Crimea

The fuck do I care about Crimea? Even if we did take it from you, what the hell would we do with it? The Ukraine is still in the middle of a civil war, and Crimea raised a battalion (I believe that was the word they used) of volunteers to fight against it. The people there voted to join Russia, and we know the vote was legit because polls conducted years before the civil war in Ukraine showed a majority of people there wanted to join Russia. So in the end, you're asking why the US wouldn't start a fight halfway 'round the world to force an unwilling populous to rejoin a country that isn't part of NATO and lies right on Russia's border. Why on earth would we? Would Russia intervene in Canada if Quebec decided to become a US state?

Attached: 1444711888391.png (325x325, 162.82K)

I would beg them too because they'd be a faggier state than New York and California combined

I've seen polls, there never wasn't even a 1/3 of them. Separatism is a bumpy road and people know that, it's way easier to return home on you own. Maybe some online poll on a Russian website is your source lol. However the vast majority of Sudeten Germans were happy about uncle Adie coming, but that wasn't considered enough of an excuse.

It's not about what you gain, but about what you lose. The USA essentially let a violent regime violate a big country's national sovereignty in an unprovoked war of aggression. Let me say that again, just so it sinks in: The US let an undemocratic regime invade Europe's largest country in an unprovoked war. When things like that happen, the rest of the world leaders start thinking that maybe America isn't a reliable superpower we can count on to keep us safe, and maybe we should ditch American hegemony. World leaders start thinking maybe America isn't doing its job as world police, so they start looking for alternatives to American protection, like developing their own nuclear arsenal, or making regional alliances or alliances with countries like China.

So yeah, it would have been definitely a very good thing to intervene in Crimea militarily from an American point of view, assuming it was militarily plausible.

Oh don't give me that bullshit you filthy little europoor, if we had stepped in you slimy fucks would be bitching about how it wasn't our fight and we should stop acting like the police of the world like you do every single other time we step in. You want us to be a big superpower and protect you all the while browbeating us when we do do it, how about you start handling your own fucking problems instead? You ever think about why the the majority of Americans loved the "America first" campaign slogan? Because we're sick of trying to act like Atlas, a job we clearly aren't fucking cut out for and most of us never wanted in the first place. Two faced faggots.

Attached: 1472080889144.jpg (720x402, 27.39K)

Calm down. I'm talking about geopolitics, not politics. You're assuming I'm the type of guy to take part in hippie marches and the such and you're assuming I hold double standards. I'm not and I don't. "hurr durr not your war go home Ameriturd" is what bored teen agers talk about, but not world leaders. World leaders understand that when a nation goes rogue, the US goes after them. Take the Gulf Wars, for example. Lots of protests everywhere in the world, but how many countries or companies boycotted America? None, because grown ups understand Iraq went rogue and the way the post Cold War world works is you become a threat to world peace and stability, the superpower here kicks your ass. That's obviously a good thing. American power projection is why the world has become more peaceful. But what happened in Crimea demonstrated to the world America is not perfect and as we speak, alternatives to this system are probably being sought. Alternatives which are far more volatile than this current system. Think of Japan, for example. It's right next to several natural rivals, but its main ally has shown it might not keep true to its defense commitment and it has the potential to develop nuclear weapons of its own. So if you were Japan, would you still count on a faraway and unreliable ally, or would you perhaps at least consider its about time you get your own deterrent? That would be the thought process of not just Japan, but also of countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea, South Africa, and so forth and so forth. Just try to imagine a world where every third or fourth Nation State has nuclear weapons. It's obviously not a very desirable thing. Terrorists could get their hands on nuclear devices. There would be no superpower watching over all the kids and everyone would be highly suspicious of each other. That's how a modern world with no international law committed superpower would look like.

Because the US hasn't invented teleportation yet and most of Eastern Europe is about a week away from any serious US unit that might stand a chance at taking on a couple of Russian combined arms brigades, when it's 24h away from Russia…

It's something that too many people can't seem to wrap their heads around, especially among Atlantists cheerleaders and other proponents of the "don't worry the USA are going to come and save us". Even if the USA actually wanted to save them (and was therefore willing to risk global thermonuclear warfare for it, which is extremely dubious to begin with) they simply can't.
Because the US army isn't powered by magic and geography is a bitch.

yes

There would be an intense war fought between the US and Canada if Quebec ceded from Canada and tried to join the US. With the loser being forced to keep it

Russia had permanent bases in Crimea with air defense and anti ship ability. Also the ships berthed there carried nukes. They weren't about to sit back and watch their dudes get killed and their weapons get stolen.

Ukraine was quite dumb to try to chase Russia out of there.

It happened in the 1960s retard, this isn't ancient history. Everyone who lived in Crimea remembered it being Russian or had a family member who did.

"Refugee" (welfare migrant) from Ukraine detected.

Why go to Sweden? Poland is safer.

Don't forget that NATO has problems moving on the continent of Europe itself due to politics of every region, and zero contingencies regarding civilian traffic.
I remember the largest exercise NATO managed was a meetup in Poland of 31k troops that might not even be possible today, whereas Russia did an exercise of 100k troops while in a recession.
Basically NATO never bothered to come up with an intracontinental movement strategy because NATO always expected USSR to attack first and do all the moving, while NATO formations were barely expected to move. Simply hold the ground, pop up and attack the Soviets.

We should have sent our top transniggers to make you suck their corndog penises, but you would have liked it too much.

Wait, so the Ukraine invaded Russia? Oh yeah, then we should have helped those little green men ethnically cleanse the ukrops

Contrary to what the media says, nobody gives a shit about ukraine (I think Poland just wants to make them feel audacious and supported so they start shit against Russia which will end them), it's considered a giant whorehouse and playground that it's fun to send arms to so they can kill each other.

no fuck off get out i will cut off your head get out of here

Can confirm, I'm constantly being assaulted by 600000 neonazi far right skinheads for knowing foreign languages, and I'm also a journalist for Gazeta Wyborcza so you know it's true!
but seriously svenmed stay out. (^:

actually that was indeed enough and is one of the reasons the brits never did anything until he went after Poland for the same reasons.

At the end of the day territory is earned in blood, be that by shedding it (Konigsberg no longer German) or producing it. (Crimea housing majority ethnic Russian populace)

If only our fellow clappers reacted the same way to goblin posting.

I think you have to understand a few things, which being Russian you should, Strelok.
1) Crimea is ethnically Russian. Even my 80 year old Kazakh mentor who hates non-Moscovian Russians was quick to admit that the 1954 trade into Ukrainian hands was a mistake.
2) Ukraine as you should know, means border town/"little Russia" unofficially. Lenin making the Ukrainians an independent entity instead of a vassal state who's job was to keep the other nations out of Russia has always been considered a mistake (at least among USSR-era slavs living in America).
3) Crimea serves as a first-stop invasionary force via the Black Sea if Turkey or their neighbors ever start shit. There was no way the Russians were giving up a key military position and the Americans really didn't want to go into a direct war with Russia even if they wanted a proxy war via Ukraine.
4) Oil flows through the Black Sea and there's plans to majorly expand oil production and transport via the Black Sea that will leave the Russians capable of NOT moving oil through Ukraine, thus eventually making Ukraine pretty worthless as anything other than a border between them and the Western nations. In many ways, this benefits the US because it prevents future conflicts that they have to get involved in with Ukraine.

I mean, there's a million reasons, but when more than half the population considers themselves Russian before the damned conflicts broke out and Slavic American advisors were telling them to just stay the fuck out of Crimea, you tend to at least think about your actions first. Crimea served a strategic benefit to Russia that has little effect on American defense while getting the Russians closer to their mutual "enemies." If Russia focuses their time and money in Crimea, they're less likely to give a shit about Eastern Ukraine and thus the two forces can avoid direct conflict. The most the Americans did was encourage the Ukrainians to cut the power lines tying Crimea to Ukraine to see if the populace was really willing to stick it out with Russia. When it became apparent they were, there was no strategic advantage in poking the bear further in the hopes that one of its claws gets lodged in their skin so it can't use said claw later.

Attached: 1455927956019.gif (426x341, 1.61M)

...

Because fucking with Ukraine was mostly an EU policy they knew how Russia would react as they were warned after Georgia but a scary Russia was needed to push Eastern European nations into military integration and the USA (the military at least, bits of the CIA might have been involved in Ukraine but with US intelligence the left hand not only doesn't know what the right hand is doing but generally is trying to stab a knife through it) was distracted with Asia and the Middle East: it takes time to redeploy significant assets and develop plans etc.
Also there'd be little benefit and much risk in stepping in, why bother? It was a fait accompli anyway.

Russia plays a very clear game: we will fight back if you mess around with our sphere of influence and we will escalate that if you keep doing it. Russia is willing to risk much more for Crimea and similar situations than the USA ever will. If they back down once they fuck this message so they'll never do it. Russian leadership is permanently paranoid of being surrounded by enemies, semi-understandable given their history.

The Saudis wouldn't let them do anything. They will handle Putin and his thugs themselves. That's why they forced the Russians out of Syria, but Putin and Assad lied about it to save face.

The eternal swede strikes again with his tard-logic. What part of US foreign policy from the last 50 years tells you that US is a trustworthy ally that is not suffering from schitzophrenia?

Uh, you know what Poland? I like your attitude!

this is called democracy

yep. why anyone takes a country with systemic bipolar disorder and foreign gremlins stabbing it in the brain as the foundation of international security and trade is insane.

well, consider the alternatives….

There are assets that Russia can and cannot afford to lose. Crimea is one of them, it's ports are incredibly important to Russia. If Hillary had won, we WOULD have contested them annexing Crimea and it would have led to war, because it's a resource Russia cannot give up with seriously hurting it's power base.

Basically, contesting Russia annexing Crimea came down to a simple choice. Are we willing to go to war with Russia? Frankly, from a geopolitical standpoint, letting them have territory they mostly controlled anyway is a small price to pay. You have to decide when an opponent is just being greedy and when contesting them will back them into a corner and force their hand.

Ignoring Russia's Annexation was the correct move. It doesn't mean we aren't going to contest future moves by Russia, and Russia knows that. It was basically a very complex and stupid way of both sides saying 'We don't really want to fight at the moment'.

Attached: 14995e48c384a471ff0af9abd2df0bc50fd5ce1f7c131b75478a9c3c0189b0bc.gif (235x150, 1.71M)

We should base it on cryptocurrency or precious metals.

This. It would be like USA giving up Alaska, Hawaii and Panama at the same time - without enough time to remove all the American technology there. Of course they're going to "annex" something they already control and can't afford to lose.

Every country builds a nuclear arsenal allowing them to mutually obliterate everyone around them while returning to gold standard?
Sounds good.

Kill yourself kike. Reported.

Hello kampfy, kill yourself.

Stopped reading right there.
Why are Americans so bad at English?

This is what I'm talking about dumbass.
Be prepared for the bongnigger to start a Zig Forums tier image dump of shitty memes coupled with u mad posts.
You could have just filtered him, but you went out of your way to squawk.

What about Alberta?

Fuck off m8. Crimea river.

Attached: 2016-10-23_01-54-40.png (370x388, 300.35K)

Obama was too big a pussy and so were the Dem's.

Because Russia is a CIAnigger puppet state. All is going according to plan, goy.

Attached: a20638dd8f690df672c447d080e9a1a4d1b059bf59fd96ae609bc5b4692a07c8.png (1214x846, 1.22M)

That's something you don't see everyday.

Attached: 1811a352349567601f3d4480aba2cd7122b1b172755978029ceb0f6d2d77056f.jpeg (499x567, 30.01K)

It's owned by a nationalist oligarch, who's a bit crazy.

RT is owned by Kremlin.

If just a few cities were removed Canada would be farther right than most of America.

Attached: x2_fOsJQ0y0qR3zs.mp4 (720x720, 5.16M)

most of you leafs are ok in my book get rid of trudeau plz and undo the damage he did plz

Attached: 2ea75a0e0919dac03d788ae0208f688970443b32aaaedc3ba730a27b76b8ea46.gif (255x255, 52.33K)

So substitute schizophrenia with mass delusions/mania?
whythe

An ironic example considering that Alaska was part of the Russian Empire and was then sold to USA. mostly because it's too fucking far away

Attached: eeb7c54bcbd3a16af0145beee5ef8ea22c8f9d50453eae90da81e3c7c15d3b00[1].jpg (500x385, 44.84K)

...

Even my 148,8 year old Azerbaijani shawarma seller says your birth was a mistake, but you know, this isn't really an argument.
Everyone falling for this bait knows shit about Slavic languages, and you are probably the most retarded of those dumbasses because there never ever was any specific "town" in such myths. The root "kraj" in the word "Ukrajina" means either country, piece of land or a landscape, here are examples from Serbian and Czech languages:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina
cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krajina
Russian language differs in this part from other Slavic languages - "a country" mostly sounds like "strana" (while in Ukrainian it's literally "krajina"), "a piece of land" or "a region" like "zemlya" with waaay less popular "kraj" synonym and a "landscape" like "landshaft". Due to that Russians are the only ones believing in this nonsense.
That is the whole other word you retard, it wasn't unofficial since it's been used in Russian Empire a bit after they got Ukraine and such a derogatory toponym fueled the Ukrainian hate for Russian Empire badly.
Ukrainians became an independent entity 22 January 1918 with Fourth Universal of the Central Council, years before Lenin gained control over what was called USSR back then. No nation in USSR at any of its stages of existence was an independent entity, Lenin using the cosmopolitan bullshit populism was one of the main reason USSR even managed to become a thing. It takes an extreme autism levels to believe one of the bloodiest regimes ever was liberal enough to allow any bit of "independence" anywhere.

So assuming you're an unbiased guy - you should be also supporting every other of Russian minor ethnicities in their desire to separate until almost nothing left of Russia, right? But you won't, because you're a hypocrite faggot. Stop pretending you have a moral high ground, this shit is fully relativital.

Maybe he's a negro.

"Trudeau who?"
Most Canadians think Trump is president, because TV only shows American channels.

I personally support that. Imagine the typical nomad wars of the Eurasian steppes from the past, but with modern technology. Imagine Mad Max, but with APCs and working guns, set in the endless sea of grass.

Attached: Ungern-sternberg_r.jpg (429x855, 117.92K)

Actually I'm not a hypocrite and I 100% support your plan.

Every non-Russian ethnicity in Russia that:
1. Had owned a contiguous piece of land as early as 1960s.
2. Has a majority populace on that piece of land.
3. Has an external country with military bases on that land, which Russia legally allowed.
4. That Russia refuses to fight against for the land.
5. If they can seize it without warfare.
6. And if they can maintain the rights of the small amount of Russians living there.
Can annex said specific piece of land.

That's roughly how international rules for annexing work anyway.

There is no such thing as moral relativism.

I don't even know what you're arguing about.
Don't pretend there isn't a resident bong that spams shit, the threads he did that in are still in the catalogue.

To be fair that is pretty much everywhere. Cities are the problem not the countries themselves.

'край' means 'edge' or 'region' e.g. in USA terminology the Pacific North West or The Rust Belt would each be a be край.
meanwhile Украина translates as "at the edge". The people's ambitions or views of themselves aside, that's how Russia has always treated it as a buffer zone to western Europe. Note how, unlike the Serbian Krajina, the Ukraine is not really a proper noun but a functional designation.

lots of innawoods. I would consider that a positive thing :^)

I was on a laptop with shitty palm rejection, so I kept writing over my previous text randomly. I probably wrote over it and then 'fixed' it without consideration of proper grammar.

Also, get fucked.

Attached: ab700ea0b5b1540c21ab1550c286081c7903190dccbd0372ea451c75f542dee3.jpg (239x283, 40.48K)

Err, I'm not, sweetie. That user was claiming that I was that same bong, because he's under the delusion that every single bongposter is the same person.

Because it's not Spanish

I literally never said or implied such a thing and you know it.
I was clearly talking specifically about the spammer you disingenuous cunt, don't play stupid.

*stabs you*

Attached: 2016-11-24_13-40-53.png (689x640, 816.73K)

...

Forgot about this thread/my (you) wasn't showing up in your quote, but pretty much
The only reason the Rus gave you any freedom at all was because it was easier to send dissidents to the border where they can operate independently so long as they keep out other countries. Your entire country was literally Australia with a(n imaginary) border fence around it for centuries. The Kraj meme comes from the Kieven Rus' who wanted to LARP as something other than Russian slavs that were kicked out for being violent shit heads but never officially exiled. Krai was used for at least a century before Kraj was. Both the Polish and the Russians used you as a Krai, a border land. You are to Russia/Poland as Denmark was to the Holy Roman Empire. In Latin-reading countries, map makers called you Marginalia, deriving from Marginalis (in the periphery) which was derived from the old latin word Margo (border/edge). The only ones who suggest otherwise are butthurt Ukrainian nationalists who don't understand that there's plenty of pride to have in being the Eastern European Australia/Denmark.

Attached: squatting_slav_loli.jpg (320x353, 14.01K)

There are at least twelve bongs here.

>border fence
That used to be the impassable plains. Back when slavs mostly traveled by boat on seas or rivers, Ukraine was mostly isolated.
Remember climate was colder back then, so the only way to cross the plains was by horse drawn carriage, which was a bit like crossing the navajo desert except it's cold and dark.

So you're 9ede1d?
Because that's the one I was very obviously referring to in that comment.

We don't give a shit? Besides, Crimea voted to be a part of Russia. Intervention would have been bullshit, not that would stop our kike leaders.

Maybe because there wasn't anything to gain? From what it seems, Crimea was largely filled with people who preferred being a part of Russia, the exact opposite being true of people in the western half of Ukraine.

TBH the most sensible thing would be to divide east/west Ukraine into two countries.

A sensible, and reasonable, meme.

Maybe even 4 parts: Rusynia (or Carpatho-Rusynia), Western Ukraine, Central Ukraine (buffer zone), and East Ukraine.

nigger you are literally retarded. there is no difference, its one fucking word. fuck off and get a better language

i would prefer 1 part: poland

>Implying modern Poland isn't an abortion of nature
>Implying you have anything to do with the Kingdom of Poland

The eternal Swecuck demanding more white blood in defense of Muhammad back home.

Leopolis is ours though. According to ukrainian intelligence Polish army could take it in 3 days.

>implying modern United States of America isn't an abortion of nation
enjoy having all the soviet "intellectuals" on your universities and in government, Alinsky's plan for takeover is almost complete.
>implying you have anything to do with Great America
Which is very unfortunate.
(^:

Attached: Saul-Alinsky-How-To-Create-a-Socialist-State.jpg (600x419, 96.62K)

I don't doubt it, but I would really like to read the source on that.

I think it was in an article some time ago, would need to look for it, but it's 40%~ plausible in my judgement. Even if it's 100% true, problem is that 3 days is a lot of time for ukraine to murder all of our civilians in Leopolis not to mention generally (((cucked))) government.
I actually doubt it because a lot of generals slightly less now since some got asspained and left on their own are still loyal to the USSR not fully aware of it not existing anymore.

If you want more details on cause of my reasoning: it's actually because general Jaruzelski when he was in charge set up a "golden fund" for his buddies with promises of never losing position and influence even after Yaltan order collapses and alliances change, so he arranged that every officer loyal to USSR will have easy time converting to servitude towards BND, KGB, or CIA/Mossad, but now sinister Minister of Defense Antoni Macierewicz is ruining their careers, not buying malfunctioning deathtraps known as EC725 Caracal and even building a civic combat unit advertised as defense force against Russia, while their actual organization and equipment shows they're made as a quick response troops if ukrainian nationalists decide to chimp out in Poland like they did in Volhynia.

Seems like quite the interesting rabbit-hole there

There's no escaping diversity, is there?

Attached: NANI.jpg (640x480, 38.09K)

10~% of the judges are die-hard stalinists or their kids, judging by the attendance rates of "spontaneous" "grassroots" protests of judges in defense of impartial and independent courts independent even from bounds of morality and the populace.
In 1980's median salary in Poland was 20$ and someone stole a billion of them from
International Debt Management Fund the only clue is that some of the money helped found ultra-kosher TV station shitting all day on Poland, the people, government and history.

sage for neither guns nor Crimea.

Gun laws are alright since you can buy anything ball and cap (cannons also count, unless I'm mistaken and another Pole is willing to clarify) made before in XIX century or replicas of such with no registration and are just asked for ID to prove you're an adult.
a controlled oppostion party led by a burnt-out musician tried proposing a bill >>>liberalizing firearms with the following rules
>CALIBER LIMITED TO 9 MM AND YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY OBTAIN ANY GUN OF A HIGHER CALIBER
>every six months go to a (((psychiatrist))) to get your license revoked

The best thing would be to not interfere and let them fight it out.

You keep only what you can protect, period. It's the only rules that matter.

That's the mentality that gets foreign nations involved in the first place.

Small misunderstanding, let me enunciate in text. You only keep what you can protect. If anyone else helps you, it damages your claim to sovereignty. Because in a month or a year or a century, your ally might not be there, and you're going to get wiped out.

Helping other cultures is basically a huge waste of time for everyone and sets the species back, because we get confused about which are good cultures if we can't see the bad ones fail and get curbstomped. It's like stepping in to defend the Panda bears when if we let them alone they could have gone extinct long ago, as they should. Or like a black guy with a 50IQ getting a scholarship because affirmative action, huge waste of time, damages education as an institution.

no one in their sane mind would do that

You'd want that, wouldn't you, Banderashit?

Why didn't Russia try to stop USSR from annexing the Crimea?

Russians too scared to fight?

I wish weimar government stopped supporting and emboldening them to start a chimpout in Poland so they can intervene as per act 1066
Then again, if Poland had independence and wasn't occupied by Polish-speaking Brigand Community it wouldn't have happened.

How you can stop Russians in Crimea if there were no Russians in Crimea?

Attached: 1492146334214.jpg (288x358, 45.51K)

Because the Ukraine konflikt isn't about serious strategical gains for the US, it's about turning Ukraine into another debtslave to the (((IMF))) and other (((corporate entities))) like Monsato, in order to once again regain economical leverage in Europe. Every european country is either suckling up EU so German funding while the other few hellholes are essentially russian pupet states. The Ukraine was the perfect target to bribe the local elites to allow the international NGOs, like Soros OSI and other groups to stage their little coup and oust Yanukovych. I don't think a capable Ukraine that serves as a new US allie in the region was ever the plan, instead you get a weak country, reliant on funds from the IMF which will push them into debt slavery, that also has a bunch of farmland that Monsato can buy to introduce GMOs that have so far been forbidden in Europe. Without the eastern territories or the Krim, they won't even have proper industrial capacities or any leverage with russia should they ever become uptiy to their new financial masters. What was there to win for the US by military force if they already have achieved their overall goals in the Ukraine and can demand their pound of flesh from them whenever they want?

Because there's no reason to start an unnecessary conflict over a region that voted to become part of Russia. unless somebody finds a surplus of (((natural resources))) in the region

nice proxy you've got there there hohol

Attached: do you suck dicks.JPG (173x376, 30.07K)

Because most Americans don’t want conflict wih Russia.

There would be some riots in some cities. Army recruitment would drop by 70%

Crimea belongs to Russia because Russians are based. There is no need for further discussion. The situation is solved.

Russians are citizens of Russia. As Crimea was not a part of Russia prior to joining therefore there were no Russians. Unidentified troops were not Russians too.

also
you sure do make a compelling argument there

Attached: 1463859105776.jpg (304x421, 32.96K)