Ukraine Crisis

Punshhh

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.

Yes, this is why some kind of long term impasse is required. Such as a return to the Cold War.

It appears that Russia(Putin’s regime) hasn’t moved on from the Cold War like the rest of us(following the fall of the USSR). She will drag us back into it now, at great personal cost.

unenlightened

Anna Politkovskaya — Olivier5

Putin has publicly demonstrated many times that he basically does not understand what a discussion is. Especially a political one – according to Putin, a discussion of the inferior and the superior shouldn’t take place. And if the subordinate allows it, then he is an enemy. Putin behaves in this way not deliberately, not because he is a tyrant and despot ad natum – he was simply brought up in ways that the KGB drilled in him, and he considers this system ideal, which he has publicly stated more than once. And therefore, as soon as someone disagrees with him, Putin categorically demands "to stop the hysteria." (Hence he refuses to participate in pre-election debates, which are not in his nature, he is not capable of them, he does not know how to make a dialog. He is an exclusive monologist. According to the military model the subordinate must keep silent. A superior talks, but in the mode of a monologue, and then all the inferiors are obliged to pretend that they agree. A sort of ideological hazing, sometimes turning into physical destruction and elimination as it happened to Khodorkovsky). — Anna

This has the ring of truth. And if it is true, there is nothing to be done short of complete military defeat at any cost. It certainly makes more sense than the cries of delusion, stupidity, and pathology that are projected rather too easily in his general direction.

Having said that, I'm not sure all the contributors here understand what a discussion is either. :worry:

Olivier5

↪unenlightened

Agreed on both points.

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.

Wayfarer

The invasion has, in effect, has destroyed 30 years of economic progress, eviscerated the tiny shoots of democratic freedom that Russia was beginning to enjoy, and now engineered the exact opposite outcome in foreign policy of what he hoped to achieve through his military escapade.

ssu

The invasion has, in effect, has destroyed 30 years of economic progress, eviscerated the tiny shoots of democratic freedom that Russia was beginning to enjoy, and now engineered the exact opposite outcome in foreign policy of what he hoped to achieve through his military escapade. — Wayfarer

Now the future for Russia is either bleak or even worse.

I remember when I stayed in Moscow in a family, acquaintances of my parents, during the last year when it was the Soviet Union. There was this nervousness on what the future would bring. It didn't look good. It looks similar for Russia now.

Then the possibility of a civil war loomed in the background. Well, it didn't come then, the civil war came now with the actions Putin and the war with Ukraine. In a way, this is the civil war after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yet that's nothing compared to what Ukraine is going through now.

ssu

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? — Apollodorus

What is imperialism is to acquire territory through military force.

When countries acknowledge the sovereignty of a state, then that typically defines also the territory then. With Ukraine, these were furthermore acknowledged with the Budapest memorandum.

Such actions and peace treaties define who are the "rightful owner" of a territory. 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.

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. — Apollodorus

Oh pls, can I be a CIA-NATO bot transformer?

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

But I never said you said it MUST! I just questioned your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia.
Anyway according to your recent claim, Crimea doesn’t belong to Russia either, contrary to what you were claiming previously, because Crimea belongs to Crimeans. And you revised your claim from Crimea belongs to Russia and not Ukraine, to Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. You have to clarify this point too.
Besides according to your principle of self-determination, then Ukraine is allowed to join NATO if they wish so, right?

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

Unfortunately, you are establishing inconsistency and hypocrisy wrt principles I’m not committed to and claims I never made. Such repeated blunders of yours are even embarrassing to witness and boring to emend.

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

Ah yes, where were we? Here are the maps of the ethnic groups in Russia and China:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg/1200px-Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.png
So tell me what territory should be returned to whom? BTW are sovereign states free to ally for their defense with other sovereign states once you have done all your mapping?

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

What would be the propaganda and disinformation I’m regurgitating, can you quote me by any chance?

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

How on earth am I trying to do that, if the first comment to your post is an argument to support Western involvement in this war between Russia and Ukraine?! What criminal activities are you referring to?! What are your evidences of the Western involvement in such criminal activities?

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

Sure it’s called “mutual interest”. And if Russia has security concerns at its borders, this is true also for other countries like Poland which as Russia has a long story of foreign invasions (including from URSS and Germany). So given the genesis of NATO, Poland seems to be the right place for the US to stay.

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

Sorry to interrupt your daily intellectual masturbation over CIA-NATO hypocrisy (yuck!), but client states might also have their self-aware and self-serving interest in being client states of great powers.

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

We can’t exclude it sure. That’s why we need evidences, right? To discriminate imagined possibilities from reality.

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

Holy shit, after more than 30 years Ukraine didn’t join yet?! Me CIA-NATO bot transformer very disappointed! :(

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

Holy shit, after 38 years Russia and not the Soviet Union realised Khrushchev was drunk that day?! How come?! That’s really a totally inconceivable not-like-usual-Russian-propaganda narrative twist, right?!

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

Dude, no need to regurgitate history trivia you read somewhere else, just give us the link. Probably you got it from here: https://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html
Anyway here some notes you might consider:

Jul 16, 1990 the Ukrainian SSR (NOT CRIMEA!) declares its state sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine
Jan 20, 1991 A referendum is held in the Crimea on restoring autonomy to the region AND a sovereign Ukraine accept the results: indeed Feb 12, 1991 The Ukrainian Supreme Soviet restores the Crimea as an autonomous republic within the borders of the Ukraine.
Dec 1, 1991 A referendum is held in the Ukraine on independence simultaneously with presidential elections. Leonid Kravchuk is elected the first president of the Ukraine, and the independence of the Ukraine is supported by the referendum. However, Crimean support for Ukrainian independence was the lowest of all of the Ukraine (only 54% in favor) with very low turnout (65%). Support not only for Russia, but for the Soviet Union, is extremely high in Crimea as much of the population is related to the Soviet military and the Black Sea Fleet.
Jan 1992 The Russian Foreign Ministry and parliament condemn the transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954. So Russians realised after Ukraine declared sovereignty and independence, and got international recognition (Russians included! https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/world/ex-communist-wins-in-ukraine-yeltsin-recognizes-independence.html), that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was worth of being condemned. So timely and yet not so timely, right?

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

Yet oddly you didn’t say this time: “we can’t exclude the possibility that Crimean effort to become fully independent from Ukraine was being encouraged or pushed to do so by Russia”.

IMO the historical facts show (1) that Crimea had never been Ukrainian (even in demographic terms) in the first place — Apollodorus

Historical facts show that Crimea has never ever been a national sovereign state neither prior to Soviet Union, nor during the Soviet Union, nor after the Soviet Union! And that the Crimea region was since 1954 under Soviet rule transferred to the administrative control of Ukraine and part of its territory until the end of Soviet Union, then Crimea was under the control of Ukraine and part of its territory until Russian annexation. The declaration of sovereignty by Crimea authorities was illegal under the only sovereign, independent and internationally acknowledged authority that counted: Ukraine!
Moreover by signing 2 treaties with Ukraine, Russia acknowledged territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine (which by constitution establishes that Crimea is integral part of its territory)!

(2) that Crimea saw itself as a separate state from Ukraine after Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union (and even before) — Apollodorus

BTW which Crimea are you talking about? Prior to or after the Russification of Crimea by the soviets? Shouldn’t your Utopian principle mapping territories with ethnic groups, consider the reinstatement of all the non-Russian minorities that have been expelled from Crimea? And why on earth are you hiding the still ongoing oppression of non-Russian minorities in Crimea (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578003/EXPO_STU(2016)578003_EN.pdf)?! Don’t they have a right for a sovereign state within the sovereign state of Crimea within the sovereign state of Russia, after the Russian annexation?!
Since we are at it, let me also remind you that “the principle of self-determination of peoples” you so passionately defend, is a super Western international law principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination), arguably stemming from American propaganda (“The American Revolution of the 1770s has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination[/b], because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, as well as the consent of, and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke's enlightened writings of the previous century”) if not even Atlanticist propaganda (“In 1941 Allies of World War II declared the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.”). So, to share an old philosophical piece of wisdom, gnōthi seauton b/c you might be a CIA-NATO bot that spreads CIA-NATO propaganda without being aware, and even more than I am!

(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

As a disputed territory between Russia and Ukraine, absolutely yes Russia created the problem starting from January 1992. I’m not denying that Russians had historical and geopolitical plausible reasons to do this and design their propaganda accordingly. But if Russia didn’t complain or push (as the rest of the chronology in that link abundantly shows), the case of Crimea could have been likely analogous to the case Catalunya (with its independent movements and the marvelous adventures of President Puigdemont).

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

I can facepalm at your blunders also from my seat though. All you were able to prove so far is that ethno-historical considerations are relevant to understand and legitimise, and I never ever questioned it. Indeed they make us understand, at least in part, why Crimea is fiercely disputed between Russia and Ukraine and why it’s key also in the negotiation. However my point is exclusively but decisively that, contrary to your views, they are neither the only determinant factor to understand the current status of Crimea nor the only or even the primary source to assess related legitimacy claims. Indeed when it’s matter of sovereignty international relations (international order, treaties and power relations) are essentials to understand and justify historical events (also concerning the Western involvement in this war!). Or let’s say that this is, at least, part of my ideological view because saying that this is what history shows it would be an overkill, and you have already humiliated yourself enough, right?

To summarise: strawman arguments, preventive strawman arguments, surreal accusations (I doubt you even have a clue how internet bots work), question begging nonsensical challenges, misread/misunderstood/filtered historical trivia & news, and intellectual masturbation over evil NATO (yuck!). Did I miss anything else from your cringy repertoire of intellectual failures, dude?

Christoffer

Then the possibility of a civil war loomed in the background. — ssu

The tensions and internal battles during the collapse of the Soviet Union was close to starting a civil war. If there's a collapse of Russia happening due to the current war, then the outcome might not be as good as it was back then, it could very well escalate to a full civil war. This is what I meant with revolution, it could lead to it because the Soviet Union's internal conflict had much more to do with the different nations breaking off from Russia while now, the possible internal conflict has no borders to break. So it could lead to a massive overhaul of the entire nation.

Of course speculative, but it only requires part of the military to be fed up with Putin and his minions to escalate it into a deadly divided nation and we've already seen a lot of Russian soldiers who deserted turning their backs on Russia.

Jamal

↪Christoffer

A civil war in Russia would very likely be characterized by national conflicts, since 22 of the country’s federal subjects (constituent divisions) are republics representing different ethnicities. Several of those, like Chechnya, are predominantly Muslim and haven’t always got along with Moscow.

Benkei

First thing first, Russia has to be defeated and repelled from Ukraine. Once that is done, and I have no doubt it will be, the situation will be different: Russia will need security guarantees against a victorious Ukraine; and Belarus may become independent. — Olivier5

Eh...?

You do like your death tolls high. What a surprise.

SophistiCat

Putin has publicly demonstrated many times that he basically does not understand what a discussion is. Especially a political one – according to Putin, a discussion of the inferior and the superior shouldn’t take place. And if the subordinate allows it, then he is an enemy. Putin behaves in this way not deliberately, not because he is a tyrant and despot ad natum – he was simply brought up in ways that the KGB drilled in him, and he considers this system ideal, which he has publicly stated more than once. And therefore, as soon as someone disagrees with him, Putin categorically demands "to stop the hysteria." (Hence he refuses to participate in pre-election debates, which are not in his nature, he is not capable of them, he does not know how to make a dialog. He is an exclusive monologist. According to the military model the subordinate must keep silent. A superior talks, but in the mode of a monologue, and then all the inferiors are obliged to pretend that they agree. A sort of ideological hazing, sometimes turning into physical destruction and elimination as it happened to Khodorkovsky). — Anna

This has the ring of truth. And if it is true, there is nothing to be done short of complete military defeat at any cost. It certainly makes more sense than the cries of delusion, stupidity, and pathology that are projected rather too easily in his general direction. — unenlightened

A striking illustration of how Putin talks to his underlings was this bizarre televised spectacle of his Security Council meeting right before the war, in which he sat them all down in front of him like children, in a semicircle, and had them publicly pledge their allegiance and complicity to the course, while scolding and humiliating those who went off script.

link

Olivier5

This is a piece on Crimea lifted from Roussky Reporter, an independent Russian magazine. I landed on it through Courrier International, a French weekly translating articles from the world press. Their sources are well chosen, and their wesite includes a description of each of the media sources they use, its ownership, political position, etc. Here is the entry for Roussky Reporter:

As its name suggests, this magazine emphasizes reporting. Created in 2007 by the Expert group to be a “newspaper to read and look at”, its ambition is to “recount the life of modern societies” using quality texts and the work of the best photographers. Despite a certain notoriety validated by numerous prizes, it ceased its weekly rhythm from 2015 and only appears twice a month in the best of cases. Their website has its own editorial staff.

All this prefacing to say this is a Russian source, but a fairly decent one. The article dates back to March 2019, before the war when some free reporting was still allowed.

The text was originally posted with a photograhy portfolio, that one can see here or here.

Crimea as an Island
Stanislava Novgorodtseva

“Alas, how small is an individual before the inexorable laws of history,” wrote Vasily Aksenov in the novel The Island of Crimea.

As a child, Crimea seemed to me a sacred, apolitical place. An island of original mythology with traces of ancient civilizations. Here I saw the sea for the first time. The annual vacation trips were something like visiting your beloved grandmother - time free from worries.

The Crimean peninsula has formed its own identity in the melting pot of peoples. At different times, Tauris, Cimmerians, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Greeks lived on its territory. In 1783, this place of intersection of different religions and cultures became part of the Russian Empire and was granted the glory of a royal residence.

With the advent of the USSR, Crimea was redesigned from a vacation spot for the elite into a resort accessible to the Soviet people. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the peninsula was part of Ukraine, and in March 2014 it was included in Russia. Since that moment, Crimea has been at the center of the main political conflicts of the last five years. New realities have made adjustments to my relationship with the place. A new political layer has wedged into the world of childhood and local mythology.

Politics took a tough toll on families: many quarreled, broke off relations with relatives on the other side of the Russian-Ukrainian border. Since 2014, according to official figures, 22,823 people have moved and registered in Ukraine as migrants - about 1 percent of the inhabitants of the peninsula, primarily Crimean Tatars and citizens whose fate was closely connected with Ukraine. Active migration in both directions is still observed, although crossing the border is increasingly difficult. Now there are relatively few “pro-Ukrainian citizens” in Crimea, but they exist, although they are afraid to openly express their position.

The division also affected the Crimean Tatar population - only a part of the elders accepted the new Russian government, appreciating the steps made towards them, including the recognition of property rights to the occupied land and buildings, and the assignment of state status to the Crimean Tatar language.

The zealous work of the security forces makes a depressing impression on the dissenting part of the people. Since 2014, 32 Crimeans have been convicted of participating in the activities of the Hizb ut-Tahrir organization, which is banned in Russia. In Ukraine, it was not banned, and some people suddenly found themselves outside the law. Since 2016, the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, which is boycotting the annexation of Crimea to Russia, has been classified among the extremist organizations.

Among the Russian population, pro-Russian sentiments and approval of the current government prevail: in the 2018 elections, Vladimir Putin was supported by 90% of the inhabitants of the peninsula. However, there is an artificial planting of military-patriotic themes in education, in the landscape, in the environment.

State institutions and private companies compete in loyalty to the new government: billboards, house facades and bus stops are decorated with paintings depicting the Russian president and the tricolor. Civil initiatives to hang the Russian flag outside the windows are also not uncommon. Souvenirs shops are dominated by the same symbols, complemented by aggressive anti-American rhetoric.

But even [Russian] patriots complain that the increase in wages and pensions after joining Russia does not compensate for the rise in prices. Until May 2018, many lived in hope: “They will build the Crimean bridge, and life will begin to improve, prices will even out.” Alas, this did not happen - this year the same interlocutors no longer make such optimistic forecasts.

Tourism is still important for Crimea, but another problem has been added to the lack of infrastructure and services - rising prices. Unregulated camping and tourism remain stably popular, but do not help replenish the budget. And in hotels and sanatoriums - either Russians who are not allowed to travel abroad, or nostalgic pensioners. Service is worse than in Sochi, and the cost is higher than in Turkey.

There is a sense of isolation – there is no Sberbank, VTB, MTS, or other large companies in Crimea; they fear sanctions. And even the Crimean football teams have to play matches exclusively with each other. Small businesses also suffered; few were able to quickly reorganize themselves, taking into account Russian legislation and a rigid taxation system.

Another serious problem is the drought in the steppe. The energy blockade by Ukraine has somehow been overcome, but there is still an acute shortage of water. And first of all, the Crimean Tatars, who are engaged in agriculture here, suffer. When I saw how in the summer plastic containers with water were placed every 10 meters in the fields, I assumed that this was an irrigation system, but the owners of the fields explained: these are water dispensers for birds and rodents. Animals also suffer from drought and, in desperation, gnaw through irrigation hoses.

According to official reports, significant funds are being allocated to help the steppe regions, but there are no visible improvements yet.

Sanctions and individual restrictions on the territory of Crimea have reinforced the feeling of its isolation. The country of my childhood has been transformed into an isolated island somewhere on the map of Russia.

https://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2019/04/kryim-kak-ostrov/

Apollodorus

↪Punshhh

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.

↪neomac

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.

↪Christoffer

↪ssu

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:

Olivier5

A Russian naval support ship, the “Vsevolod Bobrov”, is being towed from the area of Snake Island after it caught fire, spokesperson for the Odessa regional military administration said on Thursday.

“As a result of the actions of our military sailors, the logistics ship Vsevolod Bobrov, one of the newest in the Russian fleet, [caught fire]. They say that it is [being towed] to Sevastopol,” the Ukrinform news agency quoted spokesperson Serhii Bratchuk as saying.

Olivier5

You do like your death tolls high. — Benkei

I just want an aggression punished.

jorndoe

↪Wayfarer

, and it's ruined an impressive amount of Ukraine.
Don't have the figure handy; some engineering firm made some estimates a while back.
I doubt the destroying party is willing to pay up.

@Apollodorus, instead of all your quote mining and kooky comments, you should try spending some of that time drawing up connections between and activities of these people (incomplete list):

• Dmitry Gorelov     • Nikolay Tokarev  • Sergei Ivanov
• Leonid Tyagachyov  • Viktor Ivanov    • Nikolai Patrushev
• Viktor Medvedchuk  • Viktor Zolotov   • Alexander Bortnikov
• Yakov Kedmi        • Alexei Sedov     • Sergey Chemezov
• Yury Kovalchuk     • Dmitry Rogozin

Not an oligarch list as such, but they're in "The Club". Hic sunt Dracones.

want an aggression punished — Olivier5

Deterred at least (apropos) :up:

magritte

It's just a means for the US to bring the fight to the doorstep of other countries, without risking their own resources. — Benkei

That's seen as a problem in the US. We don't want to defend other countries for their sake anymore. We do not want to deploy more than the 100,000 US troops we already have in Europe to guard Finland or Sweden. Public opinion here thinks that Europe should rearm adequately to defend it's own frontiers when it comes to Russia. If you want to strengthen NATO then you all better hurry before the next major US elections.

Wittgenstein

Putin should save Ukraine from western degeneracy

Baden

↪Wittgenstein

Make an argument if you have one and no more silly videos, please.

Benkei

I just want an aggression punished. — Olivier5

Maybe try to keep your feelings out of it. The only people getting punished are civilians and soldiers. Putin will sit on his throne regardless. And where was your bloodthirst when Iraq happened or any of the 300 illegal wars the US has fought? I bet you ineffectually protested it and then after the fact bleat about the criminal court, if at all. Why don't you put your feet where your mouth is, pick up a gun and walk to Ukraine and "punish" some Russians while making a target of whatever building or people you're standing next to? Why must others do the punishing and dying on behalf of your misplaced principles? Ukraine had already signaled it wants peace, its prepared to give independence to the Donbass region but it's not getting the security guarantees from the West that it wants. I asked you how a peace deal would look like and I get a repetition of what isn't possible. So one of the guys who went on about "Ukrainian agency" prefers to not pursue the peace Ukrainians want because he feels Russia has to be punished. Fantastically consistent of you!

When Apartheid ended, reconciliation instead of punishment led to peace. When Germany was punished after WWI it led to WWII. Maybe think about the cost before pretending principles are worth shit.

Agent Smith

Maybe try to keep your feelings out of it. — Benkei

:smile:

Olivier5

Maybe try to keep your feelings out of it. — Benkei

If you ask what I like, I'll respond. So, I shall leave my feelings out of it when you leave my feelings out of it...

Try and think logically, when you post. Don't accuse others of something you started, for instance. Otherwise it looks like you are just playing games.

M777

When some people don't want to aid Ukraine, here's a picture that comes to mind.
Once again, if you don't want to send howitzers to Ukraine, chances are you will be sending troops to Poland.

Benkei

↪Olivier5

I didn't ask what you "liked" I asked you what a peaceful solution would look like if no country is willing to give Ukraine the security assurances it's asked for. Ukraine is willing to part with the Donbas, if it gets assurances that can be backed up by other countries that that's where it stops. WIthout those assurances, they're afraid Russia will conquer it as a salami, one slice at a time.

So there's a conundrum there but both Draghi and Macron expressed the need to pursue peace instead of "bleeding the Russians". So what would a solution to that conundrum look like? That was my question.

When some people don't want to aid Ukraine, here's a picture that comes to mind.
Once again, if you don't want to send howitzers to Ukraine, chances are you will be sending troops to Poland. — M777

Even Hitler didn't act in a vacuum. It's well established that the peace enforced after WWI was onerous on the Germans which contributed to the circumstances allowing HItler to rise to power.

Here to NATO encroachment, contrary to promises made, has been a contributing factor (and in my view decisive). Especially when last year NATO once again expressed Ukraine could join, only to make u-turn quickly after the start of the war that it would never join, which makes you wonder as to the purpose of that NATO declaration to begin with. It's not as if war wasn't a likelihood. Then there was the proxy war going on in Ukraine for 20 years already, which also played a role. So, perhaps we shouldn't be contributing to higher likelihoods of war to begin with and when there is war think about how to extricate ourselves from it instead of arguing for the start of WWIII in which nuclear weapons are now part of the arsenal of the aggressor.

Olivier5

So what would a solution to that conundrum look like? That was my question. — Benkei

I gave you my answer already -- and then you veered into emotional language. Let's try again, slower.

1) The conundrum you described has no solution that you or I can see. That'd be why you call it a conundrum.

2) If no country is willing to give Ukraine security assurances, it goes without saying that Ukrainians will have to try and find their own indigenous solutions to their own security.

3) One way to do that is simply to repel the Russian army back into Russia. If Ukraine can achieve this, then it will have proven that it can ensure its own security. And Russia likely won't try to invade them again for a few decades.

4) The problem then becomes the security and stability of Russia itself. This is why Macron and others are reminding us all that we need to keep channels of communication open with Russia, and to make sure Ukraine doesn't push its advantage beyond the liberation of Ukraine. A victorious Ukraine, armed to the teeth, could also become a destabilizing factor in the future. Zelenskyy won't be here forever. Wars often stroke extreme nationalism.

neomac

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

Still rofling, dude?! Still chopping conveniently my quotes to suggest claims I never made?!
Still countering objections I never raised, nor implied, nor suggested, nor even need to raise to make my point against your claims?! Really?!
This was my question to you, read carefully (since you do not have optic sensors, I bolded the salient parts for you): “Shouldn’t your Utopian principle mapping territories with ethnic groups, consider the reinstatement of all the non-Russian minorities that have been expelled from Crimea?”. In other words I was questioning your Utopian principle wrt the demographic history of Crimea. Do you know there is an ethnic group indigenous to Crimea (so indigenous they got labelled with the word “Crimea” in their name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars)? Do you know they constituted the ethnic majority until the progressive Russian colonisation by the Russian empire in the late 19th century (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_Population_of_Crimea_18th%E2%80%9321st_century.png, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Tatarization_of_Crimea)? And that to ensure a Russian majority in Crimea the soviets had to expel other non-Russian minorities, in great part Crimean Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars)? How about their ongoing oppression by the Russian imperialists (https://newlinesmag.com/essays/the-suffering-of-crimeas-tatars/)?! You didn’t say anything in defense of their rights to own Crimea, dude! They are waiting for you to defend them from Russian imperialism already! That’s your anti-imperialist job, right?!

frank

Wars often stroke extreme nationalism. — Olivier5

I imagine this invasion has created hatred for Russia that will persist in Ukraine for the next 50 years at least.

Olivier5

I imagine this invasion has created hatred for Russia that will persist in Ukraine for the next 50 years at least. — frank

I agree, and there lies a danger, long term.

In his poem Salut à l’Empereur dedicated to emperor Nicholas II of Russia, French poet José Maria de Heredia sang about "... the distant era / When Russians and French in a contest without hate, / Foreseeing the future, already mixed their blood."

(... l'époque lointaine / Où Russes et Français en un tournoi sans haine, / Prévoyant l'avenir, mêlaient déjà leur sang.)

His mellifluous verses allude to the Napoleonic wars, depicting them as heroic but not hateful. And I guess it's true that the Russians and the French never hated one another in 1812 or in the decades after, in spite of the terrible destruction meted by this "contest without hate".

The same cannot be said about the Ukrainians, for sure, and understandably. There are already credible reports of summary execution and torture of Russian POW by Ukrainian forces. And vice versa too of course.

Isaac

Let's try again, slower. — Olivier5

I can assure you, the only one failing to follow the exchange at normal speed is you. @Benkei asked you what your solution was. You gave your answer (listed at 3 in your recent reply)...

3) One way to do that is simply to repel the Russian army back into Russia. If Ukraine can achieve this, then it will have proven that it can ensure its own security. And Russia likely won't try to invade them again for a few decades. — Olivier5

...and @Benkei asked (rhetorically) why you'd chosen the most high risk, high damage option there. You replied that you'd chosen it because you want to see Putin's aggression punished, which is a) stupid - Putin is not in Ukraine, so he won't be punished, and b) callous - thousands will die in the pursuit of your schadenfreude.

The question here - the only one that's really been relevant despite all the avoidance of it - is whether your (3) is the only choice, the least harmful choice, the most ethical choice etc. No one is remotely confused about why we're faced with such a choice.

Olivier5

The question here - the only one that's really been relevant despite all the avoidance of it - is whether your (3) is the only choice, the least harmful choice, the most ethical choice etc. No one is remotely confused about why we're faced with such a choice. — Isaac

In my reasoning, 3) follows logically from 1) and 2). So it is a logical necessity, not something I want, but what the situation as described by @Benkei leads to. What's "in the cards" so to speak.

EDIT: It's also the context of the discussion, i.e. the scenario evoked by Macron:

For him, despite the delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv, there is no question of allowing the conflict to drag on with the idea of weakening Russia. The priority remains, if possible, to re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders, or at least within those of before February 24, the date of the Russian invasion.

Mr. Macron considers that it is up to the Ukrainians to determine their war aims and the conditions for a possible resumption of negotiations with Moscow ... — Olivier5

IOW, Macron is not talking of an immediate ceasefire. He's taking a longer view, and assuming that Ukraine will turn this war around with the heavy artillery now supplied to them, 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?

Ukraine Crisis

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions