Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

I'm Ukrainian, give me a question.

@tpr said ^

"That NATO is a defensive organisation is proven"

  • It was intended as defensive, but then became offensive in Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.

Afghanistan it was defensive, because al Qauda has attacked USA in 9/11.

NATO was not involced in Libya, Iraq or Syria. NATO has member countries. France is a member for instance. But if France bombs a country, does it then mean that NATO bombs a country? No it does not. 'The same way that if France introduces 35 hour work week, does it then also mean "NATO introduces 35 hour work week". Again no, what a member country does is not the same as "what NATO does. So you actually need to check if NATO is involced or not for each case!

It matters: closer distance gives less time to detect and intercept.

it does not which is why Russia did not react in 1999 when they got a border to NATO.

The difference in time is so short that it matters not.

NATO was involced in Kosovo - to prevent an ongoing genocide. Is that a bad thing? Like how many people would have preferred to let the genoice happen? Npt many, probably!

"it doesn't matter at all if they're on the border of far away"

  • It matters: closer distance gives less time to detect and intercept.
    Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can destroy Berlin, Paris, and London in 400 seconds.

"Ukr will never join NATO"

  • Ukraine will never join NATO, as it requires all 32 NATO members to agree. Even Sweden and Finland had problems joining.

Now back on topic with questions:
What should happen to those in Crimea and in the Donbas, who on December 1, 1991 voted against independence and for staying in the USSR and in the census of 2001 declared Russian as their mother language?

Ukr will never join NATO"

It looks like USA is leaving though. Then I don't see why Ukraine would not be admitted.

What should happen to those in Crimea and in the Donbas, who on December 1, 1991 voted against independence and for staying in the USSR

They did not vote against independance. There was a majority for independance everywhere.

All you had to do to avoud that mistake was search "Ukraine inpedendance referendum". It's easy to find facts!

here is a link ffor you but you cann off course search yourself and find any article on it you like!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/yk1lGtZ6) > "That NATO is a defensive organisation is proven" > * It was intended as defensive, but then became offensive in Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Afghanistan it was defensive, because al Qauda has attacked USA in 9/11. NATO was not involced in Libya, Iraq or Syria. NATO has member countries. France is a member for instance. But if France bombs a country, does it then mean that NATO bombs a country? No it does not. 'The same way that if France introduces 35 hour work week, does it then also mean "NATO introduces 35 hour work week". Again no, what a member country does is not the same as "what NATO does. So you actually need to check if NATO is involced or not for each case! >It matters: closer distance gives less time to detect and intercept. it does not which is why Russia did not react in 1999 when they got a border to NATO. The difference in time is so short that it matters not. NATO was involced in Kosovo - to prevent an ongoing genocide. Is that a bad thing? Like how many people would have preferred to let the genoice happen? Npt many, probably! > > "it doesn't matter at all if they're on the border of far away" > * It matters: closer distance gives less time to detect and intercept. > Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can destroy Berlin, Paris, and London in 400 seconds. > > "Ukr will never join NATO" > * Ukraine will never join NATO, as it requires all 32 NATO members to agree. Even Sweden and Finland had problems joining. > > Now back on topic with questions: > What should happen to those in Crimea and in the Donbas, who on December 1, 1991 voted against independence and for staying in the USSR and in the census of 2001 declared Russian as their mother language? >Ukr will never join NATO" It looks like USA is leaving though. Then I don't see why Ukraine would not be admitted. >What should happen to those in Crimea and in the Donbas, who on December 1, 1991 voted against independence and for staying in the USSR They did not vote against independance. There was a majority for independance everywhere. All you had to do to avoud that mistake was search "Ukraine inpedendance referendum". It's easy to find facts! here is a link ffor you but you cann off course search yourself and find any article on it you like! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum

@tpr said ^

"That NATO is a defensive organisation is proven"

  • It was intended as defensive, but then became offensive in Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.

"it doesn't matter at all if they're on the border of far away"

  • It matters: closer distance gives less time to detect and intercept.
    Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can destroy Berlin, Paris, and London in 400 seconds.

OK I want you to answer this quesion.

You think the best place for missiles is "as close as possible".

Why does nobody do it like that? You think the generals of the world's armies know less about missiles than you do?

For instance, France puts their missiles on a nuclear submarine instead of in Estonia on the border to Russia. You think "France don't know what they're doing, I know much better how it works than those amateurs!" Is that what you rhink?

Also why do you think Russia does not do what you think is best and put their missiles as close to Ukraine as posible? They don't understand it either?

And Ukraine also don't do it. The also don't understand?

USA also put their missiles in North Dakota and Wyoming and not on any border. Why do they put them there? Is it because it's safer and a better place to put them or because USA doesn't understand how missiles work like you do?

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/yk1lGtZ6) > "That NATO is a defensive organisation is proven" > * It was intended as defensive, but then became offensive in Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. > > "it doesn't matter at all if they're on the border of far away" > * It matters: closer distance gives less time to detect and intercept. > Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can destroy Berlin, Paris, and London in 400 seconds. > OK I want you to answer this quesion. You think the best place for missiles is "as close as possible". Why does nobody do it like that? You think the generals of the world's armies know less about missiles than you do? For instance, France puts their missiles on a nuclear submarine instead of in Estonia on the border to Russia. You think "France don't know what they're doing, I know much better how it works than those amateurs!" Is that what you rhink? Also why do you think Russia does not do what you think is best and put their missiles as close to Ukraine as posible? They don't understand it either? And Ukraine also don't do it. The also don't understand? USA also put their missiles in North Dakota and Wyoming and not on any border. Why do they put them there? Is it because it's safer and a better place to put them or because USA doesn't understand how missiles work like you do?

"Afghanistan it was defensive"

  • No, the Afghans did not attack the USA on 9/11. It were Saudis living in Germany. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Germany were attacked then.

"NATO was not involced in Libya, Iraq or Syria."

  • Several NATO countries attacked there, and they used the NATO structure to attack.

"The difference in time is so short that it matters not."

  • That is not true: less time to detect and intercept gives higher chance to break through air defense.

"NATO was involced in Kosovo - to prevent an ongoing genocide."

  • The same was said about Libya. However genocides in Gaza, Darfur, Congo go on without NATO.
    NATO was intended as a defensive alliance, not as a supranational police force free to intervene when and where they like.

"They did not vote against independance. There was a majority for independance everywhere."

  • Point is Ukraine was divided back then: West Ukraine voted for Independence, Crimea and East Ukraine voted to stay in the USSR.
    Likewise in the 2001 census most in West Ukraine declared Ukrainian as their mother language, and most in Crimea and East Ukraine declared Russian as their mother language. The tension was already present before Russia intervened.
"Afghanistan it was defensive" * No, the Afghans did not attack the USA on 9/11. It were Saudis living in Germany. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Germany were attacked then. "NATO was not involced in Libya, Iraq or Syria." * Several NATO countries attacked there, and they used the NATO structure to attack. "The difference in time is so short that it matters not." * That is not true: less time to detect and intercept gives higher chance to break through air defense. "NATO was involced in Kosovo - to prevent an ongoing genocide." * The same was said about Libya. However genocides in Gaza, Darfur, Congo go on without NATO. NATO was intended as a defensive alliance, not as a supranational police force free to intervene when and where they like. "They did not vote against independance. There was a majority for independance everywhere." * Point is Ukraine was divided back then: West Ukraine voted for Independence, Crimea and East Ukraine voted to stay in the USSR. Likewise in the 2001 census most in West Ukraine declared Ukrainian as their mother language, and most in Crimea and East Ukraine declared Russian as their mother language. The tension was already present before Russia intervened.

"You think the best place for missiles is as close as possible."

  • For offensive missiles, yes. That is why Russia puts missiles in Kaliningrad and in Belarus. That is why the USSR put missiles in Ukraine, more than France, the United Kingdom and China together. Likewise the USA put missiles in NATO member Turkey.

"France puts their missiles on a nuclear submarine"

  • The USA, Russia, China, the United Kingdom do that too. Point is that missiles on land even in silos are targets and can be destroyed, while a nuclear submarine can hide under polar ice undetected.
"You think the best place for missiles is as close as possible." * For offensive missiles, yes. That is why Russia puts missiles in Kaliningrad and in Belarus. That is why the USSR put missiles in Ukraine, more than France, the United Kingdom and China together. Likewise the USA put missiles in NATO member Turkey. "France puts their missiles on a nuclear submarine" * The USA, Russia, China, the United Kingdom do that too. Point is that missiles on land even in silos are targets and can be destroyed, while a nuclear submarine can hide under polar ice undetected.

@tpr said ^

"Afghanistan it was defensive"

  • No, the Afghans did not attack the USA on 9/11. It were Saudis living in Germany. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Germany were attacked then.

Bin Ladin lived in Afghanistan. The Afghans themselves said it - it was no secret. Hence the attack originated in Afghanistan as the Talibans were protecting bin Ladin.

This is why NATO got involved.

"NATO was not involced in Libya, Iraq or Syria."

  • Several NATO countries attacked there, and they used the NATO structure to attack.

I have answered this already. If a small group of NATO countries does something, this does not mean "all of the organization NATO is now doing this".

It's not hard to understand.

Like say if you play tennis. Does it them mean "all of your family plays tennis"? No. What a member of a groups does is not = what the group does. It's basic logic really.

"The difference in time is so short that it matters not."

  • That is not true: less time to detect and intercept gives higher chance to break through air defense.

Yes it is true.

"NATO was involced in Kosovo - to prevent an ongoing genocide."

  • The same was said about Libya.

NATO was not invoved in Libya. Just a few NATO members. But NATO as such was not involved.

However genocides in Gaza, Darfur, Congo go on without NATO.

I fail to see any relevance of this at all?

NATO was intended as a defensive alliance, not as a supranational police force free to intervene when and where they like.

"They did not vote against independance. There was a majority for independance everywhere."

  • Point is Ukraine was divided back then: West Ukraine voted for Independence, Crimea and East Ukraine voted to stay in the USSR.

No they did not. Crimia and East Ukraine votes to become independant.

Please, I have always provided you with a link showing this.

Where did you get incorrect idea? Like where did you hear it?

Likewise in the 2001 census most in West Ukraine declared Ukrainian as their mother language, and most in Crimea and East Ukraine declared Russian as their mother language. The tension was already present before Russia intervened.

Please give a source? It is not oK you provide false information, then I need to look it uo and then you just ignore what I write and repeat the falsehoods.

You should start searching facts before you post them, So you can look this one ip and give a link.

But not like Russian TV lol

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/HFBlK5Xi) > "Afghanistan it was defensive" > * No, the Afghans did not attack the USA on 9/11. It were Saudis living in Germany. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Germany were attacked then. Bin Ladin lived in Afghanistan. The Afghans themselves said it - it was no secret. Hence the attack originated in Afghanistan as the Talibans were protecting bin Ladin. This is why NATO got involved. > "NATO was not involced in Libya, Iraq or Syria." > * Several NATO countries attacked there, and they used the NATO structure to attack. I have answered this already. If a small group of NATO countries does something, this does not mean "all of the organization NATO is now doing this". It's not hard to understand. Like say if you play tennis. Does it them mean "all of your family plays tennis"? No. What a member of a groups does is not = what the group does. It's basic logic really. > "The difference in time is so short that it matters not." > * That is not true: less time to detect and intercept gives higher chance to break through air defense. Yes it is true. > "NATO was involced in Kosovo - to prevent an ongoing genocide." > * The same was said about Libya. NATO was not invoved in Libya. Just a few NATO members. But NATO as such was not involved. > However genocides in Gaza, Darfur, Congo go on without NATO. I fail to see any relevance of this at all? > NATO was intended as a defensive alliance, not as a supranational police force free to intervene when and where they like. > > "They did not vote against independance. There was a majority for independance everywhere." > * Point is Ukraine was divided back then: West Ukraine voted for Independence, Crimea and East Ukraine voted to stay in the USSR. No they did not. Crimia and East Ukraine votes to become independant. Please, I have always provided you with a link showing this. Where did you get incorrect idea? Like where did you hear it? > Likewise in the 2001 census most in West Ukraine declared Ukrainian as their mother language, and most in Crimea and East Ukraine declared Russian as their mother language. The tension was already present before Russia intervened. Please give a source? It is not oK you provide false information, then I need to look it uo and then you just ignore what I write and repeat the falsehoods. You should start searching facts before you post them, So you can look this one ip and give a link. But not like Russian TV lol

@tpr said ^

"You think the best place for missiles is as close as possible."

  • For offensive missiles, yes. That is why Russia puts missiles in Kaliningrad and in Belarus. That is why the USSR put missiles in Ukraine, more than France, the United Kingdom and China together. Likewise the USA put missiles in NATO member Turkey.

"France puts their missiles on a nuclear submarine"

  • The USA, Russia, China, the United Kingdom do that too.

yes, because it is not good to put them on the border like you thought.

Les ut then agree it is a lie Russia was afraid NATO countries would put their missiles on the border in Estonia. Russia also knows anout nuclear submarines, they have them themslves.

How would Russia not know that France uses nuclear submarines?

Point is that missiles on land even in silos are targets and can be destroyed, while a nuclear submarine can hide under polar ice undetected.

Yes and this is again why it is better to put them in silos or submarines and it sucks to put them on the border.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/g6nAHKfs) > "You think the best place for missiles is as close as possible." > * For offensive missiles, yes. That is why Russia puts missiles in Kaliningrad and in Belarus. That is why the USSR put missiles in Ukraine, more than France, the United Kingdom and China together. Likewise the USA put missiles in NATO member Turkey. > > "France puts their missiles on a nuclear submarine" > * The USA, Russia, China, the United Kingdom do that too. yes, because it is not good to put them on the border like you thought. Les ut then agree it is a lie Russia was afraid NATO countries would put their missiles on the border in Estonia. Russia also knows anout nuclear submarines, they have them themslves. How would Russia not know that France uses nuclear submarines? >Point is that missiles on land even in silos are targets and can be destroyed, while a nuclear submarine can hide under polar ice undetected. Yes and this is again why it is better to put them in silos or submarines and it sucks to put them on the border.

"I have always provided you with a link"

  • In that same link it shows less yes votes and more no votes in Crimea and East Ukraine.

"give a source"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png

My point is that the tension was already there in 1991.
It also showed by the succession of anti-Russian and pro-Russian presidents.

"I have always provided you with a link" * In that same link it shows less yes votes and more no votes in Crimea and East Ukraine. "give a source" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png My point is that the tension was already there in 1991. It also showed by the succession of anti-Russian and pro-Russian presidents.

"it is better to put them in silos or submarines"

  • Silos are now abandoned, as they are too easy to strike.
    Nevertheless Russia has put nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad and Belarus, closer to NATO countries.
    They can destroy Berlin, Paris, and London in 400 seconds.
    That leaves less time to detect and intercept, than if launched from Siberia.
"it is better to put them in silos or submarines" * Silos are now abandoned, as they are too easy to strike. Nevertheless Russia has put nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad and Belarus, closer to NATO countries. They can destroy Berlin, Paris, and London in 400 seconds. That leaves less time to detect and intercept, than if launched from Siberia.

@tpr said ^

"I have always provided you with a link"

  • In that same link it shows less yes votes and more no votes in Crimea and East Ukraine.

It shows a majority of more than 50 % for independance for those places.

"give a source"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png

Thank you!

Almost all countries have linguistic minorities.

Do you think it it OK that a country invades any country of they have a linguistic minority there? Should Italy invade Switzerland because people speak Italian there? Should France in vadde Belgium because some Belgians speak french? Does UK have the right to invade Ireland because the Irish speak English?

My point is that the tension was already there in 1991.
It also showed by the succession of anti-Russian and pro-Russian presidents.

There was small tensions yes, but nothing that would justify a full scale invasion. The Russian speakers living in Ukraine had no problems.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/rOENBQwR) > "I have always provided you with a link" > * In that same link it shows less yes votes and more no votes in Crimea and East Ukraine. It shows a majority of more than 50 % for independance for those places. > "give a source" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png Thank you! Almost all countries have linguistic minorities. Do you think it it OK that a country invades any country of they have a linguistic minority there? Should Italy invade Switzerland because people speak Italian there? Should France in vadde Belgium because some Belgians speak french? Does UK have the right to invade Ireland because the Irish speak English? > My point is that the tension was already there in 1991. > It also showed by the succession of anti-Russian and pro-Russian presidents. There was small tensions yes, but nothing that would justify a full scale invasion. The Russian speakers living in Ukraine had no problems.