We are fighting to protect the more or less free society that exists in Ukraine, without which there would be no space for activism or underground movements.
Putin’s terror is happening [in Ukraine] and it is indiscriminate. It is happening against every part of the population, but especially against the Russian-speaking parts of the population that Putin supposedly came here to liberate,
His regime is an ultraconservative, rightwing dictatorship that represses anarchists in Russia, the free press, LGBT networks. It scares even the most banal, grassroots initiatives, like animal rights activists. We see the conflict between Ukraine and Russia as a conflict between a more or less democratic state and a totalitarian one.
We have a strict screening process. We don’t want people who just come here to kill; we want them to understand what they are fighting for. — Dmytro
Putin has appropriated the word anti-fascist and he exploits it to justify his war. [Ukrainian] nationalists say if you’re anti-fascist, you’re pro-Russian, but that’s not the case.
I think both sides of the elite did a lot to create a situation whereby Ukrainians argue a lot about language and versions of history instead of how Kryvyi Rih Stal was privatised.
The cause of the war is the Russian Federation. — Movchan
Do you reckon it may be possible to break the blockade? — Olivier5
But the numbers from Afghanistan, Syria and the two Chechen wars simply show that Russia doesn't care so much about civilian casualties. — ssu
I don't see why it matters. America and Europe have enough food to feed the world several times over. — Isaac
That is BS. — Olivier5
Food availability in rich countries in fact represents 150-200% of nutritional needs in calorific terms — Tristram Stuart - Feedback
There is more than enough food produced today to feed every last one of us. — UN FAO
Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).
Even if just one-fourth of the food currently lost or wasted globally could be saved, it would be enough to feed 870 million hungry people in the world. — UN Environment Programme
in developing countries, food that is perfectly fit for human consumption ends up unsold as a result of the actions taken by those further up the supply chain – brokers, exporters, importers, retailers, and consumers. — Feedback
In none of the twentieth century famines has there been an absolute shortage of food; the problem has been unequal access due to poverty, a problem that resort to food aid has not solved. In Bengal in 1943-1944 about three million people died after rice prices quadrupled in two years. Worst affected were the rural areas, where wages had not kept pace with wartime inflation, and some towns where workers were unemployed because of the dislocation caused by the war. People without money were unable to buy food and the British imperial authorities took little action (apart from moving food to Calcutta because they feared mass civil unrest). One of the worst famines of modern times therefore took place when the amount of food per head in Bengal was actually 7% higher than in 1941 and food stocks were at record levels. In Ethiopia, in 1972-1974, about 200,000 people died in the provinces of Wollo and Tigre even though the country’s food production only fell by just over 5% – during this period food was still being exported from the affected provinces and from the country as a whole. In Bangladesh in 1974 when rice prices doubled in three months after severe flooding, those who were out of work because of the disruption caused by the floods could not afford to buy food. As a result one and a half million people died of starvation. But there was no absolute shortage of food – production of rice in Bangladesh, both in total and per head terms, was the highest ever in 1974 – once again it was a problem of who had the resources to buy food at higher prices. — Clive Ponting
Around 240 million tonnes of grain are stored worldwide in order to keep the price high. That would provide every human being with 3600 calories a day
in Kenya, the policies of European supermarkets and their direct suppliers cause Kenyan smallholders to waste around 40% of what they grow for European markets – even in a country with millions of hungry people. — Feedback
The point would obviously be to lower food prices and reduce suffering the world over. You're not interested? — Olivier5
Why would we do that via breaking a naval blockade when we could do it without losing a single life simply by paying the food producers a fair wage so that they can afford the food we export? — Isaac
Really?! Well, it looks to me like NOBODY in those countries cares about civilian casualties. And neither does the West, otherwise it wouldn't have instigated civil wars there. — Apollodorus
Why would we do that when we can have a lovely little war? — Streetlight
Again this seem to be false.Chechnya - some 40,000 civilians killed (some proportion of which will be Russian forces) according to the research of Chechnya expert John Dunlop — Isaac
Estimates vary of the total number of casualties caused by the war. Russian Interior Minister Kulikov claimed that fewer than 20,000 civilians were killed while then-Secretary of the National Security Council Aleksandr Lebed asserted that 80,000 to 100,000 had been killed and 240,000 had been injured. Chechen spokesmen claim that the true numbers are even higher.
Most scholars and human rights organizations generally estimate the number of civilian casualties to be 40,000[iii]; this figure is attributed to the research and scholarship of Chechnya expert John Dunlop, who estimates that the total number of civilian casualties is at least 35,000.[iv] This range is also consistent with post-war publications by the Russian statistics office estimating 30,000 to 40,000[v] civilians killed. The Moscow-based human rights organization, Memorial, which actively documented human rights abuses throughout the war, estimates the number of civilian casualties to be a slightly higher at 50,000.[vi]
According to a count by the Russian human rights group Memorial in 2007, up to 25,000 civilians have died or disappeared since 1999. According to Amnesty International in 2007, the second war killed up to 25,000 civilians since 1999, with up to another 5,000 people missing.
With figures from the World Wars you get high numbers of course.How far back do you want to go? Just far enough to prove your point, and no further? — Isaac
the civilian casualties of the Second Chechen war should be added up: — ssu
And of course one should remember that compared to Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, the population of Chechens is tiny. — ssu
Shall we include deaths from starvation and health poverty resulting from pecuniary postwar loan terms? — Isaac
Start your discussion with this agreement in mind, that the war is necessary, and the lessor evil. both sides would prefer to have their own way peacefully, but... — unenlightened
You're really clueless, you know that?Ah, so we should reduce your figures for the deaths in Afghanistan? Or do we only reduce figures by population size when it suits you? — Isaac
So. Add up all the avoidable death in the world - the invasions, the starvation, the civil wars, the poor health, pollution, suicides - just how many are on Russia's hands and how many on America's? — Isaac
And for Putin, starting a war has been the way to get that popularity up. — ssu
That was the thing Putin was gambling on. And the spectacular success in 2014 likely contributed to these ideas being treated as totally serious. It worked then, why wouldn't it work now?I think he would have been even more popular if Ukraine had submitted. — unenlightened
Besides, this reasoning is quite universal. — ssu
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle. — Lewis Carroll
It doesn't say anywhere that people aren't allowed to make anti-NATO arguments! — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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". — Apollodorus
Approximately 75 percent of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freedmen — Apollodorus
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"! — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
OK. If the population is only two million and not forty million (like in Afghanistan), then 40 000 killed means that more of the population has been killed in the war. — ssu
To think this is a question with any significance is to espouse a dogmatic ideology that necessarily creates its negation as the eternal enemy. This is an exercise in futility that the world can well do without, that has taken over from religion as the banner under which wars and other power games are commonly prosecuted. "Your body pile is higher than mine, therefore we are the good guys." — unenlightened
To test your interest in a specific, actual diplomatic effort as opposed to theoretical gesticulations in favor of diplomacy in general. — Olivier5
Mongoloid adj.
1. Resembling or having some of the characteristic physical features of Mongolians; spec. designating or relating to the division of mankind including the indigenous peoples of eastern Asia, South-East Asia, and the Arctic region of North America, who are characterized by dark eyes with an epicanthic fold, pale ivory to dark skin, straight dark hair, and little facial and bodily hair. – Oxford English Dictionary, online version (2022).
Mongoloid
/ˈmɒŋ.ɡə.lɔɪd/ is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of East Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Siberia, the Arctic, parts of the Americas and the Pacific Islands, and small parts of South Asia. – Audiopedia
Mongoloid
Pertaining to a race of mankind, characterized by a faintly yellowish skin, an epicanthic fold, sparse body hair, and black straight head hair. – A Dictionary of Genetics (2007).
Mon•gol•oid
(ˈmɒŋ gəˌlɔɪd, ˈmɒn-) adj. 1. of, designating, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by yellowish complexion, prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds, and straight black hair and including the Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, Eskimos, and, in some classifications, the American Indians. – Websters College Dictionary (2010).
Mongoloid
anthropological term designating one of the major groups of human beings originating from Asia, excluding the Indian subcontinent and including Native American Indians. – Forensic Science Communications, FBI Laboratory (2005).
Tatar n.
1. A native inhabitant of the region of central Asia extending eastward from the Caspian Sea, and formerly known as Independent and Chinese Tartary. First known in the West as applied to the mingled host of Mongols, Tartars, Turks, etc., which under the leadership of Genghis Khan (1202–1227) overran and devastated much of Asia and Eastern Europe; hence applied to the descendants of these now dwelling in Asia or Europe; more strictly and ethnologically, to any member of the Tâtar or Turkic branch of the Ural-Altaic or Turanian family, embracing the Turks, Cossacks, and Kirghiz Tartars. – Oxford English Dictionary (online version, 2022).
Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids – “Mitogenomic Diversity in Tatars from the Volga-Ural Region of Russia” (2010).
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.