|
Mightypeon posted:How can people, after the massive western politician presence, the openly admitted "democracy foundation" support, the open western bragging, the leaked phone calls etc. see Maidan as something else but an unusually violent "color revolution"? You are the worst troll. "How can people still think Ukrainians have agency and are not mere pawns of the West?", blathers an incoherent idiot inbetween unironically posting RT conspiracy theories.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Considerable parts of the Ukrainians see the policies of the post Maidan goverment as infringing on their rights, and for good reason. Concerning the "rights" of Ukraine to join Nato, they explicitly voided that right in their own state sovereignity declaration and in their declaration of independence. Please tell me more of this extensively documented, well reported western backed revolution and coup. Don't be afraid to be specific. Tell me all the gory details!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:All states are self interested. Russia is not inherently more self interested than any other government. If it benefits a state to commit atrocities, it will always do so. Asking Russia or any other government to re-examine its actions from a moral perspective is a waste of time. I agree with your point but I think we should also ask ourselves whether we really want to return to an international system that would be a repeat of the Victorian age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Considerable parts of the Ukrainians see the policies of the post Maidan goverment as infringing on their rights, and for good reason. Concerning the "rights" of Ukraine to join Nato, they explicitly voided that right in their own state sovereignity declaration and in their declaration of independence. If Russia didn't start a war with Ukraine, even the people in Crimea and the Eastern regions of Ukraine would have had plenty of oppurtunity to express their will and shape the future of Ukraine. But Russia prevented them from doing that. So if someone violated the self determination of ALL Ukrainians it is still primarily Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Putin indeed did panic and I believe that's where the West (famously expressed by Merkel "from another planet") was shocked and confused by Putin's actions as it was believed any response by Russia was going to be through accepted and standard economic and policy levers. Invading and killing people probably genuinely never occurred to them as that is not how the (then thought universally agreed upon) rules of the game are. This is why despite all talk of NATO encroachment actual NATO presence in the region is fairly weak as Russia wasn't viewed as a threat. Concerning rules of the game, Russia saw regime change as being out of the rules of the game. One should add that opinions here differ, but you will not find a lot of Russians who do not see what happened as Regime Change. They perceived the west to break the rules first, and believed that they had won the "bidding contest" fair and square. Heck, the west could have outbidded Russia (if they truely card about the welfare of Ukraine), and then Russia would have been down to either capitulating or retreating. You should perhaps talk to Poles or Balts about Russia not being viewed as a threat. They saw (not without justification) Nato membership as being safe from Russian threat by threatening Russia, and Russia fully agreed with them on that count. From Russias pov, they also believed themselfs (again not without justification) to be viewed not as a threat but as a/the target. You dont even need ordinary Russian levels of Paranoia for that. Against whom else do you need Nato?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:How can people, after the massive western politician presence, the openly admitted "democracy foundation" support, the open western bragging, the leaked phone calls etc. see Maidan as something else but an unusually violent "color revolution"? Unusually violent? The response to them was unusually violent, certainly, what with the video we watched of snipers firing into the crowd, but I don't think that supports your point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Unusually violent? The response to them was unusually violent, certainly, what with the video we watched of snipers firing into the crowd, but I don't think that supports your point. Remember, MP SUPPORTS the use of snipers on crowds, so this point doesn't mean anything to him. You can expect him to give some poo poo about "american mercenary snipers" or whatever firing upon the police and the Berkut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:If Russia didn't start a war with Ukraine, even the people in Crimea and the Eastern regions of Ukraine would have had plenty of oppurtunity to express their will and shape the future of Ukraine. But Russia prevented them from doing that. So if someone violated the self determination of ALL Ukrainians it is still primarily Russia. Well, if the February agreement would have been upheld, (as in, new elections after a proper election campaign can be waged under normal conditions, no more use of violence etc.) that would have indeed happened. It was not upheld, and Russia was not the one breaking it within less than 24 hours. Russia did not intervene in the original orange revolution where the equivalent of the february agreement (new elections under fair conditions) was upheld by the opposition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
At times, I think of RT as The Onion of Russia.  "No country can legally invade another country without the UN approval" quote:The US can't lead a coalition against ISIS in Syria as attacking a sovereign state without the cooperation of its government and UN approval is a violation of international law http://rt.com/op-edge/187156-us-syria-strike-illegal-un/
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Concerning rules of the game, Russia saw regime change as being out of the rules of the game. One should add that opinions here differ, but you will not find a lot of Russians who do not see what happened as Regime Change. Whoever the Salafist threat of the week is. In my alt history Kindle single of this year's events, in January Yanuk takes Russia's deal and the EU negotiators go home, defeated. Instead of listening to Putin's advice and cracking down on the remnants if Maidan, Yanuk in a fit of uncharacteristic shrewdness let's the protesters lose steam in the winter cold until the fires go out as deals are negotiated with Russia on plans for the underwhelming Eurasian Union. Thousands in Ukraine remain not dead or tortured and the EU, not wanting Ukraine much to begin with, forgets the whole thing as a bearded drag queen from Italy goes on to win eurovision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Zohar posted:In the current climate "till the end of 2015" is equivalent to "for the foreseeable future", so as far as I can see it's a total capitulation on Poroshenko's part. Am I understanding the current agreement right, as it stands "for the foreseeable future": tariffs on importing to and exporting from the EU will both remain considerably reduced for Ukraine. Which isn't a great deal for Ukraine, because it leaves its economy vulnerable to cheaper imports. Or is it currently one sided, but only until November? How was the original agreement that was postponed different? (Sorry, I'm pretty bad at parsing economics articles) This line in a Reuters articles confused me "Ukraine will continue to enjoy privileged access to the EU market until that date, he said, but it will not have to cut duties on imports from the EU in return." Shouldn't it say "but it will have to cut duties on import from the EU in return."? Rinkles fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Am I understanding the current agreement right, as it stands "for the foreseeable future": tariffs on importing to and exporting from the EU will both remain considerably reduced for Ukraine. Which isn't a great deal for Ukraine, because it leaves it's economy vulnerable to cheaper imports. Or is it currently one sided, but only until November? Currently and in the future: Onesided. Ukraine pays basically zero. EU pays regular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Well, if the February agreement would have been upheld, (as in, new elections after a proper election campaign can be waged under normal conditions, no more use of violence etc.) that would have indeed happened. How could Russia break an agreement it wasn't even a party to  From what I remember, there was some twitter buzz about an image of the agreement showing that the Russian observer didn't even sign it in the first place. Or was that a different agreement? Google isn't helping me here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
I sincerely apologize for diverting your attention from Ukraine for a bit, but there's some cross-region stuff I want to talk about. Probably constitutes a derail, feel free to skim over: New floods in Bosnia. Nothing major, fortunately, but the rivers have been at a high level since May, and it doesn't take much for them to spill over. Incidentally, if you're interested to know how the region is recovering from the floods, Wikipedia has a decent summary of the situation. Seeing that on the news got me thinking about the May floods, and I figured that it might be interesting if I made a parallel with a currently ongoing disaster - the floods in India and Pakistan. The scale is roughly the same - 1.6 million people affected in ex-Yugoslavia, 1.9 million people affected in and around Kashmir. However, the difference in casualties is drastic! Around 90 people died in Serbia and Bosnia, but deaths are already approaching 500 in Ind/Pak! And there's still plenty of time for long-term effect deaths to occur. So, why is the situation so different? From what I can figure out, the highest death count comes from the initial surprise. The biggest casualties in Serbia resulted from the first major flood wave hitting in the middle of the night, catching entire families asleep and drowning them before they could reach safety. That accounts for most of the casualties in Serbia and Bosnia, but not in India and Pakistan. The second cause of death: Not being evacuated on time. After the first wave is past, floods are slow. People are going to take shelter wherever they can, and wait for rescue, or risk their lives and try to escape somewhere dry. The longer the flood goes on without subsiding, the more hazardous any escape attempt gets. This is what killed a lot of people there. The distrust between India's and Pakistan's forces made cooperation difficult, resulting in inefficient rescue operation. The international awareness was low, too. Here, in Serbia, we had urgent aid from all over Europe, and beyond. Hell, Russia and EU were working together, and the differences between neighboring Balkan countries were put to rest for a while. The info I can find about the floods in India and Pakistan is sparse. Most of the international news I can find are along the lines of 'What will we do about our citizens who got stuck there?' - Hard to gather help when nobody gives a poo poo. (By the way, if you know a way to help those people... What are you waiting for?) The third cause of death (and a lot of destruction): Slow overflowing of floodbanks. The spread of information was slow. It was hard to know where the situation was getting worse, and where it was safe to redirect people from. It was difficult for people to self-organize to erect flood walls. The army arrived so slowly that people have been reported throwing rocks at them in anger. (edit: This is in India and Pakistan) Incidentally, shortly before the floods hit Serbia, my brother and a number of other engineers/scientists suggested a joint (mostly South European) project to EU - designing and building a self-organizing swarm of cheap flying robots that would drop tiny probes in a certain pattern on an endangered area to easily track the progress of flooding in real time. The swarm would be smart enough to only require a single person to guide it. If this gets funded (and the project itself succeeds - it will probably take years of work, honestly), it should hopefully help hasten information gathering and reaction time if similar disaster strikes again. The fourth cause of death: Disease. Floods suck. A lot. And one of the reasons is that soaked settlements are amazing breeding grounds for all kinds if microbes, fungi, and parasites. Rapid reaction by medical teams and cleanup crews prevented the worst of it in Serbia and Bosnia. I still hope for the best, but Kashmir looks completely hosed in that regard. There's more long term stuff, but I know little about that other than the fact that lovely things can happen long after floods have passed. In the end, I am really sobered up about the results of the floods in the Balkans. Had the initial response been slower, had the embankments been more neglected, had the international aid been delayed or inadequate, things could have easily gone the same way they had in Kashmir. Jesus Christ. And I thought that the current state of 'more damage to the region than the entire Yugoslav War caused' was bad enough. (edit: Obviously, monetary damage. The death toll of the Yugoslav War was much, much, much higher) I apologize for the not-very-educated talk about floods and India and Pakistan in a Europe thread, but I'm trying to apply the stuff that happened there to the situation here. Now, excuse me, I need to watch some basketball to stop thinking about human misery. Unless the French start playing a lot better, the world finals are going to be a fight between Serbia and USA. 
my dad fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Currently and in the future: Onesided. Ukraine pays basically zero. EU pays regular. Pays zero tariffs on EU imports? Has zero tariffs on it's own exports to the EU?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Am I understanding the current agreement right, as it stands "for the foreseeable future": tariffs on importing to and exporting from the EU will both remain considerably reduced for Ukraine. Which isn't a great deal for Ukraine, because it leaves its economy vulnerable to cheaper imports. Or is it currently one sided, but only until November? Onesided, Ukraine pays not much (I dont think it is exactly zero) but can keep their existing import dues on EU products. This is legtimatly a good thing for Ukraine and a decent (morally speaking) thing for the EU to do. Had they only offered such a legitimatly good deal earlier...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
eXXon posted:How could Russia break an agreement it wasn't even a party to IIRC indeed the only person who didn't sign the agreement was the Russian delegate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Pays zero tariffs on EU imports? Has zero tariffs on it's own exports to the EU? No tariffs for Ukrainian exports. Full tariffs for EU exports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Pays zero tariffs on EU imports? Has zero tariffs on it's own exports to the EU? As I understand it, Ukraine can maintain its tariffs on imports from the EU (which brings revenue and protects remaining domestic industry), while the EU does not raise/collect tarrifs on imports coming from Ukraine (which makes Ukrainian products more competetive in the EU market). It is a win and a considerable bone thrown to Ukraine. The big question which I cant awnser yet is how EU regulations (which are very extensive, and seriously not something you want to have on your workload in Ukraines current situation) affect that. Getting "EU certified" is friggin complex and a great way to increase lawyer employment. Still, this is good news for Ukrainian firms that are already exporting into the EU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
So what was the original deal, and does the original threat from Russia (introducing tariffs on Ukraine exports) still apply under the current "foreseeable future" agreement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:So what was the original deal, and does the original threat from Russia (introducing tariffs on Ukraine exports) still apply under the current "foreseeable future" agreement? Ukraine can't be part of both the EU and the Eurasian tariff union (or whatever those are called). It's either or. Now Ukraine is basically not part of the EU tariff union but has some significant privileges when dealing with the EU. Should be acceptable for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Whoever the Salafist threat of the week is. In my alt history Kindle single of this year's events, in January Yanuk takes Russia's deal and the EU negotiators go home, defeated. Instead of listening to Putin's advice and cracking down on the remnants if Maidan, Yanuk in a fit of uncharacteristic shrewdness let's the protesters lose steam in the winter cold until the fires go out as deals are negotiated with Russia on plans for the underwhelming Eurasian Union. Thousands in Ukraine remain not dead or tortured and the EU, not wanting Ukraine much to begin with, forgets the whole thing as a bearded drag queen from Italy goes on to win eurovision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Ukraine can't be part of both the EU and the Eurasian tariff union (or whatever those are called). It's either or. Actually, Barosso did according to Lieven, state that some "mutually compatible status" could be reached (this was a flip flop from his earlier position), but he only did so after the Crisis was in full swing. Again, according to Lieven, Russia tried to negotiated some mutually compatible status about 3 or so times but was ignored by the EU prior to the massive crisis outbreak. Something the EU could/should pursue, is to negotiate some agreement that ceases sanctions, in return for allowing Ukraine to export imported EU goods into Russia. This would effectively mean that Ukraine gets to set Russias import tarriffs on EU goods, which is a pretty big advantadge for Ukraine. Source of revenue (and influence in both Brüssels and Moscow) for Ukraine, major Russian exploitable weakness that can be utilized down the line for the EU, and also a source of economic influence for the EU in Russia to counteract the Chinese. Russia gets a face saving deal, and retains economic ties with Ukraine. Russia would pay with serious damage to their attempts of creating their own manufactoring base (good luck building one without control over your import tariffs), but certain important players in the Russian power circles may actually like that. Most important: People would propably stop dying. Be aware that such a deal would have plenty of possible spoilers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
my dad posted:Incidentally, shortly before the floods hit Serbia, my brother and a number of other engineers/scientists suggested a joint (mostly South European) project to EU - designing and building a self-organizing swarm of cheap flying robots that would drop tiny probes in a certain pattern on an endangered area to easily track the progress of flooding in real time. The swarm would be smart enough to only require a single person to guide it. If this gets funded (and the project itself succeeds - it will probably take years of work, honestly), it should hopefully help hasten information gathering and reaction time if similar disaster strikes again. How small would the probes be? It seems like you could do some of the same thing by hand just in a much less labor-efficient way. Unless this is after the flood has started?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:How small would the probes be? It seems like you could do some of the same thing by hand just in a much less labor-efficient way. Unless this is after the flood has started? After the flood. Basically, you designate an area the robots are supposed to cover, and they find a way to do it in the most efficient way they can find. There's a bunch of intricacies about the technology involved I don't know much about, honestly. You then get fairly accurate information about the spread of the flood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What you're saying is that it was the fact it was an Austrian drag queen which caused all this. I'm not privy to Yanukovich's personal habits in private and I thought he was from Donbass but yes, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
The livestream seems to be picking up again, with a renewed assault on Donetsk Airport by the russians/seperatists, and apaprently the Mistral is going out on Sea Trials. There's aslo been two fires/explosions in or near Kharkiv, one on a tank-train and one near the airport. Not sure what's going on there, sabotage?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Small UAVs aren't exactly long-endurance crafts, so you'd still have to transport them out to the local area. I would think the simpler solution would be to get a single aircraft (either a small private plane or a small cargo plane, depending on the size of the probes and how many are required) and just drop them out of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Actually, Barosso did according to Lieven, state that some "mutually compatible status" could be reached (this was a flip flop from his earlier position), but he only did so after the Crisis was in full swing. Again, according to Lieven, Russia tried to negotiated some mutually compatible status about 3 or so times but was ignored by the EU prior to the massive crisis outbreak. What I meant is that Ukraine can be only full member of one of the two organisations. Compromises are necessary. And honestly any kind of compromise at the moment is better than the fighting to resume. The whole busy dealings between the EU, Ukraine and Russia in this regard once again show how this crisis was all about power, influence and money and not about the will, rights and protection of anyone in the Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Congratulations to Serbia on defeating France and advancing to the FIBA finals!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
my dad posted:I sincerely apologize for diverting your attention from Ukraine for a bit, but there's some cross-region stuff I want to talk about. Probably constitutes a derail, feel free to skim over: That sounds like a really cool project. Somewhat knowing EU procedures, I would suggest to also focus your proposal on how that one person controlling the robot flock gets the information out to the "decisionmakers" or to the people. Bonus points if you can demonstrate interoperability with existing platforms, more bonus points if these are the EU platforms. I would also suggest that you write an post flood addendum with things like, "lessons learned from the flood", especially assuming you were involved in the actual flood fighting. Demonstrating real life cases in which your technology would have saved lives is a good idea too. Best of luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Small UAVs aren't exactly long-endurance crafts, so you'd still have to transport them out to the local area. I would think the simpler solution would be to get a single aircraft (either a small private plane or a small cargo plane, depending on the size of the probes and how many are required) and just drop them out of that. It's supposed to be used on a scale where aircraft like that are impractical. I mentioned the endurance problem before, and apparently, they have a solution for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Congratulations to Serbia on defeating France and advancing to the FIBA finals!! That match was such a nail biter near the end. Both teams were absolutely amazing. And I'm positively thrilled by the result. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:That sounds like a really cool project. Somewhat knowing EU procedures, I would suggest to also focus your proposal on how that one person controlling the robot flock gets the information out to the "decisionmakers" or to the people. I'm not involved with either the project (I just mentioned stuff I overheard from my brother) or the flood fighting (I was stuck in Novi Sad without any money when the flood happened) e: Welp, triple post. Sorry about that, guys. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
my dad posted:Incidentally, shortly before the floods hit Serbia, my brother and a number of other engineers/scientists suggested a joint (mostly South European) project to EU - designing and building a self-organizing swarm of cheap flying robots that would drop tiny probes in a certain pattern on an endangered area to easily track the progress of flooding in real time. The swarm would be smart enough to only require a single person to guide it. If this gets funded (and the project itself succeeds - it will probably take years of work, honestly), it should hopefully help hasten information gathering and reaction time if similar disaster strikes again. Seems like that could also probably be used in other flood-prone areas, as well. Let's hope your brother gets that funding, because this could really save some lives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What you're saying is that it was the fact it was an Austrian drag queen which caused all this. You know what else was the fault of an Austrian drag queen? Thats right, 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
my dad posted:After the flood. Basically, you designate an area the robots are supposed to cover, and they find a way to do it in the most efficient way they can find. There's a bunch of intricacies about the technology involved I don't know much about, honestly. Mathematically, this seems like a solvable optimization problem, especially because the second or third most efficient way to spread should also work, which means you just look for a good enough local, not a global optimum. I would strongly suggest to not bother searching for a global optimum. If you want to coordinate several such robots, such coordination will acutally be easier with an "local optimum better than a certain threshold", because you can indirectly compute that threshold as an area which is covered by that robot. With global Optima, you couldnt exactly do that. Can you assume a roughly constant enviroment in the area the robot is supposed to cover? I would see potential pitfalls if you designate an area, the robot flies there, starts deploying, and during that time the area changes. You should be able to get around that by making the calculation about where to fly at the start, and then just having the robot fly and drop probes no matter what other things happen during that flight. Cant comment on the engineering side of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Mightypeon's recent string of "Russia as sore loser" explanation of events makes a lot more sense than any NATO chat. In Maidan the West didn't just "win", it won unfairly. Russia had the legwork put in, Russia had the money on the table, Russia had the guy in office, Russia by all rights HAD won in the pre-Berkut crackdown talks with EU pulling out. Then March comes around and when Put in is supposed to be having his moment with Sochi, the West and it's dirty tricks, swoops in last second as Maidan overthrows Yanuk. It's bulls hit because the West just shows up thirty seconds before the buzzer and scores the winning poo poo while Russia had to pull a lot of strings and get things done "the right way". Also I think color revolutions fill Russian elites with existential dread which might explain the unexpected "poo poo, invade Crimea now'" reaction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Mathematically, OK, dude, I had (e: and still have) optimization related subjects in my studies, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Half your post are optimization-related terms, and half is gibberish I can't figure out the meaning of. Could you please rephrase it somehow? I'm pretty sure the guys involved know what they're doing, though. And there's no point in giving me suggestions. I'm not a part of the project. edit: At least I can answer the 'roughly constant environment' part: No. That's the point. The local conditions are highly variable, particularly near inhabited places, and change a lot as time goes on. my dad fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Mightypeon's recent string of "Russia as sore loser" explanation of events makes a lot more sense than any NATO chat. In Maidan the West didn't just "win", it won unfairly. Russia had the legwork put in, Russia had the money on the table, Russia had the guy in office, Russia by all rights HAD won in the pre-Berkut crackdown talks with EU pulling out. Then March comes around and when Put in is supposed to be having his moment with Sochi, the West and it's dirty tricks, swoops in last second as Maidan overthrows Yanuk. It's bulls hit because the West just shows up thirty seconds before the buzzer and scores the winning poo poo while Russia had to pull a lot of strings and get things done "the right way". NATO-chat and what you're describing here are all part of the same trend, at least as perceived by the Russians. It's the West drawing more and more of the traditional Russian sphere of influence into its own, from their perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:19
|
|
