The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Dontesk and Luhasnk People's Republics are soverign states

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 775 times Debate No: 73591
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Today's debate challenge from me to you focuses on the Ukraine crisis and specifcally one area. Are the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics in the east of Ukraine indepedent soverign nations? Or are they Russian puppet states in this conflict? Collectivley, these 2 nations govern themselves, have their own laws and citizens and flags. They call themselves as a confederacy: The Federal State of Novorossia (New Russia). Is it possible that they are in fact true soverign states? I believe the answer is YES. Debate me, if you dare :).
Good luck to my oppponett, and may the best debater win!


I accept this debate.

My arguments could not be much more simple.

A1: Neither republic is a UN member state [1]. This means neither of them have applied for sovereignty and therefore it is impossible for them to be sovereign states.

A2: You stated that they are in the east of Ukraine [2]. A sovereign state by classification [1]. It is impossible for a sovereign state to be in another sovereign state (i.e. in land that is also part of another country) because that means it does not have borders that sovereign states must have by definition. I can not post an official one due to copyright issues that I'd rather not deal with.

A3: You can not have a Donetsk oblast passport or a Luhansk oblast passport [3]



[2] Your opening post

[3] No sources prove that it is true
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you so much for this debate :). I can't wait to get started. Now to refute your arguments.
Argument I
You say that nations must apply for recognition to be soverign states. And not only that, they have to apply for UN Membership to be recognized as a soverign state. I respectfully beg to differ on this with you. Kosov, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Vatican City State, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Taiwan yes are all recognized by at least 1 UN member state. However, someplace like Transitiria or Nagorono Karbakah is not, and yet they are fully independent, from their respective entity they were once with. These places have had their own government and flag and laws, etc for years, and they are thriving independently. Same with the states that have been recognized. These states haven't even applied for UN Membership, and they are still with or without recognition, independent states. You do not need UN recognition, UN membership applications, or recogntion from anyone to be a soverign state. This is the case with the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics.
Argument II
I used the east of Ukraine as a reference to where these soverign states are, therefore, they have seceeded from Ukraine in what was once the east of that nation. They are now soverign states.
Argument III
I refute your argument that you can't be given a passport to these soverign states.



A1: There are still government checkpoints at both states, of course they will be a completely sovereign nation one day, but, the situation now is different. Neither have a national airline, TOC or road agency [1]. The borders still aren't official [2].
A2: Transitiria does not appear to exist [3] and Nagorno-Karabakh have only ever successfully claimed independence from the soviet union, not from Armenia or Azerbaijan [4]. It is only what they call independence.

1. (website with a lot of information, it may backfire)



Debate Round No. 2


Again thank you for the debate :). It has been a good one thus far.
I will now courteously refute your arguments.
Argument I
Government checkpoints? They have been taken over by the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics. They have established checkpoints and their borders are defined by their leaders. They do not need a national airline, and I don't know what TOC means (1)
Argument 2
Transitiria is a pro Russian state that declared indepedence from Moldova in 1992. They have lived as as a soverign state for 23 years in peace generally with Moldova. The same can be said for instance, for Somaliland. But more to the point...
Nagorno Karbakah declared indepenence from Azerbajan in 1991, and the Soviet Union too.
"de facto states" like these are still soverign states.
The same goes for the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics.
Back to you, pro :), and thanks for the debate :).




R1: Both republics are multi-currency zones [1] [2] as they don't have the power to make there own - proving they're still a bit (more like a lot) of a Russian puppet state. they are suffering from the market itself, if they were THAT much of a sovereign state their own currency would exist, of course it has been proposed but both states seem to be too much of a puppet state to be able to.

R2: It's spelt Nagorno-Karabakh and if you don't show me a source about this mysterious land called transitiria by my round 5 post I can't accept it's existence.

Over to you pro

Sources [1]
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for your courtesy and a great debate so far my friend.
Refutal 1
Yes, both republics run on multi currency zones. However they have become increasingly reliant on the ruble, and they will develop their own currency in time. Keep in mind they are barley 1 year old.

Refutal 2
The Nagorono Karbakah Republic spelling was my fault and I am sorry. Transitiria does exsist in truth, they have their own flag, governemt, etc.
There is a map to prove this soverign state does exsist.
The same rule of thumb applies to the Dontesk and Luhansk People's Republics.
Here is a map for their national boundraies'
I rest my case in Round IV.
Thanks for the debate :)


Thank you for the debate so far.

R1: Its Transnistria, another typo. Transnistria is recognised as a part of Moldova 'with special legal status' [1] [2] as supposed to a sovereign state.

R2: Your map of Novorossiya was put together before the election, as it said 'holding referendums on the 11th may' in the future tense. It was only a map stating what might happen. A much more reliable source is national geographic whose map [3] shows Both as just oblasts - as they are.

R3: South Sudan declared independence on the 9th of July - they introduced new currency on the 18th of the same month [4]. This was done by their finance minister, who neither of these oblasts have, or at least they don't have a proper one, but rather one that the monster raving loony party would call stupid, and not because they are not satirical.

Over to you, remember I have the final say.


1. The document with the law about Transnistria in Moldovan (that is identical to Romanian)

2. The English translation
Debate Round No. 4


Thanks for the debate once again.
I finalize my case with this
Argument I
Transistria has its own flag, government, and way of running things. They should not be in the grip of Moldova for any reason, they are a nation.

Argument II
Novorossyia Map...I found one of the best I could find. Here is a better version.
You will note they are defined as east and west Ukraine but the same rule applies. The east, at least what was once the east is a fully soverign pair of states.

Argument III
you will see here they are developing their own currency
I rest my case
thanks for the debate


I left sources 3 and 4 of my previous post in the comments. The Google translate source simply was too long. I would also like to point out it is Transnistria and Novorossiya - you spelt them wrong. Thanks once again for this great debate.

R1: Transnistria is still a region with special legal status. correct or not. I rest my case that until a country is in someway recognised by a UN state.

R2: The map you showed me depicts both as oblasts - and since the source is reasonably reliable you have basically just proved they are not sovereign states.

R3: I am aware of that source, however it dates back to September the 11th, yet a proper sovereign state like south Sudan - despite being very poor [1] - easily developed a new currency. If they were that much of a sovereign state they would be able to create a currency. My sources were from March 2015, and they still don't have a currency. But their an oblast so they can't. Imagine Buckinghamshire, or in the US California, or the Rhine-Ruhr region of Germany suddenly having there own currency. They would have an identical problem to these two oblasts - their not sovereign states.

I rest my case

I would like to thank Kylar for this great debate and all the knowledge acquired.


Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by alric8 3 years ago
I will be posting tomorrow - If I accidently forfeit I will leave my argument in the comments.
Posted by Jcmiamiu7 3 years ago
I was hoping you would've been con.. Good luck
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, this debate was a tie. Both side's arguments relied heavily on their sources, whose reliability was unable to be determined by me 9thus a tie in both points). S&G: both sides had some errors. Conduct: both were well-behaved and composed themselves well, so this point is a tie as well.