Your comment #16. The subject was Russia's involvement.
Russian naval personnel had right to be there for sure.
This is where you become obtuse. Russian soldiers had the right to be on their bases (and probably had the right to be on liberty outside of them), but they most assuredly did not have the right to be armed, agitating the locals, and seizing random buildings.
Comment #16 is not a change of subject as far you are portraying Ukrainian conflict as a pure NSW between Ukraine and Russia.
A presence of insurgency is what makes you wrong on that.
And as for me being obtuse you were drawing parallels between East Ukraine and Crimea when I said there weren’t any evidence of Russian military presence in the East. Your arguments were that Russian presence were denied as well in Crimea at the time too.
I don’t think that your argument is legit and I’m obtuse for a reason that unlike Crimea, East of Ukraine has no legal Russian presence at all. It is simply silly to deny an obvious presence of marines in Crimea where you could see men wearing their uniform missing only insignias and riding in their specific vehicles. And it is as stupid to cluesly claim Russian presence in Donetsk, when most of the fighters are older bearded guys, wearing unmatched surplus camo, armed with different non-standard weapons, including Mosin and SKS phased six decades ago, using Ukrainian army heavy equipment and so on.