The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

801 to 850 of 2,002 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?

Congress aka parliament aka rada?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?

As far as I can tell, it's the same parliament. Essentially just a different coalition forming the government - thus different president, prime minister, cabinet, etc.


Same parliament, would have kicked the president out of office, except he ran so he wouldn't have that happen. In fact, some theorize that's WHY he ran.

So now there's a different executive...basically temporary measures put in by parliament to retain order until elections.

Even that president admitted he made a mistake on Crimea.

The ballot basically stated that they could go with Russia, or become more independent from Ukraine with more autonomy.

There were no options for the status quo...as it were. There was also not a...let's wait until the May elections and see what happens then...option either.

Russia already admitted there were troops inserted there, which was told this entire thread they were there. Russia admitted it, guess who in this thread (Not I) stated that they were not there?

Even Russia is saying something different then what they were saying.

Can someone say...towing the Russian line when Russia didn't want anyone to know they had forces manipulating everything?

The wiser thought would have been to wait for the elections coming up in Ukraine and see what happens...but that would have meant Russia not being in control of that election.

Russia REALLY wanted it's bases...that's what it amounts to...

Who knows what else they want currently.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?
As far as I can tell, it's the same parliament. Essentially just a different coalition forming the government - thus different president, prime minister, cabinet, etc.

Thats what I thought. so how does a 100% vote to oust the president NOT make the next president legal?


GreyWolfLord wrote:


Russia already admitted there were troops inserted there

In 1778,no less.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Thats what I thought. so how does a 100% vote to oust the president NOT make the next president legal?

They were short something like 3 votes.

There are no provisions in ukrainian constitution for early elections AFAIK.
So,whole affair is illegal.
Who cares?
I don't.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
but that would have meant Russia not being in control of that election.

Correction: Not Russia being in control of that election.Insert country_name here.

Russia couldn't care less.Anyone but me remembers ukrainian revolution of 2004?
GreyWolfLord wrote:
stated that hey were not there?

Incorrect.As i said,Russia had troops on the scene for like 250 years.

What i STATED,and still do,that either SDF were not russian military,or legally SDF were not russian military.
But mostly latter.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?
As far as I can tell, it's the same parliament. Essentially just a different coalition forming the government - thus different president, prime minister, cabinet, etc.
Thats what I thought. so how does a 100% vote to oust the president NOT make the next president legal?

Because they didn't follow the formal process apparently. There's supposed to be an impeachment vote, then they form a committee to investigate and then another vote to bring charges and then the court rules on the charges and only then is there a vote to actually remove him from power.

OTOH, he'd already fled the country, which makes it hard to pretend he's still in charge.


Vlad wrote:
They were short something like 3 votes.

So 3 people weren't there or what?

Quote:
There are no provisions in ukrainian constitution for early elections AFAIK.

But there was an impeachment provision. Which they did. What exactly is the argument that the former president is still legit?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


So 3 people weren't there or what?

But there was an impeachment provision. Which they did. What exactly is the argument that the former president is still legit?

They needed 3xx votes.They got 3xx-3.And they needed to do several stage before that vote,which OF COURSE didn't happened.

So formal procedure weren't followed.So Yanukovich is still legit.Technically.
Which is why it was far easier to just kill the guy.
Then procedure is more or less automatic.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


So 3 people weren't there or what?

But there was an impeachment provision. Which they did. What exactly is the argument that the former president is still legit?

They needed 3xx votes.They got 3xx-3.

So formal procedure weren't followed.So Yanukovich is still legit.Technically.
Which is why it was far easier to just kill the guy.
Then procedure is more or less automatic.

The vote was 328 to zero. Thats more than the 3/4 required under the constitution. And there are provisions for more elections.

In the event of the pre-term termination of authority of the President of Ukraine in accordance with Articles 108, 109, 110 and 111 of this Constitution, the execution of duties of the President of Ukraine, for the period pending the elections and the assumption of office of the new President of Ukraine, is vested in the Prime Minister of Ukraine. The Prime Minister of Ukraine, for the period of executing the duties of the President of Ukraine, shall not exercise the powers envisaged by subparagraphs 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 25 and 27 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thats more than the 3/4 required under the constitution.

No.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Prime.Minister.

Not some (censored)acting president.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thats more than the 3/4 required under the constitution.

No.

Yes.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Prime.Minister.

Not some (censored)acting president.

You're going to have to explain yourself a bit. You're not making much sense.

It says if you oust the president , the prime minister absorbs his power for the time being and you hold new elections.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

No

Ogods.Are you able to substract 25% from 450?Because i can do that for you.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You're going to have to explain yourself a bit. You're not making much sense.

First,there was no impeachment.Second,in case of removal of president for ANY legitimate reason,power transfers to the Prime Minister.Ukraine hadn't a prime minister ATM,so first deputy prime minister acts as a prime minister,and,in that case,as a president.

You know,THIS GUY.
Not THIS GUY.
There is no such thing as acting president.
Am i perfectly,crystal clear?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

No

Ogods.Are you able to substract 25% from 450?Because i can do that for you.

328/328 > 75%


BigNorseWolf wrote:


328

By that logic,1/1 will be more than 75%

No,you need 75% from full 450 elected,which is 338.
Which also means that they were short 10 votes.
And even in that case,Arbuzov will act as a president.(by no means the same as being acting president)
Which is why these clowns just threw constitution out of the window.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


328

By that logic,1/1 will be more than 75%

No,you need 75% from full 450 elected,which is 338.
Which also means that they were short 10 votes.
And even in that case,Arbuzov will act as a president.(by no means the same as being acting president)
Which is why these clowns just threw constitution out of the window.

Whats the minimum for a quorum ? I'm pretty sure they're over it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Whats the minimum for a quorum ? I'm pretty sure they're over it.

You are wrong.Article 111 of Ukrainian Constitution.

TLDR:Three votes,225,300 and 338 to pass.
Also something about courts and being guilty of treason,but who cares?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Whats the minimum for a quorum ? I'm pretty sure they're over it.

You are wrong.Article 111 of Ukrainian Constitution.

The dude got voted out 328 zip. He's gone. Legally. Move on. Are you denying the part where when he gets booted out there are new elections too?

Its amazing that the legalities of a quorum are so important to you but the fact that the president can't invite the Russians (because he doesn't control foreign policy) in means nothing.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


The dude got voted out 328 zip.

Not enough,sorry.Even forgetting previous two votes and investigation,which didn't happen.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

He's gone.

Yep.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Legally.

Nope,legally he's still a president.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

president can't invite the Russians

Oh,but he can.

106/17.
Rada has option not to approve,of course.
Which they didn't use.Because they can't.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Are you denying the part where when he gets booted out there are new elections too?

Nope,it's actually there.Who knew?

Which didn't make these elections any more legal.I bet russians will ride that horse 'till it dies from starvation.But wait,there is more!
Even week's delay will make these elections even MORE illegal)


Vlad Koroboff wrote:


Rada has option not to approve,of course.
Which they didn't use.Because they can't.

Would you care to spell out which of the ~40 clauses you're saying allow the impeached president to call in foreign troops?

Its past the point of absurdity that a 0-0 vote favors your position but a 328 to 0 vote is insufficient to be against it.

Putin is a ruthless, bloodthirsty sociopathic dictator that has made a complete mockery of the democratic process and free speech to degrees that make the US look like utopia. Giving him more territory to rule is taking away the rights for more people, and that's a bad thing. Your defense of brutal, naked military aggression is an insult to humanity and the mental gymnastics you've had to pull off to deny a russian invasion are an insult to thinking.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Would you care to spell out which of the ~40 clauses you're saying allow the impeached president to call in foreign troops?

Impeachment didn't happen,and he's still commander-in-chief.He can do that.Rada has the option to not allow stationing and moving troops.GL not allowing ballistic missile strikes.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

328 to 0 vote is insufficient

Blame Ukrainians,not me.It's their constitution.

Spoiler:
there is also a tiny problem that this voting was under the barrel of the gun.Lots of guns,actually.But who cares about that if the vote failed?

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Putin is a ruthless, bloodthirsty sociopathic dictator that has made a complete mockery of the democratic process and free speech to degrees that make the US look like utopia.

Did he kill your first pet or something?Because i sense a lot of not-Kremlin funded propaganda.

Speaking of bloodthirsty,shall we count how many countries NATO destroyed in the last decade or so?Shall we compare it to one tiny little Georgia,which is even still on the map and lost,at most,3-5k pop?
And free speech...i have a question for you.Russia experienced revolts in 2012.Like,100k strong.Of this 100k,how many served jail time,and how much?
BigNorseWolf wrote:
mental gymnastics you've had to pull off

I can only pull it off because MEN THAT DID SAID "INVASION" ARE NOT STUPID!

Which is kinda the point.


I just can't wait till we start getting called "Capitalist Dogs" again (well, by somebody other than Anklebiter). Come on Cold War, I miss you from my childhood days.

"MR. PUTIN, BUILD UP THIS WALL!"

LOL, I love being part of the CIA program which, is the internet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I just can't wait till we start getting called "Capitalist Dogs" again

That implies change from capitalism in Russia.That will not happen.

Imperialist Sharks,on the other hand,is on the table)


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Would you care to spell out which of the ~40 clauses you're saying allow the impeached president to call in foreign troops?

Impeachment didn't happen

He even thought it happened. Thats why he resigned. (and then reneged)

Quote:
and he's still commander-in-chief.He can do that.Rada has the option to not allow stationing and moving troops.GL not allowing ballistic missile strikes.

Please state specifically which section allows him to bring in foreign troops. None of them do. You are arguing one of them does. You cannot simply point at 40 odd points and expect me to guess which one you're going to try to backflip into supporting your view.

Quote:


Blame Ukrainians,not me.It's their constitution.

If they don't like him being gone they can vote him back in.

Quote:
i sense a lot of not-Kremlin funded propaganda.

Yes. Not propaganda tends to hold former KGB thugs that act like KGB thugs in office in a bad light.

Quote:
Speaking of bloodthirsty,shall we count how many countries NATO destroyed in the last decade or so?Shall we compare it to one tiny little Georgia,which is even still on the map and lost,at most,3-5k pop?

Georgia, the ukraine, Russia (yes, killing your own people is still killing people), Chechnya (see russia)

BigNorseWolf wrote:
mental gymnastics you've had to pull off

I can only pull it off because MEN THAT DID SAID "INVASION" ARE NOT STUPID!

... you just admitted russia did the invasion.

Seriously, how am I supposed to believe anything you say when you lie this badly?

The more I read this the more I want to go enlist in the ukranian army. (With a busted back and foot I'll be the last to retreat at least...) just because I don't want to live in a world that accepts this bald faced idiocy as rational. Your arguments are that bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


If they don't like him being gone they can vote him back in.

Nope,he isn't in the list of candidates.That ship has sailed.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Thats why he resigned.

He never did.He agreed to resign contingent on that memorandum or something.Then the coup happened.

If he resigned,there would be no need for impeachment.
Can't you just read their constitution?And requesting foreign aid is in powers of commander-in-chief.And it's not in the constitution,it's somewhere in legal paper.Here's the thing,Yanukovich,i assume,knows more then me about legality of this.If he does this,he can do it.I think his words on the subject are worth more then yours or mine.If you want to argue-GL finding and translating these laws.Even i don't have this much spare time.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Georgia, the ukraine, Russia (yes, killing your own people is still killing people), Chechnya (see russia)

Georgia is still there,Russia didn't had violently supressed revolts in a decade,chechen republic voted 80+% to remain as a part of RF(does democracy mean anything to you?),and Russia tried to save Ukraine.

Remember that deal Yanukovich secured?
BigNorseWolf wrote:


... you just admitted russia did the invasion.

Nope.I specifically said MEN and added quotation marks to invasion.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Your arguments are that bad.

You're only say this because you lose.Most of the time.


Iraq is still there. Afghanistan is still there. So which countries has NATO destroyed in the last decade?


Quote:


You're only say this because you lose.Most of the time.

Your evidence for that is as fascicle as your "Argument" that the Russian troops invading Crimea aren't Russian. Which you admitted you were lying about.

Blatantly sidestepping the question of which article allows the president to ask for a foreign invasion is the HIGHLIGHT of your evidence.

You don't believe your own argument. I can't believe that you're serious. Das vadanya.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Which you admitted you were lying about.

I did not.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Blatantly sidestepping the question of which article allows the president to ask for a foreign invasion

Powers of chief-of-staff are determined in a set of federal laws.I do not

know this laws,president does.If you think he is wrong,link please.
Also,he did not asked for a foreign invasion.
Isn't it clear by this point that precise wording is important?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Please state specifically which section allows him to bring in foreign troops. None of them do. You are arguing one of them does. You cannot simply point at 40 odd points and expect me to guess which one you're going to try to backflip into supporting your view.

Refresh my memory, thread, but I thought the foreign troops were already there since, like, 1990-something?


pres man wrote:

I just can't wait till we start getting called "Capitalist Dogs" again (well, by somebody other than Anklebiter). Come on Cold War, I miss you from my childhood days.

"MR. PUTIN, BUILD UP THIS WALL!"

LOL, I love being part of the CIA program which, is the internet.

More CIA programs for your delectation


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Refresh my memory, thread, but I thought the foreign troops were already there since, like, 1990-something?

1770-something.But that's a little different thing.

While i'm here,let's all say goodbye to government's Mi-8
Photos from today's russian Defence Ministry meeting
One of the guys on the photo is Vladimir Lobov.
Who is mister Lobov?
Oh,he is just the last commander of USSR's armies.Specialist from the cold war days,specifically 80's.
AND HE WAS RETIRED.
Why Russia suddenly needs Cold War general so much it brings him out of retirement?
i know i already used it


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Which you admitted you were lying about.

I did not.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Blatantly sidestepping the question of which article allows the president to ask for a foreign invasion

Powers of chief-of-staff are determined in a set of federal laws.I do not

know this laws,president does.If you think he is wrong,link please.
Also,he did not asked for a foreign invasion.
Isn't it clear by this point that precise wording is important?

Precise wording is important when it helps your argument, completely irrelevant when it doesn't.

We get it.

OR maybe it's only the precise wording and not the reality that matters

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It was arguing that the Soviet Union was a representative democracy that did it for me.
Of course it was.At least on paper.And that's what counts.

In looking for that bit I also came across Vlad's first post on this thread

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"local self-defense groups" that aren't the usual poorly equipped men of all ages, but fit, disciplined young men who happen to be wearing Russian uniforms without insignia, well armed and driving Russian army trucks with mounted heavy machine guns.

Most likely russian military. Trucks are easy,but horrendously pricy nightvision and thermal sights are not so much.Also,veery advanced electronic equipment,which wasn't there in 08. Either russians or VERY prepared ukrainian SD force.Like,a few years of preparation.

My money is on russian paratroopers.Navy AFAIK doesn't deploy this type of equipment.

In which he agreed that the self defense forces were most likely Russian military. It wasn't until a couple pages later that he picked up the official line that they were locals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thejeff: i must say, while in general i agreewith you, it seems kinda double standards to consider the armed neonazi forces that occupied government buildings nonmilitary, while at the same time calling the armed separatists that occupy buldings non-civilian.

Because lets face it, what the separatists are doing right now in eastern ukraine is about the same thing as the eonazis did during the coup. Except the separatists are met with military, which yanukovich did not use against the nazis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Please state specifically which section allows him to bring in foreign troops. None of them do. You are arguing one of them does. You cannot simply point at 40 odd points and expect me to guess which one you're going to try to backflip into supporting your view.
Refresh my memory, thread, but I thought the foreign troops were already there since, like, 1990-something?

The naval base was there. The "green men" sent without insignia to spark and back the Crimea independence movement were not.

Not that it really matters for this argument, since the claim is that it was OK to send in troops because the real president-in-exile asked for them. Which he apparently isn't authorized to do under Ukrainian law. If troops weren't sent in then the argument was moot.

Currently it's sounding like "No Russian troops were involved in Crimea, but if there were they wouldn't have been sent in, just the ones already stationed thre, and if they had been sent in, it would be ok since the president asked for them. Not that they were."


thejeff wrote:


In which he agreed that the self defense forces were most likely Russian military.

I still do.Point is,i can't really prove it.Nobody can.And nobody cares this days,because civil war is gone hot.

thejeff wrote:

t it was OK to send in troops because the real president-in-exile asked for them

No he did NOT!

He asked to use armed forces of russian federation!Where's your fantasy?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:


In which he agreed that the self defense forces were most likely Russian military.

I still do.Point is,i can't really prove it.Nobody can.And nobody cares this days,because civil war is gone hot.

thejeff wrote:

t it was OK to send in troops because the real president-in-exile asked for them

No he did NOT!

He asked to use armed forces of russian federation!Where's your fantasy?

I don't even know what you're saying.

He didn't ask for foreign troops, he asked for "armed forces of the russian federation"?
What's the difference? He was the Ukrainian president. Ukraine is not the russian federation. Therefore, the "armed forces of the russian federation" are foreign troops.


thejeff wrote:
he asked for

USAGE.OF.ARMED.FORCES.

For example.
People have absolutely no fantasy this days.US used precision strikes for the last two decades.Russia for at least the same time.
This is not 19th century.
And what's more,exercises on eastern border(with thinly veiled threat of invasion) is ALSO usage of armed forces.


Okay, so his request has absolutely no bearing on whether the Russian forces sent to support/instigate the Crimean independence movement were legal or not.

You have a great talent for relying on "precise wording" to say one thing and make it sound like you're saying another.


thejeff wrote:
Okay, so his request has absolutely no bearing on whether the Russian forces sent to support/instigate the Crimean independence movement were legal or not.

Alleged russian forces.And yes.

thejeff wrote:


You have a great talent for relying on "precise wording"

And you obviously can't understand political language.


People who have already admitted to not understanding the meaning of the words they use, probably should avoid calling groups they dislike "nazis". Because it may be another case where they are using a word that they have no idea what it means.


Otoh...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sidenote of possible interest, and kinda touched upon by Comrade Ilja above:

While in English, "junta" has the connotation of a military dictatorship, the word, in Spanish--from which the word, I believe, passed into English, it just means "council."

So, for one random example, during the Spanish Civil War, Trotsky wrote a bunch of articles calling for "workers juntas" instead of "workers soviets" which, again, just means "council."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, nazis mean the same thing in english as in swedish. Svoboda are neonazis. Fullblown heiling neonazis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I dislike the US government too, and they have certain fascistoid tendencies, but i wouldnt call them nazis because they arent. Svoboda however are nazis.

And again, if we dont consoider "armed people occupying government buildings" civilians, then neither could we consider svoboda civilians, and the word "junta" isnt such a bad match afger all, i guess. Dont know the exact nuances you apply to the words, but to me, noncivilian means at least paramilitary. Whether a paramilitary dictatorship is a junta or not is up to you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
I mean, I dislike the US government too,

While waiting for some sexy new US atrocity stories to come down the wire, or for a juicy vetting of the latest mass Yemeni drone strike casualities story, Comrade Amy over at Democracy Now!, Kremlin-funded I'm sure, pointed me to this sizzling morsel that will have to suffice for now:

Judge Dismisses Case Against Blackwater Defendant


Update on helicopter...removal.
According to...errr...pro-ukrainian?press,
It was a deadly russian mercenary codenamed Babaui
According to witness,he walked up the nearby roof,fired something that looks like a grenade launcher,then went down and drive away in his car.
What's more interesting,is that Kramatorsk almost in blockade,so this guy apparently penetrated the blockade(twice!),went in,destroyed one of the few transport helicopters,and went back to his station in Slavyansk.
You know,like this.
Fun fact:while this bearded boogeyman(which is translation for Babai)is no GRU operative,mercenary or even russian military,he is a Cossack.


Rebels captured border blockpost near Lugansk.
I have no idea if link works beyond CIS
On border with Russia,if you know what i mean.
I think rebels can expect reinforcements pretty soon.Purely volunteer,of course.


People's Republic of Lugansk's declaration of independence.
Also TV was station captured .About time,because referendum in both Donetsk and Lugansk is in,like,two weeks!
Russians also leaked some satellite surveillance photos,because two can play that game.Photos show substantial buildup near Slavyansk,including,you guess it,THIS.
I dismiss photos as Kremlin-sponsored propaganda,but then,i can't reliably identify ANYTHING on these photos.
Other than that,not much happened(or,rather,no reliable info),so,
Musical interlude!


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Dennis Harry wrote:
Pres man is right about the referendum. It was a farce: would you like to a. Join us now or b. Join us later.

That's a lie.

a)join russia or b)revert to last legal constitution AND REMAIN WITH UKRAINE.Here.In three languages,including Crimean Tatar
Can't anybody check their facts? Exept Quandary.He's good.

So how is option b not just "join us later"?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

While I'm not going to make an argument for the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum, some back story might be apropos.

1991: Crimeans attempt to have a referendum; was banned by Ukrainian government

1992: Another attempt at a referendum was similarly declared illegal by Ukraine

1994: Another attempt at a referendum for greater autonomy within Ukraine; Kiev intervened to downgrade referendum to a consultative vote, then banned it altogher. Vote went ahead anyway and 83% voted for dual Ukrainian/Russian citizenship

1995: Crimean deputies threaten to hold another referendum; Kiev annulled Crimea's constitution, abolished its presidency and began criminal proceedings against Crimean president, Yuri Meshkov

1996: New Ukrainian constitution abolished any further possibility on Crimean self-determination by requiring a nation-wide referendum for any Ukrainian border changes.

My understanding of the most recent referendum wasn't that it was a choice between join Russia now or join Russia later, but rather, join Russia or restore 1991 constitution providing for autonomy within Ukraine.

---

Ninja'd

Right which would lead to a further referendum to join Russia most likely!

I have no problem with what went down, I have a problem with dishonesty whether American or Russian. Call it what it is, a farce, that is all I am saying.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


Russia REALLY wanted it's bases...that's what it amounts to...

Who knows what else they want currently.

Part of it was certainly wanting their bases and access to the Black Sea but that is linked to having a buffer with NATO. The bases are just part of that equation I think.

As to what else they want? Who can say with Putin.

801 to 850 of 2,002 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards