That's such a hilariously sinister, Cold-War-esque, threat-laden wonderful euphemism.He stressed that the experts’ conclusions indicate support to the testimony Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force, who is under Russian state protection as “key witness” to the MH17 crash.
Vicccard said:Under Putin, indeed, Crimea won't return. But it remains to be seen how long Putin and his semi-fascist regime can hold on. If, one day, Russia democratizes (presumably due to economical problems), any new government will be sure to want to improve relationships with the West in order to get the economy back on track. Giving up Crimea will be a massive card to play, and I don't see why they wouldn't try and use it. Especially since Crimea is a drain on Russian money.
And even if Russian nationalists start protesting the return, Russia can easily just demand that some laws are passed that protect any Russian minorities, so that they can keep on playing the Grand Protector of Russian Minorities.
Mage246 said:Oh FFS. Yup, you got it. US wont rest until it has bases in every country in the world, regardless of strategic usefulness or economic merit. Everything that happens is all a plot to get more bases. We're playing Monopoly with military bases.
masterborn12 said:Well its not quite that easy. Giving up Crimea means that Russia will get a huge prestige loss. That doesnt only mean that Russia gives up but also that it will be vulnerable to the west. If you want something you can relate it to, think of Victoria 2 and think of Crimea as a crisis.
masterborn12 said:Mage246 said:Oh FFS. Yup, you got it. US wont rest until it has bases in every country in the world, regardless of strategic usefulness or economic merit. Everything that happens is all a plot to get more bases. We're playing Monopoly with military bases.
So then tell me how isnt Ukraine a strategical useful?