Join the new world

Lets give peace a chance

Why didn't you want to give peace a chance, when the Ukrainian army shelled Donetsk and Lugansk for 8 years, when you were all fu***ng peacekeepers?

You mean the regions that have been part of the Russian instigated conflict? From when Russia annexed part of Ukraine? Those regions? The ones that wouldn't be a conflict zone if Putin didn't have aspirations to conquer a former soviet republic that isn't yet defended by NATO?

We condemned Russia starting that conflict and annexing the Crimean then too.

Why didn't you condemn the illegal military coup in Kyiv in 2014? Why not condemned the bombing and the division of Yugoslavia. I hope you condemn the illegal creation of Kosovo right??? Interesting And how do you justify why the inhabitants of Kosovo can create their country without the approval of Belgrade, and the inhabitants of Donetsk and Lugansk cannot without the consent of Kyiv?

I want to clarify one important thing. I'm not talking about Donetsk, having heard this from the media, I live in Donetsk and I voted for the separation of Donetsk from Ukraine. Therefore, I don’t need to tell me how Putin is doing something there, I am a direct participant in the separation of Donetsk from Ukraine, this is my decision and my desire.

Why would a 96% ethnic Albanians ask for approval from beigrad to be free from an ocupator and live freely in our own land ? 🤣🤣🤣

I condemn the ethnic cleansing that happened in kosovo regardless of the legality of their separation so I support bombing the people responsible, nobody was ethnically cleansing you were they? Be honest we will know if you are lying. Illegal coup in Kiev? There was no coup in in Kiev in 2014, there was a russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 that was then followed by the referendum vote that everyone is supposed to believe the occupying force didn't in anyway interfere with. We are just supposed to believe a place that is 82% Ukrainian and only 10% ethnic Russian had 96% of the population wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia, conveniently while the Russian military occupied the region. Thats great you were among the 10% of ethnic Russians who were allowed to make that decision at gun point for your neighbors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhcT925oKDs&t=2024s
@Party Officer Jake Sea watch it, you will have all the answers about ethnic cleansing and everything 🙂

If you support Kosovo then you should support Donetsk and Lugaska People's Republic or it's just double standards.
To deny that there was an illegal armed coup in Kyiv in 2014 is simply stupid, as well as the fact that it was financially supported by the USA and the EU.

In Crimea, the majority of everything was ethnically Russian, as in the Donbass. According to this, following your own logic, these regions have the right to self-determination.
Just say it straight out, you don't like Russia, so the EU and the US can bomb Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan just like that, and when the Russian Federation decided to protect the Russians in Ukraine, you started whining and calling for peace.
This will no longer work, Russia will cut ties with the US and the EU and this will be the best solution.

The crimean is 82% Ukrainian how is that majority russian? You drank that soviet red coolaid and can't do basic proportions anymore? Protect Russians in Ukraine? None of you were in danger before Putin invaded to try and prevent a president the parliment democratically elected to remove from being ousted then occupied the crimean and pushed an obviously altered referendum vote then convinced coolaid drinkers like you that a shit ton of your neighbors dont exist. You are going to sit here and tell me you were oppressed before 2014? You know who is being oppressed? The 82% of the crimean who are Ukrainian but go ahead and pretend like you and Putin are the good guys. You should enlist and go to Kiev I hear they'll receive you warmly.

az oh I am all too familiar with the Serbian ge nocide of bozniaks and albanians. This guy won't ever hear it though, he is the oppressed one because the Ukrainian government didnt allow an invading force to strip 82% of the crimeans right to self determination so that 10% of its population could force them all to switch countries...

@party officer jake : while i am against the war that happens in ukraine, i have to correct you there.
NATO is NOT a defensive alliance.
its a military offensive alliance that acts on behalf of the strongest player (that leads it).

lets not forget the invasion on iraq, the invasion of afghanistan, the invasion of libya, or the bombing of belgrade in yugoslavia in 1999...
if we are against the war crimes in ukraine, we should also be against the war crimes that happened in iraq / afghanistan / libya / yugoslavia.
there is no other way.

PS:

@party officer jake : also, despite all claims for the contrary, kosovo is not a legally recognized state.

if its people want to be free its a very important thing, but the land of kosovo always belonged to serbia, if history is any indicator.

considering that the majority of the area had serbian people in it and it only recently got an influx of 70% albanian people in it, its more of a radical change in its population after the collapse of yugoslavia, than something else.
(as the change happened back in the 1990s, during the yugoslavian wars, and not before that point)

@chris jonadicus I specifically avoided addressing the legal status of kosovo as it is debated and not relevant. Independent or not genocide was happening, a culture was being ethnically cleansed. It matters not what crises resulted in the demographic shift, what matters is one ethnic group decided to try and eradicate another by targeting non combatants with the intent to kill every member of that demographic. This is fundamentally different than what the Ukraine was doing after Russia destabilized their nation in 2014.

I must correct you NATO is a defensive alliance not an offensive one. Every conflict they participated in was started by someone else, nearly every time they deployed forces it wasn't under the NATO charter but on a UN resolution.

From the treaty:
"The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty"

It contains 14 articles, not one gives the ability to go to war outside of a UN resolution or an attack on a member. Bosnia is the only time they acted that could be considered against their charter as the UN didn't order it and it wasn't an attack on a member state but Bosniak women and children were being slaughtered so they acted in response to the humanitarian crisis. I agree with the intervention but it is not actually permitted by articles of the treaty and should have been treated as a violation. The UN should have been the ones to step in on behalf of the bosniaks being butchered.

Every other time they've deployed it was either under article 5/6 such as when the US was attacked, or in kosovo when the serbian forces were attacking UN areas that contained NATO forces, or was under the articles that bind them to the UN such as Iraq, Aghanistan and Libya(to which I was a participant).

82% ???? АХАХАХАХА https://inlnk.ru/G6QBk4

Do not believe the Russian Federation, here's Ukrainian data on Crimea. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/nationality/crimea/

Only under UN resolutions, it's just ridiculous. Let's call it an international coalition and attack whoever we want. In any case, now the world has changed. I would advise you to get used to the new reality.

I do see that I had bad data or misread data. The Crimean is in fact 2/3 ethnic Russian which further makes the idea they needed Russian protection difficult to believe. It also doesn't change the referendum came after Russia invaded which came not after some plea from the people but the plea of a democratically deposed president who was removed by Parliament for refusing to sign Ukraine into the EU in accordance with the will of the people. NATO does not "attack whoever we want".

Libya was under UNSC resolution 1976
Afghanistan was under UNSC res 1386
Iraq was under UNSC res 678(first war) and 1441(second war)
Kosovo was under UNSC res 1244
Bosnia should have been under UNSC res 1144 but they illegally went in before it was passed
Somalia was under UNSC 2316

In fact aside from the time they went into Bosnia while the resolution was still being voted on you'd be hard pressed to find a conflict NATO participated in that wasn't a UNSC resolution.

The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the moment the newly elected President of Ukraine takes office. Early termination of the powers of the President is possible in the following cases:

voluntary resignation (powers terminate from the moment the president personally announces his resignation at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada);
inability to exercise powers for health reasons;
removal from office by way of impeachment;
of death.

It turns out the removal of Yanukovych was illegal. They tried to kill him and forced him to leave the country. As a result, we have an illegal armed coup. Which gives the right to Crimea and Donbass to secede from Ukraine, because Ukraine is essentially captured by those who carried out the coup.

He was impeached by unanimous vote by the Ukrainian Parliament and got Russia to intervene militarily to prevent his ousting.

I personally support their independence since I understood they (in the east) support the idea of getting closer to Russia than the western power. But both sides constantly violated the peace treaty and the real victims of the border skirmishes were the real people who lived in those region who were played on by Ukraine and Russia for both sides refused to acknowledge them. That conflict was used by the Russians to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU or NATO. They were also used by the Ukrainian government to ensure that the western "supported" coup was legitimate so that they could not claim independence.

But war was not the answer to fix a lapse of reason. War is used once a side refuses to work together. On this occasion it is clear that Russians no longer wanted to work together. Since you live in Donetsk I will tell you to enjoy your short lived freedom before your country ultimately "votes" to become a part of the Russian federation. Enjoy the freedoms you have since eventually your people will "vote" to have them removed by being nothing more than pawn of the Putin's Russia.

@redXarrow did you support Hitler occupying the Sudetenland then eventually invading all of Czechoslovakia in World War 2? The circumstances were near identical.

@Party Officer Jake Sea

I would have supported Neville in his attempt to make peace using small concessions. But the situation is not the same. The only thing that is the same is how Putin and Hitler is trying to use "historical" context to seize land.

Also you cannot claim that they impeached the president they ousted after the fact they coup him. That is sorta the thing Putin is trying to pull now by removing people in power and then having the people who remain to vote on the only other option that remains.

Y'all keep using this word coup but I don't think it means what you think it means.

A coup is a sudden and illegal seizure of power from a government typically performed by a nations military. A few hundred thousand protestors protesting a president refusing to sign documents joining the EU against the will of the people who elected him is not a coup. He was still very much in power when their Parliament voted him out over it. He then pleaded to Putin to overturn it because he felt it was rigged against him. That's not a coup, and neither are his attempts to stay in power. It was more akin to the January 6th protests turned riot in the US but where the ousted president never appealed to a foreign power to send troops to keep him in office.

Germany demanded the Sudetenland for exactly the same reasons Putin demanded the Crimean and the region containing Donbas. Both occupied the ethnic german/russian areas then launched an invasion of the non german/russian portion from the occupied portions. The primary difference is Putin employed more modern destabilization techniques like proping up "freedom fighters" that the US and USSR pioneered heavily in the cold war.

And you'd support "peace in our time" when it means condemning one group early only to turn around and still face the inevitable conflict with the polity that is actively trying to increase it's power at the expense of others even its own people? You are fine to I guess but it's naive and foolish.

@Party Officer Jake Sea

So if the Jan 6th protesters force the senate/congress to refuse Biden as president would that have been a coup? I guess not since no military (domestic or foreign) was involved and it was just good ole mericans coming to save their country.

Also Putin took Crimea since it was ethnically 50+% Russians who would have viewed the Euromaidan protesters as coup to power after the sitting president already agreed to early elections. You claim to believe in democracy but it seems to be you only care about others opinions if they are the same as your own.. a bit naïve but it makes sense if you only associate with people that have the same view of yourself.

Ok there is a bit to unpack here. January 6th isn't a perfect analogy, however, in the analogy Trump is the former Ukrainian president who was democratically removed from office by their Parliament. Its actually kind if a crap analogy my bad, because the police are on democracy's side the protesters are on the deposed presidents side and no foreign military was involved. But it still wouldn't have been a coup if the mob forced a president being overturned because 90% of the government is still unchanged. A coup dictates a change in government, the whole government. Congress needs to be replaced in the scenario as well to call it a coup. One executive who has way less authority or power than people seem to realize being replaced isn't a coup.

In the Ukraine the protestors didn't force Parliament to depose the president and the protests became violent because the president employed jack booted thugs to try and suppress them the way Russia is handling dissent right now. 800,000 pissed off people protesting isn't a coup, a president trying to silence them and it devolving to riots isn't a coup. Parliament deposing him democratically because he rejected democracy by not signing those papers and acted tyrannically is not a coup. Yes if Parliament had been over run and destroyed and the president killed and a new different government formed that would be a coup. But that is not what happened. What happened in Myanmar was a coup.

As to the crimean. Yup, he said "they are mostly ethnically russian and speak russian yoink" and Hitler said, "they are mostly ethnically german and speak german yoink". Imagine if German yoinked southern Denmark right now, its mostly ethnic Germans. Or imagine if the Irish yoinked Boston or North Ireland. Imagine if China yoinked Taiwan or South Korea yoinked north korea. Imagine if Spain started yoinking former colonies. Russia sending in a military and occupying the Crimean is not how international diplomatic efforts work and it isn't how democracy in a sovereign country should work. Remain voters can't call on EU nations to invade the UK because Brexit won regardless of anyone's ethnicity and Ukrainian citizens can't decide their ethnicity is grounds for independence just because they aren't happen with the result of a Parliment election held by duly elected members of Parliament. Hiding behind the 800,000 protesters who were protesting their president suspending talks to join the EU that was supported by a majority within the nation because Putin pressured him into abandoning the talks is silly.

The irony of you thinking someone else only cares about an opinion if it matches theirs. You clearly have no regard for how democracy actually works or how it should work.

Like the man says.

You have renewed my faith in the game community. Thank you to those of you have made this happen!

Signed.

O7

It's like December 24th 1914 again! I'll drink to the indomitable human spirit and the human ability to bring light to darkness, peace to conflict, hope to tragedy and joy to sorrow. If only Putin, Biden, and Zelenskyy could see this and be inspired by it the way it inspires me.

all we are saying...

https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-formal-declaration-of-ceasefire--2749356/1/20

Signed

o7

Нуда-нуда, это же игра и поэтому сюда надо притянуть реал.

*oink* *oink* https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-zw-russia-is-officially-dioist-1144136

o7

[removed]

He is making a joke of it. My article is real. PEACE-GC Commands Respect.

That would be unfair to all previous efforts. That wouldn't be ceasefire anymore

[removed]

Oh Russia needed to defend the Russians from the big bad Ukraine that is so dangerous Russia has been able to successfully occupy parts of it for 7 years?

Russia's complaint was a nation was thinking of joining a defensive alliance and defensive weapons might be deployed on their borders. Why would those be the complaint unless they were planning offense against Ukraine?

Nazis of Ukraine? Ukraine provided 4.5 million soldiers to fight against the Nazis. As opposed to the 80,000 collaborators who served alongside their Nazi occupiers. How dare those Ukrainians allow themselves to be conquered and "only" commit 50 times as many people toward throwing of the Nazis as there were collaborators! And those French and what they did rest of Europe when they sided with the Nazis to right? What absolute nonsense. You know who did work with the Nazis? It wasn't the 4.5 Million Ukrainians fighting and dying to expel the invaders, it was the Soviets with their non agression pact and mutual war on Poland.

Someone here is a vile creature alright but I think you should consult the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

>defensive alliance
Ahahaha, what a joke. Sad joke.
So many 'defensive' operations, no radioactive bombs in Serbia, no any bombed wedding, rocketed cars with children and so on. Also, absolutely no oppression of ethnic russians in all those baltic NATO members.

Yxqizgfsmrwuu yes defensive alliance. NATO has not once summoned its forces for offense and in fact gas no framework to do so. The bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina was in response to the Army of Republika Srpska attacks on UN designated humanitarian safe zones and their ethnic cleansing of Bosniak Muslims. Those bombings killed 27 bosnia serb civilians and 25-27 ARS soldiers. The remaining casualties occured during the coterminois HV ARBiH and HVO campaigns that were launched. No "radioactive bombs" were dropped, just conventional ordinance, our only "radioactive bombs" go off with a pretty big bang since we don't employ dirty bombs just Nuclear fission and fusion warheads.

NATO has also intervened in Kosovo in response to the ethnic cleansing of Albanians, in Iraq in defense of Kuwait who was invaded, in Afghanistan in response to attacks on the US, in Somalia in response to somali hijackings of civilian ships, and in Libya in response to attacks on civilians in the 2011 civil war(to which I was a participant). The only one of these that was not on the orders of the UN was Bosnia. All of them were defending someone, not were offensive in nature.

The Latvian and Estonian treatment of ethnic Russians and denial of their citizenship is a cause for outrage but also a false equivalence/whataboutism because they are not Ukraine and do not represent every nation in Eastern European nation in NATO. In 2009 96% of Ukrainians polled had positive views of Russians, post crimean annex it is 17% I can't imagine why that is...

@party officer jake : while i am against the war that happens in ukraine, i have to correct you there.
NATO is NOT a defensive alliance.
its a military offensive alliance that acts on behalf of the strongest player (that leads it).

lets not forget the invasion on iraq, the invasion of afghanistan, the invasion of libya, or the bombing of belgrade in yugoslavia in 1999...
if we are against the war crimes in ukraine, we should also be against the war crimes that happened in iraq / afghanistan / libya / yugoslavia.
there is no other way.

@chris jordanicus you said that already. You were wrong the first time and you are wrong now. The articles of the treaty only allow NATO to deploy under a UN resolution or if one is attacked. Somalia constituted an attack per the article 6 definition. In kosovo it constituted an attack when they attacked UN positions that contained NATO troops who were there on a UN resolution per the article 6 definition of an attack. Afghanistan Iraq and Libya were on UN security council resolutions. Afghanistan was 2189, Iraq was 1546 and Libya was 1973. Don't forget China and Dussia both could have vetoed any of those.

The only time that NATO deployed for a reason other than an Article 5 attack or a UNSC resolution was Bosnia and Herzegovina. Which while I agree with ending the genocide of Bozniaks on Bosnia it was not actually a legal action as it was not permitted by Article 5 and was not ordered by a UNSC resolution. They should have found a legal way to get the UN to stop the genocide as it makes maintaining the credibility of the treaty difficult when you violate its articles even for good reasons.

I am against the human rights violations perpetrated against Bozniaks by Serbs in Bosnia, Albanians by Serbs in Kosovo, the Libyan civilians by the Libyan government in Libya, Afghani people by Taliban and other religious fundamentalist extremist organizations in Afghanistan and on Kurds by the Republican Guard in Iraq. I am also against the human rights violations that occurred in Guantanamo bay, that prison in Iraq where they pissed on prisoners etc.

Thats a strange false dichotomy/whataboutism though.

"The average Russian life expectancy of 71.6 years at birth is nearly 5 years shorter than the overall average figure for the European Union, or the United States."