IIRC, Brexit won by 51%. But 100% of UK exit EU. Biden did not get 100% votes in election yet he took 100% of the presidency from Trump.
Should EU take 49% of UK back? Should Trump resume his 48% share of POTUS?
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Should EU take 49% of UK back? Should Trump resume his 48% share of POTUS?
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Look at all those countries with red boxes: bastions of human rights, individual freedom, and overall high quality of life! LOL
DNR and LNR were declared in borders of regions. And referendum that was held to declare them was conducted before Ukrainian army manage to get control of Slavyansk/Kramatorsk and Mariupol. Thing is Russia had considered to solve whole matter by peacefull means, this is why Minsk 2 did existed, which meant huge autonomy of rebel controlled territories as part of Ukraine(exact same pattern as Chechen problem was solved in Russia), but Ukraine did not wanted peace so did not implemented ANY term of agreement after cesation of military activity.
Serbian president say that he was blackmailed hard and forced by US to vote.
It is Ukraine choice too. Minsk 2 was peaceful solution. Ukraine had buried it.
You fail to comprehend that's a very different context.
Brexit did NOT affect the citizenship of anyone in the UK. Everyone who was a UK citizen remained a UK citizen.
No one in the UK wound up involuntarily in a foreign country after Brexit.
In contrast, if all Donbas were handed to Russia, a large Ukrainian minority would suddenly find themselves involuntarily
in a foreign country, where they would encounter adverse discrimination if they kept the citizenship of their birth.
Or do you deny that Russia would discriminate against Ukrainian citizens in a Donbas ruled by Moscow?
Your analogy with the US Presidential election is even more absurd.
I already wrote that I understand that Russia had some grievances against Ukraine or NATO before the war.
But Moscow, not Kyiv, made the decision to shed blood on a much vaster scale than in Donbas.
In 1941, Japan regarded the USA's oil embargo as an 'existential threat' to the Japanese Empire.
So would you conclude that, at Pearl Harbor, the USA attacked Japan rather than the other way around?
Russia do not block dual citizenship. In Crimea all those that have wanted had kept Ukrainian citizenship while obtaining Russian one. Do not see reason why it would be different with Donbass. Plus thing is. Right now whole motion are to restore Donbas borders. Issue of joining/not joining to Russia would be solved after war. And not necessary it would be joining to Russia(in case of Donbass it is most likely result due to will of peoples). Cause we have examples of South Ossetia and Abhazia. While South Ossetia want to unification with Russia. Abhazia want to remain independent.
It is Kiev, not Moscow that killed peace deal of Minsk 2(with applauses from Germany and France that was signatories to this deal). Thing is if you bury peace deal, it lead to war. So i do not agree that you push blame only on one side. Kiev share same burden of responsibility.
30,000? I heard it was 70,000.
You forget "winner takes all".
Scottish people did lose their EU identity involuntarily.
I didn't deny anything. You don't need to play strawman.
For the foreseeable future, Russia can’t liberate anything. Russia is a third rate power with a first rate nuclear deterrence. She really has not made much real progress at all at digging herself out of the hole that made her a third class power. Russia’s only real security is her nuclear deterrence. Her conventional forces’s main role in Europe would be to safeguard the current level of credibility of her nuclear deterrence, and provide some additional option for Russia besides nuclear or capitulation. For the foreseeable future the these are the only two uses of her conventional force in Europe that could provide Russia with a net benefit over the total cost of and blow places back from such use. Every other use has little chance of success and would exact a cost out of proportion to gain and at direct or indirect cost to her ability to maintain her nuclear deterrence.
All the bullshit of de-nazifyimg and liberating ethnic Russians are bullshit. The Ukrainian war is only justified if it protected the credibility of Russian nuclear deterrence. Those others, even if true, and seemingly morally justified, would be ultimately foolish squandering of Russia’s limited resources if it were not for protection of credibility of deterrence.
All the bullshit of de-nazifyimg and liberating ethnic Russians are bullshit. The Ukrainian war is only justified if it protected the credibility of Russian nuclear deterrence. Those others, even if true, and seemingly morally justified, would be ultimately foolish squandering of Russia’s limited resources if it were not for protection of credibility of deterrence.
Last edited:
It's extremely disingenuous to compare Brexit to the partition of Donbas or other regions.
No one in Scotland had to move in order to avoid adverse discrimination after Brexit.
"Or DO you deny that Russia would discriminate against Ukrainian citizens in a Donbas ruled by Moscow?"
"I DIDN'T deny anything."
I already knew that you DID (past tense) NOT write anything about Russian discrimination against Ukrainian citizens in Donbas?
My question is about whether or not you believe that Moscow would give equal treatment to both Russian and Ukrainian
citizens in Donbas.
- Status