Ukraine & Crimea

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-07 12:22:21

I feel like the situation in Ukraine is being reported badly by all outlets. In the US, we're reporting it as blatant aggression by Russia, ignoring the fact that there is significant pro-russian sentiment in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, which may very well feel less secure under a Ukrainian nationalist government than under Yanukovych, your run-of-the-mill autocrat, a mini-putin so to speak.

When the US accuses Russia of supporting protests in Ukraine, what does that really mean? Are they providing resources? Is this not the same as Russia's accusations that the US helped to topple the government of Yanukovych?

Terraformer · 2014-04-07 15:55:00

Why is it wrong for pro-Russian protestors to seize government buildings, but not for pro-EU protestors to do such?

GW Johnson · 2014-04-07 17:26:04

Well, the real problem is not reported openly here in the west. When the Soviet Union broke up, and Ukraine went independent, Ukraine had a significant portion of the Soviet nuclear ICBM's.

We here in the west (NATO) promised to militarily defend Ukraine from Russian invasion, if they would agree to give up and destroy that ICBM fleet in their possession. And they did. That was a signed agreement.

Now Russia has invaded and annexed Crimea, and there now appears to be a credible invasion threat to much of eastern Ukraine. So, we the west are either liars not to be trusted in geopolitics, or else we the west defend a region that we really have no strategic interest in.

Rock and a hard place.

If we live up to the agreement we signed (NATO, not just the US), then this threat to eastern Ukraine requires a military response, not just sanctions and diplomacy.

Oh how the sins of the past catch up to you!

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-07 19:57:48

How about we just give Ukraine some of our nukes? We don't have to attack Russia, just say, "here are some nukes, and here are some missiles, this is how to launch them, so if Russia invades, you know what to do." Since we didn't live up to our end of the bargain, we should give Ukraine some nukes to defend itself with. Seem reasonable?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-07 20:02:33

JoshNH4H wrote:

I feel like the situation in Ukraine is being reported badly by all outlets. In the US, we're reporting it as blatant aggression by Russia, ignoring the fact that there is significant pro-russian sentiment in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, which may very well feel less secure under a Ukrainian nationalist government than under Yanukovych, your run-of-the-mill autocrat, a mini-putin so to speak.
When the US accuses Russia of supporting protests in Ukraine, what does that really mean? Are they providing resources? Is this not the same as Russia's accusations that the US helped to topple the government of Yanukovych?

There was significant pro-German sentiment in the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 too, how is this Ukrainians situation any different from that?
Here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_in … 1918-1938)
Hitler used them as an excuse to invade Czechoslovakia pretty much as Putin is using Crimean Russians as an excuse to invade Ukraine now! What Putin is doing now has been done before by Hitler in 1938! This is nothing new, the only question is whether we are going to fall for it a second time!

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-07 23:17:06

Godwin's law, you lose.

Excelsior · 2014-04-07 23:27:24

At this rate our children might declare Putin's Law when debating history by scratching out pictures in the dirt with sticks.

Glandu · 2014-04-08 04:01:37

If there was not this former agrement on nukes(thanks GW for pointing that out), I'd advocate leaving the russians building back their sphere of influence. EU is already far outstretched, & can't afford to babysit Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, or the Caucasus.

But there is this point, & the likely consequence is a rush towards more nukes, as they are, in this century, the ultimate safety. All other safeties, including the USA umbrella, seem moot today. Everyone will have nukes, soon. That's the risk.

RobertDyck · 2014-04-08 04:58:54

Oh, sometimes I wish I could get involved more directly. If I had my way, I would propose Ukraine develop as system similar to Canada. And some European countries do this too. Canada has two official languages: English and French. The Canadian province of Quebec speaks French. The official government position claims French is spoken elsewhere, but I can tell you any communities outside of Quebec that speak French are tiny. Still, we respect Quebec and consider them a key part of our country. So let Ukraine have two official languages: Ukrainian and Russian. Protect Russian language rights the same way we protect French language rights. Switzerland has four official languages. Tell Ukraine they will not join the EU and will not join NATO, but will not join Russia either, nor Putin's new economic union of former Soviet states. Ukraine will remain independent.

And I would like to again propose my idea for an international mission to send humans to Mars. Yes, I'm a Mars fan. But this is a great project to demonstrate international cooperation. Ukraine would be involved because strap-on boosters for Energia are built there, as well as the Antonov An-225 aircraft to transport fuel tanks for the core stage. Working together to achieve great things is far better than shooting each other or dropping bombs.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-08 05:41:00)

GW Johnson · 2014-04-08 10:49:00

Robert Dyck -- "Working together to achieve great things is far better than shooting each other or dropping bombs."

True enough, friend. Would that nations would behave in an adult fashion, the way individuals can.

But they don't. In most international dealings, nations look exactly like 5-year-olds squabbling on the playground.

I have no answer for that problem, either.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-08 10:53:30

Tell me something Robert, Could the United States remain neutral after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Is it really feasible for Ukraine to remain neutral right after Russia stole some of its land? Would you want to live in the same country as your enemies? Ukraine has a long history of oppression under Russia's thumb, it was independent for a few years after the Russian Revolution in 1917. If I was Ukrainian, I would not want to have Russians as potential fifth columnists in my own country, just as if I was a Czech in 1938, I would not want to have those Germans living in my country. If we have to split Ukraine, then I think that would be a better solution that keeping these two peoples together, one of whom's loyalty is suspect. If they really want to live in Russia, thy can go to Russia. Russia has enough land for them, they don't need to acquire more!

RobertDyck · 2014-04-08 13:08:57

Tom, did you notice the areas that voted for Viktor Yanukovych in the first post of this thread? Those areas are dominated by ethnic Russians. Kicking them all out means evacuating that entire region. That would go way beyond ethnic cleansing. Because of what was done to Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1920s, there is no way Ukrainians will ever accept Russian rule. But ethnic Russians in the east/south areas feel just as passionately. The only options are split Ukraine in two, Russia annexation, or live together. They've lived together since the Soviet Union broke up, so that is a solution that does work.

RobertDyck · 2014-04-08 14:45:59

GW Johnson: United Nations was supposed to do that. Mutual assured security instead of mutual assured destruction. But Russia has a veto on the security council. Well, the US only supports the security council when it suits their agenda. When George W. and his representatives pitched invasion of Iraq, the security council said no. That was sane. But then Colin Powell informed them that the US would invade anyway. The president of the security council stated they may prevent the US from doing so. That was also scarry, and showed the UN can have backbone. But none of them wanted to face the US military. Most were allies of the US, so military conflict against the US was contrairy to their interests. Ironically, president Roosevelt proposed the UN have a standing army, but Europe said no. The only way any international police can work is if they are not beholden to any one country, or any alliance/group.

Another issue is many in the US tried to rub Russia's face in the dirt. As long as you do that, they will ensure their leader is someone strong, someone who can stand up for Russia and restore their dignity. They got one. Instead of Yeltsin, who worked hard to turn Russia into a free market democracy, now they have Putin, a former KGB agent. France made Germany the scape goat after World War 1, the result was World War 2. The Marshall plan treated Germany and Japan with respect, they're now great friends and allies of America. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we needed to treat Russia with respect. Instead America tried to gloat, tried to proclaim itself the only remaining super power. The result was Putin.

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" -- King James Bible, Hosea 8:7

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-08 16:43:46

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, did you notice the areas that voted for Viktor Yanukovych in the first post of this thread? Those areas are dominated by ethnic Russians. Kicking them all out means evacuating that entire region. That would go way beyond ethnic cleansing. Because of what was done to Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1920s, there is no way Ukrainians will ever accept Russian rule. But ethnic Russians in the east/south areas feel just as passionately. The only options are split Ukraine in two, Russia annexation, or live together. They've lived together since the Soviet Union broke up, so that is a solution that does work.

Not anymore, has Putin tried a more peaceful arrangement before sending in the troops? Nope! He could have attacked the Khrushchev decision to transfer the land to Ukraine, but he did not. Putin did not offer to trade Ukraine anything for stealing their land, and if Russia simply moves in and sits on Ukraine using brute force and terror to keep the Ukrainians down, that makes them as bad as the Nazis. Putin just took land by force and gave Ukraine nothing in return. You seriously expect Russians and Ukrainians to live in peace after that? How about Chechnya how is that going for the Russians? Do you think if the Russians forcibly make Ukraine disappear that the Ukrainians are going to take that sitting down? Are they going to be good little Russian citizens and forget the were ever Ukrainians, without a lot of terror and massacres to terrorize them into submission?

There is historic precedent, those Germans in Czechoslovakia, which was the excuse for Hitler's invasion of that country were also kicked out after World War II. Was this fair to them? No. Did all those Germans support Hitler? No, in fact a fellow named Oscar Schindler was also one of those Germans, he saved a lot of Jews by employing them in his factories, preventing them from being send to the gas chambers of the death camps. But the Czechs and Poles felt they could not tolerate Germans in their countries after they were used by Hitler as an excuse to invade and occupy their countries, and do you blame them? Now what are those Russians saying when they say they want their territory in the Ukraine to be annexed by Russia? They are saying that they no longer wish to be Ukrainian citizens. Most people who do not want to be citizens of country leave that country, they are called emigrants. There is plenty of land in Russia for them to occupy. The borders of the country they inhabit were internationally recognized by treaty, I don't think the fact that they want to be Russian Citizens excuses the Russian invasion of Ukraine, any more that would apply to those Germans living in Czechoslovakia in 1938, the border with Germany was a short distance away, they could have walked. Now the real question is why Russia needs territory in Ukraine, and why they weren't willing to pay for that land. I think in the very least Ukraine ought to get some compensation for the land the Russians stole, because if we establish the precedent of the big stealing from the small, that is a very dangerous world to live in when we have nuclear weapons as well.

Now honestly whether you believe the Russians incursion into Ukraine was understandable or not how are the Ukrainians, the real Ukrainians, not the ones that would rather be Russians, how are they supposed to view what the Russians did as anything but a hostile act. If the majority of Texans were ethnic Mexicans and somehow the Mexican army invaded across the border and took back Texas, don't expect the United States to be neutral or indifferent to that? I don't believe neutrality is in the cards for Ukraine. Russia can occupy Eastern Ukraine and have a hostile Western Ukraine on its border, or it can occupy the whole thing and oppress the Ukrainians, deporting some to Siberia, killing a whole bunch, and pretty much ruining Russia's image in Europe. What would you do if Russia started emptying out whole Ukrainian towns and cities, deporting unwilling civilians to Siberia to work them to death or simply to kill them by the millions, or else the Ukrainians can fight a guerilla war against the occupying Russians, shooting Russian soldiers and the Russians retaliating? I think the Ukrainians would rather have their own country and Russia would have better relations with the west if it allowed Ukraine to go its own separate way, but Putin has made an enemy out of Ukraine, make no mistake about that, it needs to make some sort of more equitable settlement with its neighbor if it ever is to have a lasting peace! just taking land by force is not acceptable or civilized.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-08 16:51:05)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-08 17:11:06

RobertDyck wrote:

GW Johnson: United Nations was supposed to do that. Mutual assured security instead of mutual assured destruction. But Russia has a veto on the security council. Well, the US only supports the security council when it suits their agenda. When George W. and his representatives pitched invasion of Iraq, the security council said no.

I believe you can answer this question: how was America's invasion of Iraq different from Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Did Iraq lose any territory in the Iraq War to the United States? Didn't American soldiers rebuild Iraqi cities while under fire from hostile Iraqi citizens? Did the Russians do anything like that? Its not the Ukrainians fault that George Bush did something the Russians didn't like, I don't see why Ukrainians should risk losing their country to Russia because of that?

RobertDyck wrote:

That was sane. But then Colin Powell informed them that the US would invade anyway. The president of the security council stated they may prevent the US from doing so. That was also scarry, and showed the UN can have backbone. But none of them wanted to face the US military.

Again why is that Ukraine's fault? If Russia didn't like what George Bush did, why didn't it invade the United States, why does it have to punish third countries by taking their land away?

RobertDyck wrote:

Most were allies of the US, so military conflict against the US was contrairy to their interests. Ironically, president Roosevelt proposed the UN have a standing army, but Europe said no. The only way any international police can work is if they are not beholden to any one country, or any alliance/group.

Where were those police to protect Ukraine from invasion?

RobertDyck wrote:

Another issue is many in the US tried to rub Russia's face in the dirt.

Try explaining that to a Ukrainian citizen, that Russia invaded and took some of their land because Russia had a grudge with former President Bush? You know Putin could have sent out an assassin to kill former President George Bush if he really didn't like him, just as he did to some former KBG agent that defected to the West! remember Polonium?

RobertDyck wrote:

As long as you do that, they will ensure their leader is someone strong, someone who can stand up for Russia and restore their dignity.

And get them in a nuclear war with the United States? Do they want another Cuban Missile Crises, do you? Khrushchev tried to be strong, and to show the world just how strong Russia was, he wanted t put missiles in Cuba! A lot of Russians were hiding in Bomb Shelters, do they want to do so again! Does a strong leader mean bringing the World to the brink of nuclear war? Is that what Russians want? Do they love their children? Why put them in jeopardy just so Putin can strut around on he World Stage?

RobertDyck wrote:

They got one. Instead of Yeltsin, who worked hard to turn Russia into a free market democracy, now they have Putin, a former KGB agent. France made Germany the scape goat after World War 1, the result was World War 2. The Marshall plan treated Germany and Japan with respect, they're now great friends and allies of America. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we needed to treat Russia with respect. Instead America tried to gloat, tried to proclaim itself the only remaining super power. The result was Putin.

I don't remember anyone gloating, do you remember Bill Clinton gloating? I'd like to see the video of President Bill Clinton Gloating, as Bill Clinton was President from 1993 to 2000, when Putin got elected. George H. W, Bush was only President from 1989 to 1993, and for only 2 years after the Russians themselves overthrew the Communists, Bush had nothing to do with that. I don't remember much gloating by Clinton, do you? George W. Bush was too busy fighting terrorists to gloat over Russia.

RobertDyck wrote:

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" -- King James Bible, Hosea 8:7

I don't know how we've sown the wind, we did not occupy Russia, we didn't even impose Reparations as in the aftermath of World War I, Russia was not a defeated power, it wasn't defeated by an external power but by Russians themselves wanting to be free of Communism. How is the United States to blame for that? I think you are rewriting history here.

RobertDyck · 2014-04-08 17:26:44

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" -- King James Bible, Hosea 8:7
I don't know how we've sown the wind

Inviting Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine to become part of NATO.

GW Johnson · 2014-04-08 17:41:16

So, Tom, what about the US, British, and other troops fighting for the White Russian side against the Bolsheviks, from December 1918 to about 1922? A significant portion of our (plural) expeditionary forces didn't come home from WW1 until then. Don't you think a lot of Russians might have a valid gripe against the west about that? Regardless of how they might feel about White vs Bolshevik, it was still a foreign invasion trying to set up and impose a government on them.

It was exactly that incident that I often heard quoted by the Soviet Communists as to why they so paranoidally distrusted the west, back in the 50's and early 60's. Whether it's really justified makes no real difference. We're talking feelings and perceptions here. Point is, they knew we invaded to impose the government we wanted on them: Kerensky's White Russians, the real October Revolution in 1917 that overthrew the Tsar. The Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the Kerensky government (not the Tsar) was in November 1917.

The Commies actually rewrote their history books to eliminate Kerensky's October Revolution. Not many real Russians know about it today.

So all of this distorted history, including what I just described, is a part of what bothers us all in Ukraine today.

As I said in an earlier post above, there is plenty of fault on all sides to go around, here. The real question is what the hell do we all really do now? A very serious question for all sides concerned. This is one time when it would really help if nations behaved better than spoiled 5-year-olds.

But I have no hope down that path.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-08 19:30:41

GW Johnson wrote:

So, Tom, what about the US, British, and other troops fighting for the White Russian side against the Bolsheviks, from December 1918 to about 1922? A significant portion of our (plural) expeditionary forces didn't come home from WW1 until then. Don't you think a lot of Russians might have a valid gripe against the west about that? Regardless of how they might feel about White vs Bolshevik, it was still a foreign invasion trying to set up and impose a government on them.

The Bolsheviks were trying to impose a government on them too, and they were in addition antichristian and Russia has a thousand year Christian tradition that grew out of the Eastern Roman Orthodox Church, the whites were trying to defend Russian Tradition and the Bolsheviks were trying to tear it down, so why shouldn't the Russians be thanking us for trying to uphold Russian tradition and the mother church? Anyway the Russians ended up overthrowing the Bolsheviks anyway 72 years later, it wasn't Americans that overthrew Communism, it was Russians in the streets, so why should the Russians resent us for trying to prevent them from making a terrible mistake? What would Russia be like if the Czar stayed in power, what would it be like if it had a parliamentary democracy? Instead it had Lenin and Stalin and it wasn't better off for that!

GW Johnson wrote:

It was exactly that incident that I often heard quoted by the Soviet Communists as to why they so paranoidally distrusted the west, back in the 50's and early 60's. Whether it's really justified makes no real difference. We're talking feelings and perceptions here. Point is, they knew we invaded to impose the government we wanted on them: Kerensky's White Russians, the real October Revolution in 1917 that overthrew the Tsar. The Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the Kerensky government (not the Tsar) was in November 1917.

Kerensky was a socialist, he was competition for Lenin. What the Czar wanted was a transition to a constitutional monarchy like what Britain has, the Bolsheviks prevented that from happening with their Revolution, Millions of Russians died under Communism, not to mention Ukrainians and other nationalities in the Soviet Empire. So if the Russians lied to themselves and their is ill feelings towards us because of those lies, that is like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust because the Germans told themselves lies about them!

GW Johnson wrote:

The Commies actually rewrote their history books to eliminate Kerensky's October Revolution. Not many real Russians know about it today.
So all of this distorted history, including what I just described, is a part of what bothers us all in Ukraine today.
As I said in an earlier post above, there is plenty of fault on all sides to go around, here. The real question is what the hell do we all really do now? A very serious question for all sides concerned. This is one time when it would really help if nations behaved better than spoiled 5-year-olds.
But I have no hope down that path.
GW

The real danger is Putin, if we do nothing to stop him, he will try to take more. I think maybe Crimea belongs with Russia, but the way Putin chose to get it back was wrong, he didn't even try to resolve this matter peacefully, and if he is allowed to take something by military force, who knows when or where he'll stop? What if Putin pushes too far, he miscalculates the way Hitler did when he invaded Poland, and starts another World War - a World War that may lead to the use of nuclear weapons! if we let Putin get away with too much, we inflate his ego, and make him take more risks to see what he cab get away with until he miscalculates, then the World is in trouble. Better that Putin is not encouraged, so he must pay a price for his land grab so he gets the message to stop! If he is not contained now, it will be much costlier to stop him later, that is my concern!

RobertDyck · 2014-04-08 20:05:12

CBC: Ukraine tensions flare as 60 hostages taken in east
The video is an interview with the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada. He says all this is an attempt to bait Ukraine into declaring a state of emergency. That would prevent elections.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-09 05:49:39

I wonder why they use the term "Hostages" and not "Prisoners of War"? If Russia is a civilized country, then they are "prisoners of war", not "hostages"! I really don't like CBC calling them hostages, because then that lowers the expectation on how they should be treated, their are certain standards of behavior we should expect a European country to be treating the prisoners of war it captures, but if we are to make out the Russians to be a tribe of barbarians, then we can call those they capture to be hostages, and then they can murder them or torture them. if anything terrible happens to those the CBC calls "Hostages" then the relatives can blame the reporters for using the wrong words and subjecting them to "Hostage treatment" instead of "Prisoner of War treatment". We should demand that the Russians fight as civilized Europeans, not backwards Arabs who only take hostages!

RobertDyck · 2014-04-09 07:00:57

Ukraine has made a point of not declaring a state of emergency. They believe Russia would treat that as an excuse to invade. So they send in police and special forces, not military. They treat those who took over buildings in eastern Ukraine as criminals, not regular Russian military. It's all about avoiding open warfare.

RobertDyck · 2014-04-12 11:02:49

Checking old email. I had created a profile on a dating website; international. I never did pay, just created a free profile. That allows women to send messages to me, but I would have to pay to respond. Several beautiful young women. They stoped sending anything when I didn't respond after many months. But still have old messages, a little over a year old. I had noticed most of the women are in Ukraine, but since there are more people of Ukrainian descent in Canada than any other country outside Ukraine itself, I didn't think much of it. And the largest ethnic group in Winnipeg is Ukrainian, even larger than English or French. But I just looked as some of the messages. Many are from the same regions that are currently having trouble. Hmmm.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-12 11:07:46)

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-12 11:39:59

What are you suggesting?

RobertDyck · 2014-04-12 11:51:29

JoshNH4H wrote:

What are you suggesting?

That they knew something and looking for a way out.
(And a woman that beautiful, half my age... )

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-12 13:00:06)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-12 12:26:34

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" -- King James Bible, Hosea 8:7
I don't know how we've sown the wind
Inviting Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine to become part of NATO.

What's wrong with that? Are you starting with the Assumption that Russia own Europe?
Poland was around before there was Russia, it was created around the year 1000 AD, there was no Russia back then, so I don't know where you get off saying Poland is a part of Russia, its not?

I have a question. Why does NATO exist?
The answer: Because Russia behaves badly!
Russia started World War II by invading Poland shortly after Germany sent troops into Poland! So why shouldn't we invite Poland into NATO? The Russians and the Germans clearly have demonstrated that there is a need for collective defense of Europe. Do you define Europe as that little corner in the West of Europe that includes only France, UK and Germany? If Russia think it is entitled to conquer Europe, then their can be no peace! The Question is whether they feel they are so entitled that they are willing to risk losing cities and millions of Russian citizens, as well as their destruction as a country in a failed attempt to conquer Europe! All NATO does is defense, its purpose is entirely defensive, all they try to do is hold their ground and prevent Russia from expanding, it that involves adding new member, so be it! The only thing NATO threatens is Russia's further expansion, it has never threatened to invade Russia or take its territory. All the territory Ukraine has was willingly given up by the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin, so Russia is not free to take it back without consequence!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2014-04-07 12:22:21

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#202 2014-04-07 15:55:00

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#203 2014-04-07 17:26:04

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#204 2014-04-07 19:57:48

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#205 2014-04-07 20:02:33

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#206 2014-04-07 23:17:06

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#207 2014-04-07 23:27:24

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#208 2014-04-08 04:01:37

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#209 2014-04-08 04:58:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#210 2014-04-08 10:49:00

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#211 2014-04-08 10:53:30

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#212 2014-04-08 13:08:57

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#213 2014-04-08 14:45:59

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#214 2014-04-08 16:43:46

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#215 2014-04-08 17:11:06

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#216 2014-04-08 17:26:44

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#217 2014-04-08 17:41:16

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#218 2014-04-08 19:30:41

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#219 2014-04-08 20:05:12

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#220 2014-04-09 05:49:39

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#221 2014-04-09 07:00:57

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#222 2014-04-12 11:02:49

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#223 2014-04-12 11:39:59

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#224 2014-04-12 11:51:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#225 2014-04-12 12:26:34

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer