According to YOUR theory, if Crimean Tatars want to join Turkey, that should be fine with you too! — neomac

Well, most of them have ALREADY joined Turkey! There are more Crimean Tatars in Turkey than in Crimea! :grin:

The official number of Crimean Tatars in Turkey is 150,000 with some Crimean Tatar activists estimating a figure as high as 6 million. - Crimean Tatars, Wikipedia

So, you seem to be not only ignorant but also confused.

The fact of the matter is that the original inhabitants of the area comprising southeastern Ukraine, southwestern Russia, and Crimea were Eastern European hunter-gatherers a.k.a. Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs):

During the Mesolithic, the EHGs inhabited an area stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and downwards to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. Eastern Hunter-Gatherer – Wikipedia

By the time of the late Copper Age to early Bronze Age (3300–2600 BC), the population of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (which includes Crimea) formed the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) Culture.

The people of the Yamnaya culture were likely the result of a genetic admixture between the descendants of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG), an ancestral component which is often named "Steppe ancestry", with additional admixture of up to 18% from Early European Farmers. – Wikipedia

The Yamnaya people were semi-nomadic and later farmers, herded cattle and sheep, practiced metallurgy and some agriculture, apparently invented the wheel (the worlds’ oldest wheels were found in the area), had carts and wagons probably drawn by oxen, and rode horses.

The Yamnaya were Caucasoid (Indo-European) people who gradually expanded westward into Europe and eastward into Asia, spreading Indo-European language and culture, and making major genetic contributions to European populations (75% of genomic DNA in Bronze-Age Central European populations). The first historically recorded inhabitants of Crimea, the Tauri or Taurians (Greek Tauroi), clearly were from the area.

In contrast, the Turkic peoples were a Mongoloid population originally from Northeastern China and Northeast Asia, who moved westward into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC, where they adopted a pastoral lifestyle, after which they became equestrian nomads and began to expand westward into European (Caucasoid) territory.

Being nomadic horsemen and armed with bows and arrows, the Turkic tribes found it easy to invade European territories and raid the farming settlements they found there. When the Mongols invaded the area, the Turkic tribes allied themselves with their Mongolian relatives and formed a new ruling class that enslaved the local Slavic populations.

As various nomadic groups became part of Genghis Khan's army in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the invaders of Rus' and the Pannonian Basin became known to Europeans as Tatars - Tatars, Wikipedia

The Crimean Khanate originated in the early 15th century when certain clans of the Golden Horde Empire ceased their nomadic life in the Desht-i Kipchak (Kypchak Steppes of today's Ukraine and southern Russia) and decided to make Crimea their yurt (homeland) - Crimean Khanate, Wikipedia

The Tatars, therefore, were Mongols and Turks with some admixture from the local populations they had invaded and enslaved. The Crimean Tatar Khanate emerged after the Mongol invasions and had a multi-ethnic population dominated by a Mongol-Turkic a.k.a. “Tatar” ruling class. The first ruler of the Crimean Tatar Khanate was the Mongol Hacı Giray, a descendant of Genghis Khan’s eldest son Jochi.

Moreover, the Crimean Tatars showed their true colors when they tried to take over all the Slav territories that had been conquered by Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde to which they saw themselves as heirs. Encouraged by Turkey, they devastated South Russia and burned down Moscow in 1571. However, the Russians in those days had not yet forgotten their Viking ancestry and still knew how to fight. In the following year they thoroughly defeated the Tatars at the Battle of Molodi.

Nevertheless, under the protection of Turkey (Ottoman Empire), the Crimean Tatars kept attacking Ukraine, Russia, and other Slav territories for the next two centuries until the Russians gradually pushed back the Turks and reclaimed the region.

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

1. Given that Turkic tribes (a) were non-local invaders and (b) were involved in the enslavement and exploitation of earlier local populations, it cannot be claimed that they are “rightful owners” of Crimea.

2. Given that several non-Turkic ethnic groups existed in Crimea (Tauri, Scythians, Greeks, Goths, etc.) prior to the arrival of the Tatars, it cannot be claimed that the Tatars were “the majority”. On the contrary, if we consider that even ordinary Tatars had several domestic, agricultural, and sex slaves, we can see that the non-Tatar population must have been significant.

Indeed, about 75% of Crimea’s population under the Khanate (or Tatar State) itself were non-Tatar slaves and freedmen, i.e., mostly Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and Caucasians from places like Georgia and Circassia.

3.1. Following the Russian liberation of Crimea from Tatar and Turkish rule in 1783, most Crimean Tatars emigrated to various parts of Turkey (Ottoman Empire).

3.2. By 1897, Tatars were only 35% of Crimea’s population.

3.3. During the 1921 Russian Famine, thousands of Crimean Tatars emigrated to Turkey.

3.4. When Stalin in 1944 resettled Crimean Tatars to Turkic areas within the Soviet Union (e.g., Uzbekistan), the Tatars were already a small minority

3.5. Tatars currently amount to about 10% of Crimea’s total population.

4. Given that the Crimean Tatars were involved in the capture, enslavement, and sale into slavery of millions of Slavs whose total number exceeded that of the Tatars, it cannot be claimed that the Slav population owes anything to Tatars in relation to the latter’s subsequent “expulsion” from Crimea.

5. On the principle that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners”, if anyone has a legitimate claim to being “rightful owners” of Crimea, it is the Tauri (Taurians) and their descendants. But the Greeks also have a claim to parts of Crimea as they built cities, established international trade, and brought prosperity and civilization. They also civilized the Russians who in turn liberated Crimea from the Turkic invaders.

6. In contrast to Greeks and Russians who were from the area, the Turkic populations (Cumans, Turks, Mongols, Tatars) were an alien, invasive element from thousands of miles (4000km/2485mi) away that was highly aggressive and predatory toward the locals.

All facts considered, I think it doesn’t make sense to claim that “Crimea belongs to the Tatars” or to Ukraine. And even less to America. So, I for one fail to see why America thinks it must stick its neo-colonialist snout in the European trough.

But let’s take a look at the Tatars’ own claims lest we are accused of ignoring or persecuting them.

Here’s a post from the “International Committee for Crimea”:

Genetically, who is a Crimean Tatar? – ICCRIMEA

I want to share with you the recent results obtained from my participation in the Genographic Project, sponsored by the National Geographic Society, a reputable organization in the US. By analyzing the DNA samples, the Project aims to trace the journey one’s ancestors may have taken over the centuries. The test is easy and painless. I ordered DNA Ancestry Kit Geno 2.0, collected two samples and mailed them to the designated laboratory. My identity remained anonymous throughout the process. (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/)

I was born in Istanbul, but I am of Crimean Tatar descent. All of my grandparents originated from Crimea. My paternal grandfather’s family lived in Yevpatoria on the west, my maternal grandfather’s family came from Yalta in the south, and paternal grandmother’s family was from the Kerch peninsula on the east. My maternal grandmother’s family migrated to Turkey from Romania. All these families left Crimea in the 19th century, but they considered themselves Crimean Tatars and their native language was Crimean Tatar.

Here are the results of my DNA tests:

28% Northern Asian
22% Northern European
20% Southwest Asian (Middle East)
20% Mediterranean
7% Southeast Asian
2% Native American

In sum, I am 37% Asian, 42% European and 20% Middle Eastern. Perhaps the most surprising finding is the 2 percent Native American genes that I carry. This does not mean that any of my ancestors married Native Americans. Rather, some of my very distant ancestors were among those who migrated to the North American continent about 20,000 years ago. Similarly, one can explain the presence of the 7 percent Southeast Asian genes.

The above DNA test results reaffirm what we have known from history that Crimean Tatars are descendants of the various peoples who settled and lived in Crimea for centuries. The Crimean Tatars, indigenous people of Crimea, did not just come from the East, as many are inclined to think. Rather, they are the descendants of the people who moved to Crimea from different directions: Scythians, Goths, Byzantines, Genovese, and Turkic groups such as Khazars, Kipchaks, Tatars and Ottoman Turks.

No doubt, there are thousands of Crimean Tatars living in Crimea today who have a similar genetic makeup to mine. Some may have more Asian genes or more European genes perhaps. To those ultranationalist Russians who say to Crimean Tatars “Go back to where you came from,” one may respond: “Where should they go? They have nowhere to go but Crimea.”

Essentially, what those DNA results really boil down to is the following:

28% Northern Asian = Siberian (Mongol/Turk) = Tatar
20% Mediterranean = Greek/Italian
22% Northern European = Scandinavian? Baltic?
20% Middle Eastern = ? (Iranian? Turkish? Jewish? Egyptian/Arab?)

“Northern Asian” and “Mediterranean” seem pretty clear, i.e., (1) Mongol/Turk and (2) Greek/Italian.

“Northern European” is already less clear. It could be Scandinavian (Viking) via Rus (Russian, Ukrainian). But in that case there should be some Eastern European (Slav) element that seems to be missing here. Other possibilities would be Goth (originally from Gotland) or Lithuanian (from captured and enslaved Baltic populations).

“Middle Eastern” is totally unclear as it could be a wide range of unrelated Southwest Asian ethnicities.

Now, if someone is of “Northern Asian, Northern European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern” descent, then by definition, that person isn’t an indigenous Crimean!

If he is 42% European and only 28% Tatar then why does he call himself “Tatar” and not “European”?

What is it that makes him a Tatar more than a European?

Could it be that he is descended from people that were mostly Europeans but were forced to speak Tatar and convert to Islam?

Or did Allah give Crimea to his Mongol great-great-grandfather?

Has he been radicalized by Turkish nationalists and imperialists who think that Crimea belongs to the Ottoman Empire?

Is he being used by the CIA and MI6 against Russia?

Etc., etc. …. These are important questions that need an answer.

In the meantime, I think the apparently arbitrary self-designation “Crimean Tatar” is highly problematic and lends itself to manipulation for political and/or commercial purposes.

It reminds me of the way “Native American” is sometimes misused. Some Americans obviously are Native American, but others are less so. Take Johnny Depp, for example, who claimed to be “Cherokee” but it turned out that he had made it up. In reality, he is English, French, German, Irish, and West African. So, he got himself adopted by a Comanche family to “prove” that he didn’t lie about being Native American! :rofl:

But I think philosophers should at least try to be more truthful than Hollywood actors ….

With Russia, it's all about control and influence. — ssu

Well, how is it different with America?

What Russia obviously wants in the region is neighbors that are friendly toward it or at least neutral.

Which is exactly what America wants in its own "backyard" that apparently includes Europe, parts of Asia, and the Pacific ....

You're from Finland and Christoffer is from Sweden. Is that wrong? — Isaac

Good question. I for one am not entirely convinced that it is right. People claim all kinds of things. Could it be that @ssu and @Christoffer both are from Finland? After all, it used to be one country ....

Then why are so many trying to emigrate there, or in Europe? — Olivier5

Well, I think you know why they're in France? It's because "La Grande Nation" screwed up their countries!

And some, apparently, are on their way to England.

But not all are there to live under your boot. Allegedly, some think they're there to take over .... :wink:

You're forgetting stalemates. — Benkei

Stalemate is what we have seen in Donbas after the larger battles in 2014-2015 before February 24th of this year. When both sides have no incentive or ability for larger operations, stalemate ensues. But usually that doesn't mean that it will be peaceful. The stalemate option is very probable, only to be then to be replaced with new offensives.

Actually in many cases there has been this kind of low intensity conflict going on beneath the radar of the international media. Not only in Donbas, but earlier in the Israeli-Lebanese border or the War of Attrition after the Six Day War in 1967-1970. Even in the Iran-Iraq war there were these times of less fighting when both sides replenished their stocks.

Russia simply has to take a breather if it wants to build up it's forces. And even if Ukraine will get supplies and modern weapon systems from the West, it usually takes months to deploy these systems.

We're desperately short of proper communist propaganda on the thread, so here is my humble contribution to restoring the balance somewhat.

https://labourheartlands.com/jacques-baud-the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-update/

With Russia, it's all about control and influence.
— ssu

Well, how is it different with America? — Apollodorus

There's differences.

What Russia obviously wants in the region is neighbors that are friendly toward it or at least neutral.

Which is exactly what America wants in its own "backyard" that apparently includes Europe, parts of Asia, and the Pacific .... — Apollodorus

There's a difference in how the US has acted in Europe and how it has acted in Central America and the Caribbean. Just as how Russia acts in it's "near abroad" and towards other countries let's say in Western Europe or Latin America.

But let's first think of the broader picture. Just look at what the Warsaw Pact did compared to NATO. And how many countries wanted to continue the relationship with Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. Not many, I think.

A lot can be said about NATO post-Cold War operations, yes, but let's remember that the only time when the Warsaw Pact acted was with Operation Danube in crushing the "Prague Spring" with the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Of the half million troops deployed to the country the majority were Soviet troops, but for example Poland deployed 28 000 men into Czechoslovakia, Hungary one division. Have NATO troops been used this way? Nope.

The fact is that Russia's actions and attitudes haven't become much different from the Soviet times. Same kind of bully tactics have continued. I've had a front row seat to see this in action when the Soviet neighbor transformed into being Russia again. There's not much difference especially during the Putin years. Fall of the Soviet Union seems to have been a temporary set back, while I think that after Suez crisis the UK understood that there was no Empire anymore.

You yourself have noted that Americans listened to European integrationists after WW2 and the positive US attitude towards West-European integration basically created the environment were European countries are all but happy with US participation in European defense. "Keeping the US in" as they say. We can see how countries can have a say in the Western alliance system now with Turkey, and many times NATO members have opted out from various US-lead operations. And have been extremely annoying to the US.

And of course obvious fact is that the US behaves quite differently towards Canada, the UK, Netherlands, Sweden or Finland, than it has behaved towards for example Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti or Lebanon. First world countries and Third World countries are dealt differently. With Russia, it treats it's "near abroad" totally differently than other countries, which we have clearly seen now.

Above all, there is a dramatic difference between countries that have wanted to join the US-lead alliance and those countries where the US has literally installed a new government. The train wreck that we knew as Afghanistan has already collapsed in a huge catastrophe, while the relations between the US and the Post-Saddam Iraq have been cold and extremely problematic. Hence when the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan applied the old imperialist strategy of occupying a country and then picking a favorable administration for it, it usually has failed miserably.

Just look at what the Warsaw Pact did compared to NATO. — ssu

Yes, but the Warsaw Pact (WP),[5] was a collective defense treaty signed in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe in May 1955.

The thing we have to remember is that The Warsaw Pact was created in reaction to the integration of West Germany into NATO[6][7][8][9] in 1955 as per the London and Paris Conferences of 1954.

We shouldn't forget that There was no direct military confrontation between the two organisations; instead, the conflict was fought on an ideological basis and in proxy wars.

So, in conclusion, East Germany withdrew from the Pact following German reunification in 1990. On 25 February 1991, at a meeting in Hungary, the Pact was declared at an end by the defense and foreign ministers of the six remaining member states.

Well, I think you know why they're in France? It's because "La Grande Nation" screwed up their countries! — Apollodorus

What ruined Africa was first and foremost the slave trade. It made some Portuguese, French, English and other merchants very rich, as well as a few African kings, but at a horrendous human cost, and led to economic ruin from Senegal to Congo, on the West Coast.

Prior to the Europeans, the Arabs had been raiding and buying slaves from East African black communities for centuries, from Somalia to Zanzibar.

Yes, but The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. Likewise, its victims have come from many different ethnicities and religious groups.

Slavery was relatively rare in pre-civilisation hunter-gatherer populations,[2] as it develops under conditions of social stratification.[3] Slavery operated in the first civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,[4] which dates back as far as 3500 BCE).

So you see, Both Christians and Muslims captured and enslaved each other during centuries of warfare in the Mediterranean.[6] Islamic slavery encompassed mainly Western and Central Asia, Northern and Eastern Africa, India, and Europe from the 7th to the 20th century.

I think the important point is that European merchants initiated the transatlantic slave trade, purchasing enslaved Africans from West African kingdoms and transporting them to Europe's colonies in the Americas. The transatlantic slave trade was eventually curtailed due to European and American governments passing legislation abolishing their nation's involvement in it.

This is actually way easier than actually trying to advance or defend some actual position. I can definitely see the attraction.

The point was that some Africans disagree that the West is bad, so much so that they risk their lives to emigrate to Europe. And it's not (factually not) because Europe ruined their country, as implied by Apo. It is because they perceived Europe as a haven of peace and prosperity, where one can hope to improve one's lot. Hope is what draws them.

This in response to the following exchange:

There is a reason why Ukrainians don't want to live under Putin's boot.
— Olivier5

Most of the world don't want to live under America's boot, either. — Apollodorus

Well, it turns out that in actual fact many folks do want to live in America (or Europe) very very badly. People vote with their feet.

That's definitely a different tune and damning if true. We're left with no ability to tell what is true and I'm wondering what we've been doing for 250+ pages.

I'm wondering what we've been doing for 250+ pages. — Benkei

Discussing the war in Ukraine, for some. Braying "NATO caca", for others.

Key words: "if true".

The whole point is that neither you nor I have the information necessary to tell the difference. So your childish misrepresentation of people's differing viewpoints, people who spend time and effort to explain a different viewpoint, is just the usual disrespect.

it's not (factually not) because Europe ruined their country, as implied by Apo. It is because they perceived Europe as a haven of peace and prosperity, where one can hope to improve one's lot. — Olivier5

I thought there might be a lower limit to how far you'd be prepared to sink in your Western apologetics, but "the slave trade wasn't that bad" is a new low, even for you. Disgusting.

Good that I never said it, then.

Note that in a context full of liars, stating historical or other facts --even straight from Wikipedia -- can be revolutionary, because it helps fend off the lies and re-establish a mentally sane, factually based environment for discussion.

The whole point is that neither you nor I have the information necessary to tell the difference. — Benkei

Most of times, I have the information necessary to tell the difference, thank you. I agree that you don't.

stating historical or other facts --even straight from Wikipedia -- can be revolutionary — Olivier5

Oh good.

as Europe was being developed, Africa was being underdeveloped via resource extraction. His conclusion is that the structure of present-day Africa and Europe can through a comparative analysis be traced to the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism

The natives, who were portrayed as uncivilised by the Europeans, were excluded from the rights of citizenship.

colonial powers demanded use of African bodies in particularly violent ways for the purpose of labor as well as the shaping of subservient colonised identities.

violence in the colony was exerted on African bodies largely for the purpose of labor and submission.[24] European colonial powers sought natural resources in African colonies and needed the requisite labor force to extract them and simultaneously build the colonial city around these industries.
Because Europeans viewed native bodies as degenerate and in need of taming, violence was necessary to create a submissive laborer.

Colonisers viewed this violence as necessary and good because it shaped the African into a productive worker.

The African’s day-to-day life then became a show of submission done through exercises like public works projects and military conscription.

Critical theory on the colonisation of Africa is largely unified in a condemnation of imperial activities.

But do remind us again how 'factually' Europe did not actually ruin Africa, but the Africans did it to themselves.

Europe did ruin Africa, but to say that the Africans today who want to emigrate to Europe do so because of that is incorrect.

Europe did ruin Africa, but to say that the Africans today who want to emigrate to Europe do so because of that is incorrect. — Olivier5

No one is in any doubt about your apologism, so repeating it doesn't get us anywhere. I was just being 'revolutionary' in showing it to be the bullshit it is.

Thanks for the laugh.

It's not funny. You've just publicly claimed that the reasons Africans migrate to Europe, the reasons Africa is a worse place to live than Europe, are not the fault of Europe. You've just attempted to absolve Europe of hundreds of years of oppression, slavery, and racism. I don't find such claims funny, I find them disgusting.

If only you were capable of proving it but you haven't. All you have is disdain for someone who disagrees with you and confuse your feelings on the matter with actually knowing what you're talking about.

Yes, but the Warsaw Pact (WP),[5] was a collective defense treaty signed in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe in May 1955. — Isaac

Which as it's only military operation occupied one of it's own members.

And that just tells where the real threat was: the main aim wasn't only NATO, but also in crushing revolts that sporadically happened in Eastern European countries (East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia).

And actually it's no wonder that the largest ever Warsaw Pact exercise was held in 1981 and it had an amphibious assault made next to Gdansk, the birthplace of free Polish trade union Solidarność. The Polish Solidarity Movement was one of the first cracks of the freedom movements against the Soviet empire behind the Iron Curtain. Polish officials did get the message and hence martial law was imposed in Poland few months after the Zapad 81 exercise.

Hence sticking to the official lithurgy is one thing, but totally forgetting that the Warsaw Pact was a tool to control Eastern Europe itself for the Soviet Union is simply wrong. The fact that Yugoslavia (or Albania) weren't part of the Warsaw Pact should tell this obvious fact.

Someone once remarked that if aliens ever invaded Earth, the best thing to do would be to hand them a copy of Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. They would likely find it so abhorrent that they would leave immediately.

Also this NYT post on Haiti has been doing the rounds recently. There's some controversy because of its bad citational practice, but it makes a good case for burning all of France to the ground, along with everyone in it.

If only you were capable of proving it but you haven't. All you have is disdain for someone who disagrees with you and confuse your feelings on the matter with actually knowing what you're talking about. — Benkei

If you don't know enough to be able yo tell what is true and not, how come you know enough to tell that the same applies to me, or to any others? How do you know that my level of information, or that of any other poster here, is the same as yours, i.e. by your own account next to nil?

You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Now, it's fine for the ignorant to say: "I am ignorant". But what ground does the ignorant have to deny others any possibility of knowledge?

Which as it's only military operation occupied one of it's own members.

And that just tells where the real threat was: the main aim wasn't NATO, but also in crushing revolts that sporadically happened in Eastern European countries — ssu

Yes, but The USSR, fearing the restoration of German militarism in West Germany, had suggested in 1954 that it join NATO, but this was rejected by the US and UK.[25][26][27]

The Soviet request to join NATO arose in the aftermath of the Berlin Conference of January–February 1954. Soviet foreign minister Molotov made proposals to have Germany reunified[28] and elections for a pan-German government,[29] under conditions of withdrawal of the four powers' armies and German neutrality,[30] but all were refused by the other foreign ministers, Dulles (USA), Eden (UK), and Bidault (France).[31]

The thing is that Molotov, fearing that the EDC would be directed in the future against the USSR and "seeking to prevent the formation of groups of European States directed against the other European States",[36] made a proposal for a General European Treaty on Collective Security in Europe "open to all European States without regard to their social systems"[36] which would have included the unified Germany (thus rendering the EDC obsolete). But Eden, Dulles, and Bidault opposed the proposal.[37]

And don't forget Albania officially left the organization in 1968, in protest of its invasion of Czechoslovakia. Romania had its own reasons for remaining a formal member of the Warsaw Pact, such as Nicolae Ceaușescu's interest of preserving the threat of a Pact invasion so he could sell himself as a nationalist as well as privileged access to NATO counterparts and a seat at various European forums which otherwise he wouldn't have had (for instance, Romania and the Soviet-led remainder of the Warsaw Pact formed two distinct groups in the elaboration of the Helsinki Final Act.[81]).

It's not funny, but YOU are funny though.

it makes a good case for burning all of France to the ground. — Streetlight

You are a colon, living on a land stolen from Aborigens. Why don't you burn your own house to the ground?

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia? — baker

Wondering if you still think this way???

Because if you had proof of your position I would be convinced. As simple as that.