In my reasoning, 3) follows logically from 1) and 2). So it is a logical necessity — Olivier5

Pathetic.

One way to do that is — Olivier5

Can you propose an alternative, or are you pathetic too?

Can you propose an alternative — Olivier5

What do you think we've been discussing all this time? The primary objective should be to end the war. Putin is not (yet) demanding anything which was not de facto the case already and so Ukraine could save thousands of lives at very little cost by agreeing to those terms.

We ought lobby our governments to take negotiations seriously, reduce the rhetorical force of Putin's propaganda, and invest in grass roots development in both Ukraine and Russia to tackle the root causes of the extremism on both sides which have opened the door to this conflict.

Russia should be sanctioned (properly - meaning oil exports, not sporting events and medicine).

Putin would be in a far worse situation internationally if he proposed terms which he then broke, plus he'd have a face-saving way out.

The trouble is, people like you are more concerned with not allowing Putin to save face than you are about dead Ukrainians.

or are you pathetic too? — Olivier5

What was pathetic was your attempt to make your poor argument sound like it was @Benkei's slowness. The point was simple and clearly made, it revealed quite well what was obvious from the start - that your primary concern is some hollywood style denunement, not welfare.

Putin is not (yet) demanding anything which was not de facto the case already — Isaac

When did Putin make any precise demand, and what are these terms, pray tell?

We ought lobby our governments to take negotiations seriously, reduce the rhetorical force of Putin's propaganda, and invest in grass roots development in both Ukraine and Russia to tackle the root causes of the extremism on both sides which have opened the door to this conflict. — Isaac

That's what I am saying too.

When did Putin make any precise demand, and what are these terms, pray tell? — Olivier5

I'm not just repeating the same discussion again. It was thoroughly discussed. You and the other warmongers dismissed it as 'giving in'.

That's what I am saying too. — Olivier5

You haven't once mentioned the problem of the US refusing to take part in serious negotiations.

You've disagreed with me about the value of reducing the force of Putin's propaganda.

You've mentioned nothing about grassroots investment but have instead championed the exact opposite in the form of increasing IMF and European debt.

It was thoroughly discussed. You and the other warmongers dismissed it as 'giving in'. — Isaac

There's no peace offer on the table from Putin that I am aware of. If you want to make one up because you want to argue, go right ahead: tell us what a good peace deal would look like.

The rest of your post is equally false, invented.

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 — Benkei

So what do you mean, let Putin take over Ukraine? How's about the Baltic, Poland? All Europe?

Anyways, reading the news from the front line it seems that Ukraine is doing pretty good and will win anyway, only without American weapons it might take some month longer and cost a few thousand lives more.

The conundrum you described has no solution that you or I can see. — Olivier5

I'd call that a failure of imagination.

How about demilitarised zones? Or be old school about it and have an exchange of hostages? What else does Putin care about other than whatever strategic value he sees here? What is that strategic value? Can it be reached through different means? Etc. There's a multitude of avenues to explore that can give us an idea of solutions.

I think it's more interesting to do that with someone who thinks differently than with someone who already agrees with me.

So what do you mean, let Putin take over Ukraine? How's about the Baltic, Poland? All Europe? — M777

The answer is in the past you didn't quote that went before it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mongol invasions and conquests – Wikipedia

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

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What?! Why on earth are you talking about Mongols?! Crimean Tatars are indigenous to Crimea, they are NOT Mongols!

“The Crimean Tatars were formed as a people in Crimea and are descendants of various peoples who lived in Crimea in different historical eras. The main ethnic groups that inhabited the Crimea at various times and took part in the formation of the Crimean Tatar people are Tauri, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Greeks, Goths, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Italians and Circassians. The consolidation of this diverse ethnic conglomerate into a single Crimean Tatar people took place over the course of centuries. The connecting elements in this process were the commonality of the territory, the Turkic language and Islamic religion.
An important role in the formation of the Crimean Tatar people belongs to the Western Kipchaks, known in historiography as Cumans. They became the consolidating ethnic group, which included all other peoples who inhabited the Crimea since ancient times. Kipchaks from the 11th-12th century began to settle the Volga, Azov and Black Sea steppes (which from then until the 18th century were called the Desht-i Kipchak – "Cumanian steppe"). Starting in the second half of the 11th century, they began actively moving to the Crimea. A significant number of the Cumans hid in the mountains of Crimea, fleeing after the defeat of the combined Cumanian-Russian troops by the Mongols and the subsequent defeat of the Cumanian proto-state formations in the Northern Black Sea region.
By the end of the 15th century, the main prerequisites that led to the formation of an independent Crimean Tatar ethnic group were created: the political dominance of the Crimean Khanate was established in Crimea, the Turkic languages (Cuman-Kipchak on the territory of the khanate) became dominant, and Islam acquired the status of a state religion throughout the Peninsula. By a preponderance Cumanian population of the Crimea acquired the name "Tatars", the Islamic religion and Turkic language, and the process of consolidating the multi-ethnic conglomerate of the Peninsula began, which has led to the emergence of the Crimean Tatar people.[19] Over several centuries, on the basis of Cuman language with a noticeable Oghuz influence, the Crimean Tatar language has developed.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars#Origin


This sort of debate has also swirled around the issue of the ethnic identity of one of Europe's most misunderstood Muslim ethnic groups, the Crimean Tatars. While the Crimean Tatars (who were exiled in toto from their homeland from 1944±1989 by Stalin) see themselves as the indigenous people (korennoi narod) of their cherished peninsular homeland, with origins traceable to the pre-Mongol period, they have long been portrayed in western and Soviet sources as thirteenth-century ``Mongol invaders’’.
Source: Williams, Brian Glyn. 2001. "The Ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars. An Historical Reinterpretation"


While the Crimean Tatars are traditionally described as descendents of the Golden Horde, the formation of this Turkic-speaking, Sunni Muslim people has pre-Mongol origins in the ancient, indigenous peoples of the Crimean peninsula. They believe their history begins with the tribes living
in Crimea in prehistoric and ancient times, including the Tavriis and Kimmerites, who occupied the peninsula from 2-1,000 B.C.E. (Kudusov 1995: 15). The Crimean Tatars therefore consider themselves one of the indigenous peoples, along with the Karaims and Krymchaks
Source: The Crimean Tatars’ Deportation and Return - GRETA LYNN UEHLING (2004)


Under the Imperial Russians, the Crimean Tatars, whose ethnic origins went back to the eleventh century Kipchaks and beyond to earlier south Crimean peoples, such as the Medieval Goths, Greeks and Italians, would begin to disintegrate as hundreds of thousands of the Tsarina’s new Muslim subjects fled Russian repression to the sheltering lands of the Ottoman sultans/caliphs. The majority of the Crimea’s Muslim Tatar peasants would ultimately leave the peninsula to par- take in hijra (migration to preserve Islam from oppression by the non- believer) to the Ottoman Empire.
Source: BRIAN GLYN WILLIAMS “The Crimean Tatars” (2016)

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

Dude, I was inquiring about who are the right owners of Crimea according to your Utopian principle (not mine!) mapping territories and ethnic groups (as the right owners). Not Ukranians all right, forget Ukrainians. Russians? No, Crimean Tatars were before the Russians! If not Crimean Tatars who else?

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

NATO didn't fail, they just do not need to justify the fact that Crimea belongs to Ukraine in ethnic terms.

Question for everyone on this thread: If you could avoid countless deaths and possibly nuclear war by allowing Russia to take Ukraine, would you?

The Russians aren’t the Nazis, after all, and Putin isn’t Hitler. It wouldn’t have been just, or fair — I don’t agree with Russia’s decision to invade — but a quick German victory in WW1 would also have been unfair; yet it would have prevented WWII if allowed to happen.

I’d like to prevent WWIII. So to answer my own question: yes.

Maybe one could argue doing so could have the unintended consequence of WWIII — perhaps even a greater chance of it. But I’ve yet to come across that argument.

I suppose it’s irrelevant now. But I think this question gets to the foundation for offered solutions.

A world under China or the USSR in the 20th would have been better than no world at all. Ditto Nazism. Many terrible regimes throughout history, and all eventually changed. I don’t see how anyone can justify a higher priority than survival of the species — without that, there is nothing else. Do we all agree with this or not? Is there a flaw in my logic?

Anyways, it seems that the best solution would be demilitarization and denacification of Russian. So after Putin and his regime has gone, the west would agree to trade with Russia only after a liberal democracy in installed there.

I’d like to prevent WWIII. So to answer my own question: yes. — Xtrix

Have you looked at battlefield map lately? Ukrainians are kicking ass even before getting any lendlease weapons. So what WWIII are you talking about?

And yes, there is a flaw in your logic, because according to it the most crazy dictator can get his hands on a nuke and rule the world by threatening to blow it up.

You might want to listen to this speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&t=1435s

GPS-guided artillery is on its way, which allows Ukraine to threaten supply lines. That might be the end of it. Let's hope so.

So after Putin and his regime has gone, the west would agree to trade with Russia only after a liberal democracy in installed there. — M777

LOL, because principles have obviously factored into "the West"'s decisions before. Tell me another fairy tale. We will trade with autocratic regimes if this is economically expedient.

We're not boycotting Israel, China or any number of Middle Eastern countries either.

Our forefathers fought for a host of freedoms over centuries. To give them up is an insult and thankless, so I really don't agree. Mere survival, life without dignity is not enough. I don't believe Russia poses such an existential threat. China might eventually.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people really, genuinely think that removing Putin from without is an actual, real life, not fairy tale, option.

Tell me another fairy tale. We will trade with autocratic regimes if this is economically expedient. — Benkei

If the west is sanctioning Putin's Russia already, why do you assume it would lift those sanctions if Putin is replaced by an equal nutjob from his immediate circle?

Also oil and gas hugely depends on the infrastructure, i.e. pipeline, trade routs, etc. that's is one of the reasons it took and still is taking Europe so long to stop using Putin's gas. But once new infrastructure is in place and the old one is decommissioned, there's pretty much no coming back.

Does Putin look like a young energetic leader who has decades ahead? Or more like a very sick old man, who would be gone shortly in one way or the other?

Not sure how this is relevant. Half-dead murderous old men don't seem to really have an issue ruling anywhere one turns.

A precondition for resuming trade and dropping sanctions will be an end to hostilities not regime change.

A precondition for resuming trade and dropping sanctions will be an end to hostilities not regime change. — Benkei

Most world leaders said they don't want the regime to resume those hostilities in a couple of years. Also I don't see how Putin's regime could survive after ending hostilities, i.e. giving Crimea back.

Half-dead murderous old men don't seem to really have an issue ruling anywhere one turns. — Streetlight

Time isn't on their side.

So what?

Seriously, anyone who talks about 'regime change' has learned nothing from the last twenty years and has brain rot.

Why? Swapping Putin with Khodorkovski or Navalniy and having him exchange nukes for food aid sounds like a good idea.

Sure it does, if you're a neocolonial idiot who has not paid attention to how every attempt as regime change by the West has led to tragedy and mass suffering.

In any case these are stupid hypotheticals not worth entertianing any more than asking what if snow white had eight rather than seven dwarves.

Sure it does, if you're a neocolonial idiot who has not paid attention to how every attempt as regime change by the West has led to tragedy and mass suffering. — Streetlight

I don't care if there happens a 'mass suffering' in Russia, as long as their nukes are removed.

No, I suppose you don't. Because people like you are monsters.

There's a multitude of avenues to explore that can give us an idea of solutions. — Benkei

Okay then, go and speak to Putin and Zelenskyy about your non-descript 'avenues'... Don't waste my time if you don't have the slightest idea.

We just want to prevent Putin's regime from invading neighbor countries, how does it make us monsters? :D