2021 Black Sea incident with professional liars (Royal Navy)

Mir wrote:

Hole wrote:Abkhazia comes to mind.

Russia is the official legal successor to the "Soviet Union". It would be funny if the russian duma passed a law that dismisses the breaking up of the state.

The real kicker for me was the actions of the Baltic States. I completely understand their desire for independence, but by joining NATO they've instantly put a HUGE target on their back voluntarily!

The best step forward would have been to declare neutrality and have good relations with the West and even Russia if they wanted to.  

The hate is what makes the world go round for these countries. They could have taken Finland and Austria as examples, but their inferiority complex
prevented them from acting rationally. The history of the Baltic "states" is associated with the ancient trade to northern Europe via Russia to Central
Asia. This is how Damask steel made its way to Europe from Uzbekistan. Now their dementia has stopped Russian, Belorussian and Kazakh trade through
the major ports of Klapeida and Ventspils. The trade flow was a big part of their small economies.

Do you support re-establishing the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the Union SSR and a participant of the Union Treaty?
94% of the Crimeans voted yes, with 80% of voters participating.
That alone would give it the right to vote in an all-Soviet referendum about dissolving or keeping the Soviet Union.
The referendum - I will underline that - gave a result that SU should be sustained.

This.

I'll add that Ukraine unilaterally terminated the Autonomous constitution & threatened to use the military to enforce it.

Anyone who claims to support democracy but is against the Crimean secession from post-coup Ukraine & accession to Russia is simply lying about their support for democracy.

Regardless of the technicalities* the will of the vast majority of the current population is CLEARLY that they wanted to rejoin Russia and that they're still happy to have done so after the fact.

*not just the recent post-Soviet era is full of technical illegalities, the entire recorded history of the Crimea back to ~6-800BC is full of them.

The propaganda drivel "logic" is that since Banderastan is part of the western camp it is somehow vastly superior to
Russia. As if merely kissing Washington's ass makes a country a democracy and a great place to live. The idea that
Crimeans chose a better life away from the control of nazionalists in Kiev is an anathema to western chauvinists.

The Russian soldiers stationed in Crimea did not gather up to intimidate Crimeans to follow Moscow's orders. But
the Kiev regime sent trainloads of thugs to Crimea that were there exactly to terrorize the population into loving
Kiev and its orders. Thankfully Crimeans organized and stopped these brown shirts at the border. Russian soldiers
made sure that the Turkish aircraft carrying jihadis to "save" the Crimean Tatars did not get to land and initiate
an ethnic bloodbath.

For the tin foil hat wearing "skeptics", here is a question. About 1/3 of the population of Crimea is Ukrainian. Where
are the issues over the last 7 years associated with this population? All I ever hear about is some discontent among
the Tatars which is rather mild to say the least considering events in Chechnya. If the 2014 referendum was "faked",
then where is the proof on the ground? Hater scum cannot honestly answer this question and can only resort to more
tinfoil hat drivel about how the 2.5 million people in Crimea are totally suppressed.

Mir wrote:

Hole wrote:Abkhazia comes to mind.

Russia is the official legal successor to the "Soviet Union". It would be funny if the russian duma passed a law that dismisses the breaking up of the state.

The real kicker for me was the actions of the Baltic States. I completely understand their desire for independence, but by joining NATO they've instantly put a HUGE target on their back voluntarily!

The best step forward would have been to declare neutrality and have good relations with the West and even Russia if they wanted to.  

The usual response to NATO expansion russia cannot force independent states not to join NATO.

Also eastern euros legitimately believe that Russia is just itching to invade and occupy them when they get the chance. I think the screeching balts legitimately believed that russia was about to invade them. The other usual response is that russia was an evil occupier and agressor state in eastern europe s it shouldnt have occupied EE if it didnt want EE to join NATO.

This is due to:
Large self importance, thinking russia somehow needs eastern europe, either because they think russia selfishly wants buffer states or because putin is just evil

Engrained Russophobia, not viewing Russia as a civilizational equal that has common or opposing interests, but as barbaric regime whose only desire is territorial conquest

This feeling is further stoked by the Western multinational corporate propaganda machine, with its lies about russian invasion of ukraine and georgia

Most eastern euros legitimately believe due to propaganda that Russia will invade them because they believe Russia invaded georgia and ukraine. The problem is that the latter is a lie, but its impossible to convince brainwashed eastern euros otherwise.

There is just no way where Russia would start a war in Europe but I must say the Bear has a very thick skin

It's time for Russia to open a few major bases in places like Cuba and Venezuela. Algeria, Libya and Vietnam should be on that list as well.