76

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, turbocode, you wrote: T> the Parliament of Crimea captured by terrorists not in Sevastopol was, and in Simferopol. The parliament captured by terrorists, not in Simferopol was, and in Kiev.

77

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, turbocode, you wrote: T> Why "independence" of Crimea did not arrange Putin? In 2014 in the spring in the Kremlin (?) there was Putin's meeting with Aksenovym and Konstantinovym (?). It was shown on TV. There there were literally Putin's one-two phrases with gratitude to Aksenovu that it did not begin to move Crimea towards independence, and supported association to Russia.

78

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, SaprXM, you wrote: whether SXM> for  chew for me? F: why the Ukrainian army guns at Donbass? Q: because there the Russian army. F: why the Ukrainian army does not gun at Crimea? Q: because there actually there is a Russian army.

79

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> From what. Putin merged. Well precisely agent of the Kremlin # knows that Donbass  the Russian armies, and you write such heresy

80

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

T> Why "independence" of Crimea did not arrange Putin? As tastefully at you blazes!

81

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> to throw armies, the road is necessary. There it how much I remember, one. Enough one fighting embarkation, also will be it is any. Tanks and on impassability pass,  not on .

82

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: Pzz>> to throw armies, the road is necessary. There it how much I remember, one. Enough one fighting embarkation, also will be it is any. S> Tanks and on impassability pass,  not on . There not impassability. There mountains.

83

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> To Lugansk, by the way, struck shock of Poroshenko. To it nobody dared at scheduled mass bloodshed (Odessa more likely accident, it has not been planned).  this episode explains as "itself killed"?

84

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

T> Why "independence" of Crimea did not arrange Putin? "Extreme" Crimea all the same would not get. The USA planned suit there the big military basis. With stationary rocket mines. Where the nuclear parity in this case goes - I hope, it is not necessary to explain.

85

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> To Lugansk, by the way, struck shock of Poroshenko. To it nobody dared at scheduled mass bloodshed (Odessa more likely accident, it has not been planned). To Lugansk bombed Slavyansk (yes, not only with Karachuna artillery, but also aircraft)

86

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

What to rake over the coals to Ukrainians and to use them for tamping of pockets in the war

87

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Picked up a right moment - Ukraine was not ready (roughly speaking ). And in a month it became ready to be at war on Donbass? Wiped a bottom, whether that, in this time?

88

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

LB> is better let tells, what for Ukraine annexed a part of Russia, Poland, Romania and Hungary and to it anything for it was not.  it ! The main thing, names of donators in vain not to remember

89

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, copypaste, you wrote: GZ>> From what. Putin merged. A C> Well precisely agent of the Kremlin # knows that Donbass  the Russian armies, and you such heresy write the Russian armies there is no Russian Army. Also what?

90

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> control over Crimea is necessary to Russia, and there she is ready to be at war. Who such Russia? It has a head, a mouth to inform the such? Do not forget, the Russian armies of involvement there did not accept. There there were only unknown green little men and "local volunteers with local " in the full ammunition without recognition signs. The Russian army was not ready to be at war. Because was not against whom.

91

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, turbocode, you wrote: T> Why "independence" of Crimea did not arrange Putin? That at  burned

92

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Yes,  to Americans broke off, the tidbit from under a nose withdrew. No wonder they rage the fourth year.

93

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Whether SXM>> for  chew for me? A C> a C> F: Why the Ukrainian army guns at Donbass? A C> Q: Because there the Russian army. A C> F: Why the Ukrainian army does not gun at Crimea? A C> Q: Because there actually there is a Russian army. Yes, thanks, it it

94

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> There not impassability. There mountains. Steppe there. But not 90, and nearby 10. Remaining from those 90 - reservoirs. Dams and dams on them are, but hardly it is a convenient way.

95

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Narrow is 90 km (on foot 2 days to go, if on a straight line). Across Sivash on foot?... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

96

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, marcopolo, you wrote: T>> Why "independence" of Crimea did not arrange Putin? M> and you remember, how began ? What  subject substitution It will be necessary to think what  a backlog this simple question - a smoke after all, without fire does not happen.

97

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Narrow is 90 km (on foot 2 days to go, if on a straight line). The part is impassable, but all the same not such and narrow. Narrow is 7 in the bottleneck. Here in this bottleneck the campaign  also ends. S> here also there would be a fight for an isthmus. Beating  and  there will be. Even near  generals understand what come into Crimea they cannot, and you all . Well esteem already as the Red Army released Crimea from fascists How many forces and means has been involved, what initial conditions were (bases on Perekope and in Kerch). Well and to all to it, where  forces and where Red Army of the sample of 1944.   already.

98

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: a C>> Well precisely agent of the Kremlin # knows that Donbass  the Russian armies, and you such heresy write GZ> the Russian armies there is no Russian Army. Also what? I was tangled. At you the Russian armies not the same that the Russian army. I so understood that same at you can be not same. In general, the Russian armies there were not, and the Russian army was? Or on the contrary? All right, we go further. http://rsdn.org/forum/flame.politics/7023786.1 the Author: GlebZ Date: 18.01 15:11 GZ> Who such Russia? It has a head, a mouth to inform the such? Do not forget, the Russian armies of involvement there did not accept. GZ> the Russian army was not ready to be at war. Because was not against whom. Not, quits that the Russian armies were not. And armies too. Aha, that is, those others were not. Or not!  it was not exact, and  all came to Donbass such not ready, but did not begin to be at war, for was not against whom: And stood, in an emphasis without noting disassembling of civil guardsmen with . Can so? http://rsdn.org/forum/flame.politics/7022991.1 the Author: GlebZ Date: 17.01 21:30 GZ> Yes that here to think and solve? Because in Crimea there were many Russian armies, and into Donbass they were not entered. Anybody also did not hide it. It... And the Russian army in Crimea was/is or not? And in what ten differences of the Russian armies from the Russian army? Yes that it becomes, in the end of the ends! Whom all the same entered? Petro Alekseevich and To how many time declared about 100500 , and here such confusion... Spare, the barin! Explain, how all was actually!

99

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, Lazy Bear, you wrote: a C>>> Well precisely agent of the Kremlin # knows that Donbass  the Russian armies, and you such heresy write GZ>> the Russian armies there is no Russian Army. Also what? LB> I was tangled. At you the Russian armies not the same that the Russian army. I so understood that same at you can be not same. What here the difficult? The Russian regular army are Russian armies. And also Cossacks who arm with Russia and are paid by Russia - also the Russian armies. And  Wagner which also live and are at war on money of the Russian tax bearers - also the Russian armies.

100

Re: What for annexation of Crimea was necessary?

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: LB>> I was tangled. At you the Russian armies not the same that the Russian army. I so understood that same at you can be not same. GZ> that here the difficult? The Russian regular army are Russian armies. And also Cossacks who arm with Russia and are paid by Russia - also the Russian armies. And  Wagner which also live and are at war on money of the Russian tax bearers - also the Russian armies. Well, this point of view to me is clear. However, we also have following statements: http://rsdn.org/forum/flame.politics/7023786.1 the Author: GlebZ Date: 18.01 15:11 GZ>> do not forget, the Russian armies of involvement there did not accept. LB> http://rsdn.org/forum/flame.politics/7022991.1 the author: GlebZ Date: 17.01 21:30 GZ>> in Crimea was many the Russian armies, and into Donbass they were not entered. Anybody also did not hide it. That is, the Russian armies  there was not?