Velo Vol
Internets Expert
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 36,859
- Likes
- 17,299
To be fair, we did exactly the same thing. Its funny us and the Soviets ended up on the same side at least once down in Africa.Just new Russian "wars of liberation" ... soviet style. It's easy to move into a region, convinced splinter groups they are unhappy with the leadership and create revolution. The soviets did it all around the third world to sell their own turd world philosophy. None of those places improved as a result of Russian/Soviet agitation.
The only reason it hasnt in the past is because of Transnistria.I'm waiting for them to argue for Moldova to be given back to Romania...
I wouldn’t be weighing the info very heavily he’s been fighting pancreatic cancer for quite a while now which is a known deadly and swift killer so I’m a skeptic. Now if ZH reports he has it then you can read something into itpancreatic cancer?
If true, RIP.
I think if Moldova wants to be a part of Romania they should be. They have voted for it in the past and had Romania reject because of the Transnistria problem.So you think Moldova should be part of Romania again?
Once again you're wrong about Transnistria. They were having issues with Moldova prior to the USSR splitting up. This is information that is not hard to research or for someone to find out on their own. Moldova was also never winning the war with Transnistria. Transnistria has now been governing themselves now for almost 30 years while being sandwiched in between Ukraine and Moldova. They are better off on their own and not as part of Moldova or any other country for that matter.
What you are doing is putting a pro western academic historical academic spin on this conflict without seeing it from the Transnistria side. Which is why you have no problem with Romania getting involved in this conflict on the side of Moldova. And let's be honest. Most of you clowns in here never heard of Transnistria until it was brought up and probably couldn't even find Moldova on a map.
This clip of Zelensky raises a lot of questions.
If the people of Crimea are Ukrainians under Russian occupation, then why was Zelensky mocking and ridiculing his own oppressed people for suffering from a water shortage? The Ukrainians in the audience were roaring with laughter at the expense of the Crimeans.
If it's rip-roaring funny when the people of the Crimean peninsula experienced shortages of potable water for years because of the Ukrainian government's policies, up until the Russian bombing of the dam in Kherson in the last week of February, then why is he complaining about Ukrainians experiencing water shortages now? Why did he stop laughing? Why is he making a difference in the residents of Crimea and the residents of Kiev? Obviously Zelensky and the people in his audience see a difference, so what's the difference they see between the residents of Kiev and the residents of Crimea? Hmmmmm...
I wouldn’t be weighing the info very heavily he’s been fighting pancreatic cancer for quite a while now which is a known deadly and swift killer so I’m a skeptic. Now if ZH reports he has it then you can read something into it
Also never RIP on that asshat it’s more BIH
I’ve known two people that had it. Past tense known. As you said it was discovered after it had already progressed and both went very quickly.Yes, pancreatic cancer is all but a death sentence. It's usually discovered after it's spread and the survival rate is horrible. Even when caught early, the 5 year survival rate is less than 50%. I'd be surprised if that were accurate because I think he'd be showing more signs.
So I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're okay if Moldova wants to be a part of Romania. But if Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk wants to be a part of Russia that is not okay? And it's not okay for Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia to have their independence? If you answer no then you have proven yourself to probably be the biggest hypocrite on this thread.I think if Moldova wants to be a part of Romania they should be. They have voted for it in the past and had Romania reject because of the Transnistria problem.
And yeah the Soviets were occupying Transnistria before the wall fell, not sure why you think I thought otherwise or that it helps your argument. Look up the Battle of Tighnia if you dont think the Soviets/Russians werent responsible for the continued existence of Transnsitria.
The russian occupying force makes up a great distraction for Ukraine. Tying down a bunch of Ukrainians away from the fight. I am a little surprised that Ukraine hasnt closed that little bubble.
The Russians, according to you all, are robbing appliances for missile parts and are just two weeks away from running out for the past 7 months. And these Iranian drones that are so problematic are made by a 2nd world power.
To be fair, we did exactly the same thing. Its funny us and the Soviets ended up on the same side at least once down in Africa.
Only reason I bring that up is because it's not about ideology like Ras wants it to be, Satan Satan Satan. It's about power, and what you are offered by the winning side you backed.
If Russia leaves all those regions in question and the people still want to leave/get annexed I am all for it. I have been consistent in my stance that these areas are only seeking independence because the Russians have kicked out all others and is pushing a very small vocal minority as the one voice to be listened to.So I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're okay if Moldova wants to be a part of Romania. But if Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk wants to be a part of Russia that is not okay? And it's not okay for Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia to have their independence? If you answer no then you have proven yourself to probably be the biggest hypocrite on this thread.
The Battle of Tighnia occurred after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. So you're wrong about the Soviets being involved. And they were wanting to break away from Moldova prior to the USSR breaking up. Another fact you ignore.
Once again you are telling a distorted and one sided view of history to fit a pro Western narrative.
Oh we very much did try to import our system of government in a very failed manner, and we didnt care. In pretty much every new "democracy" we established a new tyrant took power for decades with very few elections thrown in. They were only democratic in as much as they werent Communists.I see it a little differently. We didn't seek to colonize, and we didn't import a failed system of government that would make people captives. On the whole I still agree with you that diplomats and policies of one country seeking to "save" another country are generally screwed up regardless of whether the goal was for good or bad.
I'm not talking about Russia. Those regions have a history of wanting to be independent prior to Russia, not the Soviet Union, getting involved like you claim.If Russia leaves all those regions in question and the people still want to leave/get annexed I am all for it. I have been consistent in my stance that these areas are only seeking independence because the Russians have kicked out all others and is pushing a very small vocal minority as the one voice to be listened to.
If Romania invades Moldova, they kick out officials, and then host a sham referendum where 90%+ want to join Romania I would not support Romania annexing Moldova. Consistency.
I am also pretty sure I used Russia/Soviets when initially talking about the occupation of Transnistria. But this just got real interesting if you want to split hairs here. The Soviets never left Transnistria, so they magically became Russians after the collapse. Those Russians never had a reason to be there right? Because they arent the Soviets. So what was now Russia's excuse to be in Transnistria? And yes they very much did interfere with the fight, keeping it frozen. Again right as things were about to be settled.
You have a very slanted Russia can do no wrong stance.