Making Crimea a part of Ukraine again

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • As ferociously pro-ukraine i may be, i think the Devs will not thread into such perilous waters, and keep the statu quo of a "separate crimea", leaving then to players ingame to fight to decide who is the owner.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    • Opulon wrote:

      As ferociously pro-ukraine i may be, i think the Devs will not thread into such perilous waters, and keep the statu quo of a "separate crimea", leaving then to players ingame to fight to decide who is the owner.
      I would hope tho, if this became true in real life (doubtful) they would eventually comply in-game.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

    • Teburu wrote:

      Eh, theres a bunch of AI nations that would IRL belong to a nation. Call it artistic liberty.
      If a CON had imperialism a 'status quo'

      They'll be a lot of islands that will be part of Many countries.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • Cpt_Merica wrote:

      As much as I stand behind Ukraine, I think the decision to keep Crimea an AI country is the only perfect solution. It appeases most everyone. I can appreciate where you're coming from, though 100%!
      "Appeasement". bad.
      TANKERS
      #StandWithUkraine
      "A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesteron

    • Didn't Crimea vote to become part of Russia? Or maybe that was a fake vote? If we get into fake voting, though, maybe we have to look at the voting for the last two Ukrainian presidents and the reasons behind the sudden shift from pro-Russia to pro-Western leadership in Ukraine?

      Do the Minsk accords matter? Maybe Ukraine is the unfortunate battle ground for a war that has been brewing for a long time with antagonists on many sides?

      I would like to suggest, as sad and horrible as the war is for Ukraine, "standing with Ukraine" is not an accurate depiction of the "sides". Putin is doing something similar as he did in Georgia (and Georgia is one of my favorite countries) when the West started a concerted effort to gain influence and presences in Georgia.

      I'm sorry for ruffling feathers. I've second guessed whether it's worth it to post this, but I think it's unjust and irresponsible how the war in Ukraine is talked about with so little context.

      I am not saying Russia is the "good side" as all. In politics, there is basically never a "good side". As a rule, there is "good side" and "bad" side mixed in to the motivations of all parties involved in politics. I just think it's super hypocritical for Western governments to virtue signal over Ukraine when they absolutely share part of the blame for the war in the first place.

    • Rainmaker2112 wrote:

      Didn't Crimea vote to become part of Russia? Or maybe that was a fake vote? If we get into fake voting, though, maybe we have to look at the voting for the last two Ukrainian presidents and the reasons behind the sudden shift from pro-Russia to pro-Western leadership in Ukraine?

      Do the Minsk accords matter? Maybe Ukraine is the unfortunate battle ground for a war that has been brewing for a long time with antagonists on many sides?

      I would like to suggest, as sad and horrible as the war is for Ukraine, "standing with Ukraine" is not an accurate depiction of the "sides". Putin is doing something similar as he did in Georgia (and Georgia is one of my favorite countries) when the West started a concerted effort to gain influence and presences in Georgia.

      I'm sorry for ruffling feathers. I've second guessed whether it's worth it to post this, but I think it's unjust and irresponsible how the war in Ukraine is talked about with so little context.

      I am not saying Russia is the "good side" as all. In politics, there is basically never a "good side". As a rule, there is "good side" and "bad" side mixed in to the motivations of all parties involved in politics. I just think it's super hypocritical for Western governments to virtue signal over Ukraine when they absolutely share part of the blame for the war in the first place.
      what vote for crimea? Didnt Russia just walk in and annex the place? You do realize any vote post-invasion is incredibly sus?
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Rainmaker2112 wrote:

      I am not saying Russia is the "good side" as all. In politics, there is basically never a "good side". As a rule, there is "good side" and "bad" side mixed in to the motivations of all parties involved in politics. I just think it's super hypocritical for Western governments to virtue signal over Ukraine when they absolutely share part of the blame for the war in the first place.
      Excuse me?

      There is an unambiguous bad side in the current situation, and "No.", Western governments do not share part of the blame for the current war.

      In what universe does that make any sense?

      Countries are not playthings to be claimed and traded like players in a sports league, regardless of whether imperialists once thought they were.

      The Ukrainian people have the authority to decide what happens in Ukraine, not invading armies, not dictators, and not puppet politicians.

      Equipped with the tools they need, the Ukrainian people are currently deciding what happens in Ukraine.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Rainmaker2112 wrote:

      I am not saying Russia is the "good side" as all. In politics, there is basically never a "good side". As a rule, there is "good side" and "bad" side mixed in to the motivations of all parties involved in politics. I just think it's super hypocritical for Western governments to virtue signal over Ukraine when they absolutely share part of the blame for the war in the first place.
      Excuse me?
      There is an unambiguous bad side in the current situation, and "No.", Western governments do not share part of the blame for the current war.

      In what universe does that make any sense?

      Countries are not playthings to be claimed and traded like players in a sports league, regardless of whether imperialists once thought they were.

      The Ukrainian people have the authority to decide what happens in Ukraine, not invading armies, not dictators, and not puppet politicians.

      Equipped with the tools they need, the Ukrainian people are currently deciding what happens in Ukraine.
      Hasn’t the West been accepting nations into NATO even when they previously promised? I vaguely recall something about russia seeing the expansion of NATO as a threat.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • JohnFKennedy wrote:

      Cpt_Merica wrote:

      As much as I stand behind Ukraine, I think the decision to keep Crimea an AI country is the only perfect solution. It appeases most everyone. I can appreciate where you're coming from, though 100%!
      "Appeasement". bad.
      Yes, this was poorly worded. I am not a fan of the "appeasement" foreign policy strategy used by many administrations. If I were to re-word it I would say that, because what's happening in Ukraine is such a complicated situation, the only solution is a neutral one. As much as I support Ukraine and their fight and their sovereignty, you have to think about it from a worldwide game perspective. Dorado needs to take a neutral position on this serious issue so as not to alienate any of their player base. It's understandable. CoN isn't looking to take any sort of political stance here.
      The beatings will continue until morale improves!

    • Teburu wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Rainmaker2112 wrote:

      I am not saying Russia is the "good side" as all. In politics, there is basically never a "good side". As a rule, there is "good side" and "bad" side mixed in to the motivations of all parties involved in politics. I just think it's super hypocritical for Western governments to virtue signal over Ukraine when they absolutely share part of the blame for the war in the first place.
      Excuse me?There is an unambiguous bad side in the current situation, and "No.", Western governments do not share part of the blame for the current war.

      In what universe does that make any sense?

      Countries are not playthings to be claimed and traded like players in a sports league, regardless of whether imperialists once thought they were.

      The Ukrainian people have the authority to decide what happens in Ukraine, not invading armies, not dictators, and not puppet politicians.

      Equipped with the tools they need, the Ukrainian people are currently deciding what happens in Ukraine.
      Hasn’t the West been accepting nations into NATO even when they previously promised? I vaguely recall something about russia seeing the expansion of NATO as a threat.
      NATO has been on Russia's borders for a long time. Now NATO will have Sweden and Finland, so if the whole point was to prevent NATO countries from nearing the Russian border, their warpath has backfired on them terribly. Their sea-based nuclear triad based out of the Kola Peninsula is located awful close to Sweden and Finland, and there's only one highway up to that naval base. Going back to the fact that NATO has already had Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on Russia's border as well... this reason just doesn't make sense. Besides, a country needs to apply to be in NATO, which is their own sovereign right. They do so because they fear Russia's threat of invasion, which, with Russia invading Ukraine, only reinforced the idea that had Ukraine been able to join NATO, they likely would not have been invaded.
      The beatings will continue until morale improves!

    • Teburu wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Rainmaker2112 wrote:

      I am not saying Russia is the "good side" as all. In politics, there is basically never a "good side". As a rule, there is "good side" and "bad" side mixed in to the motivations of all parties involved in politics. I just think it's super hypocritical for Western governments to virtue signal over Ukraine when they absolutely share part of the blame for the war in the first place.
      Excuse me?There is an unambiguous bad side in the current situation, and "No.", Western governments do not share part of the blame for the current war.

      In what universe does that make any sense?

      Countries are not playthings to be claimed and traded like players in a sports league, regardless of whether imperialists once thought they were.

      The Ukrainian people have the authority to decide what happens in Ukraine, not invading armies, not dictators, and not puppet politicians.

      Equipped with the tools they need, the Ukrainian people are currently deciding what happens in Ukraine.
      Hasn’t the West been accepting nations into NATO even when they previously promised? I vaguely recall something about russia seeing the expansion of NATO as a threat.
      I anchor my position on the idea that Ukrainians should decide what Ukraine will do, not other countries.

      If any country wants to whine that NATO has decided to accept new members, let them take it up with NATO; or let them offer those other countries a more attractive alternative.

      And, OBTW, why don't the/those complaining country(ies) simply seek to join (the EU) and NATO too???

      Membership in both organizations seems to be useful (in spite of the unusual British decision to shoot themselves in the foot for a decade or so because they found some aspects of EU membership intolerable).

      Why is there any need for any country to be upset about having a stable, well-behaved NATO/EU member on that country's border???


      There is an unambiguous "bad side" in the current situation.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss, I agree with your sentiments. Our differences are in understanding of the situation. I am not an expert and my opinion changes as I talk with people...

      KFGauss wrote:

      I anchor my position on the idea that Ukrainians should decide what Ukraine will do, not other countries.
      Ukrainians should, I agree. However, I think this is a weak argument as to why "Russia is the bad guy" since Ukraine's corruption level is only like 3% better than Russia's - the idea that it serves it's people's interests first and foremost is dubious at best. The West has just had it's hand in the corrupt politics of Ukraine for the recent past instead of Russia.

      I think the simplest criticism of Russia/Putin is the best criticism - Putin is the one who pulled the trigger on the hot war that is causing so much loss of life and destruction.

      there's another side to the responsibility coin though... it would take an essay to really lay out, but the best I can do in a sentences is:

      Joining NATO means you submit to NATO rules above your own government... there's plenty of reasons a country would not want this... for one, it centralizes power which is the antithesis of the goal of the US constitution. We divide power because "the line of good and evil runs through the heart of every man"

    • Teburu wrote:

      Hasn’t the West been accepting nations into NATO even when they previously promised? I vaguely recall something about russia seeing the expansion of NATO as a threat.
      Russia see it as a threat for various of reasons... the main reason is:

      If you look back in Russian history, The Napoleonic Wars had Russia at a break of collapse the French too its capital (Moscow) and a key city of
      St. Petersburg. This was a time when a European superpower was on its border and pushing through to attack.

      Looking back in WW1 the Germans and the Austrians invaded Russia and almost captured multiple key cities in Russia, they also got the Russians to concede and lose territory.

      Looking back in WW2 the Nazi's invaded Russia having eye sight on the capital and having St. Petersburg in siege. The Russians were part of the Nazi genocide and the amount of damage it caused to Russian cities.



      This shows when a European power is on Russia's border, Russia in most cases gets invaded. For political reasons and geographic reasons. The geography reason is that the key cities of Russia (Moscow and St. Petersburg) are so close to other European countries that in a way is easy to take over.

      this is why now Russia is so threatened by NATO because the increasing expansion of Western Europe on its doorstep is dangerous for Russian leadership. That's why Belarus is in a way puppet state, and Russia will do anything (Like invading) to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. Russia wants a buffer zone to make sure a invasion and attempt to take Moscow will be a long and grueling fight. That's why when NATO got Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia Russia got war mongering and Putin may have wanted to invade. (Crimea was invaded for better access to the Black sea)

      That's why in the Cold War the 'Warsaw Pact' was created as a buffer to keep westernized Europe from reaching the Moscow without a long grueling fight.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Why is there any need for any country to be upset about having a stable, well-behaved NATO/EU member on that country's border???
      At this point I would like for you to read history books...

      Or use google and type :

      Cold War
      WW2
      WW1
      Napoleonic Wars
      (First) Crimean War

      Because that is such a obviously answerable question if you look up those periods in history. *Or look at what I said above!)

      I did your homework up there if you would like to read. :)
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris