4 ms·
Not sure if I should reply to you, but in this war, it's crystal clear who annexed what first and who invaded when and where.
by chinathrow 5y ago
Not sure if I should reply to you, but in this war, it's crystal clear who annexed what first and who invaded when and where.
- eric4smith 5y agoAny idiot knows what happened. Duh. Not many people are asking WHY its happening.
- mannykannot 5y agoThis is an entirely self-serving claim for which you have presented no evidence. Furthermore, it is quite possible to see that the stated reasons are nonsense without having to know precisely what the real motives are.
- sidibe 5y agoWell, you don't need to ask or dig too deep. Putin doesn't believe in Ukraine's sovereignty. The annexation happened when Ukrainians decided Putin doesn't get an unofficial veto on their EU candidacy.
- yucky 5y agoWhat happened in the days prior to Russia annexing Crimea, that led up to it?
- chinathrow 5y agoEnlighten us? Nothing warrants or excuses the annexion of Crimea.
- yucky 5y agoDo you think the invasion and annexation of Crimea, had anything to do with the coup (ahem...pro-US/NATO revolution) that had just occurred in Ukraine[1]? Keep in mind Putin rolled his tanks into Crimea the day after the new pro-US/NATO regime in Ukraine had thrown out the democratically elected (albeit pro-Russia) government, and rewritten the Ukrainian Constitution[2] to then make it possible to drop neutrality[3] so that they could begin the process of joining NATO. A rule to join NATO is that a nation must be in control of its borders and not in active conflict, so by annexing Crimea, Russia ensured the moves to join NATO would be halted with that action. Understanding cause and effect is not the same as excusing it. If I poke a bear with a stick, and the bear eats me, it's my fault. Just because the bear went a little overboard doesn't change the fact that it's a bear and I should know not to poke it with a stick. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constitution-idUSBREA1K17420140221 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constituti... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoAlmost verbatim identical to your last emission of this "coup" talking point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001317 and the time before that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30887629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30887629 Not to forget: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653796 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648054
- yucky 5y agoYes, interesting how the facts don't change. If you'd like to challenge the facts, do so. Pointing out that facts have been posted before in response to the same questions, doesn't change the facts. Unless you think we can't trust BBC and Reuters...?
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoAnd neither do the talking points change. Replying in good faith is pointless, they can and have been debunked multiple times already, it makes no odds to the effort to push this. As I said: > this kind of disinformation does not need to even be self-consistent or even that believable. But it does need to be relentlessly sent out.
- yucky 5y agoWe both know why you can't back up your claims with sources, and I can. And so does everybody reading this.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agosources been provided to you before. It didn't change your talking point then, so it's a waste of time now.
- federoccco 5y ago