> >why didn't you get it back when you returned? > because it was already a fait accompli, faits get accompli by superior dakka which allegedly you had "saviours of rusky army" > and taking it back would require going to war with russia or any successor state. i saved ze russians from the turks but i 'm afraid of going to war with them when they invade and take my land - subhuman iq rrromanigger logic. > >from what you are saying it was the russians that stabbed you in the back after they ahem "begged you to save them" > yes, they required our help to break through at grivitsa because their army was incompetent and as recompense they betrayed us and stabbed us in the back. it's good enough that we managed to keep our independence after they tried marching their army into our capital while ours was away. are you fucking retarded or just trying to romsplain? we saved them bc they were incompetent but somehow they were competent enough to take over our own capital their saviours. huh?  > >it would have been way in your right to do so! > history is rarely written by being right or wrong.  low effort- selfcontradicting reverse sophism! okay i'll play along - at first you said stabbing your ally in the back does not make you look good than you say history is rarely written by being right or wrong. well which is it nigger? pick one! how jewish are you? or just gayreek? > we did exercise our right as soon as it was practical. so a bunch of cowardly faggots that stab everbody in the back if they turn their backs at them > you mean the treaty of berlin? ma bad! i meant san stefano  > because in 1877 europe was dominated by the concept of 'great powers' and they didn't let an upstart, newly independent state negotiate on its own. we had to use proxies in france . so you were not a great power but russia asking you to save her was.got it! romanian logic everyone! > honestly given how the rest is just faggotry i'll leave you to your delusions. said the faggot....
Romania