/rus/ Russia and friends

Fuck Eurovision

Other urls found in this thread:

constitution.ru/en/10003000-04.htm
base.garant.ru/184002/1/#block_100
departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons02.html#chap03
gazeta.zn.ua/internal/mify-o-nezakonnosti-peredachi-kryma-v-1954-godu.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

bump

because you lost? hahaha have some fucking pride idiot

Because it's a silly political competition. I miss the days when Rybak won the first prize, that was undoubtedly legit.

Bump #2

Пpивeт

Why do russians care so much about a gay song contest?

...

>Because it's a silly political competition.
not when russia wins amirite
admit it Lazarev was gayest shit even gayer that bearded lady

>No Kaliningrad
>No Crimea
>No Sakhalin
>Fags thinking they have a copyright on rainbow

You're trying to troll, and you fail, again. Why even bother? I don't like Lazarev either, and honestly think Australia was the most worthy challenger. Now please fuck off with you silly fat trolling.
It's just all over the place. Ukrainians don't even know if they shoud be happy, becausee their country didn't even finish it's war business, and they have zero idea on how to find money for next Eurovision. Meh. Maybe I really care too much.
Beчep дoбpый.

Crimea is not a legit part of Russia, why should it be on a map? Your other points are somewhat sensible, although it seems that the map did not include any islands or outer borders.

Jesus christ, I mad so many mistakes in that message. Excuse me, it's 4:34 in the morning here.

>Crimea is not a legit part of Russia
That's up for Crimeans to decide, not you.

...

Oh really? So my guests should decide weather they live in my house or not? Germany sure has some weird traditions going on.

Your country is not your private property, the analogy is inadequate.

They have the right to self determination and of course mother russia wants those sweet ports too, so it's a win win situation.

Or at least it would be if anyone in the world actually gave a fuck about international law and shit

Oh really? So we toss aside the facts that I live here, pay taxes, do my job. Just "accept" that the other country wants to join, not really contributing much, breaking the laws of our own constitution, et cetera. Is that it?

Living in a country and paying taxes doesn't make a country your private property. Which articles of Russian Constitution did Crimean accession break?

International law is a joke. It still can't decide on what is more important between the right of self-determination and territorial integrity.

>It's not your country, it's your governments country
Nice joke, bro.
>Which articles did Crimean theft break?
65.2, basically prohibiting "unification" with part of another country withour a clear agreement with said country. It was violated several times before, it was violated that time.
Valery Zorkin Chairman of the Constitutional Court, later answered some questions about it, creating a meme of "skrepi", because his explanation was downright stupid. Check it out, if you can't find one on English - I can translate it for you.

It is your country, but it's not your private property.
>2. The admission to the Russian Federation and the creation in it of a new subject shall be carried out according to the rules established by the federal constitutional law.
constitution.ru/en/10003000-04.htm
How was this article violated? Which rules of the federal constitutional law were broken?

>prohibiting "unification" with part of another country withour a clear agreement with said country.

I thought the deal with Ukraine was that the previous government asked for russian intervention but when the coup happened the new didn't want it?

Whether it breaks the article or not would depend on how legit you consider the new government to be. And we all know that opinion depends in each nation's interests, so we got a clusterfuck.

All in all as a russian you should agree to annex it (it's a profitable zone and there are also geopolitical interests and all), but i understand if you're bitter about it because the consequences have been dire (even though, in theory, it was a legit claim). That's why i said in the first place that international law it's a fucking joke.

What do they do to homosexuals in Russia?

Man, this crosslinked bullshit again. Do I really need to google it for you? Fine.
base.garant.ru/184002/1/#block_100
Picrelated the important part, stating, as I've already said, that the """unification"" can only be done if both sides agree with it.

Nothing a homosexual would not enjoy.

Sending them to the west

I honestly don't know and don't want to know what exactly happened to Ukraine. It's their country and their business. But I know that people from Crimea have quotas for them in universities. I know that my parents lost their jobs after the sanctions hit. I know that no piece of soil is worth that much blood and that much tears.
Basically, that is my point in a nutshell.

Also, Crimea is a worse Turkey, if we're talking vacations. Just to top it off.

1. I dont think you have been to turkey
2. What do you mean about so much blood? Didnt just one hohol die because he accidently shot himself in the head?

Last time I checked Crimea very much agreed on it. Also last time I checked Crimea did not agree to become a part of Ukrainian SSR. As a matter of a fact, last time I checked no one even asked their opinion on this matter. Also, last time I checked when Crimeans were asked about their opinion on this matter, they voted for independence in 1991, for more autonomy, dual citizenship and independent legislative power in 1994 and finally on accession to Russia in 2014.

1. A lot of times. About 5-6, at different ages.
2. Ha-ha, funny hohol jokes. I know of no one who dies when we "annexed" Crimea, but lots of people dies afterwards,
Last time I checked, laws were standing above singular voices. I don't see your point in this discussion.

Which is why it all comes down to the illegality of the initial transfer of Crimea and to how no articles of Russian Constitution were violated by its subsequent accession to Russia.

What a lame excuse for an answer, lol. You would've made a great russian politician.

Don't wanna sound like a putinbot but i still think that if you want to blame someone, the ones that supported the coup+civil war in Ukraine and imposed the sanctions bear more guilt than the russian government.

There is no need to be upset.

Why would you think I am? It's funny how people outside think they know best.
You're a free man and I respect your opinion, but I've already found the ones to blame.

Go back to russian Sup Forums u fucking faggot

Пycть yжe ктo-нибyдь cюдa зaвaлитcя, c кeм мoжнo пoгoвopить пo чeлoвeчecки. Hy пoжaлyйcтa.

Бля cвaли нaхyй и бoмжeй дoябывaй cвoим нытъeм

Funny is how despite the complete lack of proper argumentation or facts to defend your point you are still trying to argue, though rather fast becoming desperate enough to relegate the dialogue to personal attacks. Hence my remark on your mood.
>I've already found the ones to blame
That's very much visible.

You should just leave him alone, check this post
>I honestly don't know and don't want to know what exactly happened to Ukraine

>Lack of proper argumentation
Oh, so linking federal constitutional law and constitution itself is not a proper argumentation? Heh, funny joke.
It's also quite hilarious how you find that I'm personally attacking you, while in fact I simply reply to a meaningless statement by my own one. You didn't notice because you take yourself way too seroiusly. Calm down.

...

>and friends

Said links only proved your point wrong and didn't refute my point.
Yeah, seems like I should indeed. No reason to expect any coherent discussion from him anymore.

And that is proved by what?

Although, it seems, you don't want to continue the discussion, seeking the way out. You're welcome to come and talk again whenever you want.

i love russia!

By the links posted above. You claimed the accession was illegal in accordance with the Russian Constitution, but seems like the actual Russian Constitution doesn't agree with you. The Colompian user is right though, this discussion is pointless as you will simply keep arguing for the sake of the process itself even after proven wrong.

Now you're just being silly. Here's a direct link, if you forgot what happened a hour ago.
To clarify: It doesn't matter if part of the country really wants to join RF. It doesn't matter if the country is ready to lick someones boots or something on that level.
There's a strict order, dictating that the exchange of soil should be made only if both sides agree on said exchange.
Really, just leave this conversation behind. You don't seem to be in mood for a dialogue, instead repeating silly things our politicians feed to gullible listeners.

Like I have already noted, Crimea very much agreed on the accession to Russia, meaning to articles of the Russian Constitution were violated. Your projections are amusing, but it is probably you who should follow your own advice and abandon this conversation, since you are now simply repeating yourself somehow expecting me to answer differently to an already refuted claim.

>glorious slav master race
>lgbt
Pick one

Crimea was not a separate country, but rather a region of Ukraine at that moment, so your statement is invalid, and you are wrong.
Yes, they tried to separate themselves from Ukraine, but it was their deal, and none of our concers, especially because Russia signed a particular document called "State border treaty"(2003, google it), basically admitting that Crimea is in fact part of Ukraine, which leads me to a question:
How the hell is "assembling" of Crimea legit?
>You are repeating yourself
Yes, I am. What else is there to say other than what already have been said? You simply would not admit the obvious.

Both

It very much was a separate country as it declared its independence from Ukraine. On the top of that its very attachment to Ukraine was illegal on the first place. You keep trying to win an argument that you have already lost, which proves that you are now arguing for the sole sake of the process itself.

I'm very much an independent man, as I've declared my independence from my parents(Of course I will not cut money, food and shelter).

>It's very attachment to Ukraine was illegal in the first place
This is a matter for another conversation, because as you can imagine there's plenty of different opinions, involving ones stating that a deal is a deal even if you don't like it afterwards.
>You have already lost
Don't try to be an Old God of Hearthstone, you don't have nearly enough charisma to convince anyone.

You might be an independent man, but you are for sure not a country, so I once again must point to you that your strawman analogies are incorrect.
>This is a matter for another conversation
No, it is not, sine it directly refutes your point.
>a deal is a deal
Unless of course a deal is illegal on the first place and then it's a whole new different story. More specifically, a story about the illegality of the very attachment of Crimea to Ukraine. You lost this argument. You just have to let it go and move on.

Crimea is not a country either, lol. What the hell are you talking about?
>It directly refutes your point
Okay then, I'm listening to your points about the illegal "attachment" of Crimea.
>You lost, let go
You're so desperately trying to make me go, it's almost creepy.

Like I have already said, it was a separate country as it declared its independence from Ukraine. The point is very simple: Crimea was illegally attached to Ukrainian SSR on the first place. You lost this argument, user. You just have to deal with it.

>Back to the thread after a while
>These niggas still at it

But i gotta side with germanbro this time, what part of "Right to self-determination" don't you understand, rusbro?

You might like to read a bit about the yugoslavian wars and Kosovo's existence

I suppose I'm simply too assburger to ignore people being this obviously wrong on the internet.

>Like I said
"Like I said" is not an argument, I'm afraid, but rather a subjective statement. Still waiting for dem proofs of "illegal attachment", if you want to continue your agenda.
I'm bored and have a lot of spare time, why avoid a little conversational practice?

This is not a talk of who's allowed to self-determine and who's not, but instead a talk of "Who violated his own rules of play". Obviously dem "International laws" are a joke and as soon as someone has the power they will violate them, but it doesn't excuse making promises you can't keep, while also harming your own citizens in some way.
There's no reason to disrespect Crimean people, in fact, my uncle is from Crimea. But it is still a broken law, and I just can't accept it.

It is an argument if what I am saying is in accordance with the the events that have occurred in the objective reality. Which is rather conveniently exactly the case here, as I point out that Crimea has indeed declared its independence from Ukraine and was indeed attached to Ukraine illegally before.

It’s legally a mental disability in some cases. It can be used as a reason to avoid conscription, and as far as I know it’s technically illegal to drive if you’re homo, but it’s not enforced.

Are you sleep deprived or something?

Look:
1. Country U has this rebellious region called C.
2. Region C decides to unilaterally declare independence (If you haven't, read about Kosovo)
3. Of course by country U's laws said independence is illegal.
4. Country R comes and recognizes C's independence, so from a legal point of view they are treated as an independent country.
5. To solve differences a referendum is held and people from the new independent region, using their right to self determination, decide what to do.
6. They decide to join R, R accepts, and as far as C, R, and the international community in general are concerned, this should be perfectly legal.

we should've let you have europe

You don't seem to understand. Even if I wanted to, I can't just believe that the "attachment" was illegal. There must be some kind of proof of it, otherwise your statement is invalid, and you are a dick, good sir.

This is not a matter of belief, this is a matter of fact, since according to the Soviet Constitution the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union had no right to approve such a transfer.

Yes, this absolutely makes sense. If you look from a perspective, favoring country R.
Otherwise, as I've stated and proved above(See the links, if you can't quite translate - I can dig for english version) in point 4. there is a flaw called "Violation of country R's Constitutional law", which nullifies all the referendums. Think of it as of trying to land a helicopter in a closed hangar. As much as you try, the doors are shut.

Although, maybe I'm really retarded, and missed something? Gonna try to look Kosovo up, maybe it's relevant.

Links, please. To both the act of transfer and the Constitutional law, prohibiting such a transfer. I won't do your job for you.

There is not "favouring" perspective. There's the right to self-determination and there's a very definite precedent of its execution. Favouring perspective would be ignoring both the right and the precedent. But why would you or anyone else do such a thing, right?

departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons02.html#chap03
Such a transfer required an approvement of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.

You still don't understand shit of self determination.

Russia has this law where both states should agree on the transfer.

Crimea declared itself independent and was recognized by russia (which means, from a legal point of view, Russia can treat Crimea as an INDEPENDENT state, pretty much like most countries don't treat Kosovo as a part of Serbia, because they recognized its unilateral declaration of independence)

So when the referendum happens and the republic of crimea decides to join russia (which russia accepts) as far as everyone is concerned, it's perfectly legal, even taking into account the article you cite so much.

When you look at Kosovo it was the same, unilateral declaration of independence but serboa didn't agree. They key difference was that in that case USA and the EU were on Kosovo's side, and recognized it as an independent state, so Serbia got bombed to the ground until they gave up

хaхa

Heмoнчикc кyкc

There's a good article on those incidents, I suggest you check it out. This problem is highlighted aswell, much better than I could ever hope to write about it.
gazeta.zn.ua/internal/mify-o-nezakonnosti-peredachi-kryma-v-1954-godu.html

>.ua
No, thanks. I operate historical facts, not propaganda. You lost this, user. Deal with it.

Oh, that was the point. I thought I missed something, seems like not.
Russia recognising Crimea as an independent "country" doesn't mean shit as long as the country it actually belongs to doesn't think so. As simple as that.

So you are telling us that the right to self-determination doesn't mean shit because an user on /int disagrees with it? Amusing, but futile.

>Ua
>Automatically assuming it's propaganda
Oh, you must love burning jews in ovens, because you're german.

Russia always a friend :)
Learning Russian with duolingo, I like that I can read cyrillic even though I understand little now :P

No, I am assuming it is propaganda because it's an media article by a biased side that you bring as a last resort in hope that it can defend your point instead of you, since you obviously can not even pretend to be doing so anymore. I rely on the Constitution. You rely on media propaganda. I think we're done here.

If you wanna leave - just leave, I said it long ago. You keep bragging about things you don't seem to understand, throwing subjective statements while pretending you're actually arguing, refusing to learn and listen.
>I rely on constitution
Constitution is not on your side. You can't just cheat it out and say it's OK because "I think so".

Constitution? The one that was rewritten to make annexation legal? yeah whorestitution
Yet international law is against such actions.
>we want to gas the joos we have it in constitution therefore backoff world we do what is legal
пиши нa pyccкoм вaнo вceм и тaк пoнятнo ктo ты

The Constitution is on my side, since it clearly states that such a transfer required an approvement of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. There is simply no other way of putting it, user. It's there, in the text of the Constitution and everyone can see it. You lost this argument. Deal with it and let it go.

Tы нaпpacнo oтвepгaeшь зaкoны. Их пepeпиcывaют и изгибaют тaк кaк yдoбнo нa дaнный мoмeнт, нo этo к coжaлeнию eдинcтвeннaя oпopa, нa кoтopyю мoжнo пoлoжитьcя в cпope, пoтoмy чтo иных пpocтo нeт.

You can keep autisticly spamming your favourite "Admit it and let it go" or check the article for reasons why it was not illegal. Maybe I will break it down in pieces and feed to you, if you would like me to babysit you through a five minute reading.
But I think we all know which option you will choose.

Toлькo в пocтcoвкoвых cтpaнaх и oтcтaлых диктaтypaх кoнcтитyции пepeпиcывaютcя c тaкoй чacтoтoй чтoбы yдoвлeтвopять нyжды oчepeднoгo peжимa или пpихoти пaхaнa
зaкoн пepecтaeт быть oпopoй в тaкoм cлyчae a пpocтo cлyжит инcтpyмeнтoм кoнтpoля в pyкaх пpeзидeнтa или пpaвитeльcтвa

Duolingo is actually a great tool for language learning. I used it to tone my spanish a bit, it's super easy and effective.
And yep, a lot of cyrillic letters came from Greece with religious texts, if I remember correctly.

Дa в oбщeм-тo гдe yгoднo тaк дeлaют, в бoлee paзвитых cтpaнaх пpocтo вce эти этaпы пpoйдeны и paбoтa нe тaк тoпopнa, пoэтoмy ee и нe зaмeчaют чaщe вceгo. Зaкoны вceгдa бyдyт инcтpyмeнтoм в pyкaх пaхaнa, a yж ктo ecть пaхaн, пpeзидeнт, шaмaн в плeмeни или вepхoвнoe пpaвитeльcтвo - для oбычнoгo чeлoвeкa нe тaк вaжнo.

In reality, you can keep desperately trying to draw attention away from the Constitution and its clarity to media propaganda, but it would doubtfully affect the actual order of things. The text of the Constitution is extremely precise on this matter. You lost this argument, user.

to

>You lost it
No I didn't, here's a proof
>You lost, admit it
No, here's another proof
>Admit
No, it's not true, here's the same argument broken down so that even a child could understand it
>Admit it, you've lost


I feel like I'm throwing ping-pong balls at a wall.

Here's a thing, user: there's the text of the Constitution and then there are your posts. Yes, in a way you were indeed throwing ping-pong balls of your opinions, suppositions and views at the wall of facts. And you lost it.

Okay, excuse me, I'm not used to arguing with autistic children. Next time I'll do better.

Либepaлы AУT!

Historical documents will not change the next time. Or any time, at this point. But I hope you will, and in such a way that you would not have uncontrollable desire to argue definite facts in a futile attempt to defend a factually false point of view. Please, do better next time.

>actually implying he read anything of what I've sent him
You're not funny.

Pyccкиe бoмбит

>Oшибкa пocтингa: Пocтинг зaпpeщён. Бaн: 555127. Пpичинa: [P] proxy vpn.
>mfw двaч thinks I'm using a proxy vpn when I'm just an american.
It sucks. I just wanted to go on and have fun in my broken russian.

пocти ccылки cюдa пoжaлyйcтa в cлeдyющий paз
oчeнь интepecнo кaк тaм тeбя вcтpeтят