Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Why Russia can annexe Crimea.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 40 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 23 Mar 2014 10:30:21 GMT
.....because of communism. The current power of the Russian Federation is due 100% to the work of the USSR....the so called 'failed' nation that has left a powerful military legacy for the greedy current rulers to use for their own ends.

Posted on 23 Mar 2014 11:24:53 GMT
Gomsless, the man who says history is crap, now wishes to use it to justify his claims that Russia is only great and powerful now by citing the Soviet period 1922 - 1991. Russia has been top dog in the region for yonks, she annexed the Crimea back in 1783.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 11:36:05 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 01:56:00 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 11:38:37 GMT
Yes....but why not debate the now? Why do you think the west and NATO will do nothing....it might be due to Russia having hundreds of ICBMs....courtesy of the USSR.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 11:48:15 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 01:56:08 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 12:28:25 GMT
The Imperial Russian Army defeated Napoleon's Grand Army, the biggest ever assembled at 690,000 strong.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 12:35:18 GMT
Nay nay thrice nay dear Gomsless, history is important, even you, as you pick and choose, claim what Russia is doing now is determined by its history between 1922 and 1991. The USSR was, in many respects, a continuation of Imperial Russia under new management.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 13:40:14 GMT
Are you still in possession of your ......?......night sleepers?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 13:40:56 GMT
Either enter the debate like an adult or frack off.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 14:37:09 GMT
Eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 14:37:26 GMT
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!

Posted on 23 Mar 2014 14:43:37 GMT
Gomsy,
The USSR took good care of the Ukraine and the Crimea what with starving them repeatedly and shipping millions out of Crimea to Central Asia which killed over 40% of those exiled.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 14:45:18 GMT
Jasmine Silk 100% Pure Silk Filled Eye Mask / Sleeping Mask Sleep Mask - BLACK

Posted on 23 Mar 2014 14:45:40 GMT
Gomsy,

The USSR handed over Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954, why was that?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 14:46:50 GMT
Irrelevant to this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 14:47:13 GMT
So is it a shame that the Ukraine destroyed its nukes?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 14:48:59 GMT
Ah, that is the question, if you had asked this question before, we may have got somewhere in our discussions.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 17:15:07 GMT
OK, I'm all ears..............

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 17:16:51 GMT
Big ears?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 17:17:18 GMT
Do you recommend them?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 17:22:48 GMT
If you like. Now do go on...

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 20:17:50 GMT
Of course they should have kept their nukes.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2014 21:26:33 GMT
David Groom says:
Gordon Bennett,

'So is it a shame that the Ukraine destroyed its nukes?'

From Ukraine's POV probably yes.

From our point of view, it provides a very stark reminder of why the UK government wants to re-new Trident. All around there are plenty of people who object to Trident, for all sorts of reasons, but one oft cited reason is that it's redundant, that there are no enemies likely to attack us anymore where nuclear deterrance is needed. Russia's actions in the Ukraine show just how quickly a crisis can arise almost from nowhere, that rocks us all back on our heels. Nobody was predicting last October that the west's relationship with Russia would be where it is now - at rock bottom - which just goes to destroy the argument of those who say that we don't need to worry about 'traditional' enemies because Europe is a stable and peaceful place where wars aren't likely to occur.

Some clear outcomes of the Rusian invasion of Crimea will be a seismic shift in western defence thinking, the automatic renewal of Trident and some rapid re-alignment of sources of gas etc. supplies in those countries heavily dependent on Russia. In short, this is a wake up call for the EU about the need to re-think its defence strategies and energy dependence.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2014 10:32:40 GMT
"Si vis pacem, para bellum - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's tract De Re Militari.

Translates today as:- "If you want peace, prepare for war"
IE:- a strong society being less likely to be attacked by opportunistic enemies.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2014 10:35:53 GMT
How does that work in the case of the USA?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  10
Total posts:  40
Initial post:  23 Mar 2014
Latest post:  26 Mar 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions