Quote (ferdia @ Nov 8 2022 09:16pm)

its like talking to a wall right ?

Quote (ferdia @ Nov 8 2022 10:16pm)

its like talking to a wall right ?

Quote (fender @ Nov 8 2022 02:15pm)

only that it's not true. the ukrainian people were ousted the russian puppet themselves. not that an ACTUAL coup would legitimise russia to repeatedly invade ukraine and slaughter people who clearly don't want to be ruled by russia, lol.

i'm asking for legitimate justifications, not for you to mindlessly regurgitate kremlin propaganda... forgot my crayons though, so it's my fault i guess...

Quote (ownyaah @ 8 Nov 2022 20:12)

Crimea has been Russia since they took it from the ottomans, it was "given" to Ukraine during the soviet union in 1954 as an administrative thing. The idea wasn't that a country called "Ukraine" would emerge and turn on Moscow.

Even today something like 68% of Crimea is Russian and 13% tartar ( straight out of wiki ). If you wanna talk about legitimacy, it belongs more to turkey than it does to Ukraine. Nobody, not ukraine, not USA, not germany, not france not a single country seriously even thinks about crimea coming under ukranian control. Russia would nuke ukraine 1000 times over, before that happens. Why would even talk about it?

I pointed out like 7 very important points, and this is your take? Yeesh, this conversation is done

Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Nov 8 2022 09:18pm)

You seem to have trouble focusing on one thing at a time, are you saying Europe isn't going to have any fuel issues?

Quote (fender @ Nov 8 2022 09:20pm)

the historic argument is invalid, russia agreed to ukraines borders, as did the rest of the world. by that "logic", basically every nation would have claims on their neighbours' lands. that's not how modern states are supposed to work though. crimea is ukrainian by international law, its occupation is illegal, no matter how effective russians are at replacing ethnic ukrainians with russians in order to legitimise their warmongering.

and again, your "points" are war goals, not justifications. you understand those are different, right? apparently not...

Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Nov 8 2022 07:14pm)

You are shocked Russian propaganda isn't accurate? Were you also shocked when the US was still fighting in Iraq after GW declared victory?

Quote (fender @ Nov 8 2022 10:20pm)

the historic argument is invalid, russia agreed to ukraines borders, as did the rest of the world. by that "logic", basically every nation would have claims on their neighbours' lands. that's not how modern states are supposed to work though. crimea is ukrainian by international law, its occupation is illegal, no matter how effective russians are at replacing ethnic ukrainians with russians in order to legitimise their warmongering.

and again, your "points" are war goals, not justifications. you understand those are different, right? apparently not...

Quote (fender @ Nov 8 2022 08:20pm)

the historic argument is invalid, russia agreed to ukraines borders, as did the rest of the world. by that "logic", basically every nation would have claims on their neighbours' lands. that's not how modern states are supposed to work though. crimea is ukrainian by international law, its occupation is illegal, no matter how effective russians are at replacing ethnic ukrainians with russians in order to legitimise their warmongering.

and again, your "points" are war goals, not justifications. you understand those are different, right? apparently not...

Quote (ownyaah @ 9 Nov 2022 03:24)

so your idea of "legitimacy" is based on agreements? Agreements rarely are "legitimate" or timeless, they are often arbitrary or used as political tool.

A few of millions of examples of agreements going to shit:

UNSC "agreed" on a no fly zone in libya (nato bombed it to shit)

kranie/russia "agreed" on minsk 1 and 2. (ukraine bombed donbass to shit)

gorbachev and west "agreed" on no westward expansion (nato is at russias doorstep)