"Cause putin says so" seems to be your most legitimate agreement you make.All the rest have seemed to be spurious, or a classic debate dodges when you don't want to argue facts.I sill would like to know why you have been on these talking points for weeks now....what's up?
Why did you bring up Philippines?that is a discussion for another day.why are you defending putin's" right"not to have nukes next door?Ukraine gave up its nukes,and doesn't plan on getting them back(even though promises were not kept,when they gave them up)Are you saying that Putin has a rights in adjacent countries,where they have robbed,murdered and tried to fix e******ns for about up yrs.?
Oh innocent people you called them. Although some native groups were even were so familiar with the areas that they lived in,they took over the wrong buildings,And are being led by a recently retired Russian officer(I think he was retired 3 months before the Ukraine crisis)Who wasn't seen in the area before the crisis
Now onto the subject of innocent people,who barricaded themselves into building by murdering civilians,brandishing weapons,such as anti tank,anti- aircraft,anti Ukraine-civilians....I'm sorry why do u call them innocent hostage takers again?
The Ukraine is trying not to be a puppet state,because it was badly betrayed the last time it was a puppet state
Secondly,the Ukraine had a lot of nuclear weapons!!After the fall of ussr,I think they had the third or fourth largest nuclear force in the world!!They gave them up,in an agreement of self determinations with Russia and the U.S.!!!that's partly where u.s. comes in here.But Ukraine wants closer ties with e.u.not Russia not u.s.
I know that Putin would be for more fixed e******ns that would further divide the Ukraine until it fell apart.But most Ukrainians would not!!!
But with two fixed e******ns,in the last 20 yrs.that led to widespread corruption,it is widely felt,in the Ukraine,NOT RUSSIA,that a fixed e******n is not in the best interests of the majority of the ukraine
Ok,first Crimea,...the Soviets going,back to stalin,exterminated millons in Crimea.kruschev(a Ukrainian by the way)started a program to repopulate Crimea with Russian citizens with resettled Russian citizens. The Crimea has imported Russians who v**ed to rejoin Russia goverment.With its strategic import to russia,it stands to reason that Russia would not risk losing it,like they did in Orange revolution.There was" seeding"in other cities in Ukraine,b ut not anywhere to the extent as Crimea.which didn't reach anywhere the amount to reach a Russian majority there.
I don't know how a majority goverment can be called repressive.It was the minority Russian back goverment(Which not only didn't keep its promises,but ripped off the masses)was the oppressive one
If the Russians wanted to stop at Crimea.Why didn't they?
The Orange revolution was an attempt at a bloodless revolution.The results of yanukovych first attempt to fix an e******n.no one in the Ukraine disputes the fact that an fixed e******n didn't deliver on their promises.the people revolted against the corruption and lies.the dislike(o.k.hatred)that the Ukrainians suffered since Stalin came to a head.It was a Ukraine not u.s.c**p.the same forces are in play here this time.whether you or putin believe it,they are s**k of Russian heavy handed tactics there.yanukovych has led a illegitimate,vastly corrupt goverment there twice.Ukraine wants ties to the e.u.Anyone who says anything else is wrong,and in ruins case,lying
Lol if you think the u.s. would even think to go to war over Crimea,you are wrong.It's the rest of the Ukraine that we both should be worried about.The Ukraine will fight a civil war over the rest of the country(your you tube post is right about that).The question is whether putin wants to stop at there,and risk losing influence in the rest of Ukraine.He got elected(And re-elected 6 yrs.after he first stepped down)mostly on the promise of re-establishing Russian world position.That would be cause him to lose face with his major supporters.