Separatist push/Ukraine shove back

[Rinaldi]

Crash course in appeasement   - and a strong argument for why you should always have a sense of history.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Nefron said:

That can also be said about Ukraine. If they didn't pursue what they believe to be their interests, there would be no war. 

OK, so if I viciously attack you with a baseball bat so I can steal your wallet, you raising your arms in defense of your skull is "the same thing"?  Oh boy.

Sure, Ukraine could surrender it's sovereignty to Russia and the war would quiet down.  But it would not end.  Look at what Russia's done to Georgia for 25 years.  Look at Moldova.  Look at a half dozen other places where Russian troops are stationed.  Heck, look at what it is doing in the Baltics.  Look at the assassination attempt of the Montenegrin Prime Minister.  Giving in to Russia's aggression does not stop violence, rather encourages it.

Steve

[IMHO]

@Battlefront.com,

Steve, that's the major problem with the discussion here. You try to keep it to the world of moral rights and wrongs even to the point of banning people. Whereas such a theoretical discussion exists purely in a dreamworld of computer simulation. In real life there's little place for it either in high politics or even at a level of a battalion facing an opposite  battalion. Because yes, in real life, you either weild a baseball bat and you have a nation's given responsibility to make the most of it or you're standing in a dark lit corner facing guys with baseball bats and you have to provide them the reason not to hit you. Even if you're given a bat the real life stakes of a nation are high - there's no place for squandering your higher hand for abstractions.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by IMHO

[IMHO]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

This is ridiculous. Their basic interest is national survival as an independent state.

I mean, really?

Oh yes? Please detail the national interests of Ukraine. But the real interests - not baseless political slogans - at detailed level. But let's have a really interesting discussion at the level of customs codes for exports and imports, corporate/state debt etc. Because otherwise it's like Greece's wishful thinking - high pensions, high state-paid salaries and EU pays for all of it.

[Kinophile]

☺️. 

@Haidukthat's pretty depressing

 

[IMHO]

@kinophile, sorry for being somewhat rude but I'm bloody tired of "Ukrainian" side that does not know their own exports and imports at the level of specific production factories, assembly chains, debt/financing etc. So it ends up like the "Georgian discussion". Provable and verifiable details vs. political slogans

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

@Battlefront.com,

Steve, that's the major problem with the discussion here. You try to keep it to the world of moral rights and wrongs even to the point of banning people.

On the contrary, I recognize that the world is very much gray.  Although some things are so gray they are effectively black, and some things so light gray that they are effectively white, the vast majority of things fit in the middle and therefore there's some room for discussing things are one way or the next.  However, that does not mean everything is the same shade of gray.  Points of view that try to establish moral equivalence between things which are widely different shades of gray are open for criticism.  Equating a victim of foreign aggression as having the same moral and legal obligations to end the war as the aggressor is nonsense.  Utter nonsense.

I don't threaten to ban people for having a different view of right and wrong.  I do threaten people with banishment when they can't express those opinions in way that is consistent with a fairly generous definition of civil discourse and debate.

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Whereas such a theoretical discussion exists purely in a dreamworld of computer simulation. In real life there's little place for it either in high politics or even at a level of a battalion facing an opposite  battalion. Because yes, in real life, you either weild a baseball bat and you have a nation's given responsibility to make the most of it or you're standing in a dark lit corner facing guys with baseball bats and you have to provide them the reason not to hit you. Even if you're given a bat the real life stakes of a nation are high - there's no place for squandering your higher hand for abstractions.

So if I follow you, it seems you agree that a nation being attacked isn't the one which is responsible for ending the conflict?  Good, glad we got that sorted.

45 minutes ago, IMHO said:

@kinophile, sorry for being somewhat rude but I'm bloody tired of "Ukrainian" side that does not know their own exports and imports at the level of specific production factories, assembly chains, debt/financing etc.

The "Ukrainian" side is that their larger neighbor is waging a ruthless and totally dishonest war against them.  I don't see what assembly chains and debt financing has to do with that.  Unless you are arguing that nations which have major internal problems are fair game for foreign aggression?

45 minutes ago, IMHO said:

So it ends up like the "Georgian discussion". Provable and verifiable details vs. political slogans

I agree.  Challenging pro-Russian slogans which do not match up with verifiable details does get tiring

Steve

[IMHO]

Steve, may I lay my arms, may I not?  What can possibly better the future in judging rights from wrongs?

Edited March 1, 2017 by IMHO

[Kinophile]

Haiduk describes the current tactics as WW2 - but I'd more accurately describe then as mid-WW1. 

But this, I think, opens a can of worms about early 20th century tactics :-)

 

[Rinaldi]

What crock, frankly.

Your response to a defense of sovreignty is "well its a bit more complicated than all that?" - Sounds like the "Sudentenland" discussion to me, rather than the Georiga disucssion you keep invoking. Curious, given several pages back you admitted that it was 'not at all analgous' to the Ukraine. IMHO your intelligence is undoubted, so please stop this dishonesty. You can argue for a more 'gray' view of the situation, but don't argue like the Kremlin .

Viz. a viz. people not being eager for war; I have another breaking news flash: The sun rises every morning and even more shockingly, it does so consistently in the East! Statements of patriotic fevour are almost always fabrications or hyperbole, quoting tired men and women in the contested areas is not particularly revealing to me. Callaous as that may seem, to me far removed and comfy in my office chair in Toronto, telling me civilians wish for an end to the fighting isn't showing how bad and evil the Ukraine is for keeping the fight alive for what was conceded to it in MINSK 2.

We call this the 'but for' principle; but for Russian and Seperatist failures to honor their MINSK 2 agreements, the Ukraine would not have to renew offensive actions to seize what they were ostensibly given via treaty , similarily, but for the Seperatist refusal to remove their heavy weapons from Donetsk region, the Ukraine would not have to reciprocate.

If you want to continue to argue (against all evidence to the contrary) that there is no 'right' here because everyone is a political animal, there's very little you have to say worth taking in good faith until you are willing to admit that the armed sepratists are 'most wrong.'

____

Re: WWII tactics

Pretty broad term, WWII had its fair share of thunder runs and stalemates. We're definitely in a war of patrols and shells at the moment, as both sides ostensibly aren't 'fighting.' Precludes operational offensives.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Battlefront.com]

17 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Our soldiers say - best times for Ukrainain army were in late 2014-2015. Despite on all сhaos, bloody battles and defeats. There are many new people came to army (as well as servicemen and civil volunterres) with own new initiatives, which radically changed many things and found full support from side of Minister of Defense. Peak of form was on 5th wave of mobilization. This sound strange, but mobilized soldiers of 4th-5th and partially last 6th wave have much more motivation, than contractors now. But rejection from next mobilization wave and significant raising of payment for attraction of more contractors, caused that in army gushed a flow of old-school retired officers of Soviet military mentality and soldiers-contractors from small towns and villages, many of which go to army not to defeat the enemy, but "to serve" and receive money. HQs of brigades, Joint Tactical Groups, Corpses, General Staff, MoD cabinets filled with huge number of "old farters", which do only absolutely seemless paper work and force of frontline units commanders to fill tons of paper. And strictly control this with multiple committees. How to you "Journal of soap accounting, given to servicemen" or "Journal of accaunting of washing of personnel in bathhouse"?  And such marasm counting with dozens and hundreds.

Frontline troops hate them possibly more then separs. And staff rats in the same way hate frontline soldiers. Many incompetent commanders supressed all initiatives of own soldiers and volunteers. Contrarctors unlike mobilized have became almost as slaves - any attempt of soldiers to complaine on bad supply or commander's incompetence on higher levels can finish itself with commander report on you "bad behavior" and cutting of big part of month payment. Many veterans and motivated soldiers reject to prolong own contracts and demobilize themselve - they don't want to serve in this "soviet style" army. And many motivated young guys, which see this ressurection of "soviet guard" reject to sign contracts or go to "Azov" or VUC (Right Sector units) or UVA (splitted from RS units, which followed for Yarosh). So, our veterans say, alas guys, our army again rapidly falling back into "sovok" and paper marasmus instead warefare and development.    

Thanks for this perspective Haiduk.  It is quite understandable.  In fact, I think the same opinions would be heard on the separatist side.  For both sides the summer of 2014 and into 2015 was a time of hope that their side would be victorious on the battlefield (2014) or in political negotiations at Minsk (2015).  The year of 2016 showed this not to be so and both sides have to settle for positional warfare.  Positional warfare is extremely stressful, depressing, and physically miserable when the weather is wet or cold.  There's no surprise to me that a soldier in a trench in 2016 would "fondly" remember the "good days" of the previous years.

Levels of enthusiasm is also something that understandable.  When the war started there was a sharp sense of urgency because the situation was extremely unstable.  Nobody knew where the frontline would be tomorrow.  Heck, most people didn't know where it was on that day!  Ukrainian nationalists had an immediate and overwhelming reason to rush to the front and defend their nation from aggression.  Russian nationalists within Ukraine had an immediate and overwhelming reason to rush to the front and defend their homes from what they were told were Nazis from Kiev.  Russian nationalists in Russia had an immediate and overwhelming reason to rush into Ukraine to take territory from Ukraine in the name of the Russian people.  Now all three groups are emotionally exhausted and the supply of fresh volunteers who are wildly enthusiastic for war is gone.

Unfortunately reforms are often fastest when the danger is most severe.  Entrenched political interests tend to give ground only when the pressure is sustained.  History shows those who have power have learned to "wait out" the forces of change.  As with actual warfare, it is easier to defend entrenched positions than it is to take them.  Therefore, it is not surprising that Ukraine in 2-3 years is not a model for responsible governance.  I said years ago that it will take at least 10 years before anybody starts to think Ukraine has transformed itself.  That's roughly what it took for countries like Romania and Hungary, and they still struggle with effective rule of law even 20+ years after getting rid of Russian control of their countries.  Ukraine has been under the control of Moscow for much longer than those countries.  It is not surprising it will take longer to "find it's footing".

As for how this impacts the war... it's extremely important at this stage.  From what I can tell, the supply of Russians truly volunteering to fight in Ukraine is extremely small.  Even Russia's ability to bribe it's service personnel to "go on vacation" has not been going well since 2015.  This means the supply of foreign fighters from Russia is limited to Russian Federation Armed Forces moved into Ukraine against the Russian Constitution's protection from illegal foreign deployments and against international law.  This obligates Russia to routinely send as few personnel into Ukraine as possible.

The pool of genuine separatists has been exhausted since 2014.  Their forces will not grow significantly despite the Stalinist propaganda aimed at motivating the youth of Donbas to join militias when they come of age.

Ukraine is very different.  Of the three it is the only one with real motivation to fight this war.  It also has tens of thousands of combat experienced veterans at home who would rejoin tomorrow if the war became mobile again.  While Russia could move in 10s of thousands of regular forces within a few days and weeks, the majority would be there only because they were ordered to be.  Ukrainian forces have shown they can withstand significant losses in defense of their country, Russia has not shown it can withstand significant losses in taking territory of another country.  It would be an interesting thing to see the two sides fight a war of maneuver and hopefully we won't have to witness it.

Steve

 

[DMS]

A little correction. You say "Soviet army", "Soviet system" e.t.c. It is not correct. It was a post-soviet army and post-soviet system. (And anti-soviet in some sense)

Post-soviet army = Soviet army without motivation, without skilled officers who had gone to Russia or retired, moraly broken after retaking the military oath. Without parts to vehicles, poor salaries and awfull living conditions in barracks. Soviet army would have no problems taking Slavyansk, that was defended by light infantry without heavy weapons. Was there any company sized armored attack? No, only single tanks or platoons. Because in a company 1 tank is 100% functional, 2-3 have some problems and others are junk and part-donors. It looked like Petlura's army, not Soviet army. (Ukrainian irregurals in times of Russian civil war) 100% functional tank was a battle-winner. He come, he shoot, enemies see that it is not broken and flee. (Responds to both sides)

(And it responds to Russian army of 1990s too, if you think that I am Russian shovinist who despise Ukrainians)

[Haiduk]

14 hours ago, kinophile said:

☺️. 

@Haidukthat's pretty depressing

 

This is "back side of medal". Though army still keeps motivated core of privates and officers, which can't go home because "if not I'm, then who's ?" And many guys, which have demobilized, say "if real war will begin again" we are ready to turn back. When battle on Svitlodarsk bulge started, many people enlisted exactly in 54th brigade.

 

1 hour ago, DMS said:

Ukrainian irregurals in times of Russian civil war

Ahah. Typical soviet scholl-hystorybook stereotype "bands of Petlura". Read something about posts of Petlura in UNR government and UNR army structure first, then say "irregular". 

1 hour ago, DMS said:

Was there any company sized armored attack?

Sloviansk operation is more wide than actions around town. Read something about Krasny Lyman battle and other. Of curse on May-June of 2014 we have small, untrained and unsupplyied army, but our strategy was encircling the city and cut off it from supply. Of course, we could directly assult the city, completely ruined it with atrillery and airstrikes, to ditch in urban combat hundreds of own and enemy troops and civilians - all like Russian army in Grozny. 

[Nefron]

19 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK, so if I viciously attack you with a baseball bat so I can steal your wallet, you raising your arms in defense of your skull is "the same thing"?  Oh boy.

 

I'm not saying that it's the same thing, I'm saying that there wouldn't be a fight without two sides that are willing to fight. If there weren't two sides that are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, there wouldn't be a war.

 

19 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Look at the assassination attempt of the Montenegrin Prime Minister.

Do you really believe that actually happened the way the Montenegrins say it did? Do you know who exactly Djukanovic is? 

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, Nefron said:

I'm not saying that it's the same thing, I'm saying that there wouldn't be a fight without two sides that are willing to fight. If there weren't two sides that are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, there wouldn't be a war.

The problem is your statement implies equal responsibility to both. If I go to punch you and you physically resist me, yes we are both using violence. We are not however even remotely equal.  The aggressor holds responsibility for initiating violence. 

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, Nefron said:

I'm not saying that it's the same thing, I'm saying that there wouldn't be a fight without two sides that are willing to fight. If there weren't two sides that are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, there wouldn't be a war.

You are equating the two because the alternative is for the victim to surrender and give the aggressor everything it wants.  So no, Ukraine does not want to fight... it has to fight.  It has no alternative.  Russia, on the other hand, has plenty of alternatives to violence but chooses not to exercise them.

So again, you are equating the responsibility to not cause violence on others with the responsibility to defend others against violence.  That is an extremely poor argument, both morally and legally.  But I do understand it is a position that some pro-Russians might find comfort in because it offers Russia excuses for the thousands of people it's killed and the hundreds of thousands displaced by its actions.

Quote

Do you really believe that actually happened the way the Montenegrins say it did? Do you know who exactly Djukanovic is? 

This is off topic, but is not just Montenegro that says this.  They had outside investigators come in and share intelligence. They concluded the plot was real.  Some US intelligence officers have said privately (because one of this is public yet) that they have encrypted intercepts between the two GRU agents and Moscow.  They have said there is absolutely no doubt of Russian government involvement.  Also, one of the two GRU officers is also already a suspect in trying to cause a Donbas style "uprising" in Moldova in 2014 just before they signed the EU Associate Agreement.  Like in Montenegro, it was broken up before it happened.

Sorry, but the Russian government has no credibility due to it's blatant lies about its activities in Crimea and Donbas.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, DMS said:

A little correction. You say "Soviet army", "Soviet system" e.t.c. It is not correct. It was a post-soviet army and post-soviet system. (And anti-soviet in some sense)

Yes, but the organization, doctrine, and equipment of post-Soviet Ukrainian armed forces was not very different from Soviet system.  Certainly it was based on it.  Generally speaking military analysts tend to think of them as the same thing because, basically, they are.  It is a "shortcut" when having such discussions.  Obviously down to very small details there are differences.

Steve

[Nefron]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You are equating the two because the alternative is for the victim to surrender and give the aggressor everything it wants.  So no, Ukraine does not want to fight... it has to fight.  It has no alternative.

You just contradicted yourself. 

 

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So again, you are equating the responsibility to not cause violence on others with the responsibility to defend others against violence.  That is an extremely poor argument, both morally and legally.  But I do understand it is a position that some pro-Russians might find comfort in because it offers Russia excuses for the thousands of people it's killed and the hundreds of thousands displaced by its actions.

I don't believe in either of those responsibilities, but OK.

I'm not making a moral or a legal argument. I'm saying that both sides are what's keeping the war going, because a war needs two warring sides. As soon as one side stops fighting, the war would end. 

In the end, it comes down to you believing that killing people to have the Ukrainian flag flying over a piece of territory is just the right thing to do. I'm OK with doing the same thing for the Russian flag. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Nefron said:

You just contradicted yourself.

No I didn't.

Quote

I don't believe in either of those responsibilities, but OK.

I'm not making a moral or a legal argument. I'm saying that both sides are what's keeping the war going, because a war needs two warring sides. As soon as one side stops fighting, the war would end. 

Sure, and as soon as the rape victim stops struggling then everything will end happily ever after?  Great logic you have there.

Quote

In the end, it comes down to you believing that killing people to have the Ukrainian flag flying over a piece of territory is just the right thing to do. I'm OK with doing the same thing for the Russian flag. 

So if NATO starts a war with Russia in order to expand it's territory, what you are saying is that Russia should immediately call for a cease fire, stop shooting at NATO even if NATO continues to shoot at Russians, then lay down it's arms so that the war can end.  That's your position?  You might want to let Putin know because he's already said he'll use nukes if NATO touches its territory.

Steve

[Kinophile]

@Nefron That's a pretty empty argument. It suggests national resistance to a violent foreign invasion is a choice, and not a basic necessity - politically, socially, culturally and even just in basic human psychology. 

In theory violent resistance to violent aggression is a choice, on a very simplistic, esoteric level. In reality it's almost entirely without choice,the level of resistance dependent on the disparity in military capabilities between the parties. 

But even then, people will resist. Ireland was often completely outclassed, ougunned, outnumbered by the British empire - yet we constantly resisted. The American Indians had an even worse position - but resisted to the very bitter end. It required cultural, social and military genocide to defeat them. Russians resisted the Nazi invasion to an incredible degree, winning despite deliberate, organized genocide. 

Considering Russia maintains Russian troops within Ukrainian borders, is effectively in control of the local militias, then continued resistance and attack by the armed forces of Ukraine is guaranteed, inevitable and justified. 

Is this really under debate? Really? 

What tosh. 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by kinophile

[Nefron]

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, and as soon as the rape victim stops struggling then everything will end happily ever after?  Great logic you have there.

Nobody said everything will end happily for everybody. 

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So if NATO starts a war with Russia in order to expand it's territory, what you are saying is that Russia should immediately call for a cease fire, stop shooting at NATO even if NATO continues to shoot at Russians, then lay down it's arms so that the war can end.  That's your position?  You might want to let Putin know because he's already said he'll use nukes if NATO touches its territory.

 

No, that's not my position. since NATO cannot actually win that war. 

I think I stated my position clearly, I'm not sure why you keep misinterpreting it. My position is that you were wrong when you said that the only reason for the war is that Russia is pursuing its own interests. That's only one of the reasons, the other is Ukraine pursuing its own interests. 

I've also noted that you believe Ukraine is fighting for a worthy cause, and that their killing is justified. That's OK. I'm also OK with the other side doing the same.

42 minutes ago, kinophile said:

@Nefron That's a pretty empty argument. It suggests national resistance to a violent foreign invasion is a choice, and not a basic necessity - politically, socially, culturally and even just in basic human psychology. 

 

It is a choice. Remember how they've chosen to surrender in Crimea? 

 

42 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Considering Russia maintains Russian troops within Ukrainian borders, is effectively in control of the local militias, then continued resistance and attack by the armed forces of Ukraine is guaranteed, inevitable and justified. 

 

I certainly hear you and understand where you're coming from. Both sides are OK with using violence to further their interests, and I'm OK that.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Nefron

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm British and through my modelling hobby I've become friends with lots of guys in Ukraine & in Russia.  There are lots of modellers from Latvia, Lithuania & Poland too, then there's my German, Canadian & American buddies to think about.

TBH I'd really rather they don't start all start killing each other, it'd completely ruin the atmosphere on BM.....Might make it kinda like this thread TBH. 

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Nobody said everything will end happily for everybody. 

OK, but you are in favor of women lying still and letting themselves be raped just so there's no violence (although the act of rape itself is considered violence)?  The man, in your opinion, has no obligation to stop raping once he's started?  I just want to be clear about your opinion here.

Quote

No, that's not my position. since NATO cannot actually win that war. 

Wow, you get even more interesting!  So you are saying that because Russia has a chance of beating Ukraine that it has an obligation to surrender.  Why is Russia fighting in Syria?  It has no chance of winning the war it claims it is fighting.

Quote

I think I stated my position clearly, I'm not sure why you keep misinterpreting it. My position is that you were wrong when you said that the only reason for the war is that Russia is pursuing its own interests. That's only one of the reasons, the other is Ukraine pursuing its own interests. 

You did state your position clearly.  And that is you feel that if Russia attacks someone the other party has an obligation to surrender.  It's very clear and becoming even clearer.

I will say this again.  Russia has a moral and legal obligation to not wage war on its neighbors.  Ukraine has a moral and legal obligation to defend it's territory from foreign aggression.  If both countries followed their legal and moral obligations there would be no war.  However, one nation, and only one nation, has cast aside both its legal and moral obligations while the other one has not.  The one that is in violation should be the one to stop fighting, not the one being victimized.

Quote

I've also noted that you believe Ukraine is fighting for a worthy cause, and that their killing is justified. That's OK. I'm also OK with the other side doing the same.

A rape victim struggles because she feels it is in her best interests to resist being raped.  And so you are perfectly fine with the man continuing to rape her because he feels it is in his best interests to do so.  An interesting view of the world.  Hitler had a lot to say about things like this.  All sorts of stuff, in fact.

Quote

It is a choice. Remember how they've chosen to surrender in Crimea? 

Wow.

Quote

I certainly hear you and understand where you're coming from. Both sides are OK with using violence to further their interests, and I'm OK that.

You shouldn't be.

Steve

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Actually I believe Hitler was reasonably respectful of women (& reasonably kind to dogs).....Total A-Hole in all other regards though. 

[Nefron]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK, but you are in favor of women lying still and letting themselves be raped just so there's no violence (although the act of rape itself is considered violence)?  The man, in your opinion, has no obligation to stop raping once he's started?  I just want to be clear about your opinion here.

No. What's up with you and rape, this is really getting weird for me. 

 

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Wow, you get even more interesting!  So you are saying that because Russia has a chance of beating Ukraine that it has an obligation to surrender.  

Nobody has an obligation to surrender, but they have that option. They aren't going to take it, and opt for killing instead, so there's a war. This is pretty much the thing I've originally said, it's really not that complex. 

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You did state your position clearly.  And that is you feel that if Russia attacks someone the other party has an obligation to surrender.  It's very clear and becoming even clearer.

What? Where did I say anything of the sort? 

 

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I will say this again.  Russia has a moral and legal obligation to not wage war on its neighbors.  Ukraine has a moral and legal obligation to defend it's territory from foreign aggression.  If both countries followed their legal and moral obligations there would be no war. 

I disagree. 

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

However, one nation, and only one nation, has cast aside both its legal and moral obligations while the other one has not.  The one that is in violation should be the one to stop fighting, not the one being victimized.

If you say so, but the fact remains that the war is raging because both sides want to fight for their interests. You believing that one side is in the right does not change that. This right here is my point.

 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A rape victim struggles because she feels it is in her best interests to resist being raped.  And so you are perfectly fine with the man continuing to rape her because he feels it is in his best interests to do so.  An interesting view of the world.  Hitler had a lot to say about things like this.  All sorts of stuff, in fact.

Again with the rape :S

 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Wow.

So, uh, they did not choose to surrender in Crimea? Were they mind controlled or something? 

 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You shouldn't be.

 

K.