Small lie, ignore, Big lie. Yawn.
Citer:
Funny how you start all the math, logic invalidity and all that nonsense how whoever lose most men is weak only because russians from Krim join russians from Russia. That event is over, Russians did what they wanted, in boundaries of international law, moral law and people's will. UN observers and election watchmen agencies reported refendum and ballots are ok, no cheating. Thats how true free and democratic people and nations cooperate.
Yawn.
I Never said weak.
I Never spoke to the validity or illegality of Putin's actions. In an earlier post I specified this. I spoke to the wisdom, which you never addressed.
Another Tito post.
Another Tito lie.
I'm afraid that Putin's extremism will continue for years, if not decades to come.
His rule has brain-washed and converted innocent beings into drunk, nationalist/extremists. I know there hope for the world because its how the Soviet Union dissolved, we collapsed it from the inside out. But the Soviet Union may be gone, but the Cold-War isn't over. I'd say its in a full-fledged brink of disaster.
Putin has reverted the free-Russia into the Soviet way it was now. Its clear that the economic instability and collapse isn't enough to even halt him, its radicalism, it doesn't matter how you get there, but as long as you GET there. He has re-censored sites like Red-China. He has established state-controlled media, not only in Russia, but as well as worldwide (RT/Russia Today is a PERFECT example). He brainwashes them, and I hope this message gets through, and they can't do anything but accept what is given to them, and that's how he'll stay in control. If people in Russia knew, they would actually protest and re-establish democracy.
Russia isn't a democracy simply because its not a fair system; Putin always wins with the media. People can't elect their governors to suit their own needs, laws, and regulations. Its outrageous.
Tito, you sound smart, but hear is a think; democratic nations "usually" win wars against communist/socialist/nationalistic nations. Why? Because in a democracy, military leaders and weapons developers/manufacturers are chosen/hired by skill and knowledge, unlike in non-democratic nations, who put them where they are from loyalty to the ruling party. Not to mention that "Western" militaries usually use a voluntary military service, instead of drafting every couple years to find people TO fight, not that WANT to fight. Not to mention the extensive battle-trained soldiers the the ranks and the wealth that "Western" nations possess. That's why democracies would win. "Although, the US isn't necessarily a 'Democracy', per say, but instead a Constitutional Republic"
If Ukraine and Russia go at it, it won't be won cleanly. Ukraine won't give up, it inherited many weapons from the Soviet Union, and its around the same size (Population-wise) as the UK. Trust me, the military leaders of Russia would not let Mutually Assured Destruction destroy their amazing families, nor their nations potential, simply because of this radical's decision to. Frankly, Russia would inevitably win in the end, and the "West" would do nothing, but insurgency are the wars of today, now that, would damage pipelines and infrastructure.
Russia itself is not stupid, nor is it irrational, but instead, unfair. Its not their citizens that are stupid, but their politicians. The media has a stronghold, and its very effective. Even the elections are skewed and tampered. That's why Putin will reign for many years to come and brainwash more generations of Russians.
In a world without Putin, imagine, Russia on the right side of the world, and a force for good, NATO and Russia could lead the world into prosperity and we might reach the 2015 Millennium goals. We might actually not have to ever worry about nuclear war nor terrorism, because they would have to fight a truly international force against them.
But instead, this outrages me. These STUPID, JUST STUPID ELECTIONS. Those who oppose them will not vote since they would be convinced not to, their vote wouldn't matter, why vote? Oppose Russia? You have to go through the demonstrations in favor of Russia. Frankly, Ukraine could have lit those troops up, no insignia at all, so their practically gunmen in the streets. Therefore Russia couldn't use justification for killing "Russian" troops, since they weren't identified. This makes me sad, anyone who CAN watch this, watch, unbelievable, they try to oppress news reporting and take over news-stations to begin the propaganda machine in Crimea.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/mar/15/tatars-crimea-caught-between-west-hard-place-video
Well I'm done for now, I'm surprised that I can't generate essays like this. Either ways, be informed from the right sources. I look at RT to see the other side, you should too. Vice versa if you can that is.
This makes me sad, anyone who CAN watch this, watch, unbelievable, they try to oppress news reporting and take over news-stations to begin the propaganda machine in Crimea.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/mar/15/tatars-crimea-caught-between-west-hard-place-video
Well I'm done for now, I'm surprised that I can't generate essays like this. Either ways, be informed from the right sources. I look at RT to see the other side, you should too. Vice versa if you can that is.
lololol
