If I remember correctly, during the Napoleonic Wars, Bavaria fought for the French against the Prussians. And Bavaria fought against the Prussians again in the Austro Prussian War...

I think so, people here never were on best terms with them, there is definitely more love towards east Prussia though (Poland etc...) and the culture is more similar of course.
Last year we had a guest student from a historical fencing group in Warsow at my former longsword group for some months and I could never imagine him getting along so well in Bavaria as he did here.

If you're simplifying everything ti import-export, then what's there to talk about? Sure, fuck internal trade.
In Ukraine in its current state of governing, every region gives taxes to the center and after the new budget is formed, the center gives money to the regions depending on their needs. In this case neither Donetsk nor Luganks give more than they get. If they export more than import and still manage to get negative budget saldo, something is really fucked up. Main question - where's the money? Capital is not at fault for everything here. Actually some of the industries (like coal mining) get more than they deserve, being highly unprofitable, and still get subsidies from year to year.

I posted the GDP* figures- a rating which is designed to be objective- and they most definitely include 'internal trade'. Donetsk and Lugansk are (were) 20% above the Ukrainian average. So yeah, they are (were) objectively more economically developed than the rest of Ukraine as a whole.

*"an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs)", per wikipedia.

Note the italicised, taxes paid and subsidies given are already taken into account.

I have not been on much, but something I wrote was not a true indicator of what I believe, and I would like to clarify.

I wrote, in response to another statement, that I was on the side of xxx, where the other statement was on the side of yyy.
I did this to indicate that we differed, but chose the easy, antithetical way, instead of taking the time to fully explain a position that would have taken much more time; my apologies.

We both got along, no problem, even with the different viewpoints (great people here,) but I felt it unfair to let my earlier statement stand, with regard to that clause.

To clarify, I am on no side other than that of the principle of sovereignty.

There are 2 principals here, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, and it is up to them to come terms that are acceptable to each.

I'm not a pitch flowers everywhere type of person, but I really hope everything works out well for the people involved.

Edit for redundancy in word choice.

So the convoy moved through... as usual both sides claim mutually exclusive things so nobody has any idea what the heck is even going on.

They drove through freight scanner and... UKR claims their own people were not allowed near. All the checks were done by Russians. (true or not?) all trucks passed this check but where not allowed to continue. UKR says they did not allow the convoy to enter the country which would fit that no UKR personal checked the trucks.

Secondly, the red cross refused to escort because rebels refused to give guarantee of immunity. Red Cross does not lie, so that's a fact. Convoy is now responsibility of Russia meaning it's a military convoy nor a relief convoy. Which makes it a defacto invasion. In a legal sense, that is.

Thirdly, Convoy now apparently reached rebel control territory and rebels are preparing spreading the food (Can you see where this is going? Normally you don't give rebels such things, because rebels only give it to their supporters. Would be very surprised if even a tenth of that food gets to people who are actually in need of it. But as usual, we can't check, so we don't know.

Putin called Merkel explaining that Russia could no longer wait (So says Der Spiegel)

bottom line is, trucks are moving but what's in them we don't know. Who gets what we don't know. And how these vehicles ever get out again? We don't know. The drivers are likely russian military or secret service. I don't buy for 1 single second that any sane civilian truck driver drives willingly in a war zone.

These particular drivers may well be military; but, I have no problem believing that you can find many civilians to do that kind of work. As e.g. during the occupation of Iraq, there were a LOT of civilian truck drivers doing high-risk, high-pay contract work (exact nos. are hard to find, but the death toll appears to have been in the 100s, and who knows how many wound up with PTSD).

I always assumed these drivers in Iraq/Pakistan etc. are from PMC's which to me are not civilians. But that is interesting to know. I always wondered who these mysterious convoy drivers actually are that say, in Afghanistan drove around with giant wheeled bombs (Fuel trucks).

Mhhh, I guess civilians would be insane enough to do this for money though. haven't heard anything about how these trucks ever get out again. And who checks these for rebels, bombs and assorted then? Very weird situation all around.

Untrue, according to the ICRC. ' "The Red Cross says Ukrainian customs checks have begun on Russian lorries carrying aid for civilians in eastern Ukraine, which are still at the border.

Red Cross official Laurent Corbaz said the aid delivery "could start soon... hopefully tomorrow".' BBC, 21 Aug Also untrue. ' An advance ICRC team crossed into eastern Ukraine this morning, having received security guarantees from groups controlling the territory for this mission. The team is checking conditions of the road, and the general situation, and establishing contacts in preparation for the passage of the convoy," ICRC spokesman Ewan Watson told Reuters in Geneva. ' They aren't going in because they cannot guarantee their people's safety in general, not because of the rebels specifically. In practical terms they are probably worried about the Ukrainian military attacking any rebels escorting the convoy rather than anything the rebels do themselves.

Your information is a bit old. What you said was true as of yesterday, but is no longer the case (latest BBC report). The Russian convoy entered Ukraine despite not being authorized by the Ukrainian government. Some of the trucks had been inspected, but ultimately only a small minority. The ICRC is no longer involved with the convoy due to it proceeding without authorization. Also, part of the hold-up with the inspections was that the original plan was for the convoy to cross the border at a Ukrainian-held checkpoint, but the convoy instead diverted much further south to a rebel held checkpoint at Izvaryne. This slowed down Ukrainian inspectors being able to get there, then Russia today claimed these delays were unacceptable and simply proceeded (entirely through rebel-controlled territory) without authorization from the Ukrainian government.

My own take is that Russia is either trying to prop up the rebels, or is trying to use the convoy to create a casus belli (probably a combination of the two), although that's just speculation on my part.

They aren't really old- they were posted to show rebels not giving permission and Ukrainian guards not being able to inspect were incorrect, and that does remain incorrect despite events moving on in practical terms. Leaving the two original facts in place gives a rather... skewed view of the situation as the neutral observer was not saying that the delays were due to the Russians/ rebels not giving guarantees or not allowing inspections.

As events are now the most significant line is probably that the ICRC expected them to be able to cross the day they actually did cross, which supports the idea that the Ukrainians were stalling since the neutral observer expected the Ukrainians to have finished, but apparently they hadn't.

Of course, the Ukrainians have good reasons for stalling. The humanitarian aid is clearly at least partly an excuse, certainly. It's used because Ukraine cannot actively deny humanitarian aid without falling afoul of the Geneva Conventions and being liable for prosecution for war crimes, so they can- and realistically did, since the convoy had been waiting a week- stall but not actively refuse. Practically, a lot of it will go to the rebels even if it is just food and medical supplies and it also frees the rebels up from having to bring those supplies over themselves, allowing more war materiel to be brought over instead.

1. No, its not true.
2. Red Cross do lie. I mean not in this certain case, but as a general statement, assuming its one.

Obviously I meant "do not lie in this situation" because why would they lie about that in this situation... ;) Who knows what is lies and what isn't... all we know is that UKR did not allow the convoy through, the convoy forced itself through. And we know the red cross did not escort the convoy. Which means Putin again violated the rules he himself agreed to. Very sad.

That's a very good point you made. You definitely should report to pentagon or cia. Casus belli is no joke!

Speculation or not is not for you to decide, when security of the USA is in danger.