Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Annexing Uktaine. Objections?

Credits go to Aikei_c, Chris Katko, Derezo, gnolam, jhuuskon, Matthew Leverton, Max Savenkov, OICW, Thomas Fjellstrom, and torhu for helping out!
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Annexing Uktaine. Objections?
NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

{"name":"608378","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/0\/10f532130bb3536347fbeaa25098a535.jpg","w":796,"h":796,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/0\/10f532130bb3536347fbeaa25098a535"}608378
Mr. Anderson...

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Aikei_c said:

What does all of it actually has to do with what I said? The purpose of my example was not to compare military capabilities of Russia and Germany,

Neither was mine. What I wanted to say, I'm not sure annexion of Kaliningrad by Germany wouldn'y necessarily be bad. Well, it would be for Russia, but for Kaliningradians.. Who knows.

Quote:

or the government and separatists

Well it did happen. :D
As of annexion, legitimate government. Well, the democratic leader of Ukraine did ask for Russian help, R.o.F.L. And Russia has more than enough reasons not to accept the new "government". So does all of Russian speaking population of Ukraine. And so it does.

Quote:

But if you want to remember the past, then yes, there were several years when Russia really was more liberal than today and even accepted dissolution of the USSR without any blood spilled.

& regarding certain areas of it it was dumb. Russian economy got bombed 30 years back on it. Ukrainian life level is by far below what it was in the final days of the USSR. Their current GDP per capita is something about six. This is below chinese, and about seven times less than this of U.S. About two and a half times below Russian.

Quote:

That's really interesting. I'm talking about today's Russia and not about Russi of almost 25 years ago. They NOW talk that people have a right to self-determination, but jail people for separatist propaganda inside their own country. How about that?

Do they we? Never heard. (I'm in Saint Ptersburg at the moment, and I spent her nearly 18 months during the latest 24 months. Or more.

Now back to international law. It's nonsense, it's the tool countries at power use to control those that without to abuse their power. It has always been this way, and that's it. U.S, China or the EU are no different. Just Europe, lacking central authority is least decisive.

Append:
l.o.l.. Night, so much content removed. I agree with it, mostly ;)

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

type568 said:

Do they we? Never heard.

Cause the law is new. As I said earlier, you can get up to 3 years for propaganda of separatism.

Quote:

& regarding certain areas of it it was dumb. Russian economy got bombed 30 years back on it. Ukrainian life level is by far below what it was in the final days of the USSR. Their current GDP per capita is something about six. This is below chinese, and about seven times less than this of U.S. About two and a half times below Russian.

That's just not true. That's what people say on the streets over here, but that's too shallow. Also, I often visit Ukraine, and my wife is Ukrainian, and no, the living standard there isn't as bad as everybody tells you. But yeah, it's worse than in Russia. But remember that they don't have gas or oil pipe to sit on, if Russia had no oil it would probably be much poorer than it is.
Also, there's much more freedom in Ukraine. I love how you can turn on TV and actually see people expressing different points of view instead of pure soviet-style government propaganda. Nobody even tries to control Internet by blocking some sites, as in Russia. Nobody is going to jail people for "offense of religios feelings". Nobody prosecutes bloggers for their anti-government posts, which routinely happens in Russia. And so on. You really think it's better to get twice as much salary than to live in a totalitarial government? Maybe. I don't.
Really, if you live in Russia, and don't notice how increasingly totalitarian it becomes, and all what you care about is that you get twice as much money as you would get in Ukraine, I've nothing to discuss with you, since we probably just don't have a subject to discuss.
I think that the dissolution of the USSR was the best thing happened to Russia in the XX century. And Ukraine. My parents always say we have never lived as good as we do now.
Also, full discussion of USSR economy, what it was, and why it ended so badly, will take too much time. But just to be short, there were underlying causes for its dissolution and it wasn't an accident, as you may believe. And Russia is bound to dissolve once again, if it continues its policy. Which it probably will. And this time it might be bloody, I'm afraid.

Quote:

Well it did happen. :D
As of annexion, legitimate government. Well, the democratic leader of Ukraine did ask for Russian help, R.o.F.L. And Russia has more than enough reasons not to accept the new "government". So does all of Russian speaking population of Ukraine. And so it does.

You must be kidding. You definitely understood that I meant separatists and the central government. The government in Kiev, not the Russian government.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

type568 said:

I'm clueless of the scale of rigging, or if it took place at all. But over 95% said yes, and over 80% attended.

Where did you get that last number? The voting booths weren't actually all that busy from what I read. Booths were empty by evening that day. Maybe 80% of the people that identify as Russian voted ;) but there are still a significant portion of the population in crimea are ukranian and tartar. Neither of which are generally in favour of splitting.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Aikei_c said:

Cause the law is new. As I said earlier, you can get up to 3 years for propaganda of separatism.

:o
Link or didn't happen. Found something on reuters, but it wasn't about a passed law. Just proposed.
...
Actually it was easier to find in Russian. Oh my :o
You're right. 5 years though. :o
I wonder if protest against Crimean annexion qualifies :P

About your claim about economic comparison of Ukraine to other countries. It isn't true. Level of life does vary from place to place in all countries, so specific examples(yours) do not make it a rule. Neither is a GDP per capita a fair comparison, but.. A better measure. Gives SOME understanding.

Just looked up five links for you, on U.S. factbook. GDP per capita also includes stuff like education, med expenditures, army etc'(not direct reference for level of life)..
However it doesn't include the fact Ukranian current expenditures are not sustainable, despite the fact there isn't enough of these expenditures.

GDP per capita in U.S. dollars(unsure of the reference year of U.S$ value, but recent more or less), info for the year 2013.
UA, 7 400 [1]
China, 9 800[2]
RU, 18 100[3]
US, 52 800[4]

In World bank the difference between US & the rest would be lesser I think, it makes bigger adjustment for lower prices I suppose. I'm not going to look up now.

The freedoms you've mentioned do not touch 99% of the population, though I'd rather have them than not. However, I'd rather not have them with our opposition. Seems by farm more radical than the power, and no appropriate alternatives to Putin are visible. I'd love to see Prokhorov instead of him one day, but I believe now this guy ain't gonna cut it on the international Arena. & I don't wanna see more failures like Libya, or worse ones with more direct interests. In other words I view it as temporary necessary evil. Although there is that saying nothing is more permanent that temporarary. But I don't mind too much.

Oh, and regarding people who'd rather earn x2 more and give up the ability to say Putin is mofo?
Well, I'd rather do ;)
Oh, remember the boy who said on FB he'll kill Obama? American freedom of speech ;)
Vast majority would surrender the right as well, although depends on the salary. After certain point the preferance for more cash will decline, but those have less than they want.. Would give up the ability to threaten to kill Putin.
Oh, and about freedom. Well, Ukraine is free you say? Look at what this freedom does. The freedom is also very selective. Maidan gets what it wants, Donetsk seems less so. Border with Russia closed. Democracy, freedom..
About web blocking.. I didn't give a damn until I found out redtube.com was blocked. I bothered to change the DNS settings in router. Nothing is blocked now.

>And Russia is bound to dissolve once again, if it continues its policy. Which it probably will. And this time it might be bloody, I'm afraid.

I'm slightly afraid it could, I can't see any potential for blood though. Although, Caucasus.. Perhaps. But it's typical. And well, again.. Putin handled it the way it can be handled(put one of the local clans to command the others, duh). Otherwise there probably would be permanent unrest(and not because the people hate Moscow, just because every clan would fight for power and no clan would hold it's throne without external help). As of dissolution, I'm afraid of economic concequences. They wouldn't be as harsh as those of USSR, but they'll be severe nevertheless. Not to mention "divide et impera". There will be beneficiaries. But they won't be the people living on the divided lands, at least not the masses.

As of your latest line of text, yes I am. :)

P.S:
Thoroughly edited to make it more readable.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

type568 said:

l.o.l.. Night, so much content removed. I agree with it, mostly ;)

Feel free to use any of it. ;)

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

I read it as a post, it was also in my reply window.. Then saw it removed, & Putin appeared :o

Append:

Where did you get that last number?

Russia Today.
Kinda official numbers. Again I'm clueless how honestly was this stuff counted, I don't think the media cheats though, even those Westerns avoid the attendancy. A hint it was high, with numbers etc'
Append1:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140317

here reuters deliver official word it's 83%

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

There is one thing I am curious about, there is reports that the options on the ballet were basically "yes: Join Russia now" or "yes: Join them later" with no "No" option. But I absolutely do not trust the liberal news media these days and was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny these reports. I caught a brief glimpse of a ballet on the news which seemed to have quite a bit of text on it.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

Russia Today.

HAHA! That's like getting numbers from FOX or CNBC!

Really though, I wonder how they are counting it. How many actually showed up, and have any dead people or people's pets voted?

Reuters said:

Officials said the turnout was 83 percent.

So no, Reuters didn't say it. They reported that "Officials" said it. Officials running a vote that is already obviously rigged.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

NiteHackr said:

But I absolutely do not trust the liberal news media these days and was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny these reports.

Denied. However, the referendum was:
A Simple yes, to join Russia.
OR
Return to constitution of Crimea year 1992, and stay with Ukraine.

In three languages, two of which I recognize as Russian & Ukrainian. Third.. Perhaps Tatar.

The sources are wiki of a second ago + generally what I heard from news, including BBC. Laughed how they pointed out only Russians vote yes, while Russian news pointed how Tatars & Ukrainians vote yes.

Well, if majority want to join Russia odds are it'll happens ooner or later. No word about it in the referendum vote though.

HAHA! That's like getting numbers from FOX or CNBC!

It is. But they can deliver an official report, right?

Quote:

So no, Reuters didn't say it.

Did I say reuters said? I said they delivered official('s) word. Sorry for my English I guess. I stated upfront I got no info regarding fairness of the vote(A quote of me: "Again I'm clueless how honestly was this stuff counted,").

P.S:
Not caught ;) :p
But yes, precision of words is important.

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

NiteHackr said:

if anyone can confirm or deny these reports.

Yep, that's basically true. The 1992 constitution gave Crimea almost confederative status, although inside of Ukraine, yes. They didn't even have a choice to leave everything as it is.
However, it doesn't matter. Everyone there are completely Russian-oriented, Russian flags were there all the time in Sevastopol, although not as many as there are now.

jhuuskon
Member #302
April 2000
avatar

Quote:

Russia Today.

The only news source less credible than RT that I can think of is KCNA.

You don't deserve my sig.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

jhuuskon said:

The only news source less credible than RT that I can think of is KCNA.

In my eyes RT is same as CNN or BBC(pretty much not credible). I did find it on reuters too though. And yes, it's only official report. The referendum does not meet international standards, and wiki says the international orgonization that oversees this stuff did not participate.

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

type568 said:

In my eyes RT is same as CNN or BBC(pretty much not credible). I did find it on reuters too though. And yes, it's only official report. The referendum does not meet international standards, and wiki says the international orgonization that oversees this stuff did not participate.

You are wrong, because RT broadcasted completely false and/or unchecked information many times, while I don't remember CNN saying something which was definitely false, and they knew it. That's not just about different points of view, they actually lie and destort facts. While you may believe that free press and state-run soviet style press is the same thing - just a propaganda, you are wrong. Because reliable news sources do not lie. That's what makes them reputation. RT has a bad reputation.
But not this time, though. I do believe that almost everyone there voted for Russia, that's what everyone says who's been there, and that's close to what I remember when I visited Crimea.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

BBC isn't free media, it's propoganda media that belongs to government of the UK. Not to be confused with The Guardian or Reuters.
I think any news source can sometimes be caught on a blunt lie, and any propoganda is providing distorted facts 24/7. CNN is biased westwards, RT is biased towards the East. I've no reason to think either is less biased than the other. And I can't recall any blunt lie of RT or BBC to be honest. I'm certain there were by both though, and I'm sure they happen regularly.

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

OK, tell me, when BBC or CNN gave false facts?
RT did this numerous times, like a claim that McFaul sent Navalny to Yale to study how to overthrow Russian government. During the South Ossetia war they claimed there were no airstrikes on Georgian cities, while THERE WERE airstrikes, and all media except for Russian ones confirmed it. Their claim of 2000 civilian deaths too, it was made up by RT first, I think.
That's just what I remember. And they say such things constantly, and they actually know they are lying, these are not just mistakes.
Tell me some examples when BBC or CNN lied and distorted facts.
[EDIT]
Also, BBC may be owned by the goverment, but the thing is: does the British goverment dictate their editorial policy? Can you express opinions which differ from the official British point of view? The answer is: no, they don't dictate, and yes, you can express your different opinion. While on RT, you definitely can't do that, I remeber a correspondent was fired from RT for trying to cover airstrikes in Georgia, because this was against their policy.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

About Navalniy.. Are you sure all is wrong?

About airstrikes?
I'm not sure. And to be honest, to take it as granted I need link to RT report saying there were no airstrikes, and an actual proof there were airstrikes before the specific date(against Georgian cities). Regarding civilians, it's important to listen to their claims exactly(if there were), and make sure it is numbers they claim there are, and not them delivering words of someone. Well, same as I was pointed out Reuters didn't report 95%+ voted to join Russia now, Reuters delivered word of Crimean officials.

About something "general", well BBC has covered the Georgian conflict as Russian aggression from day 0. Although the independent commission says:

wiki said:

The Report stated that conflict started "with a massive Georgian artillery attack... against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008"

It later notes no one is right there, as the "independent" commission is very much western after all.

But would have you gotten this thought from listening to BBC reports, or CNN? It was all evil Putin, even though he was just Prime Minister then.

Finding an appropriate specific lie, and proving it is no easy taskj. I could try, but sorry.. Only after you. If you remember something that looked like a lie to you, it's no proof there was a lie. The professional dependent media works in such a manner that it gives you a specific impression, corroding facts but not actually lying, or at least not lying on something can be proved false.

I'm unsure what you mean about opinions, and who's opinions.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

OT but, Speaking of state run media... It's funny. CBC is more reliable, and more likely to run things critical of the Canadian Government than any of the Canadian "Big Media" news organizations. It seems the government can pressure the private corporations, but not their own.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

CBC is more reliable, and more likely to run things critical of the Canadian Government than any of the Canadian "Big Media" news organizations.

It is the best Canadian news source. Tax payer's money well spent -- but it's less "state-run" than others of it's kind.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Derezo said:

It is the best Canadian news source. Tax payer's money well spent -- but it's less "state-run" than others of it's kind.

It's funny too. Harper has tried to coerce it, buy constantly threatening funding cuts. But hey, now that the CBC doesn't have the NHL rights, they saved hundreds of millions! heh. But they lost a lot of views from that :(

Speaking of severely OT things, all of harpers "reforms" need to be rolled back as soon as the next pm gets into office. Especially the science related "reforms".

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

type568 said:

It was all evil Putin, even though he was just Prime Minister then.

The title may change but the man is still in charge regardless.

Quote:

Finding an appropriate specific lie, and proving it is no easy taskj. I could try, but sorry.. Only after you.

Sorry, but you're accusing the BBC/CNN to be propaganda spewing machines. It is on you to provide evidence that this is true. Otherwise everyone can just claim anything and we'd have a real good party going on.

And just because something is state owned doesn't mean it's used for propaganda. You make all these claims yet you have nothing to back them up. Except empty words, of course. But everyone has those, no?

In capitalist America bank robs you.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Vanneto said:

Sorry, but you're accusing the BBC/CNN to be propaganda spewing machines. It is on you to provide evidence that this is true.

It was about Aikei saying Russia Today lies. I offer him to prove it, as it would encourage me to find a proof for a BBC lie. Most likely I'd go with something about Israel.

As of proving a media is a propaganda tool.. That's a lot easier. From reading an article you easily see the author's point of view, as well as their fact selection. For example, when I searched for a source for the 83% of vote attendancy, only western media I found it on was Reuters. There are others too, but I really browsed few articles about the topic. Didn't find it on BBC or CNN then. However, they all noted the 95%+ vote for Russia, which kind of hints it all rigged. They didn't say they applied to exit polls and were denied though. No western organization did, because they knew the results would be high.

Also the 95% vote for Russia, with 83% attendance break their myth about ONLY Russians voting for it, while Ukranians & Tatars being against. And well, either the referendum was rigged(which they actually do not claim), it'd be visible that not only the Russians dislike Kiev. And oh dear, then annexation much less unjust. Goes with Reuters, doesn't go with western propaganda which actually makes impression Ukrainians & Tatars didn't show up. While(assuming the referendum was counted fair) at least half of non Russians did attend.

Such an episode doesn't proof BBC is propaganda, but seeing them CONSTANTLY taking sides, and always same side- does.

Quote:

The title may change but the man is still in charge regardless.

Hard to argue. However, it maybe even more complex. He was appointed back then. In this or another way. Someone put him, kind of.. It maybe the same ones behind him today(KGB) and not just him.

Only argument against his power during Dmitry's presidency is actual change in Russia's foreign policy during Dmitry's years.

Quote:

You make all these claims yet you have nothing to back them up. Except empty words, of course. But everyone has those, no?

Man you just caught me out of context. I gave an example above, and there are many other examples. Have a look.
And me claiming it is propaganda, I do not mean it's given orders. It knows it's job.
So it has happened it's a western media, that's financed by western government that's exceptionally easily & visible biased, more than more appropriate westerns new sources. Okay.. Call it independent.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

Here's something posted on Putin's Facebook page today on his point of view, and it brings up some very valid points. I used Google translate to translate it from Russian, I can post the Russian if you wish as well...

*** Begin Quote ***
About International Law

Russian President has received permission to use the armed forces , but this was not done . Yes, strengthened our group. Declaring its independence , the Crimea was based on the UN Charter . Incidentally Ukraine itself and did the same , announcing its withdrawal from the USSR. Ukraine exercised this right , and it denied Crimeans . Why ? Based on the Kosovo precedent .
No general prohibition on the unilateral declaration of independence does not arise from the UN Security Council documents . Besides international practice does not prohibit declarations of independence . It 's not even a double standard , it's an amazing cynicism . We can not always so rude podverstyvat fit your interests.
Again, to quote ( Declaration of the United States over the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in 2009) : " Declaration of Independence may violate domestic law , but this does not mean that it is a violation of international law." Sami wrote sounded , all bent , and now resent . Actions Crimean clearly fit into this statement. Somehow, what can Albanians in Kosovo ( and we treat them with respect ) , prohibited Russian , Ukrainians , Crimean Tatars in Crimea.
If Self-Defense Forces of Crimea time would not take the situation under control , there could also be a victim. Do you know why they were not there ? Against the people and their will to fight is difficult or nearly impossible. I want to thank those Ukrainian soldiers who did not go to the bloodshed and not mired in blood.
Our Western partners , led by the United States in international politics prefer to be guided by the right of the strong , they believed in their exclusivity , think the rules may be the only ones. Here and there use force against the independent states , knock desired resolution of international organizations or even ignore them. So it was in Yugoslavia.
Were Afghanistan and Iran, and frank violation of UN Security Council resolution on Libya . There was a whole series of controlled color revolutions . It is clear that people in these countries are tired of the tyranny , poverty and lack of prospects . But these feelings are cynically used . As a result, instead of democracy and freedom came a series of terror. The Arab Spring has changed the Arab winter.
*******************

original Russian text:
О междунарoднoм праве

Президент РФ пoлучил разрешение испoльзoвать вooруженные силы, нo этим правoм не вoспoльзoвались. Да, усилили нашу группирoвку. Объявляя o свoей независимoсти, Крым oпирался на хартию ООН. Кстати и сама Украина сделала тo же самoе, oбъявляя o свoем выхoде из СССР. Украина вoспoльзoвалась этим правoм, а крымчанам в нем oтказывают. Пoчему? Оснoвывались и на кoсoвскoм прецеденте.
Никакoгo oбщегo запрета на oднoстoрoннее прoвoзглашение независимoсти не вытекает из дoкументoв Сoвбеза ООН. Крoме тoгo междунарoдная практика не сoдержит запрета на прoвoзглашение независимoсти. Этo даже уже не двoйные стандарты, этo удивительный цинизм. Нельзя все так грубo пoдверстывать пoд свoи интересы.
Опять прoцитирую (из декларации США пo пoвoду oтделения Кoсoвo oт Сербии в 2009 гoду): "Декларации o независимoсти мoгут нарушать внутреннее закoнoдательствo, oднакo этo не oзначает, чтo этo нарушение междунарoднoгo права". Сами написали, прoтрубили, нагнули всех, а теперь вoзмущаются. Действия крымчан четкo вписываются в эту инструкцию. Пoчему-тo тo, чтo мoжнo албанцам в Кoсoвo (а мы oтнoсимся к ним с уважением), запрещается русским, украинцам, крымским татарам в Крыму.
Если бы силы самooбoрoны Крыма вoвремя не взяли бы ситуацию пoд кoнтрoль, там тoже мoгли бы быть жертвы. А знаете, пoчему их не былo? Прoтив нарoда и егo вoли вoевать труднo или практически невoзмoжнo. Я хoчу пoблагoдарить тех украинских вoеннoслужащих, кoтoрые не пoшли на крoвoпрoлитие и не запятнали себя крoвью.
Наши западные партнеры вo главе с США предпoчитают в междунарoднoй пoлитике рукoвoдствoваться правoм сильнoгo, oни уверoвали в свoю исключительнoсть, думают, чтo правы мoгут быть тoлькo oни. Тo тут, тo там применяют силу прoтив независимых гoсударств, выбивают нужные резoлюции из междунарoдных oрганизаций или вoвсе игнoрируют их. Так былo и в Югoславии.
Были и Афганистан, и Иран, и oткрoвеннoе нарушение резoлюции СБ ООН пo Ливии. Была и целая череда управляемых цветных ревoлюций. Пoнятнo, чтo люди в этих странах устали oт тирании, нищеты, oтсутствия перспектив. Нo эти чувства циничнo испoльзoвались. В результате вместo демoкратии и свoбoды наступила череда террoра. Арабская весна сменилась арабскoй зимoй.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

NiteHackr said:

Russian President has received permission to use the armed forces , but this was not done

Yes it was....

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

I'd rather read in Russian. On FB I found this page. I doubt it is legitimate. :|
Can I has a link, or original please? :)

Append:

Yes it was....

It wasn't. It may still happen though. The guys secured Crimea did this before securing the permission ;)



Go to: