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

Dude, I quoted you not only Wikipedia but ethnogenesis studies on the Crimean Tatars, that prove Crimean Tatars' origins were pre-Mongol. And also specific genetic studies on Crimean Tatars prove that they can not be assimilated to Mongols! https://www.iccrimea.org/reports/genographic-results.html
(BTW there are more recent genetic studies that prove the hypothesis that Siberian Tatars stem from Mongols wrong: "The approach based on the full sequencing of the Y chromosome reveals only a weak (2%) Central Asian genetic trace in the Siberian Tatar gene pool, dated to 900 years ago. Hence, the Mongolian hypothesis of the origin of Siberian Tatars is not supported in genetic perspective". source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026893316060029)
And if the Crimean Tatar genetic pool shares something with the Mongols this is for the same reason why also Russians may have Mongol and Tatar ancestors, namely due to ancient nomadic tribes' migrations and the Mongolian invasions!
Finally, and most importantly, it's not matter of how pure their blood is (see how racist your principle starts sounding?), but who are the indigenous inhabitants of Crimea. Not the Russians! But the Crimean Tatars (https://ctrcenter.org/en/o-krymskih-tatarah, Here some more on their history [1])! So they should be the right owners according to your views!

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

Sure, according to your principle (not mine), Crimea belongs to Crimean Tatars, so neither "Ukrainian" nor "Russian"! But Crimean Tatars seem to fear more the Russians than the Ukrainians: https://theconversation.com/why-crimean-tatars-are-fearful-as-russia-invades-ukraine-178396
This is something that should concern you, because you too have now reasons to oppose Russian imperialism in Crimea based on your own principles!


[1]
The antinationalist, multiethnic Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Re- public(RSFSR), guidedbyitsMarxist,class-orientedideology,stoodfourth in line of descent of ethnically heterogeneous empires under which Crimean Tatars had struggled to retain a distinctive group identity. Beginning with the Mongols early in the thirteenth century, the Qipchaq component of the inhabitants who populated the peninsula, Tatars, rather soon found themselves a minor segment in another conglomerate, the Ottoman Empire, a government led by politicians more willing than later imperial rulers to leave Crimean Tatar unity intact. Russian emperors in their turn sought not only to absorb the geography and economy of Crimea into their unitary state but to destroy or dissolve any viability of the Crimean Tatar community.
source: "The Tatars of Crimea" E. A. Allworth (1998)

How do you get 24/7 information unfiltered, just by being in Sweden/Finland? I'm in England, I don't get information about English military security, unfiltered. I still get it though the press, open source intelligence, and commentators I read - same as everyone else. I can't just walk up to MI5 and ask, just because I'm a local. Yet all these sources are online, for anyone in the world to access.

What sources of military and security information do Swedes and Finns have unfiltered access to which are not on the internet? — Isaac

All of this is more than just military intel alone. You have researchers, politicians, police, security services, different types of authorities etc. Outside of that, do you know anyone in the military over here, any authorities? The combined flow of information depends on who you know and what the official discussion is in media and online. Just because you're in a bubble of guesswork does not mean everyone is. On top of that, you don't have the information flow that exists here, you do not watch Swedish news, media, or discussions that we have, all you have are from anyone sharing that information, with their interpretation filter and media reporting with the perspective of your nations journalism. It's filter through filter before you can start guessing, which isn't the case for me. On top of that, Sweden and the nordic nations, in general, have one of the lowest biases in media in the world. So it's easier to sift through the information flow compared to a nation like the US which has close to no media outlets not biased in one way or another.

Your point here is that it's either unfiltered raw information from the most secretive halls of the military... or it's just guesswork. Which is just a black and white fallacy... again. You might be doing guesswork, but others, even in the civilian sector, can know more than you, even if you try to make it into some kind of argument against me and SSU knowing anything about our own situation.

Bottom line is that if the information sources you describe are your only sources, then you definitely don't have enough insight to question what I present about our situation in Sweden. I can moderately describe Finland's situation since the nordic nations have so much in common and communicate regularly, but @ssu can describe Finland's point of view better than I.

The combined flow of information depends on who you know and what the official discussion is in media and online. Just because you're in a bubble of guesswork does not mean everyone is. — Christoffer

Brilliant stuff! Look, for you personally, we're all well aware that you're basically Jack Ryan, but surely the rest of Sweden aren't all crack secret agents like you? How are they getting their unfiltered information?

On top of that, you don't have the information flow that exists here, you do not watch Swedish news, media, or discussions that we have, all you have are from anyone sharing that information, with their interpretation filter and media reporting with the perspective of your nations — Christoffer

So how do Swedish media not present the news from the perspective of their nation? Is the Swedish perspective magically more likely to be accurate than the rest of the world?

Sweden and the nordic nations, in general, have one of the lowest biases in media in the world. So it's easier to sift through the information flow — Christoffer

Ha! Called it.

Bottom line is that if the information sources you describe are your only sources, then you definitely don't have enough insight to question what I present about our situation in Sweden. — Christoffer

Wtf? You're serious aren't you? You're actually going through with the idea that you've got some special insight which us mere mortals can't even question. This is fantastic stuff, do go on about how unique you are, we'll see if we can't get you elevated to demi-god by the end of the thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/politics/biden-military-somalia.html

The US running 'special military operations' in Somalia. Can't wait till the US invades the US for violating the sovereignty of other nations' territory. Oh just kidding the US does in fact occupy its own citizens and kills them for funsies for doing things like being black and poor and existing in general. Will have to change my social media profile to a little Somalian flag in solidarity in the meantime. Slava Somalia! Or whatever State Department phrase du jour that Westerners like to peddle before forgetting it in about six months time. Probably because they are too busy losing their rights or being shot dead by racist mass killers inspired by the same people their government is funding overseas.

But maybe the Finnish won't let me talk about this because I'm not Somalian :zip:

Will have to change my social media profile to a little Somalian flag in solidarity in the meantime. — Streetlight

Who'd be so facile?

Man I was going to make a very angry serious post but now I am lolling and you've ruined my bad mood.

So I think the outstanding question is whether Ukraine should push to retake the Donbass region or not. Is that going to be a long separatist war? Crimea seems a step too far considering Russia's territorial claim to it and statements on use of nuclear weapons. What do you think, ssu? — Benkei

I agree with you.

I think Ukraine has a good chance to halt the assault in Donbas and push back as they have done in Kyiv and Kharkov. They surely can stop the attack on Odessa and even limit the "landbridge" to Crimea. But Crimea is going to be the really tough issue. That will be viewed by Putin as Russia proper, so I would think twice before pushing the luck to go there.

I remember one former high-ranking British officer saying the obvious thing which isn't said: That there has to be a negotiated peace to end this war. At some time, even if Ukraine is victorious, they have to seek a negotiated settlement of then adapt a low-intensity stalemate, what we saw after 2015 before February 24th. Going to the Red Square isn't an option.

There is a lot of enthusiasm both in Ukraine and to support Ukraine, but if the war prolongs, it might wane. Russia can always simply halt it's offensives and go to the defense. It still will take some time that Ukraine can start making large attack operations with several brigades. The attacker will be the one that suffers more casualties.

Anyway, this is what the Buffalo murderer was wearing and oh boy is it great that the US is funding these murderous fucking Nazis in Ukraine which are tooootttallly just a bunch of Putin propaganda and not something that will literally come home to fucking kill your own people!



Slava fucking Ukraine hey? So glad the epicentre of neo fucking Nazism in Europe is getting flooded with weapons after being destabalized to shit hey? Maybe gargling and regurgitating the propaganda ejaculate of the US empire is not the best idea hey? Can't wait to have these motherfuckers as part of NATO.

So glad the epicentre of neo fucking Nazism in Europe is getting flooded with weapons after being destabalized to shit hey? — Streetlight

It'll probably be totally fine. After all, it's not as if Ukraine is also one of the largest arms trafficking markets in Europe!

Ukraine is believed to have one of the largest arms trafficking markets in Europe. — Global Organised Crime Index

Oh fuck!

Still... the look on Putin's face when they win, eh...Priceless...gotta be worth an international resurgence of armed Neo-Nazis committing hate crimes...

Yeah lmao Putin bad so it's ok. Minorities have always been collateral damage so the US can retain geopolitical supremacy anyway so no biggie - especially if the goodies can stick it to Putin, which is the most important thing because this is all a video game anyway except for all the dead people maybe.

NATO can be happy with getting both countries to the alliance.

But as with Poland and the Baltic States, both Sweden and Finland are happy to join the "Retro-NATO", an alliance that is about article 5 than an alliance designed for global police duties, peace enforcement etc. For those the contribution will be small: at the largest a battalion or a few aircraft or a naval vessel. The typical force that a small NATO countries deploy to an international NATO operation. Basically what NATO-Sweden and NATO-Finland will offer to the alliance has already been seen in Libya and in Afghanistan. But in Northern Europe it's a different matter and in the matter of deterrence.

It's very likely that neither country has any appetite for large NATO bases or deployed nuclear weapons, which likely the US or NATO has not even thought about. The countries will be happy about one or two NATO squadrons that could be deployed to the countries in a crisis. And that's basically it and both countries know it: we have to defend our territory, inside or out of NATO.

And likely now Swedish and Finnish warplans will be coordinated even more.

It's very likely that neither country has any appetite for large NATO bases or deployed nuclear weapons, which likely the US or NATO has not even thought about. The countries will be happy about one or two NATO squadrons that could be deployed to the countries in a crisis. And that's basically it and both countries know it: we have to defend our territory, inside or out of NATO. — ssu

Incredible. Can you teach this power of making things up out of thin air? Is it a scandi thing? Your fellow scandi has similar powers of complete fabrication. Is it just all that detective noir that you guys produce?

I liked the bit where you said the US and NATO have not thought all that much about nuclear weapon deployment. That was my favourite bit of completely incredulous fantasy.

Can you teach this power of making things up? — Streetlight

Oh I make this up? FYI, not all NATO countries have nuclear weapons deployed in them.



France and UK don't have their nuclear weapons in other countries either. Deployment of Pershing's in Europe is history.

Oh I see the problem is that you can't read English. My mistake, carry on.

I went back and bolded the relevant bit to help out a foreign language speaker.

Assuming that everybody is as ignorant as you about military issues just tells something about you.

Mmm, tell me again how the US and NATO have not thought all that much about nuclear weapon deployment in Europe (?????).

Does it come from the same intelligence reports that say the US and the West don't like war?

Like, would it hurt you to stop writing paragraphs of completely obviously made up trash?

I think Ukraine has a good chance to halt the assault in Donbas and push back as they have done in Kyiv and Kharkov. They surely can stop the attack on Odessa and even limit the "landbridge" to Crimea. But Crimea is going to be the really tough issue. That will be viewed by Putin as Russia proper, so I would think twice before pushing the luck to go there. — ssu

Agreed. Supposedly, it would also be viewed negatively by many inhabitants of Crimea.

Wtf? You're serious aren't you? You're actually going through with the idea that you've got some special insight which us mere mortals can't even question. — Isaac

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

Look, for you personally, we're all well aware that you're basically Jack Ryan — Isaac

And you are a professor who fights against the norms by stating education isn't needed, so how on earth can we take you seriously. You are the definition of an armchair guy.

Mmm, tell me again how the US and NATO have not thought all that much about nuclear weapon deployment.

Does it come from the same intelligence reports that the US and the West don't like war? — Streetlight

So obviously you don't know shit about the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Hopefully you know what the US nuclear triad means. Hence two of those legs of the triad aren't in any NATO country, but in CONUS and on (under) the seas. What are deployed in NATO countries are the old free fall nukes, which also can be dropped by some aircraft of NATO countries. But these are limited and notice that the nuclear weapons haven't been deployed to Eastern NATO states (the map above). So it's extremely unlikely that they would be deployed (meaning that they are storaged) into Sweden or Finland.

(Russia already has it's nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Russia proper, so that part is already in place.)

Dude, you are debating someone who believes that nations have a natural right to conquer and subjugate other nations based on their ethnic origin. I don't know why this neo-Nazi scum hasn't been banned yet. At least don't legitimize him.

With the kinds of raving and ranting here (and roughly everyone, including in history, being evil), maybe one shouldn't have high hopes for peace (in Ukraine), eh? :D

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk.

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk. — jorndoe

Well, we obviously don't have an unified Europe, if we think that Russia is an European country (and I think it is, even if half of it is in Asia).

That aspect of Russia having a European identity is why I wonder about all the other ultra-nationalists in different states. Those different culture wars contest collective security on the basis of identity rather than a Chomsky style critique of empire. Their enemies are within the state.

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk. — jorndoe

This is why I said that Nato is the only option for Sweden and Finland. There's no other real guarantee, as we've seen with the support for Ukraine before the invasion and during. Many larger nations will say that they support smaller ones but it's mostly just as empty as people on Facebook putting flags on their profile pictures, it doesn't help at all and is no guarantee of security. And by the time the EU gets together a proper alliance at the level of Nato, Russia would already have forces on the move to stop it. So, it doesn't matter what people think of Sweden and Finland joining Nato, I rather take the lesser evil as security than risk the worse one going postal on us.

I rather take the lesser evil as security than risk the worse one going postal on us. — Christoffer

The fact is that Russia simply isn't a normal country that would try to have good relations with it's neighbors. It seeks the role it had when it was an empire/Superpower, makes huge gambles and takes extreme risks. It's extremely reckless. There simply are no benefits in trying to appease Putin.

Hence there simply is no win-win in trying to behave as before. It's all lose-in-every-scenario. What does having good ties with Russia mean? Being Belarus? Kazakhstan?

Or Armenia?

Armenia is in a military alliance with Russia in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), along with four other ex-Soviet countries, a relationship that Armenia finds essential to its security. Or thought was essential. But Russia didn't intervene or come to the help of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked in the Nagorno-Karabach. It actually had sold weapons to Azerbaijan. And is all but happy using the divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus.

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk. — jorndoe

A legitimate issue. What happens if the US decides to step away from its leadership role in NATO, not now, but after a couple of years? Will the militarized member nations stay united or will their leaders reignite historical nationalistic conflicts against their neighbors?

Hopefully you know what the US nuclear triad means. Hence two of those legs of the triad aren't in any NATO country, but in CONUS and on (under) the seas. What are deployed in NATO countries are the old free fall nukes, which also can be dropped by some aircraft of NATO countries. But these are limited and notice that the nuclear weapons haven't been deployed to Eastern NATO states (the map above). So it's extremely unlikely that they would be deployed (meaning that they are storaged) into Sweden or Finland. — ssu

Yeah and ths US and NATO "likely have not thought about" this, but you, random ass person who says wrong things all the time on the internet, have. Please excuse me while I laugh to infinity.

A legitimate issue. What happens if the US decides to step away from its leadership role in NATO, not now, but after a couple of years? Will the militarized member nations stay united or will their leaders reignite historical nationalistic conflicts against their neighbors? — magritte

This is the essential challenge. Autocratic regimes tend to last while democratic regimes can change over short periods. Finland may think that it looks like a great idea to join NATO now, but what about in a couple of years when we have a protectionist and isolationist American administration that is perfectly willing to leave Finland on the front line of a Cold War no one wanted?

Now, I am personally biased against war and the military-industrial complex in America and I suspect - but I'm willing to be proven wrong - that the current conflict in Ukraine owes as much to US influence as it does to Russian aggression, so I'm not a perfectly neutral commenter here - for full disclosure if it is worth anything.

However, I would not be adverse to a neutral position for all nations between Russia and the EU in the interest of avoiding a second Cold War.

Side note - is this just too absurd that we have a World War 1 followed by World War 2 and then a Cold War 1 followed by Cold War 2? Is that too much a proof of the old saying "history repeats itself. First as tragedy and then as farce"?

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

I mean, it seems like from a humanitarian perspective, it would have been better if Russian won after a couple of days. Am I wrong?

I'm just calling out your bullshit thinking you know even surface-level stuff of what is going on in Sweden and Finland. — Christoffer

I haven't even mentioned anything going on in Sweden and Finland. I've been talking about the sense and consequence of their actions in joining NATO. Something that's going on in the global political sphere at large. Something which global political analysts do look at and write about, despite (I realise this will be difficult for you)...despite, not being from Sweden.

Now, obviously they don't discuss any of this without passing it by you and @ssu first, that goes without saying, and we're ever so grateful that you've decided to tell us here on this obscure philosophy forum before, say, briefing cabinet, or the UN, but once you've made your secret intel public, is it too much to ask that us mere mortals can have an opinion about it?

And you are a professor who fights against the norms by stating education isn't needed, so how on earth can we take you seriously. — Christoffer

I don't see what my views on education have to do with this. Non-pedagogic learning systems are not, perhaps mainstream, but those who espouse them don't seem to have any trouble securing research posts, teaching positions and consultancy. The world at large doesn't have any problem taking them seriously, so if you do, it suggests a more noetic problem...?

it seems like from a humanitarian perspective, it would have been better if Russian won after a couple of days. Am I wrong? — ASmallTalentForWar

This assumes that a victorious Russia would not have jailed, tortured, rapped and assassinated the civilians under their control.

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