Crimea Join Russia FOR THE MOTHER LAND!

FOR THE MOTHER LAND5 o7

o7

Omg

O7

Referendum illegal 07

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

Then Kosovo was illegal.

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

Then Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet countries are illegal.

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 02:23

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

Then Kosovo was illegal.

>What is International recognition

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 13:54

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 02:23

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

Then Kosovo was illegal.

>What is International recognition

I think less than half recognize Kosovo

Quote:

Written by Goblin, 19.03.2014 at 14:10

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 13:58

I think less than half recognize Kosovo

106 out of 193 members of the United Nations recognised Kosovo. Also Taiwan and Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is a international subject.

In non-direct ways BIH and Serbia, have also recognised Kosovo with their acts.

193 members? I thought it was more. Silly me.

Kosovo is recognized by a lot of countries including three of the "big" powers. A country that would be illegal is.. Uh the Turkish republic of Cyprus (was that the name?) which is recognized by Turkey only. Do u see the irony?

Taiwan is officially not a country, only unofficially.

Written by Skanderbeg, 19.03.2014 at 15:15

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

>illegal

>russians want to unite with brother russians > illegal

Invade then, i dare you. Bring me the satisfaction of pushing the red button and annihilating all american drones.

ok

Written by Skanderbeg, 19.03.2014 at 15:15

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

>illegal

>russians want to unite with brother russians > illegal

Invade then, i dare you. Bring me the satisfaction of pushing the red button and annihilating all american drones.

Your argument is that if a majority of the population is of one country, then it belongs to that country. If that is the case, then would you support Hungary taking Serbian, Slovenian, Croatian, Slovakian, and Romanian lands? Would you support Germany taking back some Prussian lands from Poland?

Written by Nero, 19.03.2014 at 16:14

Written by Skanderbeg, 19.03.2014 at 15:15

Written by Trooper21, 19.03.2014 at 02:01

Referendum illegal 07

>illegal

>russians want to unite with brother russians > illegal

Invade then, i dare you. Bring me the satisfaction of pushing the red button and annihilating all american drones.

Your argument is that if a majority of the population is of one country, then it belongs to that country. If that is the case, then would you support Hungary taking Serbian, Slovenian, Croatian, Slovakian, and Romanian lands? Would you support Germany taking back some Prussian lands from Poland?

Of course not, that's against the Pan-Slav agenda.

I have been told that the ballot presents only two choices, there there was no choice for 'status quo' and that either choice translates into a a vote for an independent Crimea. Two US news organizations which frequently disagree, agree on this point (which, by itself, means nothing). Ignore these points for now (please).

I have been told that the two choices, in English, translate, thusly:

Choice 1: Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

Choice 2: Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

Purported copy of the Ballot


>>> Question: Are the choices above fair translations of the ballot questions (for the Russian-readers)?

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 04:55

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 16:26

Of course not, that's against the Pan-Slav agenda.

Germany never solved situations peacefully. Thats why they lost 150,000km/2 in from 1900-1950.

And this is how free slavic countries solve problems, by people's free will and referendum.

Something USA never will. Make sure to pay vat, taxes and debts so government can fund more NSA, CIA and FBI to ''protect you''.

let me tell you something about Germanys History, we had a lot of trouble with the Frecnchies, but the HRE was mostly quite peacefull, as they didn't really rule germany, and a lot of small 'fürstentümer', 'herzogtümer' and 'Priests' fought eachother.

then Prussia came up, Friedrich the great fought Russia, Austria and France at once, he didn't have allies, and he fucking WON.

the next important man was napoleon, but i think you know the story. Poland was removed from the map by Russia and Prussia (mainly) and a bit by Austria
after napoleon lost against russia, and everything was restored, germanys biggest country was Prussia, and it wanted to unite the germans. they did in the 'deutsch-deutscher krieg' wich you can actually play on atwar austria lost and was left out of th 'norddeutscher bund'/Prussia/germany

well, then Bismarck came up, he fucked with the frenchies a bit, got elsasse lothringen and a lot of money from the french.
after that, bismarck saied germany is great enough, we have peace now. he lead germany trough about 30 years peace, no war...
i think if he would have been germanys leader for a longer time, europe wouldn't have fought WW1

Willhelm the second V_V...oh god, you know, he talked a lot of bullshit, 1914 he sent austria a message that was like: attack serbia, they shouldn't fuck with us, but then about 3 hours later, he wanted to stop the austrians, but it already started. he was a terrible miscast, but still, a serbian killed the austrian prince, waht would you do, if someone killed your son because he goes to germany?

then WW1 some name it the great war, i'd rather call it the terrible war, the battles of material were bloody as hell, the Weimarer Republik gone trough 2 financial crisis, as machines became better, and people lost their jobs as farmers, it was a creepy time...
these terrible times made Nationalists and Communists stronger, NSDAP: gone from 3% to 37% and the KPD (commies) went from 10% to 16% while the great depression, germany was an great big, traumatised country.

no comment about the nazis in here, the germans didn't really want the war, but i'd say about 30% really wanted it, they got it

so, i don't think, the germans did never solve problems peacefully, they did, sometimes...

EDIT:
btw: loosing a lot of land are consequenses of war.
killing 3 million germans and punching the others so long until they go away, not so much

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 04:55

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 16:26

Of course not, that's against the Pan-Slav agenda.

Germany never solved situations peacefully. Thats why they lost 150,000km/2 in from 1900-1950.

And this is how free slavic countries solve problems, by people's free will and referendum.

Something USA never will. Make sure to pay vat, taxes and debts so government can fund more NSA, CIA and FBI to ''protect you''.

a referendum where you can't vote to stay in your former country? free will? WTF?
USA are dicks...quite true

Written by Tirpitz406, 20.03.2014 at 10:20

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 04:55

Written by Guest, 19.03.2014 at 16:26

Of course not, that's against the Pan-Slav agenda.

Germany never solved situations peacefully. Thats why they lost 150,000km/2 in from 1900-1950.

And this is how free slavic countries solve problems, by people's free will and referendum.

Something USA never will. Make sure to pay vat, taxes and debts so government can fund more NSA, CIA and FBI to ''protect you''.

a referendum where you can't vote to stay in your former country? free will? WTF?
USA are dicks...quite true

Many news outlets report that there are only two choices (I see two choices but I don't know what they are) and that there is no choice for the status quo.

I am quite skeptical of the claim for no status quo, thus the (purported) ballot submission.
I find it difficult to believe that the referendum would give false choices, intentionally, thus the request for the translation.

I hope the ballot image is 'true' - that I have no control over. It has survived on the Wiki Commons page for at least 2 days ....

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 10:24

i don't want to spamm this thread with posting this message again, i think you just wanted to tell me that Prussia is evil.
Prussia just united the germans, thats pretty much it

sooo, uniting germany is evil but uniting the slavs is good?
are the russians conquering that:
good too?
the serbians did the same thing to the other people in Yugoslavia as the austrias did to them:

Napoleon did nearly as much cruelty to Europe, as Hitler did...cool eh?

EDIT
btw: Yougoslav from bosnia means serbian from Serbia, in your weird mind...
and, 32% of the germans voted the NSDAP, sooo...you 'all' means 30%? thats weird

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 10:25

Second option is to stay in former country(ukraine). Read before you judge or claim anything.

thank you for telling me that i should read a languange i can't speak...
dude, i thought CNN wouldn't lie

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 10:25

Written by Tirpitz406, 20.03.2014 at 10:20

a referendum where you can't vote to stay in your former country? free will? WTF?
USA are dicks...quite true

Second option is to stay in former country(ukraine). Read before you judge or claim anything.

I hope this comment wasn't addressed to me.
- I clearly asked if the translations the US/British media outlets provided were fair translations. If unfair translations, what is an accurate translation?
- I clearly stated that I am skeptical of the translations provided. The UK and US media outlet translations were only different on the spelling of 'favo(u)r'.
- I am skeptical of the translations for a number of reasons.
== If, as you have done, there is a 'check' or 'X' for each slot, why are they questions? One doesn't 'check' a question, one provides at least a 'Yes' or 'No'. If one is to 'check' then the translation is probably poor.
== If the translations are accurate, then there is no option for maintaining the status quo.
== If the translations are accurate, the tacit assumption is that the Crimea is ALREADY independent, and has a choice, to become subjects of the Russian Federation or to 'rejoin' Ukraine
== etc.

So I am asking for someone to speak to the 'fairness' of the translations, and if the translations are unfair, to provide a more accurate one.

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 10:51

Written by Tirpitz406, 20.03.2014 at 10:39

Text

Prussia attacked german states militarily and economically, and made vassals of them by force.

Russia beat off mongols and united with russians from siberia and ural. That was liberation war. From whom prussia liberated wurtemberg and rhineland?

Yugoslavia was created by agreement of all yugoslav nations. Serbs didnt ruled it. I explained and elaborated in my previous posts and topics and i believe you read it but you keep repeating that propaganda how serbs made yugoslavia to rule other slavic nations. Ridiculous.

German propaganda is still funny even after 150 years.

Dude, waht is the difference, between Russia conquering mongolia and siberia, where no Russians lived, AT ALL and conquering germany to unite the germans? germans are germans, even though these were different nations, but no different people. mongols aren't Russians. the russians that became siberian were brought there by some tsars...

waht about russia conquering the baltic? did they want it? the seperation 150 years later tells me: nope
your plan always was to unite the slavs, well, looks like they don't want to be united by russia

btw: you are going for russian propaganda too, aren't you?

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 11:10

Russia didnt conquer siberia, they liberated russian villages and camps there and destroyed mongol khanates who oppressed russians. Those russians viewed russians from Moscow as liberators and brothers and welcomed unification.

Germans didnt wanted prussian rule upon them. Prussian invasion of german states was an act of terrorism.

you should really know your facts a bit better:
this comes directly from Wikipedia:
Siberia was occupied by different groups of nomads such as the Yenets, the Nenets, the Huns, the Iranian Scythians and the Turkic Uyghurs. The Khan of Sibir in the vicinity of modern Tobolsk was known as a prominent figure who endorsed Kubrat as Khagan in Avaria in 630. The Mongols conquered a large part of this area early in the 13th century. With the breakup of the Golden Horde, the autonomous Siberia Khanate was established in the late 14th century. The Yakuts migrated north from their original area of settlement in the vicinity of Lake Baikal under the pressure of the Mongol expansion during the 13th to 15th century.
The growing power of Russia in the West began to undermine the Siberian Khanate in the 16th century. First, groups of traders and Cossacks began to enter the area, and then the Russian army began to set up forts further and further East. Towns such as Mangazeya, Tara, Yeniseysk and Tobolsk were developed, the last being declared the capital of Siberia. At this time, Sibir was the name of a fortress at Qashlik, near Tobolsk. Gerardus Mercator in a map published in 1595 marks Sibier both as the name of a settlement and of the surrounding territory along a left tributary of the Ob. Other sources contend that the Xibe, an indigenous Tungusic people, offered fierce resistance to Russian expansion beyond the Urals, and that Siberia is a Russification of their ethnonym.
By the mid-17th century, areas controlled by Russia had been extended to the Pacific. The total Russian population of Siberia in 1709 was 230,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia

well, yes, russia is uniting the russian people by putting them somewhere out of their country, congratz...

and most germans wanted to unite, thats a fact, it's like your serbia uniting yugoslavia, most wanted it, some didn't...

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 11:07

Written by zombieyeti, 20.03.2014 at 10:58

So I am asking for someone to speak to the 'fairness' of the translations, and if the translations are unfair, to provide a more accurate one.

Quote:

Translation to english is as you wrote above.

Thank you.

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 11:47

It doesnt matter how many russians there were, they were oppressed by mongol khanates, Russia liberated them and they united their territories. Perfectly normal and doesnt break any law both moral, civil or human rights.

well, i have an estonian friend, he once sayed: it was cool that the russians helped us with the 'deutscher orden', and even that they annekted us was ok, but it was stupid that they came here. Russians were put by tsars in all countries that were not russian. Siberian countrys, baltic, and ukraine.

the russians got the land given to them by the russian military, and the military stole it from the people living there.

you know Tito, you are a great AW player, intelligent and all, but sometimes you just should give up like a man...

Written by Skanderbeg, 20.03.2014 at 12:23

Written by Tirpitz406, 20.03.2014 at 11:56

well, i have an estonian friend, he once sayed: it was cool that the russians helped us with the 'deutscher orden', and even that they annekted us was ok, but it was stupid that they came here. Russians were put by tsars in all countries that were not russian. Siberian countrys, baltic, and ukraine.

the russians got the land given to them by the russian military, and the military stole it from the people living there.

you know Tito, you are a great AW player, intelligent and all, but sometimes you just should give up like a man...

Baltic was long time swedish possesion, and Sweden didnt like Russia is they fought many wars. Russia which is obviously stronger defeated Sweden in one of many wars and took Finland. Sweden then gave baltic vassals(estonia, courland, livonia) to Russia as a gift and sign of good will to stop the war and focus on more important things like economy and standard of living. Russia accepted baltic and made Finland autonomous region with finnish senate and their own language to show they wont incorporate and harass finnish people.
There were russians in ural and siberia as slavs and russians origins are from Siberia. Even germanic origins are from there. Just they came earlier to central and western europe(and destroyed roman empire) and slavs stayed in siberia ural and ukraine/moscow.
How come ukraine isnt russian? First voivodship was called Kievan Rus 862. And after that it was in Russian Empire and USSR until 1991.
1129 years ukraine was in Russia, because ukrainians are russians and they speak same language. Differences are sligthly and minor as Russia is giant so it is normal. Even croatian and serbian have minor differences.

I've seen too many evil did to Russia, Russians, Serbs, Croats, Yugoslavia, Yugoslavs too be silent or ignore things. West said too many lies to be forgiven or forgoten.

From history you can see on which side Russia and slavs were, we fought napoleon and stand next to austria germany and england. In WW1 we fought evil again, in WW2 again we didnt turn down allies, we helped them and destroyed evil once again. And this is how west appreciate our allegiance and loyalty, by lying, stealing and invading our lands. Of course we wont back down. West drawn a line and erased all things we've been through, they made sure we get their message we are a prey and target supposed to be conquered and eliminated.

Angela Merkel once said ''Russia is too big to be controled by one state''. She obviously meant that west should invade and divide russian land and resources.

We have a proverb ''Не ради другима што не желиш да раде теби''.

''Dont do anything to others you dont want them to do to you''.

Dont invade Russia if you dont want to be invaded as well
Dont nuke Russia if you dont want to be nuked as well
Dont spam propaganda if you dont want Russia to use propaganda as well
Dont tell Tito how serbs made Yugoslavia so they can rule there if you dont want Tito to tell how Prussians made Germany so they can rule there.

When one side stop and back down, other side will do the same. If one side continues and raise the conflict on new level, other side will follow.

*caugh* you wrote a long letter, telling me, things about Russia and the ukraine, i never saied that the Ukraine shouldn't be a part of russia, or should be a part of russia. thats mainly because i don't care if ukrainians live their lifes in the ukraine or in Russia.
did i promote the EU expanding to Ukraine? no, it will just cost a bunch of money...just mind your own buisness!

2: there is a difference between a state and a country,
States:

countries:


3: i began this, as i saw, how you saied:"Germany never solved situations peacefully. Thats why they lost 150,000km/2 in from 1900-1950.

And this is how free slavic countries solve problems, by people's free will and referendum."

and i responded with telling you german history, trying to tell you, that germany isn't only evil. who began now?

Written by Guest, 20.03.2014 at 12:34

Written by zombieyeti, 20.03.2014 at 09:44

I have been told that the ballot presents only two choices, there there was no choice for 'status quo' and that either choice translates into a a vote for an independent Crimea. Two US news organizations which frequently disagree, agree on this point (which, by itself, means nothing). Ignore these points for now (please).

I have been told that the two choices, in English, translate, thusly:

Choice 1: Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

Choice 2: Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

The second is not a vote for independance it is a vote for stauas qou. It is saying that although Things have changed in Keiv and Crimea after the coup that the crimea should stay a part of ukraine and respect its 1992 constitution. The same constituition that was in place before the uprising.

I can see how it is confusing and the direct translation may seem strange if you don't know about crimea and what has been happening there the last 20 years. So I will explain why the ballot needs to say specifically the 1992 constitution should go back into place.

In 1991 the USSR split. This meant ukrainian independance. But for some areas like Transnistria and crimea were not sure they wanted to be part of there new country. Both of them broke away. Transnistria is still away from moldava and no agree was made. But for a breif period Crimea also declared independance. But Negotiates between them and ukraine resulted in Crimea adopting a new constitution and becoming an Autonomous republic of Ukraine. This is the 1992 constitutions they are talking about.

It must be worded this way for all sorts of legals reasons that boil down too. On election day Crimea was not operating under 1992 constitution and Ukraine was not recognizing it.

Thank you for your explanation.

In the Western News Media (New York Times and Fox, which usually disagree if there is disagreement possible) and BBC did agree that no status quo was offered, that's why I asked for the translation, which, again, seemed that the Status Quo was not an option (media outlets were right). I was skeptical, because one doesn't rig an election by providing no real choices on the ballot and expect the rest of the world to see the vote as legitimate (one rigs it other ways lol).

I see the waters are muddy, because the legal legitimacy of the 'Crimean' Parliament and the current Ukrainian government are both tenuous. I'm not going to speak to the legality of the actions of Russia, Crimea or Ukraine at this point. So, while I think the status quo question is still a question, I guess it is an empty question, because I don't think anyone reasonably challenges the *sentiment* that most of the people living in the Crimea is that they want either/both autonomy from Ukraine and/or affiliation with the Russian Federation.

Legality will only matter if someone is ready to back up their claims with violence.
Russia does seem willing to, Ukraine does not seem willing to, and NATO/USA won't if Ukraine won't.

Written by Guest, 20.03.2014 at 13:51

Written by zombieyeti, 20.03.2014 at 13:23

Written by Guest, 20.03.2014 at 12:34

Written by zombieyeti, 20.03.2014 at 09:44

I have been told that the ballot presents only two choices, there there was no choice for 'status quo' and that either choice translates into a a vote for an independent Crimea. Two US news organizations which frequently disagree, agree on this point (which, by itself, means nothing). Ignore these points for now (please).

I have been told that the two choices, in English, translate, thusly:

Choice 1: Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

Choice 2: Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

The second is not a vote for independance it is a vote for stauas qou. It is saying that although Things have changed in Keiv and Crimea after the coup that the crimea should stay a part of ukraine and respect its 1992 constitution. The same constituition that was in place before the uprising.

I can see how it is confusing and the direct translation may seem strange if you don't know about crimea and what has been happening there the last 20 years. So I will explain why the ballot needs to say specifically the 1992 constitution should go back into place.

In 1991 the USSR split. This meant ukrainian independance. But for some areas like Transnistria and crimea were not sure they wanted to be part of there new country. Both of them broke away. Transnistria is still away from moldava and no agree was made. But for a breif period Crimea also declared independance. But Negotiates between them and ukraine resulted in Crimea adopting a new constitution and becoming an Autonomous republic of Ukraine. This is the 1992 constitutions they are talking about.

It must be worded this way for all sorts of legals reasons that boil down too. On election day Crimea was not operating under 1992 constitution and Ukraine was not recognizing it.

Thank you for your explanation.

In the Western News Media (New York Times and Fox, which usually disagree if there is disagreement possible) and BBC did agree that no status quo was offered, that's why I asked for the translation, which, again, seemed that the Status Quo was not an option (media outlets were right).

Quote:

The second question is asking to go back to the status qou before the uprising. So yes the western media can say that there was no option to maintain the current status qou of the referendum day. Which of course wouldn't be preferable to ukraine either though. The status qou on referendum day was that crimea declared independence and was it no longer part of ukraine. Which seems silly that the western media would support that option that crimea remain independent. Can you explain to me what the western media is actually trying to say should have been on the referendum?

I can only speculate regarding status quo. My speculation is that the Western Media:

1. Accepts the legitimacy of the Crim. Parl. claim to self-determination, but considers the status quo, pre-referendum, to be that Crimea is a political subdivision of Ukraine.
A plain reading of the English translation of the (clumsily translated) Declaration of Independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol indicates the intention of Crimea and Sevastopol, not the current state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea

2. Does not consider the Crim. Parl. Declaration of Independence legally legitimate, and in any case considers the status quo, pre-referendum, to be that Crimea is a political subdivision of Ukraine.

Again, speculation on my part. I am not speaking to legitimacy of any of the three parties, or the application of ICJ Kosovo 2010 advisory opinion to the Crimean/Sevastopolean claims, only my guesses as to why the New York Times, Fox News and BBC report that the status quo was not offered as an option in the referendum.

Quote:

Also how do you think the Crimean parliament is tenuous?

The legitimacy of both the current government of the Ukraine and the actions of the Crimean Parliament are at question, because of the extraordinary circumstances. Legitimacy, in this case, stems from legality, not force. Democracy is messy even in mature political systems with centuries of tradition.

The USA had over 80 years of legal tradition to look to when secession was attempted by several subnational units (states). Nothing explicitly forbade states from leaving the federal republic, and nothing expressly permitted the use of force at the Federal level to reintegrate them. Obviously the seceding states were violently reintergrated: If they were independent, they were conquered and incorporated. If they were not independent, they were in rebellion and re-incorporated.

Written by Guest, 20.03.2014 at 16:56

And you said that the parliment of Crimea was tenuous and westerners saw it as illegitimate. So a voted in goverment in place before the uprising is illegitimate how!?!? So is every single goverment position not put into place by the new Kiev goverment illegitimate? Is being voted in meaning you have weak authority? What makes them illegitimate?

I didnt even bother reading this but plz close down this crap -_-

people are actually being killed over this conflict by the russians. it isnt joining the motherland - its being conquered. either way, stupid move for putin