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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
3.2. By 1897, Tatars were only 35% of Crimea’s population. — Apollodorus
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 — Apollodorus
3.5. Tatars currently amount to about 10% of Crimea’s total population. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
Now, if someone is of “Northern Asian, Northern European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern” descent, then by definition, that person isn’t an indigenous Crimean! — Apollodorus
If he is 42% European and only 28% Tatar then why does he call himself “Tatar” and not “European”? — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
↪neomac
Rather than arguing about the racial origins of Crimean Tatars, let me tell you something about the actual people. I bet that most here have never seen a Crimean Tatar in person - they are not so numerous now, and they have historically lived compactly in and around Crimea - before Stalin's deportation, that is. — SophistiCat
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. — “Apollodorus
Tatars and other Turkic peoples originally came from the same area as the Mongols and are genetically closely related to them. — Apollodorus
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! — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
They already had them as Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union — ssu
The truth of the matter is that there is very little genetic difference between Mongols and Turkic people like the Tatars. — Apollodorus
In other words, Mongols were from Mongolia proper, and Turkic people were Mongols from adjacent areas. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
And they’re currently a small MINORITY (about 10%) in Crimea while the majority are ethnic Russian. — Apollodorus
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). — Apollodorus
In any case, that doesn’t make Crimea “Ukrainian”! :grin: — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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: — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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! — Apollodorus
What really matters in the context of the current conflict is that Crimea has NEVER had an ethnic-Ukrainian majority. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — “Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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: — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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! — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
IMO the historical facts show (1) that Crimea had never been Ukrainian (even in demographic terms) in the first place — Apollodorus
(2) that Crimea saw itself as a separate state from Ukraine after Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union (and even before) — Apollodorus
(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. — Apollodorus
So, basically, you haven’t got a leg to stand on … :smile: — Apollodorus
Question: Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?
Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on.
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: — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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? — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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: — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
If you can't decide which countries should belong to whom, then on what basis do you think you can decide on Crimea? — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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 — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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 — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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! — Apollodorus
In sum, I really don’t know — Apollodorus
Of course, people who don't think exactly like you MUST be "deranged"! :rofl: — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
Likewise, being against imperialism means being against imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
As for nuclear weapons, you first claimed that “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West given its nuclear arsenal” (↪neomac) after which you backpedaled by admitting that “Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US” (↪neomac). Maybe Russia is going to indirectly attack the US by nuking Mexico or something? :rofl: — Apollodorus
May I commend to you both the power of silence. This is too tedious to even try to understand. — unenlightened
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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 — Apollodorus
Well, if a statement is "more articulated" that doesn't make it more logical, comprehensible, or true, does it? — Apollodorus
You're claiming that my "propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism”. But you have completely failed to demonstrate (a) that my statements were "propaganda" and (b) that they have any impact on Russia's foreign policy. — Apollodorus
Moreover, I never said I was "against Western involvement in Ukraine", so there really is no need for you to make things up. As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. — Apollodorus
Yes, I am against NATO and against the EU because I am against imperialism. But I think discussion forums are for people to exchange views without resorting to ad hominems and insults. — Apollodorus
Ukraine entering NATO may or may not be a nuclear threat to Russia. That's for Russia to decide, not for you or me. But the situation is much more complex than that. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, it might try to push Russia out of Crimea. This would be unacceptable to Russia (a) because Crimea has never been Ukrainian, (b) because this would result in NATO control of the Black Sea which Russia needs for access to the Mediterranean, and (c) because Crimea has been the base of Russia's Black Sea fleet for centuries (from 1783, to be more precise): Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia
So, I think an objective analysis of the situation needs to consider the concerns of both sides, not just one. — “Apollodorus
Anyway, if you think that "the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies", and is "not waiting", then there is nothing to worry about. — Apollodorus
So, I'm not sure who is more likely to use nuclear weapons. A country that has never done it, or one that has? — Apollodorus
1. First you said that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is a threat. But all nuclear arsenals are a potential threat, including those of America, Britain, and France. — Apollodorus
2. Then you said that Russia is a threat and/or Putin invaded Ukraine because of my “propaganda”, which sounds pretty incomprehensible and irrational to me. — Apollodorus
3. The quotes you posted do not show that the US regards Russia as an imminent nuclear threat. Statements like “if someone does x, we’re going to do y”, do not support your claim. — Apollodorus
4. And now you’re saying that “Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this”. If that is the case, why are you waiting???!!! :rofl: — Apollodorus
Dude, whether Ukraine joining NATO is a security threat to Russia or not, is for Russia to decide, not for you or me. — Apollodorus
In any case, if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I've got nothing to do with it! :rofl: — Apollodorus
Dude, says WHO??? — Apollodorus
Rival nuclear powers monitor one another as a matter of everyday routine. At the end of the day, you react to a threat if you identify a threat. And you can identify a threat only by monitoring your opponent. So, you monitor your opponent irrespective of their being or not an imminent threat. — Apollodorus
Dude, Russia has had a nuclear arsenal for decades and I don't see Russia invading Paris, London, or New York! — Apollodorus
Plus, here's an official Pentagon statement:
We continue to monitor their nuclear capabilities every day the best we can and we do not assess that there is a threat of the use of nuclear weapons and no threat to NATO territory
U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite rhetoric - Reuters
Maybe you live in some remote area where there is no news or they can't read? :grin: — Apollodorus
On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.
There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better. — boethius
That's an interesting dichotomy. Where have I suggested we should be aligned with Russia or that NATO's role during the Cold War was misplaced? — Benkei
Your assumption Ukraine needed Russia is one that results from ignoring the view of principled neutrality that has been argued by plenty of experts since the late 90s. — Benkei
If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened. — Benkei
Europe as its forward pawn — Tzeentch
So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with, that results in an existential threat to Europe. — Benkei
And I don't see you guys campaigning for China to give back Tibet or for Turkey to return Cyprus and other territories stolen from the Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and many other nations. — Apollodorus
Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. — Bartricks
Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win. — Bartricks
If the reason of others - including virtually all of those whose faculties of reason are so good they've entered the canon of great thinkers - represents events to have causes, that doesn't count for anything because the great neomac's reason makes no such representation. Ooo, mustn't contradict the great neomac's reason - his reason, uniquely among us, is our sole source of insight into reality. Get over yourself. — Bartricks
Yeah, I'm not arguing anything, just blurting things.
What argument? What is your argument? Note, you seem to think the possibility that events may lack causes is some kind of evidence against simultaneous causation. How? How does that work, exactly? — Bartricks
YOu don't seem to understand what my argument is. It is in the OP. I argued that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks
There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes?
What caused X to come into existence? X. — Bartricks
It is self-evident to reason that events have causes. Evidence that it is self-evident to reason is the fact that throughout history it has been appealed to by those whose faculties of reason seem among the very best. The burden of proof, then, is squarely on you. — Bartricks
So if you want, you can continue to insist - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - that some events lack causes, but you'll just be off topic. — Bartricks
It turns out, then, that you accept that simultaneous causation is coherent. Why, then, do you think self-creation is incoherent? Explain. — Bartricks
Because events have causes. Odd that you think causes must precede their effects, but think effects don't have to have causes!
I think causes do not have to precede their effects. You think I'm wrong about that (or do you think I'm right, in which case you agree with me but don't realize it). Yet you think effects don't need to have causes! — Bartricks
You're just begging the question. You keep banging on about identity — Bartricks
you are the one who thinks that if X simultaneously causes X to exist then X is preserving X not creating X — Bartricks
I didn't claim that, nor implied that, nor suggested that. I took into consideration the notion of "God" when talking about existence preservation, not self-creation. I just surmised you might go in that direction, that's all. Anyway "self-creation" is either an incoherent metaphysical notion or explanatorily empty.You seem to think that if God created himself, then he wouldn't be God. I don't know why you think that. To be God a person simply needs to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Why do they need 'not' to have created themselves? Odd. — Bartricks
Engage in the following thought experiment. Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then. It brought itself into being. That's perfectly coherent if simultaneous causation is coherent (which it is). — Bartricks
You don't seem to understand what simultaneous causation involves. The cause exists as does the effect. You seem to be thinking that in a case of self-creation, the thing doing the creating does not yet exist. No, it exists simultaneous with its effect, it is just that in this case the effect is itself. — Bartricks
Why are you saying that we have 'preserving into existence'? I don't even know what that means. — Bartricks
Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.
Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them. — boethius
... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies. — boethius