Russia Develops Own THAAD-like, GMD-like Missile Defense Systems

[Hindustani78]

I do not care about the problems of Ukraine. I am care about the problems of New Russia. I care that the price of freedom and independence of my people - thousands of lifes. This is the lifes of the best sons of my country, the color of the nation.
Ukraine could be a friend to Crimea and to New Russia, but it chose to be the enemy. Ukraine does not know the price of independence, because it received it as a gift, free of charge.
The Bolsheviks made Novorossia part of Ukraine expecting that Ukraine will always be part of a common state with Russia. If Ukraine wants its own way, individual way - then let the lands be returned to their Motherland.

The whole talk is about Sovereignty and integrity of the Ukrainian people which was established under agreements with Russian Federation after the disintegration of USSR. Russian Federation agreed to give Independence after Ukraine was agreed to give up Nuclear weapons and this was one of the most crucial clause in 1990.

 

[vostok]

The whole talk is about Sovereignty and integrity of the Ukrainian people which was established under agreements with Russian Federation after the disintegration of USSR. Russian Federation agreed to give Independence after Ukraine was agreed to give up Nuclear weapons and this was one of the most crucial clause in 1990.

I'll tell you honestly - I give a sh1t about the sovereignty of Ukraine. To me and to millions of my compatriots only important Novorossia's sovereignty. New Russia's territorial integrity. Freedom and independence of New Russia.

 

[Hindustani78]

I'll tell you honestly - I give a sh1t about the sovereignty of Ukraine. To me and to millions of my compatriots only important Novorossia's sovereignty. New Russia's territorial integrity. Freedom and independence of New Russia.

You are not getting my point which is about the International law which is linked to the Sovereignty of any country .

February 19, 1954 during the USSR rule , Crimea was transferred to Ukraine SSR which was 10 years after the mass deportation of Crimean Tatars from Crimea. And on this bases only during the disintegration of USSR , Russian Federation and Ukraine hold agreements.

Now Russia’s Federation Council (upper house) wants to make that transfer illegal.

TASS: Russia - Upper house to discuss recognizing Crimea transfer to Ukraine in 1954 illegal — lawmaker

 

[vostok]

You are not getting my point which is about the International law which is linked to the Sovereignty of any country .

February 19, 1954 during the USSR rule , Crimea was transferred to Ukraine SSR which was 10 years after the mass deportation of Crimean Tatars from Crimea. And on this bases only during the disintegration of USSR , Russian Federation and Ukraine hold agreements.

Now Russia’s Federation Council (upper house) wants to make that transfer illegal.

TASS: Russia - Upper house to discuss recognizing Crimea transfer to Ukraine in 1954 illegal — lawmaker

Laws are pretty relative term. Until 1991 there was no independent state called Ukraine. Until 2014 there was no independent state called Novorossia. China was not recognized until 1973 (if I remember correctly). Northern Cyprus was established in 1974 and is still not recognized by anyone exept Turkey.
The reality is that Ukraine occupied territories of New Russia. I do not care when the rest of the world recognizes the existence of my country. I care about only one thing - to the entire territory of New Russia from Odessa to Kharkov became free, independent and prosperous. Which is possible only after the reunification with Russia. Or, in extreme cases, joining the Eurasian Union as a sovereign state.

 

[Hindustani78]

Laws are pretty relative term. Until 1991 there was no independent state called Ukraine. Until 2014 there was no independent state called Novorossia. China was not recognized until 1973 (if I remember correctly). Northern Cyprus was established in 1974 and is still not recognized by anyone exept Turkey.
The reality is that Ukraine occupied territories of New Russia. I do not care when the rest of the world recognizes the existence of my country. I care about only one thing - to the entire territory of New Russia from Odessa to Kharkov became free, independent and prosperous. Which is possible only after the reunification with Russia. Or, in extreme cases, joining the Eurasian Union as a sovereign state.

I just don't understand why you are not understanding simple international laws which are related to integrity and sovereignty of every Independent state . There was no land dispute between Russian Federation and Ukraine when it was about the status of Crimea and that's why in 1954 , Crimea was transferred to Ukraine during USSR rule which led to the transferring of ethnic Russians on Crimea where as the Crimea Tatars were deported and this is the reason that i have talked about the strict internal immigration during the USSR rule. When Ukraine has join United Nations ? Independent Ukraine did led Crimea Tatars to return back to their land after 1992.

What is the status of Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea now ?

 

[vostok]

I just don't understand why you are not understanding simple international laws which are related to integrity and sovereignty of every Independent state . There was no land dispute between Russian Federation and Ukraine when it was about the status of Crimea and that's why in 1954 , Crimea was transferred to Ukraine during USSR rule which led to the transferring of ethnic Russians on Crimea where as the Crimea Tatars were deported and this is the reason that i have talked about the strict internal immigration during the USSR rule. When Ukraine has join United Nations ? Independent Ukraine did led Crimea Tatars to return back to their land after 1992.

What is the status of Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea now ?

According to the laws of the begining of last century, India was the property and colony of Britain. This means that those who stay for pro-independence of India - went against the law. Or those who stood for independence of Thirteen Colonies also went against the laws. All independent states, former colonies - also went against the law.
The Soviet Union was destroyed against the law. Nobody cares about it at the west. They gladly accepted the division of the Russian people, but refuse to accept the reunification of the Russian people.
After the victory, we will write a new, more justice laws. The main thing now - to achieve independent and freedom.

 

[Superboy]

I just don't understand why you are not understanding simple international laws which are related to integrity and sovereignty of every Independent state .

After decades of breaking international law, fact is right now the world is jungle law. The US invaded Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Syria including supplying weapons, all of them supposedly sovereign independent states. You think that is okay? Taiwan is not a UN member state, yet the US continues to supply weapons to Taiwan. I'm sorry but all I can say is you are too naive.

 

[Hindustani78]

According to the laws of the begining of last century, India was the property and colony of Britain. This means that those who stay for pro-independence of India - went against the law. Or those who stood for independence of Thirteen Colonies also went against the laws. All independent states, former colonies - also went against the law.
The Soviet Union was destroyed against the law. Nobody cares about it at the west. They gladly accepted the division of the Russian people, but refuse to accept the reunification of the Russian people.
After the victory, we will write a new, more justice laws. The main thing now - to achieve independent and freedom.

Whole India was never colony of Britain but the princely states were under the influence of British empire. Case of India cant be taken as example in case of the Ukraine conflict.

Soviet union was destroyed by the Soviets because of the corruption and because of the foreign and internal policy. Russian Federation i don't think is trying to re correct things and the whole things are related to oil and gas policy.

After decades of breaking international law, fact is right now the world is jungle law. The US invaded Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Syria including supplying weapons, all of them supposed sovereign independent states. You think that is okay? Taiwan is not a UN member state, yet the US continues to supply weapons to Taiwan. I'm sorry but all I can say is you are too naive.

What all that has to do with the annexation of Crimea ?

 

[vostok]

Whole India was never colony of Britain but the princely states were under the influence of British empire. Case of India cant be taken as example in case of the Ukraine conflict.

Soviet union was destroyed by the Soviets because of the corruption and because of the foreign and internal policy. Russian Federation i don't think is trying to re correct things and the whole things are related to oil and gas policy.

The USSR was destroyed by traitors from within. USSR had every opportunity to correct reforms, which later were made by China.
In the eyes of my people, our struggle for independence is no different from the struggle of India, USA, South America, Africa and Asia for freedom and independence. This struggle is not just for the independence - also for reunification with the rest of Russia.

 

[Hindustani78]

The USSR was destroyed by traitors from within. USSR had every opportunity to correct reforms, which later were made by China.
In the eyes of my people, our struggle for independence is no different from the struggle of India, USA, South America, Africa and Asia for freedom and independence. This struggle is not just for the independence - also for reunification with the rest of Russia.

USSR is history and i don't think it can be revived again. What we are seeing in Crimea is like a direct violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine.

People of India are united and they all stand together and will not let anyone to interfere in the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.

 

[jamahir]

Whole India was never colony of Britain but the princely states were under the influence of British empire.

what are you talking about...

 

[Hindustani78]

what are you talking about...

I am trying to say that British were never able to occupy whole India

 

[jamahir]

I am trying to say that British were never able to occupy whole India

they controlled all of india, with a few thousand officers and slave military... they had "district collectors" and governors everywhere.

but there were some like bhagat singh, iqbal, jinnah, the communist movement and subhash bose whose minds the british couldn't conquer.

 

[Hindustani78]

they controlled all of india, with a few thousand officers and slave military... they had "district collectors" and governors everywhere.

but there were some like bhagat singh, iqbal, jinnah, the communist movement and subhash bose whose minds the british couldn't conquer.

They never controlled whole India but were having alliances with other princely states which was similar like the mughals and Marathas.

 

[jamahir]

They never controlled whole India but were having alliances with other princely states which was similar like the mughals and Marathas.

correct... and those princely states in turn ruled the people in their lands, essentially on behalf of the britishers.

the last princely state to wage big battle against the british was the mysore kingdom under tipu sultan... after that, no one like him really...