This is the best example of diversion with random anti-NATO and filo-Russian propaganda which bears no relation whatsoever to what I was disputing wrt Crimean Tatar issue. — neomac

It doesn't say anywhere that people aren't allowed to make anti-NATO arguments!

As for your "disputing wrt Crimean Tatar issue" you could have saved yourself that long and incoherent rant because it looks like you don't have a clue what you're disputing! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You claimed that "Crimean Tatars became the majority" and then backpedaled by saying "I never said that the Tatars were the majority"!

So, were they the majority or not???

And, obviously, in order to even discuss Crimean Tatars and your spurious claim that "Crimea is owned by Tatars therefore it belongs to Ukraine (or America?)", we need to establish what a Crimean Tatar is.

My definition of Tatar is identical to the accepted definition in the literature, i.e., a member of several Turkic ethnic groups speaking Turkic languages and living mainly in Russia, including Crimea.

Turkic people are defined as "descended from agricultural communities in Northeastern China and wider Northeast Asia, who moved westwards into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC" (Wikipedia). This is scholarly opinion corroborated by genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence, not a "myth".

This is why they are referred to as "Mongoloid", because they are related to Mongols and some even look like Mongols. "Mongoloid" is the term used by scholars:

Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978).

Erdogan calls them "Crimean Turks". How is that better than "Crimean Mongols"???

Obviously, there must be some Crimean Mongols as Crimea was invaded and occupied by the Mongols. But I didn't say ALL Crimean Tatars are Mongols. On the contrary, my point was that the genetic evidence suggests that many of them are NOT Mongols, NOT Turkic, and therefore NOT Tatars, depending on their genetic makeup. That's precisely what people make DNA tests for, to establish their ethnic and geographical roots.

In contrast, your "definition" is more than useless as it is totally meaningless and incapable of identifying a Crimean Tatar, or anything else for that matter!!! :rofl:

If you want to know what a real Crimean Tatar looks (and sounds) like, try this:

(Scroll down to "A speaker of Crimean Tatar, recorded in Romania".)

Crimean Tatar language – Wikipedia

Or the same clip on Youtube:

WIKITONGUES: Neceadin speaking Crimean Tatar - Youtube

The Britannica article that you pretend not to find says very clearly:

Some Islamic states, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, and the Sokoto caliphate, must be termed slave societies because slaves there were very important numerically as well as a focus of the polities’ energies.

More long-term was the slavery practiced in the Crimean Khanate between roughly 1475 and its liquidation by the Russian empress Catherine the Great in 1783. The Crimean Tatar society was based on raiding the neighbouring Slavic and Caucasian sedentary societies and selling the captives into the slave markets of Eurasia.

Approximately 75 percent of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freedmen, and much of the free population was highly predatory, engaged either in the gathering of slaves or in the selling of them. It is known that for every slave the Crimeans sold in the market, they killed outright several other people during their raids, and a couple more died on the way to the slave market.

Slavery - Britannica

What makes you think that I must prefer your NATO propaganda to mainstream sources???

And NO, your Tatar witness does NOT support your claim that Tatars are "indigenous to Crimea". Her DNA is as follows:

28% Northern Asian = Siberian (Mongol/Turk) = Tatar
20% Mediterranean = Greek/Italian
22% Northern European = Scandinavian? Baltic?
20% Middle Eastern = ? (Iranian? Turkish? Jewish? Egyptian/Arab?)

In case you forgot, Crimea is in Eastern Europe. There is no Eastern European DNA in your "evidence"!

Incidentally, note how she conveniently leaves out the Taurian people who were the original, indigenous inhabitants of Crimea!

Also note how she conveniently leaves out the Crimean Greeks who have lived in Crimea from the 7th century BC, i.e., many centuries before the Tatars.

And note that she mentions four Turkic groups among her ancestors, which amounts to an admission to being at least in part of Turkic, i.e., Mongoloid-Siberian descent.

But when she lists her DNA makeup, it turns out that she is only 28% Turkic and 42% European, the rest being “Middle Eastern” which could be anything!

And still nothing to specifically link her to Crimea as one might expect in someone that is supposedly "indigenous" to Crimea. So, you've got nothing, really.

That's why I prefer to go by proper scientific publications than your cut-and-paste stuff randomly collected from activist sources .... :smile:

What is really easy, down right facile, is to be dismissive and contemptuous of people defending their country. — Olivier5

I think more "downright facile" is to claim that stating that Ukrainians are "bankrolled, armed, trained, encouraged, and supported by the world's largest military organization" is "facile".

In the real world, resilience is very short-lived without cash, weapons, ammo, etc.

In any case, it should be obvious that the longer the war drags on with US assistance, the more people will die on both sides. In other words, Europeans killing Europeans for America ….

It's easy to be resilient when you get bankrolled, armed, trained, encouraged, and supported by the world's largest military organization.

Besides, Russia has also shown resilience by repelling numerous attempts to conquer and subjugate it since Napoleon's time and before ....

It's easy for the masses to praise something when no historical context exists to discredit it yet. — Christoffer

Nonsense! Western intellectuals praised Soviet Communism AFTER visiting Russia. Bernard Shaw, Lady Astor, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and many other leading intellectuals and socialites of the time visited Soviet Russia and praised its regime.

Shaw said that Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe” and called Stalin “a good Fabian” in 1948. The Webbs wrote a book, Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, in which they praised the communist system. These were among the leading ideologists of the British Labour Party that formed a coalition government during the war and became the ruling party, thus controlling the whole British Empire, after the war. Far from being ignorant masses, they were well-informed intellectual elites!

Now what can I possibly refer to here? Basic moral ideals? — Christoffer

“Basic moral ideals”? Like calling people names for disagreeing with you??? :rofl:

From what I see here, in your opinion everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you is “a fucking asshole”, “a troll”, “off their pills”, etc., etc. Are you sure you aren’t related to @neomac and @ssu? As I said, NATO bots seem to come in packs of three, because they’re cheaper. And so do NATO Nazis …. :rofl:

There was no prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. It was out of the blue. — Olivier5

On 6 July 1990, NATO leaders proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

On 20 December 1991, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in which Ukraine and the other CIS countries (former Soviet republics) were invited to participate.

On 8 February 1994, Ukraine joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program (PfP) that the US government described as a "track that will lead to NATO membership".

On 29 May 1997, Ukraine became a member of NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) that replaced the North Atlantic Cooperation Council.

On 24 June 2010 the Ukrainian government approved an action plan to implement an annual national program of cooperation with NATO that included training of Ukrainian troops in the structures of NATO members and joint tactical and strategic exercises with NATO.

On 8 June 2017, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law making integration with NATO "a foreign policy priority".

On 14 September 2020, Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO".

And in the meantime America and England were arming and training Ukrainian forces ….

So, not quite out of the blue.

In any case, if history teaches anything it is that the Germans know how to fight, the Americans and Brits know how to finance wars, and the Russians know how to flatten everything. Conclusion: if you’re a small country and don’t want to get flattened, don’t start a war with Russia!

What country did Russia "bomb out of the blue"?

If you mean Ukraine, it wasn't "out of the blue" at all. It was because of the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and then trying to retake Crimea and the ethnic Russian areas in Donbas, in addition to turning the Black Sea into a NATO lake.

I'm not defending Russia's bombing of Ukrainian civilians, but I think it had a legitimate reason to feel threatened which means that NATO bears some responsibility for the invasion. But there is no point going on and on about it. IMO it is more important to remove misconceptions like that Crimea belongs to Ukraine

you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. — Christoffer

So, you DO get ostracized, after all.

And if someone doesn't think, speak, and act like you, he MUST be a "fucking asshole" because everything YOU say is always right. Isn't that how fascist ideology starts? :rofl:

And one of those BS idea about the West, is precisely that it's all the West's fault. — Olivier5

Sure. But that's only an extension of the BS idea that it's all Germany's and Russia's fault.

Non-Westerners aren't stupid. If Westerners keep criticizing each other, there is only one logical conclusion ....

BTW, poitín (Irish pronunciation: [ˈpˠɛtʲiːnʲ]), anglicized as poteen (/pəˈt(ʃ)iːn, pɒˈtiːn/) or potheen, is a traditional Irish distilled beverage (40–90% ABV). Former common names for poitín were "Irish moonshine" and "mountain dew" .... - Wikipedia

And yes, their ideology is for them to decide unless the result of such ideology spills over into atrocities and horrors for other people in other nations who didn't ask for it. Just like the Nazis, which I made a point about. The behavior of people in power, throwing their own people into other nations as cannon fodder, in order to realize their fascist dreams. — Christoffer

Wasn't communism a Western ideology? Didn't the Western world erupt into applause when czarist "dictatorship" was replaced by Stalinism? Didn't Western intellectuals call Lenin the best statesman in the world?

Plus, "fascism" isn't necessarily imposed by force of arms. It can be done through education, indoctrination, mass manipulation and control. Say something in your country that deviates from the politically correct "norm" and you'll get ostracized.

In other words, your own society allows "freedom" only so long as you think, speak, and act as you're told .... :grin:

Contrary to you. You're quite good at making yourself look good — Olivier5

I bet he'd look even better with a glass of poitín in his hand .... :wink:

Rêver, c'est déjà ça... — Olivier5

But why does he rêve something and not something else? IMO, social and economic background, history, colonization, etc. seem to influence the content of the reve ....

I wasn't talking about a Russian people in that sense, but an ideology and ideal very common in Russia and extremely common in their politics and military. — Christoffer

Shouldn't Russia's "ideology" be a matter for Russians to decide?

And you do seem to regard Russian society as somehow defective and inferior, and therefore in need of being "corrected" by you.

I was questioning your theory of “rightful owners” and the issue is this: if the rightful owners of Crimea are the Crimean Tatars more than the Russians, then - according to your theory - they are the people that could legitimise annexation or independence of Crimea, so even if they wanted Crimea to be part of Turkey, that should be fine with you! — neomac

Nope, you weren't "questioning my theory of rightful owners" but your deliberate misinterpretation of it!

It's precisely that kind of statement that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you ARE ignorant and confused. Are you sure you aren't related to @ssu and @Christoffer? :rofl:

As a matter of fact, you haven't really addressed any of the many legitimate points I've made. All you're doing is resort to evasion and diversion to cover up your ignorance and duplicity.

If the Crimean Tatars are "indigenous Crimeans", why don't they call themselves Indigenous Crimeans? Why do they call themselves "Tatars", a name given to Mongols and Turks from Central Asia?

Wikipedia - and all other sources - state very clearly (a) that Tatars are a Turkic people and (b) that Turkic people are a Mongoloid group that originated in Siberia. What exactly have I "misunderstood"???

By definition, Tatars are a TURKIC people. Turkic peoples were nomadic tribes that originated in Northern Asia (Siberia) from where they migrated to Mongolia and Central Asia.

Turkic Migrations – LibreTexts

Turkic migration – Wikipedia

From Central Asia, the Turkic tribes began to invade the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The first Turkic tribes to invade the area to the north of the Black Sea and Crimea were:

Huns (4th century AD)
Bulgars (7th century)
Khazars (8th century)
Pechenegs (11th century)
Cumans (11th century).

It must be noted that these were warlike, nomadic tribes that occupied and enslaved local populations:

The Cumans entered the grasslands of the present-day southern Russian steppe in the 11th century AD and went on to assault the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Principality of Pereyaslavl and Kievan Rus'. Cumans – Wikipedia

When the Mongols began to invade the region in the 1200’s AD, they were joined by many Turkic tribes. The name “Tatar” is an exonym, i.e., it was given by Indo-European (Caucasoid) locals to this mixture of Mongol and Turkic invaders. By adopting it and calling themselves “Tatars”, Turkic tribes from Crimea clearly identified with the invaders to whom they had close cultural, linguistic, and genetic links.

Indeed, the first Crimean state, the Crimean Khanate established in the 1400’s, was a Turkic state in which the ruling classes were Mongols and Turks, and the majority were enslaved Europeans.

According to sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), 75% of Crimea’s population under the Tatar Khanate were non-Tatar slaves and freedmen, i.e., mostly Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and Caucasians from places like Georgia and Circassia.

When Russia took Crimea from Turkey in 1783, the majority of Crimeans are supposed to have been Tatars. However, this is obviously misleading as it depends entirely on how “Tatar” is defined.

Many Russians and Ukrainians, and I suspect even Putin himself, have some Tatar (Mongol-Turkic) ancestry and may even have some Tatar features. But modern genetic analysis shows that even those who self-identify as “Tatar” often have more European DNA than Tatar. This renders the claim that Tatars made up “the majority” prior to the Russian takeover of Crimea highly questionable.

As you can see for yourself, the Tatar lady who posted her DNA data on ICCRIMEA is only 28% Northern Asian, i.e., Siberian-Mongol-Turkic or Tatar proper. Are you now denying your own evidence? :grin:

In some Crimean Tatars the percentage may indeed be higher or lower as she suggests, but if her DNA is anywhere near average, this indicates that genuine Tatars with more than 50% Northern Asian DNA could not have been the majority! Your own evidence contradicts your claim that Tatars were "the majority"!!!

In fact, if you care to think about it, 28% Tatar DNA matches estimates according to which 75% of the Crimean population was non-Tatar even at the time of the Tatar Khanate!

The true ratio of Northern/East Asian and European DNA in Tatar populations is corroborated by data from individuals outside Crimea, such as the Volga-Ural region, showing that the mitochondrial gene pool of the Volga Tatars has a Eurasian (Caucasoid) component that prevails considerably over the Eastern Asian (Mongoloid) one:

The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River (Khalikov 1978; Kuzeev 1992). The Volga Bulgars settled on the Volga in the eighth century, where they mingled with Scythian- and Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples. After the Mongol invasion, much of the population survived and mixed with the Kipchak Tatars. Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978). Linguistically, they speak a language of a distinct branch of the Turkic group, within the Altaian family of languages.

Mitogenomic Diversity in Tatars from the Volga-Ural Region of Russia - Oxford Academic

As for claims that “Crimean Tatars have nowhere else to go than Crimea”, they are complete nonsense given that most Crimean Tatars emigrated (note, emigrated, not "expelled") to Turkey between 1783 and 1897, thus settling that question of their own accord.

Indeed, most of the descendants of Crimean Tatar immigrants in Turkey (5-6 million according to some estimates) have assimilated and consider themselves Turks. The very fact that they emigrated to Turkey (where they were received with open arms as “Crimean Turks”) confirms that Tatars themselves saw themselves as a Turkic group. Whether all of them were genuine Tatars and whether Turkey was their true home is another matter.

The way I see it, the correct application of the principle that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners” is not for Crimean Tatars to join Turkey – as Turkey itself is territory illegally taken from Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and others – but to return to Turkic countries in Central Asia.

Stalin’s resettlement of Crimea’s Tatar minority (about 20% of the total population) to their original homeland in Central Asia was unfair on those Tatars who were actually European, and this was readily acknowledged by the Russian authorities who eventually gave resettled Tatars the right to return.

To the extent that it was arbitrary, that resettlement scheme was a mistake. It is one thing to relocate genuine Turkic Crimeans to Central Asia where they had come from. It is quite another to send Greeks who had lived in Crimea since the 7th century BC to Kazakhstan!

Similar mistakes were made during population exchanges between Greece and Turkey in the 1920’s when thousands of Greeks ended up in Turkey just because they were Muslim and Turks ended up in Greece because they were Christian. Or when ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe after WW2, even though they had lived there for centuries, etc., etc.

This is why, personally, I’m against forced deportations and I think diplomatic solutions backed by financial incentives are to be preferred. But the process has to start with correctly identifying who should relocate. Otherwise, how are we going to know which territory rightfully belongs to whom?

In the Crimean context, the problem seems to be not as much genetic as CULTURAL. The genetic evidence indicates that “Tatars” are mostly Indo-Europeans (Caucasoids) who were forced to speak Tatar (a Turkic language) and to convert to Islam under Mongol-Turkic rule. In other words, they assumed an alien cultural and linguistic identity under foreign occupation and this identity is now blown out of proportion for political ends.

And if the problem is cultural, one logical solution would be not to resettle Crimeans of European descent but to encourage them to shed their false Turkic or “Tatar” identity.

In any case, Tatar presence in Crimea does NOT show that “Crimea belongs to Ukraine”!

Yet the Natoist argument seems to be as follows:

A. Crimea is “Tatar”.
B. Tatars are “Ukrainians”.
C. Therefore Crimea is Ukrainian.
D. And Ukraine is Western.
E. Therefore Ukraine and Crimea belong to America and its NATO Empire.
F. But Russia doesn’t think that Crimea and Ukraine belong to America.
G. Therefore Russia must be destroyed so that it never again deviates from what America says the world should think.

Who has given America the right to destroy a country of 150 million just because it thinks differently?

If America is prepared to do this to Russia, how can other countries be sure that it won’t do the same to them?

Moreover, the destruction of Russia is likely to result in Turkey, China, Iran, and other powers trying to fill the vacuum and potentially lead to decades of instability and war in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

Eastern Europe is already heading for a serious recession, probably to be soon followed by Western Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Economic hardship and wars will result in millions of refugees fleeing to Western Europe and other parts of the First World. These are enormous problems that America has created but is unwilling and unable to solve.

America has a long and well-documented history of “solving” some problems whilst creating many other new ones. We need only look at Iraq where they removed Saddam Hussein but created ideal conditions for Islamic State a.k.a. ISIS to emerge - who turned out to be far worse than Saddam.

In these circumstances, European and other leaders around the world may start asking themselves whether it isn’t time to break free from America’s policy of world domination in which the only thing that matters are the interests of US oil and defense corporations.

IMO a far more balanced – and philosophically acceptable – position would be to follow the lead of less-ideologically-committed analysts, and advise Ukraine to (a) stay neutral and (b) cede some territory, e.g., Crimea, to Russia.

As Henry Kissinger has said, “the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be taught rules of conduct established by Washington.” I think philosophers would do well to consider the implications of refusing to follow Kissinger’s advice.

Russia's response to Finland and Sweden joining NATO clearly shows that actually NATO enlargement was more of an excuse than the real reason for invading Ukraine. — ssu

Nope. It doesn't "clearly show" that at all. Russia did NOT invade Ukraine because of NATO expansion in Finland, but because of potential or anticipated NATO expansion in Ukraine!!!

I've had a front row seat to see this in action when the Soviet neighbor transformed into being Russia again. There's not much difference especially during the Putin years. — ssu

Well, that only shows your anti-Russian bias. Wanting Russia to be like Finland sounds pretty unhinged to me. Why don't you want America to be like Finland? Or the whole world? :grin:

You're using the same NATO NAZI argument as @Christoffer according to which Russia and the world MUST be like the West or else.

Plus, you haven't demonstrated that the Armenian-Azeri conflict was created by Russia.

Prior to the Europeans, the Arabs had been raiding and buying slaves from East African black communities for centuries, from Somalia to Zanzibar. — Olivier5

Correct. Prior to the Arabs it was Africans who raided, enslaved, and sold off other Africans. But Africa had its own prosperous kingdoms until they were conquered by France, England, and Belgium. They're now emigrating to France because France is their former colonial "mother country" that exploited, oppressed, and ruined her children.

Et en plus, what will happen when old Mother France gets old and passes away? Will her stepchildren still live under her boot, or sit on her throne? :smile:

According to YOUR theory, if Crimean Tatars want to join Turkey, that should be fine with you too! — neomac

Well, most of them have ALREADY joined Turkey! There are more Crimean Tatars in Turkey than in Crimea! :grin:

The official number of Crimean Tatars in Turkey is 150,000 with some Crimean Tatar activists estimating a figure as high as 6 million. - Crimean Tatars, Wikipedia

So, you seem to be not only ignorant but also confused.

The fact of the matter is that the original inhabitants of the area comprising southeastern Ukraine, southwestern Russia, and Crimea were Eastern European hunter-gatherers a.k.a. Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs):

During the Mesolithic, the EHGs inhabited an area stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and downwards to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. Eastern Hunter-Gatherer – Wikipedia

By the time of the late Copper Age to early Bronze Age (3300–2600 BC), the population of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (which includes Crimea) formed the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) Culture.

The people of the Yamnaya culture were likely the result of a genetic admixture between the descendants of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG), an ancestral component which is often named "Steppe ancestry", with additional admixture of up to 18% from Early European Farmers. – Wikipedia

The Yamnaya people were semi-nomadic and later farmers, herded cattle and sheep, practiced metallurgy and some agriculture, apparently invented the wheel (the worlds’ oldest wheels were found in the area), had carts and wagons probably drawn by oxen, and rode horses.

The Yamnaya were Caucasoid (Indo-European) people who gradually expanded westward into Europe and eastward into Asia, spreading Indo-European language and culture, and making major genetic contributions to European populations (75% of genomic DNA in Bronze-Age Central European populations). The first historically recorded inhabitants of Crimea, the Tauri or Taurians (Greek Tauroi), clearly were from the area.

In contrast, the Turkic peoples were a Mongoloid population originally from Northeastern China and Northeast Asia, who moved westward into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC, where they adopted a pastoral lifestyle, after which they became equestrian nomads and began to expand westward into European (Caucasoid) territory.

Being nomadic horsemen and armed with bows and arrows, the Turkic tribes found it easy to invade European territories and raid the farming settlements they found there. When the Mongols invaded the area, the Turkic tribes allied themselves with their Mongolian relatives and formed a new ruling class that enslaved the local Slavic populations.

As various nomadic groups became part of Genghis Khan's army in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the invaders of Rus' and the Pannonian Basin became known to Europeans as Tatars - Tatars, Wikipedia

The Crimean Khanate originated in the early 15th century when certain clans of the Golden Horde Empire ceased their nomadic life in the Desht-i Kipchak (Kypchak Steppes of today's Ukraine and southern Russia) and decided to make Crimea their yurt (homeland) - Crimean Khanate, Wikipedia

The Tatars, therefore, were Mongols and Turks with some admixture from the local populations they had invaded and enslaved. The Crimean Tatar Khanate emerged after the Mongol invasions and had a multi-ethnic population dominated by a Mongol-Turkic a.k.a. “Tatar” ruling class. The first ruler of the Crimean Tatar Khanate was the Mongol Hacı Giray, a descendant of Genghis Khan’s eldest son Jochi.

Moreover, the Crimean Tatars showed their true colors when they tried to take over all the Slav territories that had been conquered by Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde to which they saw themselves as heirs. Encouraged by Turkey, they devastated South Russia and burned down Moscow in 1571. However, the Russians in those days had not yet forgotten their Viking ancestry and still knew how to fight. In the following year they thoroughly defeated the Tatars at the Battle of Molodi.

Nevertheless, under the protection of Turkey (Ottoman Empire), the Crimean Tatars kept attacking Ukraine, Russia, and other Slav territories for the next two centuries until the Russians gradually pushed back the Turks and reclaimed the region.

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

1. Given that Turkic tribes (a) were non-local invaders and (b) were involved in the enslavement and exploitation of earlier local populations, it cannot be claimed that they are “rightful owners” of Crimea.

2. Given that several non-Turkic ethnic groups existed in Crimea (Tauri, Scythians, Greeks, Goths, etc.) prior to the arrival of the Tatars, it cannot be claimed that the Tatars were “the majority”. On the contrary, if we consider that even ordinary Tatars had several domestic, agricultural, and sex slaves, we can see that the non-Tatar population must have been significant.

Indeed, about 75% of Crimea’s population under the Khanate (or Tatar State) itself were non-Tatar slaves and freedmen, i.e., mostly Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and Caucasians from places like Georgia and Circassia.

3.1. Following the Russian liberation of Crimea from Tatar and Turkish rule in 1783, most Crimean Tatars emigrated to various parts of Turkey (Ottoman Empire).

3.2. By 1897, Tatars were only 35% of Crimea’s population.

3.3. During the 1921 Russian Famine, thousands of Crimean Tatars emigrated to Turkey.

3.4. When Stalin in 1944 resettled Crimean Tatars to Turkic areas within the Soviet Union (e.g., Uzbekistan), the Tatars were already a small minority

3.5. Tatars currently amount to about 10% of Crimea’s total population.

4. Given that the Crimean Tatars were involved in the capture, enslavement, and sale into slavery of millions of Slavs whose total number exceeded that of the Tatars, it cannot be claimed that the Slav population owes anything to Tatars in relation to the latter’s subsequent “expulsion” from Crimea.

5. On the principle that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners”, if anyone has a legitimate claim to being “rightful owners” of Crimea, it is the Tauri (Taurians) and their descendants. But the Greeks also have a claim to parts of Crimea as they built cities, established international trade, and brought prosperity and civilization. They also civilized the Russians who in turn liberated Crimea from the Turkic invaders.

6. In contrast to Greeks and Russians who were from the area, the Turkic populations (Cumans, Turks, Mongols, Tatars) were an alien, invasive element from thousands of miles (4000km/2485mi) away that was highly aggressive and predatory toward the locals.

All facts considered, I think it doesn’t make sense to claim that “Crimea belongs to the Tatars” or to Ukraine. And even less to America. So, I for one fail to see why America thinks it must stick its neo-colonialist snout in the European trough.

But let’s take a look at the Tatars’ own claims lest we are accused of ignoring or persecuting them.

Here’s a post from the “International Committee for Crimea”:

Genetically, who is a Crimean Tatar? – ICCRIMEA

I want to share with you the recent results obtained from my participation in the Genographic Project, sponsored by the National Geographic Society, a reputable organization in the US. By analyzing the DNA samples, the Project aims to trace the journey one’s ancestors may have taken over the centuries. The test is easy and painless. I ordered DNA Ancestry Kit Geno 2.0, collected two samples and mailed them to the designated laboratory. My identity remained anonymous throughout the process. (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/)

I was born in Istanbul, but I am of Crimean Tatar descent. All of my grandparents originated from Crimea. My paternal grandfather’s family lived in Yevpatoria on the west, my maternal grandfather’s family came from Yalta in the south, and paternal grandmother’s family was from the Kerch peninsula on the east. My maternal grandmother’s family migrated to Turkey from Romania. All these families left Crimea in the 19th century, but they considered themselves Crimean Tatars and their native language was Crimean Tatar.

Here are the results of my DNA tests:

28% Northern Asian
22% Northern European
20% Southwest Asian (Middle East)
20% Mediterranean
7% Southeast Asian
2% Native American

In sum, I am 37% Asian, 42% European and 20% Middle Eastern. Perhaps the most surprising finding is the 2 percent Native American genes that I carry. This does not mean that any of my ancestors married Native Americans. Rather, some of my very distant ancestors were among those who migrated to the North American continent about 20,000 years ago. Similarly, one can explain the presence of the 7 percent Southeast Asian genes.

The above DNA test results reaffirm what we have known from history that Crimean Tatars are descendants of the various peoples who settled and lived in Crimea for centuries. The Crimean Tatars, indigenous people of Crimea, did not just come from the East, as many are inclined to think. Rather, they are the descendants of the people who moved to Crimea from different directions: Scythians, Goths, Byzantines, Genovese, and Turkic groups such as Khazars, Kipchaks, Tatars and Ottoman Turks.

No doubt, there are thousands of Crimean Tatars living in Crimea today who have a similar genetic makeup to mine. Some may have more Asian genes or more European genes perhaps. To those ultranationalist Russians who say to Crimean Tatars “Go back to where you came from,” one may respond: “Where should they go? They have nowhere to go but Crimea.”

Essentially, what those DNA results really boil down to is the following:

28% Northern Asian = Siberian (Mongol/Turk) = Tatar
20% Mediterranean = Greek/Italian
22% Northern European = Scandinavian? Baltic?
20% Middle Eastern = ? (Iranian? Turkish? Jewish? Egyptian/Arab?)

“Northern Asian” and “Mediterranean” seem pretty clear, i.e., (1) Mongol/Turk and (2) Greek/Italian.

“Northern European” is already less clear. It could be Scandinavian (Viking) via Rus (Russian, Ukrainian). But in that case there should be some Eastern European (Slav) element that seems to be missing here. Other possibilities would be Goth (originally from Gotland) or Lithuanian (from captured and enslaved Baltic populations).

“Middle Eastern” is totally unclear as it could be a wide range of unrelated Southwest Asian ethnicities.

Now, if someone is of “Northern Asian, Northern European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern” descent, then by definition, that person isn’t an indigenous Crimean!

If he is 42% European and only 28% Tatar then why does he call himself “Tatar” and not “European”?

What is it that makes him a Tatar more than a European?

Could it be that he is descended from people that were mostly Europeans but were forced to speak Tatar and convert to Islam?

Or did Allah give Crimea to his Mongol great-great-grandfather?

Has he been radicalized by Turkish nationalists and imperialists who think that Crimea belongs to the Ottoman Empire?

Is he being used by the CIA and MI6 against Russia?

Etc., etc. …. These are important questions that need an answer.

In the meantime, I think the apparently arbitrary self-designation “Crimean Tatar” is highly problematic and lends itself to manipulation for political and/or commercial purposes.

It reminds me of the way “Native American” is sometimes misused. Some Americans obviously are Native American, but others are less so. Take Johnny Depp, for example, who claimed to be “Cherokee” but it turned out that he had made it up. In reality, he is English, French, German, Irish, and West African. So, he got himself adopted by a Comanche family to “prove” that he didn’t lie about being Native American! :rofl:

But I think philosophers should at least try to be more truthful than Hollywood actors ….

With Russia, it's all about control and influence. — ssu

Well, how is it different with America?

What Russia obviously wants in the region is neighbors that are friendly toward it or at least neutral.

Which is exactly what America wants in its own "backyard" that apparently includes Europe, parts of Asia, and the Pacific ....

You're from Finland and Christoffer is from Sweden. Is that wrong? — Isaac

Good question. I for one am not entirely convinced that it is right. People claim all kinds of things. Could it be that @ssu and @Christoffer both are from Finland? After all, it used to be one country ....

Then why are so many trying to emigrate there, or in Europe? — Olivier5

Well, I think you know why they're in France? It's because "La Grande Nation" screwed up their countries!

And some, apparently, are on their way to England.

But not all are there to live under your boot. Allegedly, some think they're there to take over .... :wink:

Finally, and most importantly, it's not matter of how pure their blood is, but who are the indigenous inhabitants of Crimea. Not the Russians! But the Crimean Tatars. So they should be the right owners according to your views! — neomac

If you really want to know who the original inhabitants of Crimea were, then you should try to find out instead on fixating on Tatars just because it serves your political agenda.

Unfortunately, if you don’t even understand what Mongols are, how are you going to understand what Turkic people and Tatars are?

For your information, Tatars and other Turkic peoples originally came from the same area as the Mongols and are genetically closely related to them. Otherwise said, they're genetically closer to Mongols than to local populations like the Slavs. This can be seen from their facial features like eyes, etc. as noted by Arab and other visitors to the region in the Middle Ages:

Medieval Muslim writers noted that Tibetans and Turks resembled each other, and that they often were not able to tell the difference between Turks and Tibetans. On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portraits have definite old Türk features. Turkic peoples - Wikipedia

For those who are unfamiliar with the subject, the easiest thing to do is to think (a) of Mongolia as situated to the north of China and having a population related to the Chinese, and (b) of Turkic people (including Tatars) as originally coming from western Mongolia and Mongols proper from eastern Mongolia:

Turkic-speaking peoples sampled across the Middle East, Caucasus, East Europe, and Central Asia share varying proportions of Asian ancestry that originate in a single area, southern Siberia and Mongolia. Mongolic- and Turkic-speaking populations from this area bear an unusually high number of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent with Turkic peoples from across west Eurasia. Admixture induced linkage disequilibrium decay across chromosomes in these populations indicates that admixture occurred during the 9th–17th centuries, in agreement with the historically recorded Turkic nomadic migrations and later Mongol expansion. Thus, our findings reveal genetic traces of recent large-scale nomadic migrations and map their source to a previously hypothesized area of Mongolia and southern Siberia.

The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia – National Institutes of Health

Genetic evidence points to an origin in the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity
The Tatars (/ˈtɑːtərz/; Tatar: татарлар, tatarlar, تاتارلر, Crimean Tatar: tatarlar; Old Turkic: , romanized: Tatar) is an umbrella term for different Turkic ethnic groups bearing the name "Tatar".
Tatar became a name for populations of the former Golden Horde in Europe, such as those of the former Kazan, Crimean, Astrakhan, Qasim and Siberian Khanates.
All Turkic peoples living within the Russian Empire were named Tatar (as a Russian exonym). Some of these populations still use Tatar as a self-designation:

Kipchak groups
Kipchak–Cuman branch
Crimean Tatars …. - Wikipedia

1.

A. Turkic people come from the same area as, and are related to, Mongols.
B. Tatars are Turkic people.
C. Therefore Tatars come from the same area as, and are related to, Turks and Mongols.

The Turkish government calls Crimean Tatars “Crimean Turks” and “kinsmen”:

'Turkey to continue to stand by Crimean Tatars' – Anadolu Agency

When Russia retook Crimea in 1783, most of the “Crimean” Tatars emigrated to Turkey, which shows that they felt more at home among their Turkish kinsmen than in Russia!

2. “Tatars” or “Tatary” (татары) in Russian, was a generic term applied to both Mongols and Turkic peoples associated with the Mongols, and it was first applied to Genghis Khan’s hordes which were composed of Mongols and Turkic tribes.

3. Irrespective of genetic affinity, the Tatars were closely associated with the invading Mongols and Turks.

4. It wasn’t “just the Mongols” but the Tatars themselves, including Crimean Tatars that attacked and enslaved Slavic populations like Ukrainians and Russians:

The Crimeans frequently mounted raids into the Danubian principalities, Poland–Lithuania, and Muscovy to enslave people whom they could capture; for each captive, the khan received a fixed share (savğa) of 10% or 20%. These campaigns by Crimean forces were either sefers ("sojourns"), officially declared military operations led by the khans themselves, or çapuls ("despoiling"), raids undertaken by groups of noblemen, sometimes illegally because they contravened treaties concluded by the khans with neighbouring rulers.
For a long time, until the early 18th century, the [Crimean] khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, exporting about 2 million slaves from Russia and Poland–Lithuania over the period 1500–1700. In 1769, a last major Tatar raid resulted in the capture of 20,000 Russian and Ruthenian slaves. – Wikipedia

Ukrainians and Russians kept fighting the Tatars for several centuries, as anyone who has read Russian authors well knows.

When the old, peaceable Slav spirit was fired with warlike flame, the Cossack state was instituted. In place of the original provinces with their petty towns, in place of the warring and bartering petty princes ruling in their cities, there arose great colonies, villages, and districts, bound together by one common danger and hatred against the heathen robbers. The story is well known how their incessant warfare and restless existence saved Europe from the merciless hordes which threatened to overwhelm her … – Gogol, Taras Bulba

Gogol was not only a great writer, but he wrote at a time when memories of Tatar raids were still fresh in the national consciousness, and he was from the Cossack region of Ukraine that had been at the very center of the Slavs’ struggle against the Tatars. Indeed, like many Cossacks, he may have been part-Tatar himself.

In sum, any objective analysis must start from the fact that the prehistoric inhabitants of the region were Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG). Indeed, the region is regarded by scholars as the Urheimat or original homeland of Indo-European people. By definition, this makes people like the Tatars outsiders.

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer – Wikipedia

Map of Indo-European Expansion – History Files

In historical times, Crimea was inhabited by Indo-European (Caucasoid) peoples: indigenous Tauri, followed by Greeks, Scythians, Goths, Alans. These were invaded by successive waves of nomadic Turkic tribes from the east (Central Asia): Huns, Bulgars, Cumans, Khazars, Mongols.

The Greeks were the first to introduce civilization and to build cities in Crimea from the 5th century BC, and southern Crimea remained Greek until it was conquered by Turkey in 1475, i.e., it was GREEK for a thousand years!

By taking Crimea from the Tatars and Turks in 1783, Russia reintegrated Crimea into Europe, put an end to the Tatar depredations, and redressed a historic injustice. And justice, after all, is what this is about.

Moreover, in recognition of Crimea’s Greek heritage, Russia gave Crimea’s main port the Greek name of Sevastopol, and there was a wider effort to re-Hellenize the region after its liberation from Turkish-Tatar occupation in order to keep the Turks out of Europe (see Catherine the Great’s Greek Plan ).

Unfortunately, treacherous France and England ganged up with Turkey against Russia in the Crimean War (1853 – 1856) and that’s where the problems with the West started.

If we say that “Crimea belongs to the Tatars” and the Tatars are considered to be Turks, we can see how this can be an invitation for Turkey to try and bring Crimea under its control and we’re playing into the hands of Erdogan who aims to rebuild the Ottoman Empire.

Indeed, Turkey’s (a NATO state) current manoeuvres in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine and the wider region have provided Russia with an additional and, arguably legitimate, reason to intervene.

IMO if NATO gives its member state Turkey free hand to intervene in Syria and Iraq on the grounds that Turkey has “legitimate security concerns in the region”, then Russia should also be allowed to intervene in Ukraine.

In any case, there is no evidence that Crimea belongs to Ukraine and even less that it belongs to America!

Problem with CIA-NATO-Nazi bots is that they may have the technology but they haven’t got the intelligence! :grin:

BTW, if anyone is genuinely interested in the subject, here are some good articles on Turkey’s agenda in Crimea and Ukraine:

Turkey’s Tatar Agenda Explained - Insideover

Erdogan’s wolf trace: Crimean Tatars will turn into Ukrainian Turkomans — Eurasia Daily

No, I'm just calling out your bullshit thinking you know even surface-level stuff of what is going on in Sweden and Finland. — Christoffer

Well, I don't think you've demonstrated superior knowledge of countries other than Finland and Sweden. Kettle calling the pot black, comes to mind ....

Russia didn't intervene or come to the help of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked in the Nagorno-Karabach. It actually had sold weapons to Azerbaijan. And is all but happy using the divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus. — ssu

The Armenian-Azeri conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Russia’s “divide-and-rule tactics”.

For your information, the territory inhabited by European (Caucasoid) populations originally stretched all the way to western China and southern Siberia. See Afanasievo Culture.

The problem was created when nomadic Mongol and Turkic tribes began to invade European territories. See Turkic Migrations. This includes Azeris, a Turkic group, that invaded Armenian territory in the Middle Ages.

The Azerbaijanis, Azerbaijani Turks, or Azeris are Turkic people living mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan, as well as in Georgia, Russia (Dagestan), Turkey and formerly Armenia.
A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia.
At the beginning of the 11th century, the territory was gradually seized by the waves of Oghuz Turks from Central Asia, who adopted a Turkoman ethnonym at the time. The first of these Turkic dynasties established was the Seljuk Empire, which entered the area now known as Azerbaijan by 1067.
The pre-Turkic population that lived on the territory of modern Azerbaijan spoke several Indo-European and Caucasian languages, among them Armenian and an Iranian language, Old Azeri, which was gradually replaced by a Turkic language, the early precursor of the Azerbaijani language of today. – Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijan, Wikipedia.

Russia did NOT create the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The conflict goes back many centuries and needs to be taken in the context of Mongol and Turkic encroachment on European territory.

If anything, Russia is trying to strike a balance between two existing mutual enemies on its borders. Russia did sell some weapons to Azerbaijan but it was Turkey that armed the Azeris and encouraged them to attack Armenia by offering military and diplomatic support.

Turkish arms exports to Azerbaijan exploded before Nagorno-Karabakh clashes - Turkish Minute

Don’t forget that Turkey regards itself and Azerbaijan as “two states, one nation” as part of its imperialist designs on the region!

Experts see Turkey’s hardline rhetoric against Armenia as part of Turkey’s aspirations for global and regional leadership and Ankara's increasing efforts to resolve disputes through “gunboat diplomacy.”

AP Explains: What lies behind Turkish support for Azerbaijan – ABC News

I quoted you not only Wikipedia but ethnogenesis studies on the Crimean Tatars, that prove Crimean Tatars' origins were pre-Mongol. — neomac

Hilarious. You must be attending the same second-rate kindergarten as the other two. Or maybe CIA-NATO bots come in packs of three. As the poet says, “bad things come in threes” .... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The truth of the matter is that there is very little genetic difference between Mongols and Turkic people like the Tatars. They all originated from the same place.

Recent linguistic, genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest Turkic peoples descended from agricultural communities in Northeastern China and wider Northeast Asia, who moved westwards into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC, where they adopted a pastoral lifestyle. By the early 1st millennium BC, these peoples had become equestrian nomads. – Wikipedia

Essentially, Turkic peoples were peoples originally from the region comprising South Siberia and Mongolia. In other words, Mongols were from Mongolia proper, and Turkic people were Mongols from adjacent areas.

As the Mongols proper (i.e., Mongols from Mongolia) expanded their rule westward, they became increasingly “Turkified”, so that eventually most “Mongol” invaders were in fact Turkic.

For example, when Genghis Khan divided his empire among his four sons, his eldest son Jochi inherited the westernmost part with 4,000 Mongol troops. Later he had an army of nearly 500,000, virtually all of whom were Turkic. Genghis Khan’s grandson Berke became ruler of the Kipchak Khanate which was almost entirely Turkic, etc., etc.

Turkic peoples looked like the Mongols, spoke a language that was identical or closely related to, and mutually intelligible with Mongolian, and had the same nomadic culture with horses and bows and arrows that they used to attack sedentary Slavic populations.

There were several Mongol-Turkic invasion waves including Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Kipchaks, followed by Mongols, with later waves pushing earlier ones further and further west, or assimilating them in the process. This also holds for areas now known as Russia and Ukraine.

To indigenous Russians and Ukrainians there was no difference between Mongols, Turkic people, and Tatars. The term “Tatar” referred to the non-Slavic, Mongol and Turkic tribes that invaded the region in the Middle Ages. Crimean Tatars are a subgroup of the Tatars and are, by definition, Turkic, i.e, closely related to the Mongols. You can see that for yourself if you take a look at a picture of Turkish president Erdogan!

Historically, the term Tatars (or Tartars) was applied to anyone originating from the vast Northern and Central Asian landmass then known as Tartary – Wikipedia

This is precisely why they are called, and call themselves, “Tatars”.

The original inhabitants of Crimea were the Tauri who lived mainly in the southern highlands while the lowlands were invaded by a succession of various tribes. But by the time of the Mongol invasions, Crimea was controlled by Russia who later took it back from the Mongols and Turks.

Obviously, as the Tatars enslaved the local population (consisting of Greeks, Slavs, etc.) and raped their women, modern-day Tatars are mixed-race with various amounts of Mongol-Turkic DNA. This is why some look Mongolian, some look European, and others look mixed. And they’re currently a small MINORITY (about 10%) in Crimea while the majority are ethnic Russian.

In any case, none of this shows that “Crimea belongs to Ukraine”!

But Russia didn't intervene or come to the help of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked in the Nagorno-Karabach. It actually had sold weapons to Azerbaijan. And is all but happy using the divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus. — ssu

"Divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus"? Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at loggerheads for ages!

There were already fights between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis in 1905. The reason was that Azerbaijanis were Muslim fanatics who had joined Turkey's dream of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire.

See also the Khilafat Movement - Wikipedia

Before that, it goes back to centuries of clashes between local Armenian Christians and Muslim-Turkic invaders. Nothing to do with Russian "divide-and-rule" tactics. If anything, it's got to do with Turkey who's still trying to revive the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate.

As I've explained to you many times before, Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s which is why it has founded the Organization of Turkic States, comprising Turkic countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV

The idea, of course, was promoted by US state secretary Kissinger as part of established US policy of containing and encircling Russia, and keeping it not only "out of Europe" as stated by NATO, but also out of Asia. Which pretty much exposes NATO's true intentions .... :smile:

There is a reason why Ukrainians don't want to live under Putin's boot. — Olivier5

Most of the world don't want to live under America's boot, either.

My main problem with US support of the Ukrainian Conflict is that the United States is the largest and most committed arms dealer in the world and NATO, as far as we view it, is an international protection racket - war is a racket, full stop - so it feels like we'll end up with a divided Ukraine anyway, but one that required the devastation of the nation and a mountain of Ukrainian and Russian casualties. — ASmallTalentForWar

Good point. People tend to forget that the main purpose of US foreign policy is to promote US business especially as dictated by oil and defense lobbies.

Incidentally, US State Department figures show that between 2014 and 2016 U.S arms exports to the EU were worth $62.9 billion. EU arms exports to the U.S were only about $7.6 billion. And EU arms imports from the US are growing, and growing fast. If the EU now starts buying oil and gas from the US as well, we can see how this serves the interests of America’s global empire.

And I agree that a quick Russian victory in Ukraine would have saved thousands of lives and many cities and villages that are now just heaps of dust and rubble. It's difficult to see what Zelensky's actual "plan" is. A ruined and bankrupt country that will be taken over by Western corporations and the local oligarch mafia that are currently sunbathing in Cyprus, Israel, or Miami while waiting for the war to end?

Dude, according to most scholars “Turkic” means Mongol or related to Mongol:

Turkic migration refers to the spread of Turkic tribes and Turkic languages across Eurasia and between the 6th and 11th centuries. According to Yunusbayev et al. (2015), genetic evidence points to an origin in the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity. Similarly several linguists, including Juha Janhunen, Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language. According to Robbeets, the Turkic people descend from people who lived in a region extending from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia to the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria).

Turkic migration - Wikipedia

Historically, the term Tatars (or Tartars) was applied to anyone originating from the vast Northern and Central Asian landmass then known as Tartary, a term which was also conflated with the Mongol Empire itself. More recently, however, the term has come to refer more narrowly to related ethnic groups who refer to themselves as Tatars or who speak languages that are commonly referred to as Tatar - Wikipedia

Also, “The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate, an Ottoman vassal state during the 16th to 18th centuries” - Wikipedia.

Of course, they would have some non-Mongol DNA as they enslaved the local population and raped thousands of local women! The Cumans themselves were a "Turkic nomadic people that eventually settled to the west of the Black Sea" (Wikipedia).

In any case, that doesn’t make Crimea “Ukrainian”! :grin:



Well, your first few maps show Finland’s borders expanding north- and eastward under Swedish occupation. So, your so-called “status quo” kept changing and quite a lot!!! Plus, the border was between Sweden and Russia.

And no, contrary to your claim, imperialism isn't necessarily "to acquire territory through military force".

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change.
The policy of imperialism is usually considered to have begun in the late 19th century, though some consider US territorial expansion at the expense of Native Americans to be similar enough to deserve the same term. The federal government of the United States has never referred to its territories as an empire, but some commentators refer to it as such, including Max Boot, Arthur Schlesinger, and Niall Ferguson. The United States has also been accused of neocolonialism, sometimes defined as a modern form of hegemony, which uses economic rather than military power in an informal empire, and is sometimes used as a synonym for contemporary imperialism.

American imperialism – Wikipedia

In any case, if the NATO Empire keeps expanding its territory, then it is incorrect to say that its aim is to maintain the “status quo”.

This is confirmed by the West’s stated intention to destroy Russia economically and financially:

Western officials have described their campaign as an economic war meant to punish President Vladimir Putin and turn the country he leads into an international pariah — even if it takes years for sanctions to destroy the defenses of Russia's "fortress economy."
"We will provoke the collapse of the Russian economy," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told a local news channel on Tuesday.

The West's $1 trillion bid to collapse Russia's economy – CNN

Also, in military terms, if Russia’s armed forces are degraded to the point that it can’t defend itself, then Russia can be conquered by the West.

Of course, NATO imperialists will keep claiming that their Empire is “defensive”, but I doubt that thinking people will agree :grin:

Dude, just because Tatars “constituted the ethnic majority until the Russian colonization by the Russian empire in the late 19th century”, that doesn’t mean that Crimea belongs to Ukraine!

And why on earth would I defend the Tatars’ rights to ”own” Crimea? Because they invaded it?

If the Tatars “own” Crimea for invading it, then they also “own” Ukraine, Russia, China, and many other countries in Asia and Europe! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What you appear to conveniently forget - but only serves to expose your ignorance - is that Mongol presence in Crimea was the result of the Mongol invasions during the Middle Ages when they invaded and occupied Russia, Ukraine, Eastern and Central Europe, the Mid East, Persia, India, and China.

The Mongols murdered, raped, enslaved, and sold into slavery millions of innocent people and devastated extensive areas of Asia and Europe.

The Mongol Empire, by 1300 covered large parts of Eurasia. Historians regard the Mongol devastation as one of the deadliest episodes in history.

Mongol invasions and conquests – Wikipedia

The Mongol invaders lived off the export of slaves (Russians, Ukrainians, and other locals whom they kidnapped), and grain (produced by the subjugated local population). They turned Crimea into a gigantic slave market and they kept raiding Russian and other Slavic territories until Russia took Crimea back in 1783.

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

So, NO, they don’t qualify as “rightful owners” of any territories they invaded and whose inhabitants they enslaved, though I wouldn't be surprised if YOU thought that they do.

Moreover, there was widespread popular resentment against Mongols in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries in the region due to the atrocities they had committed against the local populations. The memory of these atrocities was preserved for many centuries in chronicles, eye-witness accounts, and the folk stories and songs of many nations including Ukraine:

The fires are burning beyond the river— The Tatars (Mongols) are dividing their captives. Our village is burnt. And our property plundered. Old mother is sabred. And my dear is taken into captivity.

- Ukrainian Folk Song, A. Kashchenko, Opovidannia pro slavne Viis’ko Zaporoz’ke nizove

Mongol atrocities against European populations, for example in Russia, have been corroborated by irrefutable archaeological evidence:

'RITUAL CRUELTY' Gruesome burial pit from ‘city drowned in blood’ reveals how Mongols butchered entire families during European invasion – The Sun

1. In expelling some of the Mongols of Crimea and resettling them in Central Asia from where they had invaded, Russia arguably redressed a historic injustice.
[Incidentally, many Germans were expelled from their traditional territories in Eastern Europe after WW2, and I don’t see NATO trolls complaining about that!]
2. The Mongols were later given the right to return.
3. The Mongols were of Central Asian descent, NOT “Ukrainians”.
4. Therefore, Russia did NOT create an ethnic-Russian majority in Crimea “by expelling Ukrainians”.

What really matters in the context of the current conflict is that Crimea has NEVER had an ethnic-Ukrainian majority. This is precisely why Crimea has had a special status even within Ukraine and why it has repeatedly sought to gain independence from Ukraine. Unfortunately, its efforts have been suppressed by your “freedom- and democracy-loving” Ukrainian government!

In any case, the bottom line is that NATO has failed to produce any evidence that Ukraine has more rights to Crimea than Russia has, least of all in demographic or ethnic terms.

But, as I said, I’m not going to keep repeating myself just because of some folks’ patent inability to read, think, or follow the discussion ….

Disagreement can lead to war, because assuming that the last treaties / peace agreements are wrong, that there's another "rightful owner", are accusations that can (and have lead) to wars. — ssu

Well, even if peace treaties “define who are the rightful owner of a territory”, you still need to identify the rightful owner, and in so doing you apply my principle! :grin:

Moreover, the vast majority of people I’ve spoken to, have no problem whatsoever accepting the principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

Older generations that are stuck in the 50’s and 60’s may have problems grasping the soundness of the concept, but they don’t really matter as they’re on their way out anyway.

As shown in my previous post, the principle is in fact being applied already and has been applied many times in the past. It formed the basis of the decolonization movement, for example!

Of course, (1) it must be applied on the merits of each particular case and (2) no one says it must be applied by force of arms. But nor can force or threat of force (or violence) be ruled out.

If force or violence were to be ruled out in all cases, all historical and current independence movements that involved violence and that resulted in independence, would have to be deemed illegitimate and hence null and void. Too absurd for anyone to seriously contemplate IMO …. :smile:

America, for example, would be a British colony even now.

So, treaties do matter to some extent, but they need to be consistent with justice.

he is talking of how far should Ukraine push its advantage: up to the pre-February borders, or beyond, up to the internationally recognized borders, i.e. inclusive of Crimea and Dombas? — Olivier5

That was exactly what I was saying from the start. Recognizing some of Russia’s claims might have contributed to avoiding the conflict. The French and the Germans seem to have taken a more balanced approach because they understand Europe better than outsiders like the Brits and the Americans.

As things stand now, even if NATO win the war, (a) much of Ukraine will be destroyed, (b) it will take years to rebuild, and (c) there is no guarantee that the country won’t fall into the hands of criminal oligarchs again. So, we may well see a repeat of the 1990’s. And maybe even a WW3.

When Zelenskyy proposes direct talks between Putin and him, he's probly trolling Putin, knowing that his proposal is likely to be found offensive by the Megalomaniac in Chief. — Olivier5

I think Zelensky's statements need to be taken with a large grain of salt. Let's not forget that he's being advised by his British and American handlers.

But I doubt Putin is a real "megalomaniac". Russia is a big country and its leaders, like the leaders of other big countries, tend to think and act in ways that may appear "megalomaniac" to smaller countries. IMO, a more typical megalomaniac would be Napoleon and, to a lesser degree, Stalin and Hitler.

Well, if I understood correctly, you live in the UK. Do you honestly see any Brits worrying about being nuked by Russia? Or Americans?

The impression I’m getting is that it isn’t ordinary people who are worrying, but NATO and its political collaborators, and that is because they fear that it’s expansionist plans might be frustrated by Russia.

The way I see it, the new Cold War is the result of the NATO Empire’s insistence on permanent expansion.

That’s precisely why NATO has been preparing for a conventional war with Russia, and why the Ukrainians were so well-prepared. I’ve no idea where the Russians had gotten their intelligence from, but they were obviously surprised to see how well-prepared the Ukrainians were. And of course they were well-prepared, as they had been trained by the US and UK.

Boris, for example, has his own agenda. He urgently needs some new trade deals to kick-start the economy. So, he’s trying to show what a good boy he is by sucking up to Biden and the EU (as well as to energy and defense corporations) and pushing for escalation in Ukraine.



Ukrainian minorities in Crimea “have been expelled by Russia”?! I bet you were there (in your dreams) and you saw it with your own eyes (or optic sensors)! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Crimea is a Russian-majority territory that has never been Ukrainian (there has NEVER been a Ukrainian majority there!) and that had a special status even within Ukraine. The Minsk Protocol itself was intended to give special status to areas of Donetsk and Luhansk:

Decentralisation of power, including through the adoption of the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".

This shows that the contested territories were NOT regarded as the same as the rest of Ukraine, even by the Ukrainian government, and certainly not by Crimeans and Donbas Russians.

In any case, if you think I’m going to waste my time with your evidence-free drivel, you’re seriously mistaken.



It makes no sense whatsoever to say that countries shouldn’t belong to their rightful owners. In fact, it contradicts your own position if you care to think about it! :grin:

As for “accepting the status quo”, why doesn’t NATO lead by example and stick to its own borders?

1. There are many different kinds of inter-state borders. If a country is an island, for example, then it has very clear borders.

Many countries don’t have clearly visible borders. For example, Finland’s border with Russia is not demarcated by any natural feature and has no proper barrier that divides the two countries.

2. Second, borders are drawn by people, not by laws. A lot of borders were drawn by force of arms, irrespective of any laws. Some were drawn by foreign powers or under pressure from foreign powers.

Finland’s border with Russia was drawn by Sweden and Russia, not by the Finns. Germany’s border with Poland was drawn by Russia, America, and Britain, not by the Germans, etc. Many borders in Africa, the Near East, and other parts of the world were drawn by the British Empire without the locals being asked.

3. Third, the purpose of law is to enforce justice. If a border drawn “by the law” is unjust to the inhabitants of the territory in question, then it is not a just border and the law that imposes it is not a just law.

4. Fourth, borders are not permanent. They change, especially when the concerned populations see them as unjust. This is precisely why so many border-related conflicts exist all over the world.

5. Fifth, it is not unheard of for territories occupied by one population to be returned to their original inhabitants.

For example, Australia has returned some land to the Aboriginal population:

More than 160,000 hectares of land in Cape York has been handed back to the Eastern Kuku Yalanji people in a historic announcement today by the Palaszczuk Government and Traditional Owners.
Today’s handback marks the government returning more than 3.8 million hectares of land back to Traditional Owners on Cape York, with 2.3 million hectares to be jointly-managed by our rangers and the community.

160,000 hectares returned on path to reconciliation – Queensland Government

In 2019, the Tuluwat Island in California was returned to Native Americans:

Historic U.S. island return to native tribe 'path forward' for other land transfers - Reuters

Similar projects exist in Latin America and elsewhere. These are relatively small but significant and trend-setting examples of how the principle that every country should belong to its rightful owners can be, and is, applied when there is a will to uphold justice.

Unfortunately, NATO and its cheerleaders who are stuck in the 50's and 60's don’t seem to be interested in justice but in promoting American Imperialism.

American imperialism - Wikipedia

Moreover, your favorite neofascist NATO dictatorship, TURKEY, has said that it doesn’t want Finland and Sweden to join NATO because they are guesthouses for terrorists:

Moreover, the Scandinavian countries, unfortunately, are almost like guesthouses for terrorist organizations. PKK, DHKP-C are nested in the Netherlands and Sweden. I go further, they also take part in the parliaments there. It is not possible for us to have a positive look

Turkey not in favor of Finland, Sweden’s admission to NATO: Erdoğan - Hürriyet Daily News

A bit embarrassing that, but as they say, "what goes around comes around" .... :wink:

.

Putin appears to be and wants to depict himself as taking advice on this from Lavrov. — Punshhh

I see what you mean. Still, it wasn't Putin who said it.

Or are you suggesting that every time Putin says something, we should assume it's Lavrov who is saying it, even when Putin isn't saying it?

Plus, NATO's war on Russia had already started by then.

The Finns and Swedes can join NATO or any other organization they like to. I think the real problem, or tragedy, actually, is that so many people (on both sides) are getting killed for the sake of politicians.



It wasn't just me who said that Siberia was mostly uninhabited. (@Count Timothy of Icarus) said it and so would any other educated person.

If Russian presence in Crimea is "imperialism", so is Ukrainian presence.

If countries have "no rightful owners", on what basis are you claiming that a country belongs to a particular nation or state?

By your logic, Finland doesn't belong to the Finns, Sweden doesn't belong to the Swedes, Ukraine doesn't belong to Ukrainians, etc.

So, obviously, the Ukrainians aren't fighting for their country. Perhaps, they're fighting for America, then.

And whom do you think Tibet belongs to? To China who invaded, occupied, and annexed it?

But I must say it's really funny to see NATO trolls trying to "think" .... :grin:

And Lavrov’s comments? — Punshhh

You said "Putin's threat". Lavrov is not Putin. And you're not saying which of "Lavrov's comments" you're referring to. One of them was:

When the risks (of using nuclear weapons - ed.) are very, very substantial, I would not like these risks to be artificially inflated, and there are many people willing to do so. The risk is grave, it is real, it can not be underestimated - Interview with Channel One Russia, April 25, 2022

Nuclear war: Lavrov says “the risk is real” - Ukrainian Pravda

Russia's Lavrov: Do not underestimate threat of nuclear war - Reuters

The "threat" here seems to be meant in the more general sense of threat to both sides from a possible nuclear war. And he says that Russia stands for ruling out the threat of nuclear conflicts despite high risks at the moment and wants to reduce all chances of "artificially" elevating those risks.

Of course, this was blown out of proportion by NATO propaganda, but many, including Boris Johnson, have actually dismissed the idea of a "threat" of nuclear escalation. James Heappey (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces) told the BBC that there was a “vanishingly small” possibility of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Moreover, NATO's war on Russia had already started and kept intensifying which means that there wasn't much fear of Russian nuclear strikes.

would you contemplate the possibility to make Crimea a neutral state independent from Ukraine and Russia? — neomac

See, statements of that kind suggest either (a) that you aren't following the discussion and are just trolling for the sake of it, or (b) that you're some kind of CIA-NATO bot.

My position has always been that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. In fact, long before the Ukraine conflict.

So, OF COURSE, I would contemplate Crimea as an independent state if that's what Crimeans want, in the same way I think countries like Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, and continents like Europe, Africa, etc., should be independent. That's why I'm against imperialism, be it American, European, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, or whatever.

I never said Crimea must belong to Russia. It's the NATO Nazis that are saying Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine!

What I'm saying is that Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. So, no, I'm NOT denying independence to Crimea at all. It is YOU who is denying independence to Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc. You even got mad at the thought of it, which exposes your inconsistency and hypocrisy in addition to your inability to read and think! :rofl:

Interestingly, there are three NATO activists here (including yourself) and all three got mad at the thought of China returning Tibet to the Tibetans, Turkey returning Cyprus to the Cypriots, etc. And without offering any explanation.

Anyway, as I said, I don’t see what you’re contributing to this discussion because all you seem to be doing is regurgitate the NATO Troll’s anti-Russian propaganda and disinformation.

I think even the blind can see that this is a war between Russia and NATO. You’re trying to reduce it to an issue between Putin and Ukraine in order to deflect attention from the West’s involvement and criminal culpability.

Unfortunately for NATO activists and trolls, the OP says to discuss NATO’s manoeuvres. And this is what I’m doing.

The fact is that NATO has been around for a very long time and that it was created for the express purpose of containing Russia.

The NATO website says very clearly:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay – NATO

Ismay was a representative of British imperial interests. He had been State Secretary for the Committee of Imperial Defence and was appointed by none other than Churchill, another arch-imperialist.

Though being an empire, Britain at the time was bankrupt and totally dependent on US financial assistance, which essentially made it a client-state of America. NATO, therefore, represented Anglo-American imperialist interests and as such its objective was to contain and, eventually, destroy all countries that were opposed to Anglo-American interests. The main opponent at the time was Communist Russia a.k.a. Soviet Union (USSR).

NATO showed its true colors after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union was what Reagan called the Evil Empire, and NATO’s purpose was to “keep the Soviet Union out of Europe”, then NATO should have disbanded when the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.

NATO not only failed to disband, but actually increased its members from 15 to 28 (!) countries, starting with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, which became members in 1999. Why was it necessary for NATO to almost double its membership when its stated target, the Soviet Union or “Evil Communist Empire”, no longer existed?

According to CIA-NATO disinformation and lies, NATO after the Cold War expanded because Eastern European countries like Poland were so scared of Russia that they begged NATO to allow them to join.

However, Poland may have had other reasons for joining, such as financial assistance. The real question for the purposes of this discussion is not why Poland joined but why NATO thought it was in its own interest to invite Poland to join. Not what a small country like Poland wanted, but what the already huge NATO Empire wanted.

NATO wanted to expand eastward because Russia’s western borders had moved further east, leaving a vacuum that NATO, as an imperialist and expansionist organization, was eager to fill. Moreover, the very fact that NATO moved its defense line eastward means (1) that NATO continued to regard Russia as enemy even after Russia had ceased to be Communist, and (2) that NATO had no intention to stop expanding eastward.

The fact is that contrary to CIA-NATO propaganda and lies, NATO is not some philanthropic organization whose expansion is somehow driven by the needs of countries that apply for membership. Its expansion is driven by its own agenda which is to promote the interests of its creators, America and its client-state Britain.

As in the case of Poland, CIA-NATO disinformation and lies claim that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But this doesn’t mean that this is not what NATO itself wanted, nor does it exclude the possibility that Ukraine wanted to join because it was being encouraged or pushed to do so by NATO.

Indeed, steps to incorporate Ukraine into the NATO Empire were already taken at the NATO summit of July 1990, held in London, when NATO leaders proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

It is important to carefully follow what happened next:

24 August 1991, Ukraine declared itself independent from the Soviet Union.

8 December 1991, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, which had been the original founding members of the Soviet Union, established the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.

20 December 1991, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in which Ukraine and the other CIS countries were invited to participate.

So, we can see that NATO had planned to incorporate Ukraine (1) even before Ukraine became officially independent, and (2) at a time when Ukraine had willingly joined Russia and Belarus in the Commonwealth of Independent States!

Up to this point, Crimea had not been a major problem as relations between Ukraine and Russia had remained friendly. Russian President Yeltsin recognized Ukraine’s independence unconditionally, but in hindsight this seems to have been a mistake because some unresolved issues remained in relation to (1) Soviet nuclear weapons stationed in Ukraine, (2) the Black Sea Fleet, and (3) Crimea.

On December 30, 1991, Ukraine and Russia signed the Minsk Agreement in which it was agreed that Russia would be given charge of all nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil. But in February 1992 Ukraine announced its intention to pursue a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). This transformed all the above issues into major problems.

On May 23, 1992 Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol in which it agreed to return the nuclear weapons to Russia. Later that year, Ukraine changed its mind and claimed ownership of the nuclear warheads. In April 1993 it declared that it would only return some of the nuclear weapons. This unexpected move by Ukraine was criticized by both Russia and the US (which was acting as mediator), and the problem continued to fester.

An agreement was reached in the 1994 Trilateral Statement between Ukraine, Russia, and the US for Ukraine to return the weapons in exchange for security assurances and economic support from Russia and the US.

The Black Sea Fleet problem was temporarily resolved with the Partition Treaty of 1997 which divided the fleet and allowed Russia to use some of the Crimean naval bases.

But Crimea itself remained a major problem. The Soviet Union under Khrushchev had “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. This may have made sense for inter-Soviet administrative purposes, as Crimea was geographically closer to Kiev than to Moscow. However, in May 1992, after Ukraine’s independence, the Russian parliament declared the “gifting” of Crimea to Ukraine illegitimate.

More important, and what CIA-NATO propaganda attempts to cover up, Crimea which at the time had an ethnic-Russian majority and a small Ukrainian minority, had started its own movement of independence from Ukraine. Already on July 16, 1990, Crimea had declared its state sovereignty. On January 20, 1991, i.e., prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) and even prior to Ukrainian independence, the Crimeans voted to become an autonomous republic as they had been before being “gifted” to Ukraine, and this was granted by the Soviet leadership.

Therefore, when Ukraine became independent, Crimea remained an autonomous republic within Ukraine. Moreover, it continued its efforts to become independent. On February 26 1992, the Crimean parliament renamed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea, and on May 5 it proclaimed self-government and enacted a separate constitution to that of Ukraine. Ukraine dismissed Crimea’s action as illegal and although the Crimean parliament created the post of President of Crimea in 1993, in 1998 Crimea was pressured by Ukraine to rename itself Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

After its annexation by Russia in 2014, Crimea reassumed the name of Republic of Crimea as enacted by the Crimean parliament in 1992.

The basic historical timeline of Crimea is as follows:

5th century BC: Greeks begin to establish colonies on Crimea’s southern coast.
47 BC – 330 AD: Roman Empire.
330 AD – 1204 AD: Byzantine Empire. Important trade hub between the Rus and the Greeks.
950 AD – 1204 AD: Part of Crimean interior controlled by the Rus.
1239 AD – 1441 AD: Interior under Turco-Mongol Golden Horde.
1204 AD - 1475 AD: The south under (Greek) Empire of Trebizond and Principality of Theodoro.
1475 AD – 1774 AD: Ottoman Empire.
1778 AD – 1917 AD: Russian Empire.
1921 AD – 1945 AD: Autonomous Republic within Russian Soviet Republic (Russian SFSR).
1954 AD – 1990 AD: Transferred to Ukraine within the Soviet Union (USSR).
1991 AD – 2014 AD: Autonomous Republic within Ukraine. Attempts to become independent.

IMO the historical facts show (1) that Crimea had never been Ukrainian (even in demographic terms) in the first place, (2) that Crimea saw itself as a separate state from Ukraine after Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union (and even before), and (3) that the Crimea issue was not created by the current Russian state and even less by Putin who wasn’t even in power at the time.

So, basically, you haven’t got a leg to stand on … :smile:

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO is justification/reason enough for all current developments regarding NATO. — Punshhh

“Explicit nuclear threat against NATO”?

To my knowledge, he said:

“If someone intends to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside and create strategic threats for Russia that are unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast.”

Putin threatens ‘lightning-fast’ strikes on anyone that intervenes in Ukraine war – American Military News

Substitute “America” for “Russia” in that statement and what you get is a pretty standard warning rather than an “explicit threat”. It says “do something that is unacceptable to us and you’ll pay for it”.

How else would you have formulated it?

IMO it all depends on how you define (a) “intervene”, (b) “unacceptable”, and (c) “retaliatory strikes”.

Also, is NATO’s jihad on Russia due to Russia’s “explicit nuclear threat” or due to Russia’s actions in Ukraine? As far as I am aware NATO’s jihad had already started before the alleged “threat”.

His philosophy actually.represents a cry of the individual against the collective... — Merkwurdichliebe

Good point. Hard to see Nietzsche as an advocate of mass culture. We mustn't forget that Nazism was a culture of the masses, similar to Socialism, hence the name (National Socialism):

Socialism itself can hope to exist only for brief periods here and there, and then only through the exercise of the extremest terrorism. For this reason it is secretly preparing itself for rule through fear and is driving the word “justice” into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail so as to rob them of their reason… and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game they are to play.

― Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human

Incidentally, I'm not sure he would have agreed with NATOISM either.

This is a matter of life and death, probably not the best topic for some uninformed, lazy rambling by a non-specialist like Chomsky. He should know better than that. — Olivier5

Correct. That's why I've been saying all along that philosophizing without knowing the facts is a waste of time.

Besides, Chomsky seems to be more of a political activist who uses philosophy as a cover for promoting his political agenda. A bit like Marx, Lenin, and Stalin ....

Did you say something?
Anyways, life is short. So by all means, do keep telling the Finns what they ought to do, for all they care.

What's there to "misunderstand"?

Both Johnson and @ssu have said that Russia will not destroy Finland. So, why are you concerned on behalf of the Finns?

And anyway, with Finland's microscopic and falling population, there may not be much left for the Russians to destroy "50 years from now".

But you can still think strategically if it makes you feel better .... :wink:

We don't know that "Finland will forever be located next to Russia". What if NATO occupies Western Russia?

And does your "strategic thinking" entail planning to invade Russia because it might decide to "destroy Finland" in "50 years from now"?! :grin:

It doesn't offer any justification for the invasion Russia launched, but it's total hypocrisy. And dangerous. — Manuel

NATO has aimed to draw Ukraine into its orbit from the beginning because when it shifted its defense line eastward after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it started to move its European center of operations to the east, from Germany to Poland. Adding Ukraine to Poland is a perfect replacement for Germany, not only geographically but also in terms of manpower as the combined populations of Poland and Ukraine equal the population of Germany.

Biden has said that America has 100,000 forces in Europe “because we are the organizing principle for the rest of the world.”

Remarks by President Biden During Visit with Service Members of the 82nd Airborne Division - The White House

If that isn't American imperialism, I don't know what is ....

He also said that America is “helping train the Ukrainian troops that are in Poland” (though I don't think he was supposed to have divulged this) :smile:

President Biden Announces his Budget for Fiscal Year 2023 – YouTube

Similarly, Boris Johnson said:

I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles

Ukrainian soldiers training in UK to use British armoured vehicles - The Guardian

Poland criticized Johnson for revealing a “military secret”. But it shows that Poland has taken a central position in this conflict:

The Republic of Poland is rapidly becoming the critical member of the NATO Alliance in its increasing efforts to deter Russian military threats and counter Moscow’s attempts to subvert European democracy. … It is spending more money in terms of a percentage of GDP than other NATO countries. The Polish military has a serious modernization program underway that over time promises to make it a serious counterweight to the Russian Army. Poland is also the obvious place for NATO to base its defense of Europe. This is the primary reason why the U.S. has deployed heavy combat forces in that country and plans to significantly increase its presence in the next few years.

Poland: The Most Important Member of NATO (Thanks to the Russia Threat)? – National Interest

It also explains why NATO is concerned about Ukraine to the point of hysteria and it doesn’t want to lose it to Russia: Ukraine is a central part of NATO’s expansionist plans as it aims to extend its territory as far east as Central Asia and China.

I don't write here with dual personalities, so notice what I say. I don't think Russia will destroy Finland. — ssu

I'm not so sure about your "dual personalities". As for Finland, Boris Johnson has promised to come and save you, so you've got nothing to worry about :grin:

People have a right to take steps to defend themselves. — Olivier5

No one said they haven't. It still doesn't follow that Putin wants to "destroy Finland".

I don't see any benefit, from any perspective, that would justify such actions, maybe there's some crazy person in the military or some extreme right-winger in the Kremlin that wants Russia to invade all of Eastern Europe. — Manuel

NATO Nazis need an excuse for launching all-out jihad on Russia. And what better excuse than claiming that Putin is about to invade Finland or Poland?

Plus, don't forget that NATO's plan has always been to contain Russia so, getting Finland and Sweden to join would be a step in that direction. Even if Finland doesn't join, Boris is going to make some kind of military arrangement with its government.

Gen. Richard Shirreff has said:

There is a possibility that we as a nation will soon be at war with Russia. We in this country must recognise that our security starts not on the white cliffs of Dover - it starts in the forests of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Boris Johnson has openly announced that “the UK is leading the global response to Russian aggression”.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-warns-putin-ukraine_uk_61eea2a8e4b087281f86dc4b

And the EU has proposed the founding of an European Security Council headed by Britain.

EU hands Britain post-Brexit olive branch – an offer to lead new security council – The Telegraph

What do you think Johnson is doing in Finland and Sweden? Just follow Johnson and his defense secretary, and you'll know what the West is up to ....

Russian imperialist aspirations are always veiled in defensive arguments. — ssu

Well, I think you can safely substitute "Western" for "Russian". The world still hasn't forgotten the West's fabricated excuses for "defensively" invading Iraq and other imperialist adventures.

Last time Soviets proposed to the Finnish leadership to have Soviet Air Defense units taking care of Finnish aerospace happened in the 1970's. — ssu

And if the Soviets proposed something to Finland "in the 1970's" that's supposed to somehow show that Putin is dreaming of "destroying Finland". Of course. Makes perfect sense ....

Russia cannot 'control' Finland but it could destroy it. — Olivier5

Yep. Destroying Finland has always been Russia's dream. Right at the top of Putin's agenda. As if there was anything to destroy there .... :smile:

If you don't find Zelensky credible why did you bring him up in support of your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia? — neomac

Dude, as with the rest of your incoherent rant, there is no logic whatsoever to your question. Of course I don't find Zelensky credible! He's a professional actor and comedian, isn't he? If YOU find him credible, it doesn't mean that everyone else must find him credible! :grin:

I've said many times before that (like most other politicians) he doesn't seem credible. Of course, Ukrainians, CIA, and NATO tend to rally around him in the current war situation but his approval ratings were down to about 30% before the war, which suggests that he wasn't credible even to his own electorate.

The latest polling shows that Zelensky’s approval ratings have almost tripled since December 2021, when just 31 per cent of Ukrainians supported him.

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - The New Statesman

I know you're gonna say that the Statesman is owned by Putin or the KGB, but I think you can spare yourself the trouble because no one is going to believe that, maybe not even yourself.

Plus, he has repeatedly made statements that turned out to be contrary to fact. You have yourself admitted that there is a propaganda and info war going on, so why should I blindly believe what Zelensky says?

Moreover, even if he isn't credible, he still reportedly said he is "willing to negotiate with Russia". Besides, my statement referred to the opinion of Western analysts who interpreted Zelensky's comments as indicating that he is prepared to negotiate on the status of Crimea, and possibly on Donbas.

Even non-Western analysts have interpreted his statements in the same way:

Ukraine could declare neutrality, offer security guarantees to Russia and potentially accept a compromise on contested areas in the country’s east to secure peace “without delay,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said ahead of another planned round of talks ....
While saying “Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are beyond doubt,” Zelensky also suggested compromise might be possible over “the complex question of Donbas.”
It was not clear how the two goals could be squared. Russia and Ukraine also remain far apart on other issues ....

Zelensky says he’s willing to make concessions to achieve peace ‘without delay’ - Times of Israel

Note that the writer points out that "it is not clear how the two goals could be squared". This is one reason why Zelensky doesn't seem credible to me on many points.

See also:

Ukraine’s government is willing to make big concessions to end the war - The Economist

In any case, if even Zelensky says that a compromise is possible, this shows that he thinks Russia may have a legitimate claim, otherwise why compromise?

The fact is that if two countries claim that a certain territory belongs to them, they can't both be right. Russia certainly seems to have more of a legitimate claim on Crimea than Ukraine.

And, of course, if Ukraine has a right to be independent from the Soviet Union, Crimea also has a right to be independent from Ukraine. You seem to have incomprehensibly (or conveniently) forgotten this, just as you "forgot" that Crimea was never Ukrainian! :grin:

Unfortunately, you refuse to even contemplate Crimean independence and blindly believe your own CIA-NATO propaganda according to which Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine, Tibet MUST belong to China, Cyprus MUST belong to Turkey, etc.

How do you know America/NATO "didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine"? Where you there or something?

America/NATO could perfectly well have encouraged that. It certainly encouraged NATO membership. And to become a member, a country needs to be independent. Very simple and easy to understand IMO.

If you can't decide which countries should belong to whom, then on what basis do you think you can decide on Crimea?

If, according to you, non-Western views are the views of "dominant elites that are unable of competing against Western dominant elites", then surely this shows that the dominant views are the views of elites. And this is precisely why we shouldn't stay fixated on elite narratives like those peddled by CIA-NATO trolls and bots, and consider the views of ordinary (and real) people from both sides.

Furthermore, considering that NATO is clearly involved in this conflict by supplying training, arms, cash, intelligence, propaganda, etc., to Ukraine while at the same time waging economic, financial, and information jihad on Russia, I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss NATO, its US and UK leaders, their motives, and their aims.

You obviously think people shouldn't even mention NATO, America, England, EU, because, God forbid, it might expose the West's true imperialist agenda. And that's exactly what CIA-NATO bots are programmed to avoid at all costs. Not very successfully, though .... :rofl:

I agree. I think it's quite clear that the majority of Brits, French, and Belgians were quite happy with their countries invading and enslaving other nations:

British merchants were a significant force behind the Atlantic slave trade between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.

As Britain rose in naval power and settled continental North America and some islands of the West Indies, they became the leading slave traders. At one stage the trade was the monopoly of the Royal Africa Company, operating out of London.

Atlantic Slave-Trade - Wikipedia

And according to some, America was built on slave-labor:

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia

There were and still are many different Celtic nations. — Olivier5

Exactly, including in Britain. That’s why Churchill’s fairy tale about “the Anglo-Saxon race” of which he was trying to convince the Americans was just nonsense. But it looks like some people can’t sleep at night without their myths …. :smile:

I posted it partly because it seemed to resonate, and partly to troll people who have a negative image of either Belgium, the UK or France... Because representing them as three beautiful ladies is still a way of glorifying / beautifying these three nations of course, though not a traditional one. — Olivier5

“Beautiful England, France, and Belgium”? Problem is, beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder. And I’m not sure Africans, Indians, Native Americans, and other people from former colonies, would see it quite the same way as you.

And what about the competition in your “beauty contest”? “Ugly Germany and Russia”? IMO, it isn’t the people, but governments (or sections of the ruling classes) that are ugly when they turn into predatory entities that promote colonialism, slavery, and genocide.

But I agree that one can’t go wrong with cuisses de grenouille à la provençale. With a glass of good Chablis 1er cru .... :wink:

to a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things. — neomac

Dude, if I’m a “deranged Putinist” to you, you are a “deranged NATO Nazi” to me. So, basically, we have nothing to say to each other.

But this thread seems to be about the Ukraine business, not about you and me.

The fact is that I’ve criticized Russia extensively on other threads, including the crimes it has committed against its own people, the oligarchs, its collaboration with criminal dictatorships like Turkey, etc., etc. So, I think people who label me “pro-Russian” or “pro-Putin” are knowingly telling lies.

Moreover, as I said, this thread is about the Ukraine crisis or conflict. Like all conflicts, there are two sides to it. On one side there is Russia, on the other side is America (+ UK, NATO, EU, G7, etc.). If some criticize one side, others are entitled to criticize the other. Otherwise, the discussion becomes one-sided and, ultimately, no discussion at all.

Maybe that’s what you’re aiming at because despite calling yourself “philosopher”, you clearly see this as a “political discussion” (your own phrase!) and you sound very much like a political activist and not so much like a philosopher.

It’s entirely possible that @Manuel intended this as an anti-Russian thread, but I can see no suggestion in the OP that we aren’t allowed to criticize the other side in the conflict. On the contrary, the OP very clearly says "There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies". So, IMO it seems proper to investigate the maneuvering of the Western side.

I think my proposal that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners is pretty reasonable in a philosophical context. Yet you inexplicably react to it by cursing and getting mad:

no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means) — neomac

For your information, it’s a well-known fact (a) that China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951, (b) that Tibet is an occupied country, and (c) that there is an internationally acknowledged Tibetan government-in-exile based in India. In 1991, US President George Bush signed a Congressional Act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and his administration as "Tibet's true representatives".

Brief Introduction to Tibetan Government In-Exile - The Office of Tibet

There is nothing “Putinist” or “deranged” about suggesting that Tibet should be returned to the ethnic Tibetans to whom it rightfully belongs. Nor is there anything unclear about the facts.

The same applies to the suggestion that Ukraine should make some territorial concessions to Russia if Russia’s claims are supported by the historical evidence, which I think they are, at least with regard to Crimea.

In fact, Crimea was "given" to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954. And there are a number of problems with this:

1. This was a matter of administration within the Soviet State, it was never expected to become an issue between an independent Ukraine and Russia.

2. There is no evidence that Khrushchev had the right to "give" Russian territory to Ukraine.

3. The inhabitants of Crimea were never asked.

4. A number of Western analysts have expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the transfer, even in the context of Soviet law.

5. Historically, except for the very brief Khrushchev-instigated episode whose legitimacy is contested (1991-2014, i.e., 23 years to be precise), Crimea NEVER belonged to Ukraine.

That was the point I was making, I never said Russia should invade the Baltic or Scandinavian countries and even less England or America. If that’s what you’re saying, then you’re making it up.

As for Zelensky, he seems to be another nutjob who's either confused or a liar. First he said everyone “should calm down as there wasn’t going to be any invasion”, then he said “WW3 has started” and later that “the end of the world has come”! One minute he says he “is ready to negotiate”, next minute he says he “will fight to the end”. One minute he says Ukrainian troops hiding in Mariupol “will never surrender”, next minute he says “Russia should let them go”. He accuses Germany of “financing Russia’s war” when many other countries have been and still are doing business with Russia. He accuses Russia of trying to “exterminate the Ukrainian people” when so far only a few thousand got killed out of 40 million (compare 150,000+ killed by America’s Iraq War), etc.

Incidentally, the Ukraine issue here seems to be approached exclusively from a Western-NATO, i.e., minority-interest angle. This is unacceptable because the West is a minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of the world population – Russia, China, India, Africa, the Arab World, Latin America – do NOT see the conflict the same way the West does. I see no logical reason why non-Western views should be suppressed on a discussion forum!

In sum, I really don’t know what you’re talking about. You seem to be afraid of Russia, but I honestly have no idea why. Maybe it’s some kind of phobia or paranoia. Or covid-19.

In any case, I don’t see how I can help you. So, I suggest you ask someone else. In the meantime, keep calm, try not to upset yourself (and others), and quietly hide under the bed until help arrives …. :grin:

NATO doctrine: Russia is wrong even if right, enemy even if not. — SpaceDweller

:100: :up:

None of that has anything to do with NATO's mission. — Olivier5

It has to do with NATO's ACTIONS though, which is what matters!

BTW that painting is a bit of a joke, really.

England, France, and Belgium with crowned and laurelled heads, but in bare feet? What are they, royal fishwives? Or are they getting ready for a stroll on a beach on the Cote D’Azur? Or perhaps Knokke-Heist in Belgium?

I think Seignac got Belgium right, but is he trying to say that France is the heiress of Rome? And why is England a redhead? Is that supposed to be an insult to Churchill's "Anglo-Saxons", or is it a sneaky allusion to Britain’s Celtic and, therefore, “Gallic” heritage?

Come to think of it, was the painting approved by Churchill’s propaganda bureau?

As Churchill might have said (in a heavy British accent): Qu'est-ce que vous dites, monsieur le olivier? :smile:

To a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things, I guess. — neomac

Of course, people who don't think exactly like you MUST be "deranged"! :rofl:

As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego.

In any case, you obviously haven’t followed the discussion because your fabricated straw arguments are totally irrelevant and have not an ounce of merit to them.

It ought to be obvious that saying that Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine, does NOT make me pro-Russian. Territorial concessions have been suggested as a solution by Western analysts and even Zelensky has indicated that he is "willing to negotiate". So, I don't think it is that "deranged" at all.

Even in the best case, if Zelensky wants a negotiated settlement, he will likely have to make significant concessions to Russia—as he has acknowledged. Any such concessions will probably be bitterly opposed by many in the United States and Europe. Ultimately, though, it is not their call. The democratically elected government of Ukraine should get to decide what price it is willing to pay for an end to the slaughter of its citizens and the preservation of Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign state.

To Support Zelensky, the United States Needs to Negotiate With Putin - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

CEIP is a respected international affairs think tank, not a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

Theoretically, at least, we could go even further and consider that Crimea was controlled for nearly two thousand years by the Greeks who built many cities in the region. Greece, therefore, should have some say on it. After all, from the Minoans and Mycenaeans to Plato and Aristotle, Greece gave civilization to the Western world. So, it shouldn't be erased from history or from the map.

Once Crimea has been taken from Ukraine and given to Russia, the Russians could either give it to Greece or share use of it with Greece. The same applies to formerly Greek islands and other territories along Russia's Black Sea coast.

Similarly, Kaliningrad was part of the German province of East Prussia for many centuries, therefore Russia should evacuate the illegal Russian settlers who were put there by Stalin and return the territory to Germany.

And, yes, as I said, China should give Tibet back to the Tibetans, Turkey should give North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, etc.

I think even the ignorant and the uneducated can see that I’m simply applying the general principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. Nothing to do with Putin whatsoever except in the deluded imagination of NATO’s useful idiots and professional trolls.

Likewise, being against imperialism means being against imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be allies and friends. Unfortunately, this is impossible because Anglo-American imperialism is driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. That, after all, is the stated raison d’etre of NATO!!!

The fact is that NATO was created by America and its British vassal-state as an anti-German and anti-Russian organization with the express aim of keeping “Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay – NATO

It requires a good deal of careful reflection to fully grasp the enormity of this statement. Germany and Russia were continental Europe’s most populous and most powerful nations and bearers of European culture and civilization. To suppress Germany and Russia amounted to suppressing Europe itself!

And what exactly was “keeping the Germans down” supposed to mean? It meant half or more of Germany given to Russia and Poland, and ethnic Germans marched at gunpoint all the way to the west, and beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered on the way, and the survivors put in open-air concentration camps where many died of maltreatment, starvation, disease, and weather exposure.

The status of German prisoners was changed from Prisoners of War (PoWs) to “Disarmed Enemy Forces” which meant that they had no rights under the Geneva Convention and the Allies could literally do with them anything they wanted. Millions of Germans were shipped over to Russia, England, and France as slave laborers and to “re-education” camps in England and America.

As if this wasn’t punishment (or revenge) enough, Germany was to be dismembered into separate Allied-controlled states, its industrial plants dismantled, its forests cut down, and the population forced to live as shepherds and farmers. In a draft memorandum, Churchill wrote with unconcealed satisfaction:

Looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character ....

Morgenthau Plan – Wikipedia

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) - Wikipedia

As for Russia, it was to be “kept out of Europe” because it was Communist. But, first, where did Communism come from? Certainly not from Russia, but from the West. More precisely, from Marx who had spent most of his life in London, England, and who was the hero of England’s and Western Europe’s intellectual elites! Second, Russia was kept out of Western Europe but was allowed to take Eastern Europe, so that not only Germany but the whole of Europe was now divided between America and Russia!

Moreover, the Soviet Union no longer exists. But Russia is still to be kept out of Europe all the same. Up to the 1917 revolution Russia was the enemy because it was “Czarist”, after that it was the enemy because it was “Communist”, and now it is the enemy because it is “Putinist”.

In other words, NATO is desperately trying to justify its parasitic and criminal existence by claiming that Putin wants to “rebuild the Soviet Union” or “the Russian Empire”! I think it is time to dismantle this obviously fabricated narrative and expose it for what it is.

Yes, I’m against US involvement in Ukraine (1) because American governments have zero knowledge or understanding of European history (their ignorance is proverbial in Europe and even in England), and (2) because the US is a foreign power that is hostile to Europe and was brought into Europe by England who is the arch-enemy of continental Europe.

Let’s not forget that the phrase perfidious Albion was coined with England in mind!

"Perfidious Albion" is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations diplomacy to refer to acts of diplomatic slights, duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of the United Kingdom (or England prior to 1707) in their pursuit of self-interest.
Perfidious signifies one who does not keep his faith or word (from the Latin word perfidia), while Albion is an ancient name for Great Britain - Wikipedia

The reality that must be remembered is that it all started with England aiming to eliminate Germany and Russia in order to achieve total world hegemony for itself, after which it dragged America into two world wars that it couldn’t win without American cash and hired guns.

This is why I’m against US and UK meddling in Ukraine. But I’m not against European countries like Germany, for example, getting involved if that helps to end the conflict.

I’ve said many times before that the destruction of Germany has created a dangerous power vacuum in Europe that both Russia and America seek to fill, and THIS is what lies at the root of the conflict.

The real and lasting solution is for Germany to be restored as a Central European power that can balance other powers to the east and west. Without Germany, the region is controlled by weak countries like Poland and Ukraine that are easily bullied and dominated by America and Britain, which makes the whole of Europe an Anglo-American colony.

If Americans don't like being a European colony, they shouldn't insist on Europe being an American colony. Very simple and easy to understand, IMHO.

Plus, I’ve asked the NATO jihadis many times what they would do if they were in Russia’s shoes. I never got even one single answer. So, in the absence of any reasonable alternative, my suggestion seems the most logically consistent here.

Incidentally, Europe has a population of 450+ million and an active-duty military personnel of 1+ million. The US has a population 330 million and an active military personnel of nearly 500,000:

EU-US-NATO Empire: population 780 million, active military 1,5 million.
Russian Federation: population 145 million, active military 800,000.

I for one don’t see how Russia is a “threat” to NATO or even to Europe in general, unless you mean that Russia is a threat to US interests in Europe, which of course is a totally different matter, given that the US has no business being in Europe in the first place.

As for nuclear weapons, you first claimed that “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West given its nuclear arsenal” () after which you backpedaled by admitting that “Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US” (). Maybe Russia is going to indirectly attack the US by nuking Mexico or something? :rofl:

Anyway, do carry on believing your own propaganda if it makes you happy. It’s all the same to me ….

If we French start to bomb Corsica to dust, NATO will not intervene to stop us. It's not its role. — Olivier5

1. So, according to you, invading Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, is "internal politics" of Turkey? Invading, occupying, and annexing Tibet is "internal politics" of China? In that case, invading Ukraine is "internal politics" of Russia!

2. NATO did intervene in Serbia who wasn't threatening any NATO members.

3. NATO members are intervening in Ukraine by supplying arms, training, intelligence, propaganda, etc. even though the conflict is no threat to NATO.

So, not so "defensive" after all.

4. If NATO sees Russia as a "threat", Russia can see NATO as a "threat".

Of course it's a theory. But practical policy usually starts with a theory. Or at least with a working hypothesis.

It may well be that most Ukrainians want Ukraine to belong to the EU-NATO Empire instead of Russia. But I believe that the Russians should have some say on it. If according to NATO, Turkey has "legitimate security concerns" in Syria and Iraq, then so has Russia in Ukraine. Unless we want to argue that only NATO members have legitimate security concerns! Even Zelensky keeps saying that he is "prepared to negotiate", possibly meaning some kind of settlement on Crimea - unless he's just bluffing to buy time.

But don't forget that America had a civil war revolving on secession issues, and similar conflicts have taken place all over the world. See the Falklands War, etc. etc. This is why, ideally, the crisis should be resolved by peaceful means and without the involvement of imperialist powers like America that have no business being in Europe.

Of course the real forum troll leaves out (1) that this is not about "kicking people out" but about thousands of people arrested, tortured, and murdered by the Turkish government, the vast majority of whom are ordinary people, and (2) that NATO makes no effort to punish Turkey for its crimes, not even for invading and occupying parts of Cyprus and Kurdish territories. Says it all really ....

I think Seignac may have (inadvertently, no doubt) forgotten the millions of slaves, coolies, and servants - whom England, France, and Belgium didn't want to share with the Germans ... :smile:

Yet it proves that yours was a straw man argument based on a misinterpreted bit of what I wrote. — neomac

On the contrary, it is you who misinterpreted my position. You need (1) to show that you correctly understand others before blaming them for misunderstanding your incomprehensible statements and (2) make sure that your statements are comprehensible.

From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you.

The fact is that when I said "as far as I am concerned", I meant that it makes no difference to me personally, as it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. The conflict might put up my energy bills, but other than that, it makes no difference to me. Hence I have no personal interest in "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" as you falsely claimed.

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

If you were prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, Kurdistan back to the Kurds, Germany back to the Germans, etc., then you might have some credibility. But as it is, you haven’t.

IMO if you've got a rule or law, you must apply it consistently, not arbitrarily, otherwise it's just a joke. Unfortunately, there is no consistency whatsoever in the NATO position

The fact is that NATO was created by America and its British puppet as an anti-German and anti-Russian organization with the express aim of keeping “Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay – NATO

NATO’s basic position vis-à-vis Russia seems to be that the Russians have no rights whatsoever and they shouldn’t even exist except as an English-speaking colony or vassal-state of the EU-US-NATO Empire.

Ismay, of course, was a representative of the British Establishment. But, aside from being rooted in British imperialism, the Western position on Ukraine is based on ignorance, misinformation, and propaganda.

The historical truth is that Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have always been one country, originally called “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę) or short “Rus”.
Russia means “Land of the Russians”, Belarus (Belaya Rus) means “White Russia” (or “Western Russia”), and Ukraine (Okraina) means “Borderland”, probably referring to that part of Russia that bordered on Poland and Romania:

The name Ukraine (Ukrainian: Україна, romanized: Ukrayina [ʊkrɐˈjinɐ] (, Вкраїна Vkrayina [u̯krɐˈjinɐ]) was first used in reference to a part of the territory of Kievan Rus' in the 12th century. The name has been used in a variety of ways since the 12th century, referring to numerous lands on the border between Poland and Kievan Rus' or its successor states.

Name of Ukraine – Wikipedia

From the 9th century AD, all three were one country, though parts of Ukraine were occupied by Poland, Lithuania, or the Mongols. Following the defeat of the Mongols, they became the core of the Russian Empire.

The “Ukraine issue” only emerged with the collapse of the Russian Empire in the wake of the 1917 revolution, when the war situation created a conflict between the western and eastern parts of Ukraine, with the western, German-controlled, part forming the breakaway Ukrainian People’s Republic with the capital Kiev, and the eastern part forming the Moscow-controlled Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with the capital Kharkiv:

The watershed period in the development of modern Ukrainian national consciousness was the struggle for independence during the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic from 1917 to 1921 - Wikipedia

However, Ukraine remained an inalienable part of the Russian State until 1991. When Ukraine became independent, Crimea was under Ukrainian control but was first shared with Russia together with the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine’s plans to join the EU and NATO obviously resulted in problems regarding (1) Crimea, (2) access to the Black Sea, and (3) the Black Sea Fleet. As these problems were not resolved, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea in 2014.

This should have been the end of the matter. But the problem continued to fester with the West arming and training the Ukrainian forces and threatening to take back Crimea and the ethnic-Russian areas of Luhansk and Donetsk.

So, it seems to me that the US, Britain, Poland, and a few others that had been training and arming the Ukrainians since 2014, planned this conflict at least from that date if not earlier.

This seems to be supported by the fact that a few weeks ago the West was talking about avoiding WW3 whereas now it is ready for all-out jihad on Russia.

Even the Pope believes that NATO has something to do with the conflict:

Pope Francis' concern is that Putin, for the time being, will not stop. He also tries to reason about the roots of this behavior, about the motivations that push him to such a brutal war. Perhaps "NATO's barking at Russia's door" has caused the head of the Kremlin to react badly and trigger the conflict. "An anger that I cannot say if it was provoked," he wonders, "but perhaps facilitated."

Interview with Pope Francis – Corriere della Sera

Of course, NATO jihadis will claim that the Pope is a "Putinist" or that Corriere della Sera is "owned by the KGB" or something. Which rather shows that there is no point talking to NATO fanatics. :grin:

Yes, and it happened under the USSR and in Nazi Germany too. It's happening now in Ukraine. Torture. Rape. Murder. — Olivier5

Sure. But my point was that we shouldn’t ignore what is happening in NATO. To give you some idea of the human-rights situation in NATO country Turkey, according to Wikipedia, Amnesty International, and other sources:

Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings (2,308 persons from 1991-2008)

Enforced disappearances and killings by “unknown perpetrators”

Widespread and systematic use of torture:

Suspects are blindfolded and handcuffed immediately after detention. Even common criminal suspects are stripped naked during interrogation and left like that, often after being hosed with ice-cold water or left on the concrete floors of cells in harsh conditions of winter. The HRA and the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) determined 37 torture techniques, such as electric shock, squeezing the testicles, hanging by the arms or legs, blindfolding, stripping the suspect naked, spraying with high-pressure water, etc. These techniques are used by the special team members and other interrogation teams - Wikipedia

(See more on torture below)

State censorship (government control over media, heavy pro-government propaganda by news agencies, newspapers, TV channels, Internet portals, seizure of independent media companies, direct pressure on media outlets)

Banning of political parties

Imprisonment and killings of journalists (according to Reporters Without Borders, “Turkey is world leader in imprisoning journalists”, Amnesty International has referred to Turkey as “the world’s largest prison for journalists”, by some accounts Turkey currently accounts for one-third of all journalists imprisoned around the world, 165 journalists arrested, 88 convicted, 167 wanted, dozens killed as of May 2020)

Massacres against Kurds and other groups

Severe repression of ethnic minorities (Turkish law prohibits creation of minorities or alleging existence of minorities)

Racism (long history of pogroms against various ethnic groups, genocide against Armenians, 71% of adults hold anti-Semitic views, etc.)

Women (President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that equality between men and women is “against nature”, Turkey is a major market for foreign women who are coaxed and forcibly brought to the country by international mafia to work as sex slaves, etc.)

Censorship in Turkey - Wikipedia

List of arrested journalists in Turkey – Wikipedia

Racism and discrimination in Turkey - Wikipedia

Torture in Turkey – Wikipedia

Massacres committed by Turkey – Wikipedia

Torture:
In 2016, the Turkish government arrested 94,975 people and locked them up in various torture centers in Ankara. Erhan Doğan, a history teacher who was among those arrested and tortured, relates:

We were kept and beaten at the study center until early in the morning … Then they took me to the Ankara Police Department gym, a large indoor sports facility. They made everyone wear orange shirts in the gym. Rows of people with their hands cuffed from behind, facing the wall. There were traces of blood on the walls as high up as a human being …
Grabbing me by my hair, they hit my head against the wall. They removed my clothes down to my underwear, then they doused me with water and beat me with truncheon. But the team we were really afraid of was the one working the night shift. There was a team that came at around 11 or 12 at night and left at around 4 in the morning. Their torture was unbearable. They hung me up for two-and-a-half hours in strappado. When they lowered me to the ground, I thought all my bones were broken. I couldn’t walk …
During the interrogation, they suddenly battered you violently while you were talking to the police without any apparent reason or provocation, targeting particularly your calves and groin. Once I was answering a question, and I got a severe blow to my kneecap. My whole body was convulsed with pain. I heard a crack. I learned that my cruciate ligament was ruptured when I went to a doctor after I was released from there. I lost three teeth as well as my glasses during the torture …
We lost all sense of time, but it must have been on July 28 at around 11 at night when my name was called. I was taken to the partition. The front screens were left open. When the police started battering me, I saw three young women in headscarves being led in front of the partition I was in. They were 20 to 25 years old. They were taken to an adjacent partition … They started torturing them. I realized from their subsequent reactions and wailing that they had been raped …
When they took me to the doctor [who had witnessed the torture], she asked me if I had any complaints. I was soaked in blood, it was obvious that I had been tortured. I involuntarily said, ‘Don’t you see?’ The police took me away, telling the doctor they would bring me back. I was beaten once again. ‘You will not speak, we will,’ they said. Back to the doctor, who asked me again if I had anything to say. The police officer next to me replied, ‘As fit as a fiddle.’ I could not tell the judge about the torture I underwent lest they torture me again …

I heard screams of women being raped at a Turkish detention center, says torture victim - Stockholm Center for Freedom

Garibe Gezer, a female Kurdish political prisoner who was in solitary confinement in Turkey, recently died in prison after months of torture and rape. Political prisoners in Turkey are systematically mistreated and even tortured for having the "wrong" political thoughts or for being labelled by the government as "enemies" or "terrorists"

Torture in Turkish Prisons: Systematic and Widespread – Gatestone Institute

Hamdiye Aslan's alleged perpetrators were five police officers. According to a report from Amnesty International in 2003, she had been detained in Mardin Prison, south-east Turkey, for almost three months in which she was reportedly blindfolded, anally raped with a truncheon, threatened and mocked by officers …
Şükran Esen stated that on the three occasions that she was detained she was: raped vaginally by the gendarmes and their officer; given electric shocks; put inside a vehicle tyre and rolled over; subjected to high pressure jet sprays of cold water; and threatened with death. On one occasion, as a result of the sadistic sexual violence, she was finally taken to hospital whilst haemorrhaging …
A medical report from the International Berlin Torture and Rehabilitation Centre, where Esen had undergone treatment, certified that her injuries were the result of torture.

Turkey: a history of sexual violence - The Guardian

I think NATO would do well to clean up its own pigsty before pointing the finger at Russia.

BTW, speaking of Ukraine, it is important not to deny crimes committed by the Ukrainian side:

Testimonies collected by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the U.N. show that the Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, and pro-Ukrainian forces have trampled over the Geneva Conventions, abducting suspects and torturing them in secret prisons.
In a key test of Ukraine's justice system, a Kiev court in April imprisoned former members of the disbanded, pro-Ukrainian "Tornado battalion" for torturing and sexually assaulting civilians in the eastern Luhansk region in early 2015.
Generally, though, chances of prosecution are slim, and survivors complain of sluggish, ineffective police investigations. U.N. documents show that, by the end of 2016, Ukraine's Chief Military Prosecutor's Office had launched only three criminal proceedings that involved allegations of conflict-related sexual violence.

Rape and the Ukrainian War: How Sexual Violence Fuels Both Sides of the Brutal Conflict - Newsweek

Men and women in Ukraine have been beaten, electrocuted by their genitals and raped in cases of sexual violence committed during the conflict which may amount to war crimes, the United Nations’ human rights office said on Thursday.
All sides in the unrest used beatings, forced nudity and other abuses as interrogation techniques to extract confessions from victims or force them to hand over property, the U.N. human rights office said in a report.

Rape, sexual assault in Ukraine conflict may amount to war crimes: U.N. – Reuters

Some NATO members like the US are known for sending prisoners to other countries to be interrogated under torture.

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition - Open Society Justice Initiative

Yes, in Britain though the architects of the hierarchy were these invaders. — Punshhh

In other words, Britain became increasingly dominated by foreigners starting with the Romans and Anglo-Saxons followed by Normans and ending with Americans.

In addition to Churchill’s father who was married to a rich American, his first cousin Sunny Marlborough (the 9th Duke of Marlborough) was married to another rich American, Consuelo, the daughter of railroad magnate William K. Vanderbilt.

So, Blenheim Palace (Churchill’s house) was built in the early 1700’s, by the 1800’s its owners were in severe financial difficulties (and surviving by selling off bits and pieces of property), and it ended up having to be saved by American money.

Note that the main Churchill politicians at the time were Churchill and his father, not their titled relatives. Churchill himself, despite his aristocratic relatives, was an adventurer, i.e., the type of people that played a key role in building the empire.

Churchill’s ancestor John Churchill (the 1st Duke of Marlborough) himself was a middle-class soldier and a bit of an adventurer himself. His family came into fame when his sister Arabella became the mistress of the married Duke of York (later King James II) and arranged for John to be hired as page at the Duke’s court.

John Churchill was made a captain and later general by James, but he played a key role in a military conspiracy that led to James being overthrown and replaced by William III who rewarded him by making him Earl of Marlborough. He was later made Duke of Marlborough by Queen Anne.

As the Wikipedia puts it:

Marlborough's apologists, including his biographer and most notable descendant Winston Churchill, have been at pains to attribute patriotic, religious, and moral motives to his action; but in the words of David G. Chandler, it is difficult to absolve Marlborough of ruthlessness, ingratitude, intrigue and treachery against a man to whom he owed virtually everything in his life and career to date

In any case, I think Churchill’s case tends to illustrate how the British aristocracy, whose members often had a dodgy pedigree, was gradually supplanted by new, middle-class money and increasingly, by American money interests.

If we go back to William I and William III, we will possibly find that they got some financial backing from the wealthy merchant and ecclesiastical classes (which largely overlapped). After all, wars are expensive. By the time of WW1 Britain’s efforts to keep the Germans down had become too costly to sustain without American loans. The war enabled indebted America to become a creditor country and take a dominant position in the world.

Isn't it interesting that the West produced illiberal systems like Communism and Nazism? This raises the question as to whether “liberal democracy” itself is not really a cover for something more illiberal and undemocratic than people suspect.

This may help explain why we end up with leaders who seem to be more concerned with winning elections than with genuinely representing the electorate ….

I didn't mean this war, which is really not that important in the bigger picture, I mean the fascist direction of the US and Europe and it's decline and probably even higher rates of wealth transfers to our own oligarchs. — Benkei

Good point. It's well and good to talk about wars, but if we're discussing Russia we also need to discuss the West. We mustn't forget that Ukraine before the war was controlled by oligarchs (= a kind of super-rich mafiosi) with links to the West including the US. Who controls it now and in the future no one can tell, but it does look like rule by oligarchs is the general trend in Europe.

You say that the relationship between NATO and America is sometimes fraught, but the argument is not that NATO fawns over every word America says, merely that America has a lot of influence in NATO, so this seems irrelevant too. — Isaac

What the NATO troll forgets to say is that "Keep the Americans in, keep the Russians out and keep the Germans under control", was NOT what Europeans said but the British who did not consider themselves part of Europe.

The British attitude toward Europe was very clearly expressed by Churchill and others:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

Of course the British wanted the Americans in Europe to keep the Russians out and the Germans down as it served Britain’s interests. But the Germans, for example, were under Allied occupation and didn’t even have a military of their own.

Moreover, European views of America differ significantly from country to country. For example, in 2003 only 43% of French and 45% of German people had a positive view of America. It’s usually small countries like Sweden and Finland that are more pro-American and, of course, the political classes who are enablers of US imperialism.

Don’t forget that the US government spends a lot of cash on propaganda, disinformation, and psychological manipulation of European countries.

So how many husbands did the girl have exactly, and did they all get some nookie or was it mainly a polyandrousness of convenience. — unenlightened

Good question! :grin:

She was married several times in addition to affairs (or rumors of affairs). But what I meant is that it was a trend in those days among impecunious British aristocrats to marry wealthy Americans.