Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 1068788" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>Yes. Crimea is a mess because on one hand it seems Kruschev just arbitrarily moved it from Russia to Ukraine at a time it had a Russian majority population, but on the other hand he (and his successors) reportedly parachuted in lots of Russians to settle in Crimea (and in Baltic states) to make the USSR more secure. Plus the destruction of some 1500+ nukes by Ukraine at the fall of the USSR was conditional on Russia recognising Ukrainian boundaries as per the Budapest memorandum signed by Russia. So on balance, I think Russia should have at the very least offered 1,500 nukes from its collection to Ukraine in return for reclaiming Crimea. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>But yes, not a clear one. Neither is Abkhazia, that definitely also had two sides to the coin as the Georgian leader at the time lacked any sort of wisdom and an EU report even concluded Georgia contributed to the conflict. </p><p></p><p>Donbas I consider a travesty I cannot justify and if anything further happens in Bosnia to try and destroy its existence that would also be hard to justify compared to making efforts to get along. Conflict destroys lives and economies and having military outposts and a large military costs a fortune that can be spent on your people to improve their lives. The reasons we fight now globally are every bit as trivial and idiotic as they were in the 19th and early 20th century. </p><p></p><p>Hopefully peace will win out under our new Orangutan overlords. </p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]zO1EScqk1hU[/MEDIA]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 1068788, member: 74121"] Yes. Crimea is a mess because on one hand it seems Kruschev just arbitrarily moved it from Russia to Ukraine at a time it had a Russian majority population, but on the other hand he (and his successors) reportedly parachuted in lots of Russians to settle in Crimea (and in Baltic states) to make the USSR more secure. Plus the destruction of some 1500+ nukes by Ukraine at the fall of the USSR was conditional on Russia recognising Ukrainian boundaries as per the Budapest memorandum signed by Russia. So on balance, I think Russia should have at the very least offered 1,500 nukes from its collection to Ukraine in return for reclaiming Crimea. :p But yes, not a clear one. Neither is Abkhazia, that definitely also had two sides to the coin as the Georgian leader at the time lacked any sort of wisdom and an EU report even concluded Georgia contributed to the conflict. Donbas I consider a travesty I cannot justify and if anything further happens in Bosnia to try and destroy its existence that would also be hard to justify compared to making efforts to get along. Conflict destroys lives and economies and having military outposts and a large military costs a fortune that can be spent on your people to improve their lives. The reasons we fight now globally are every bit as trivial and idiotic as they were in the 19th and early 20th century. Hopefully peace will win out under our new Orangutan overlords. [MEDIA=youtube]zO1EScqk1hU[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top