I was questioning your theory of “rightful owners” and the issue is this: if the rightful owners of Crimea are the Crimean Tatars more than the Russians, then - according to your theory - they are the people that could legitimise annexation or independence of Crimea, so even if they wanted Crimea to be part of Turkey, that should be fine with you! — neomac

Nope, you weren't "questioning my theory of rightful owners" but your deliberate misinterpretation of it!

It's precisely that kind of statement that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you ARE ignorant and confused. Are you sure you aren't related to @ssu and @Christoffer? :rofl:

As a matter of fact, you haven't really addressed any of the many legitimate points I've made. All you're doing is resort to evasion and diversion to cover up your ignorance and duplicity.

If the Crimean Tatars are "indigenous Crimeans", why don't they call themselves Indigenous Crimeans? Why do they call themselves "Tatars", a name given to Mongols and Turks from Central Asia?

Wikipedia - and all other sources - state very clearly (a) that Tatars are a Turkic people and (b) that Turkic people are a Mongoloid group that originated in Siberia. What exactly have I "misunderstood"???

By definition, Tatars are a TURKIC people. Turkic peoples were nomadic tribes that originated in Northern Asia (Siberia) from where they migrated to Mongolia and Central Asia.

Turkic Migrations – LibreTexts

Turkic migration – Wikipedia

From Central Asia, the Turkic tribes began to invade the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The first Turkic tribes to invade the area to the north of the Black Sea and Crimea were:

Huns (4th century AD)
Bulgars (7th century)
Khazars (8th century)
Pechenegs (11th century)
Cumans (11th century).

It must be noted that these were warlike, nomadic tribes that occupied and enslaved local populations:

The Cumans entered the grasslands of the present-day southern Russian steppe in the 11th century AD and went on to assault the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Principality of Pereyaslavl and Kievan Rus'. Cumans – Wikipedia

When the Mongols began to invade the region in the 1200’s AD, they were joined by many Turkic tribes. The name “Tatar” is an exonym, i.e., it was given by Indo-European (Caucasoid) locals to this mixture of Mongol and Turkic invaders. By adopting it and calling themselves “Tatars”, Turkic tribes from Crimea clearly identified with the invaders to whom they had close cultural, linguistic, and genetic links.

Indeed, the first Crimean state, the Crimean Khanate established in the 1400’s, was a Turkic state in which the ruling classes were Mongols and Turks, and the majority were enslaved Europeans.

According to sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), 75% of Crimea’s population under the Tatar Khanate were non-Tatar slaves and freedmen, i.e., mostly Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and Caucasians from places like Georgia and Circassia.

When Russia took Crimea from Turkey in 1783, the majority of Crimeans are supposed to have been Tatars. However, this is obviously misleading as it depends entirely on how “Tatar” is defined.

Many Russians and Ukrainians, and I suspect even Putin himself, have some Tatar (Mongol-Turkic) ancestry and may even have some Tatar features. But modern genetic analysis shows that even those who self-identify as “Tatar” often have more European DNA than Tatar. This renders the claim that Tatars made up “the majority” prior to the Russian takeover of Crimea highly questionable.

As you can see for yourself, the Tatar lady who posted her DNA data on ICCRIMEA is only 28% Northern Asian, i.e., Siberian-Mongol-Turkic or Tatar proper. Are you now denying your own evidence? :grin:

In some Crimean Tatars the percentage may indeed be higher or lower as she suggests, but if her DNA is anywhere near average, this indicates that genuine Tatars with more than 50% Northern Asian DNA could not have been the majority! Your own evidence contradicts your claim that Tatars were "the majority"!!!

In fact, if you care to think about it, 28% Tatar DNA matches estimates according to which 75% of the Crimean population was non-Tatar even at the time of the Tatar Khanate!

The true ratio of Northern/East Asian and European DNA in Tatar populations is corroborated by data from individuals outside Crimea, such as the Volga-Ural region, showing that the mitochondrial gene pool of the Volga Tatars has a Eurasian (Caucasoid) component that prevails considerably over the Eastern Asian (Mongoloid) one:

The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River (Khalikov 1978; Kuzeev 1992). The Volga Bulgars settled on the Volga in the eighth century, where they mingled with Scythian- and Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples. After the Mongol invasion, much of the population survived and mixed with the Kipchak Tatars. Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978). Linguistically, they speak a language of a distinct branch of the Turkic group, within the Altaian family of languages.

Mitogenomic Diversity in Tatars from the Volga-Ural Region of Russia - Oxford Academic

As for claims that “Crimean Tatars have nowhere else to go than Crimea”, they are complete nonsense given that most Crimean Tatars emigrated (note, emigrated, not "expelled") to Turkey between 1783 and 1897, thus settling that question of their own accord.

Indeed, most of the descendants of Crimean Tatar immigrants in Turkey (5-6 million according to some estimates) have assimilated and consider themselves Turks. The very fact that they emigrated to Turkey (where they were received with open arms as “Crimean Turks”) confirms that Tatars themselves saw themselves as a Turkic group. Whether all of them were genuine Tatars and whether Turkey was their true home is another matter.

The way I see it, the correct application of the principle that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners” is not for Crimean Tatars to join Turkey – as Turkey itself is territory illegally taken from Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and others – but to return to Turkic countries in Central Asia.

Stalin’s resettlement of Crimea’s Tatar minority (about 20% of the total population) to their original homeland in Central Asia was unfair on those Tatars who were actually European, and this was readily acknowledged by the Russian authorities who eventually gave resettled Tatars the right to return.

To the extent that it was arbitrary, that resettlement scheme was a mistake. It is one thing to relocate genuine Turkic Crimeans to Central Asia where they had come from. It is quite another to send Greeks who had lived in Crimea since the 7th century BC to Kazakhstan!

Similar mistakes were made during population exchanges between Greece and Turkey in the 1920’s when thousands of Greeks ended up in Turkey just because they were Muslim and Turks ended up in Greece because they were Christian. Or when ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe after WW2, even though they had lived there for centuries, etc., etc.

This is why, personally, I’m against forced deportations and I think diplomatic solutions backed by financial incentives are to be preferred. But the process has to start with correctly identifying who should relocate. Otherwise, how are we going to know which territory rightfully belongs to whom?

In the Crimean context, the problem seems to be not as much genetic as CULTURAL. The genetic evidence indicates that “Tatars” are mostly Indo-Europeans (Caucasoids) who were forced to speak Tatar (a Turkic language) and to convert to Islam under Mongol-Turkic rule. In other words, they assumed an alien cultural and linguistic identity under foreign occupation and this identity is now blown out of proportion for political ends.

And if the problem is cultural, one logical solution would be not to resettle Crimeans of European descent but to encourage them to shed their false Turkic or “Tatar” identity.

In any case, Tatar presence in Crimea does NOT show that “Crimea belongs to Ukraine”!

Yet the Natoist argument seems to be as follows:

A. Crimea is “Tatar”.
B. Tatars are “Ukrainians”.
C. Therefore Crimea is Ukrainian.
D. And Ukraine is Western.
E. Therefore Ukraine and Crimea belong to America and its NATO Empire.
F. But Russia doesn’t think that Crimea and Ukraine belong to America.
G. Therefore Russia must be destroyed so that it never again deviates from what America says the world should think.

Who has given America the right to destroy a country of 150 million just because it thinks differently?

If America is prepared to do this to Russia, how can other countries be sure that it won’t do the same to them?

Moreover, the destruction of Russia is likely to result in Turkey, China, Iran, and other powers trying to fill the vacuum and potentially lead to decades of instability and war in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

Eastern Europe is already heading for a serious recession, probably to be soon followed by Western Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Economic hardship and wars will result in millions of refugees fleeing to Western Europe and other parts of the First World. These are enormous problems that America has created but is unwilling and unable to solve.

America has a long and well-documented history of “solving” some problems whilst creating many other new ones. We need only look at Iraq where they removed Saddam Hussein but created ideal conditions for Islamic State a.k.a. ISIS to emerge - who turned out to be far worse than Saddam.

In these circumstances, European and other leaders around the world may start asking themselves whether it isn’t time to break free from America’s policy of world domination in which the only thing that matters are the interests of US oil and defense corporations.

IMO a far more balanced – and philosophically acceptable – position would be to follow the lead of less-ideologically-committed analysts, and advise Ukraine to (a) stay neutral and (b) cede some territory, e.g., Crimea, to Russia.

As Henry Kissinger has said, “the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be taught rules of conduct established by Washington.” I think philosophers would do well to consider the implications of refusing to follow Kissinger’s advice.

Russia's response to Finland and Sweden joining NATO clearly shows that actually NATO enlargement was more of an excuse than the real reason for invading Ukraine. — ssu

Nope. It doesn't "clearly show" that at all. Russia did NOT invade Ukraine because of NATO expansion in Finland, but because of potential or anticipated NATO expansion in Ukraine!!!

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. — ssu

Well, that only shows your anti-Russian bias. Wanting Russia to be like Finland sounds pretty unhinged to me. Why don't you want America to be like Finland? Or the whole world? :grin:

You're using the same NATO NAZI argument as @Christoffer according to which Russia and the world MUST be like the West or else.

Plus, you haven't demonstrated that the Armenian-Azeri conflict was created by Russia.

Prior to the Europeans, the Arabs had been raiding and buying slaves from East African black communities for centuries, from Somalia to Zanzibar. — Olivier5

Correct. Prior to the Arabs it was Africans who raided, enslaved, and sold off other Africans. But Africa had its own prosperous kingdoms until they were conquered by France, England, and Belgium. They're now emigrating to France because France is their former colonial "mother country" that exploited, oppressed, and ruined her children.

Et en plus, what will happen when old Mother France gets old and passes away? Will her stepchildren still live under her boot, or sit on her throne? :smile:

An immature philosophy that doesn't care for human lives. Can we conclude that the basic respect for human life and rights is part of a modern philosophy that's considered up to date? — Christoffer

I won't go into that because to me, "up to date" means nothing in philosophy. There is no progress in philosophy, as there is in science or technology.

The idea that human life deserves respect is very old, and rooted in religion: it was argued that human beings deserve respect because they are in the image of God.

What I am saying re. Russia is that Putin and his archeo-tchekists do not believe in God nor in Man deserving any respect. They are hardcore materialists, therefore for them might is right, force is legitimate, and killing human beings is not anymore a problem than killing worms or flies.

They're now emigrating to France because France is their former colonial "mother country" that exploited, oppressed, and ruined her children. — Apollodorus

Interesting opinion but I note that Afghanistan or Ethiopia were never colonized. Yet there's no shortage of poor people and emigrants from Ethiopia or Afghanistan. Also France got a huge influx of Polish, Italian, Armenian, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese immigrants over the years, and yet we never colonized them... So maybe colonisation is not the only factor at play

Maybe folks want to go live in Europe because there, one might have a remote chance of improving one's lot.

Rêver, c'est déjà ça...

Anyway, leaving the bigots to their blather...

--

It is quite interesting to watch the slow pivot of US Empire from Russia to China. Having now (for now?) mired Russia in a stupid, senseless war it did everything to enable, it now looks to Taiwan as the next bunch of people who can drop dead for their purposes. Now with the timing of the - rightly horrifying - 'Xinjiang Police Files', the pressure on the America's next geopolitical rival is set to be ramped up.

The problem in your comments as I see it is the overgeneralization. Critiques of culture require nuance and objectivity, which you've lacked. You are not the only one who does that and I wouldn't call it racist, but it's clumsy and unhelpful, just like some of the criticisms of America, the West, and NATO have been. I've been guilty of that myself too at times, and the consistency and intensity of the prejudices on display here remind me why sometimes I just need to keep my hands off the keyboard.

The problem in your comments as I see it is the overgeneralization. Critiques of culture require nuance and objectivity, which you've lacked. You are not the only one who does that and I wouldn't call it racist, but it's clumsy and unhelpful, just like some of the criticisms of America, the West, and NATO have been. I've been guilty of that myself too at times, and the consistency and intensity of the prejudices on display here remind me why sometimes I just need to keep my hands off the keyboard. — Baden

Thank you for a normal answer. And yes, I wasn't racist in any kind of intention, I wasn't talking about a Russian people in that sense, but an ideology and ideal very common in Russia and extremely common in their politics and military. The clumsiness could be that I'm not native of the English word, so maybe something was lost in translation, I don't know, but if I would have gotten your answer instead of the bullying behavior of the others, then I could have elaborated more and explained better instead of having to defend against low-quality trash. But yeah, I feel less and less like going to this forum. It seems to be a place dedicated for the bullies to feel important rather than focused on good discussions.

A lot of that back and forth is just going to get deleted anyhow and I don't know who's bullying who but there's not much in the way of charitable interchange going on for sure.

I wasn't talking about a Russian people in that sense, but an ideology and ideal very common in Russia and extremely common in their politics and military. — Christoffer

Shouldn't Russia's "ideology" be a matter for Russians to decide?

And you do seem to regard Russian society as somehow defective and inferior, and therefore in need of being "corrected" by you.

It's right to point out prejudice, which was on display in Christoffer's post, but all of you are looking for excuses to make each other look as bad as possible.

And you do seem to regard Russian society as somehow defective and inferior, and therefore in need of being "corrected" by you. — Apollodorus

E.g. That's a better way to make the point.

Or we can point out that nothing fundamental about Russian culture has changed since they were the world's heroes for overthrowing communism.

It's right to point out prejudice, which was on display in Christoffer's post, but all of you are looking for excuses to make each other look as bad as possible. — Baden

Contrary to you. You're quite good at making yourself look good. :-)

Rêver, c'est déjà ça... — Olivier5

But why does he rêve something and not something else? IMO, social and economic background, history, colonization, etc. seem to influence the content of the reve ....

Not always... :halo:

Shouldn't Russia's "ideology" be a matter for Russians to decide?

And you do seem to regard Russian society as somehow defective and inferior, and therefore in need of being "corrected" by you. — Apollodorus

I'm speaking of an ideology or idealism that's very common in Russia. The society in Russia is split, with a lot of people not following this type of idealism. The ones who do, primarily under Putin's enforcement of this idealism, trickle down the military chain of command, down to soldiers on the ground shooting civilians in the back in order to loot and rape. It happens so systematically in so many places that this isn't just an isolated behavior, it's a result of putting an ideal before human well-being. If you go into war with well-being in mind, you don't do anything other than what you have to do on the battlefield. But raising these boys into this behavior comes from somewhere and looking at how Putin and his people talk, behave and the ideology they push, we can see an idealism of heroes leading a united people where the empire, the "thing" is more important than the individual human being.

This is the ideology and idealism I criticized. On one hand, you have Russians who don't agree with it, who speak up against the war because they see through this pipe dream that used to indoctrinate people but have a harder time today due to information flow being more free and uninfluenced by the people in power. And on the other, the conservatives who want to return to this ideal society, this empire where people in power were regarded as deities while the empire aimed for greatness and beyond.

And yes, their ideology is for them to decide unless the result of such ideology spills over into atrocities and horrors for other people in other nations who didn't ask for it. Just like the Nazis, which I made a point about. The behavior of people in power, throwing their own people into other nations as cannon fodder, in order to realize their fascist dreams.

Or we can point out that nothing fundamental about Russian culture has changed since they were the world's heroes for overthrowing communism. — Baden

This is basically my point, the Russian culture hasn't changed, while some Russians have and oppose it due to its destructive consequences. Some Russians want to have a change from that conservative pipe dreams, and they get beaten down by a fascist boot for wanting it. How this is different from Nazi Germany, I don't know.

Contrary to you. You're quite good at making yourself look good — Olivier5

I bet he'd look even better with a glass of poitín in his hand .... :wink:

But why does he rêve something and not something else? — Apollodorus

Now you are talking. The West has also colonized the minds of folks. So the first thing to do, for those hoping of liberation, would be to free one's mind from their BS. And one of those BS idea about the West, is precisely that it's all the West's fault.

Thinking that it's all the West's fault is the same BS as the 'white man's burden'. It's treating Europe or the West as exceptional, as oh-so-special. It's pretending that the white man rules the whole world.

I don't care much about how I look, myself. Optics moptics.

Streetlight here has been calling for France's destruction, by the way, in case you care beyond mere optics.... :-)

And yes, their ideology is for them to decide unless the result of such ideology spills over into atrocities and horrors for other people in other nations who didn't ask for it. Just like the Nazis, which I made a point about. The behavior of people in power, throwing their own people into other nations as cannon fodder, in order to realize their fascist dreams. — Christoffer

Wasn't communism a Western ideology? Didn't the Western world erupt into applause when czarist "dictatorship" was replaced by Stalinism? Didn't Western intellectuals call Lenin the best statesman in the world?

Plus, "fascism" isn't necessarily imposed by force of arms. It can be done through education, indoctrination, mass manipulation and control. Say something in your country that deviates from the politically correct "norm" and you'll get ostracized.

In other words, your own society allows "freedom" only so long as you think, speak, and act as you're told .... :grin:

poitín — Apollodorus

What is poitín?

So the first thing to do, for those hoping of liberation, would be to free one's mind from their BS. And one of those BS idea about the West, is precisely that it's all the West's fault. — Olivier5

Exactly. The fault of the perpetrators is not the fault of an entire culture, especially not in a secular and multicultural culture like "the west". "The west" is such an extremely broad perspective and I think most people just think of "the west" as being "the US" and through guilt by association, every western nation is therefore supporting or equally being as bad as "the US". As I've also pointed out long ago, we've lived in an intellectual anti-western criticism for over 30 years now. We can just look at art, literature and other pop culture for that, there's such an introspective uppercut against western ideals of neoliberalism and capitalism from within our western society that people have forgotten that other cultures can also be "bad". But since so many spent over 30 years of criticizing the west they themselves live in, they cannot wrap their heads around someone else acting out as Russia has done now. So instead of accepting Russia's actions as being taken by them, they need to pin this on the west by any means necessary, since they emotionally feel like not doing so would undermine their critique of the west. Instead of just... criticize where it's valid to criticize.

And one of those BS idea about the West, is precisely that it's all the West's fault. — Olivier5

Sure. But that's only an extension of the BS idea that it's all Germany's and Russia's fault.

Non-Westerners aren't stupid. If Westerners keep criticizing each other, there is only one logical conclusion ....

BTW, poitín (Irish pronunciation: [ˈpˠɛtʲiːnʲ]), anglicized as poteen (/pəˈt(ʃ)iːn, pɒˈtiːn/) or potheen, is a traditional Irish distilled beverage (40–90% ABV). Former common names for poitín were "Irish moonshine" and "mountain dew" .... - Wikipedia

Wasn't communism a Western ideology? Didn't the Western world erupt into applause when czarist "dictatorship" was replaced by Stalinism? Didn't Western intellectuals call Lenin the best statesman in the world? — Apollodorus

It's easy for the masses to praise something when no historical context exists to discredit it yet. And no, "the west" is not all. Not all praised Hitler either. First many did, then no one did, except the idiots.

Plus, "fascism" isn't necessarily imposed by force of arms. It can be done through education, indoctrination, mass manipulation and control. Say something in your country that deviates from the politically correct "norm" and you'll get ostracized. — Apollodorus

Fascism as I described it was state-controlled actual violence and silencing of anyone criticizing the government. The most literal form of fascism, when the boot is literal.

The other forms you describe can manifest through governments, but most likely through different groups in society. Other than that, you don't get ostracized in Sweden unless you actually conduct hate speech. If you say something that deviates from the most basic moral ideals, then you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. I never understand how people confuse fascism with that, most likely because they don't know what fascism is.

you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. — Christoffer

So, you DO get ostracized, after all.

And if someone doesn't think, speak, and act like you, he MUST be a "fucking asshole" because everything YOU say is always right. Isn't that how fascist ideology starts? :rofl:

Years ago, i found myself talking with a very nice guy from the English-speaking Caribbeans, at a party thrown by the French consulate in New York. So we're in this great décord, sipping fantastic champagne, and this guy explains to me how he used to think as a kid that not only the French were all jerks, but also all the francophone Caribbeans. And the reason why he used to think so, is simply that it was passed down him by his teachers at school, by his parents, by the culture.

And where did this idea come from?

My hypothesis is that historically, it was the colonizer, i.e. Great Britain, that inculcated in the minds of their many subjects the hatred of the other colonizers, i.e. of their "competitors" in the "colonization business". So the French were depicted as ridicule, the Spaniards as wasteful, etc. etc., to try and make sure that British colonies would remain British... And these convenient stereotypes have been carried down to this day.

All this to say that the colonized have in some case internalized the very racism of their colonizer.

But that's only an extension of the BS idea that it's all Germany's and Russia's fault. — Apollodorus

How about: Russia is responsible for what it actually did? If they bombed an entire country out of the blue, they own it.

Or are Russians inferior beings, unable to make their own decisions?

Or we can point out that nothing fundamental about Russian culture has changed since they were the world's heroes for overthrowing communism. — Baden

Yeah... Not long after that they were doing in Chechnya pretty much what they are doing in Ukraine today.

That's not to say that something is wrong with Russians in particular, as opposed to the rest of the world (who are "Russians" anyway - all who were born within Russian state borders?) That's a naive and unhelpful way of thinking.

What country did Russia "bomb out of the blue"?

If you mean Ukraine, it wasn't "out of the blue" at all. It was because of the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and then trying to retake Crimea and the ethnic Russian areas in Donbas, in addition to turning the Black Sea into a NATO lake.

I'm not defending Russia's bombing of Ukrainian civilians, but I think it had a legitimate reason to feel threatened which means that NATO bears some responsibility for the invasion. But there is no point going on and on about it. IMO it is more important to remove misconceptions like that Crimea belongs to Ukraine

There was no prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. It was out of the blue.

So, you DO get ostracized, after all.

And if someone doesn't think, speak, and act like you, he MUST be a "fucking asshole" because everything YOU say is always right. Isn't that how fascist ideology starts? :rofl: — Apollodorus

No, now you're doing that thing again, the thing people ask you not to do, are you off your pills? The thing where you don't actually read or understand what you read and instead make up your own version of what was being said.

I said

If you say something that deviates from the most basic moral ideals, then you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. — Christoffer

Now what can I possibly refer to here? Basic moral ideals? What would that mean? Maybe something like shouting racist slurs, misogyny, behaving aggressively, punching people or whatever. You know, things that balance on the edge of illegal but generally just make people exclude you from social connections and get you into trouble at work etc. We can go on and on about the philosophy surrounding this, but if you don't understand the basic concept of this then I'm afraid you either aren't capable of understanding it or you just decided not to in order to hold your line of argument or something. Most probable is that you just try to muddy the waters of the argument and I'm not interested in conducting that kind of discussion. Of course, you might mean "ostracized" in the old Greek version, that doesn't happen, maybe where you're from, but not here.

It's easy for the masses to praise something when no historical context exists to discredit it yet. — Christoffer

Nonsense! Western intellectuals praised Soviet Communism AFTER visiting Russia. Bernard Shaw, Lady Astor, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and many other leading intellectuals and socialites of the time visited Soviet Russia and praised its regime.

Shaw said that Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe” and called Stalin “a good Fabian” in 1948. The Webbs wrote a book, Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, in which they praised the communist system. These were among the leading ideologists of the British Labour Party that formed a coalition government during the war and became the ruling party, thus controlling the whole British Empire, after the war. Far from being ignorant masses, they were well-informed intellectual elites!

Now what can I possibly refer to here? Basic moral ideals? — Christoffer

“Basic moral ideals”? Like calling people names for disagreeing with you??? :rofl:

From what I see here, in your opinion everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you is “a fucking asshole”, “a troll”, “off their pills”, etc., etc. Are you sure you aren’t related to @neomac and @ssu? As I said, NATO bots seem to come in packs of three, because they’re cheaper. And so do NATO Nazis …. :rofl:

There was no prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. It was out of the blue. — Olivier5

On 6 July 1990, NATO leaders proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

On 20 December 1991, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in which Ukraine and the other CIS countries (former Soviet republics) were invited to participate.

On 8 February 1994, Ukraine joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program (PfP) that the US government described as a "track that will lead to NATO membership".

On 29 May 1997, Ukraine became a member of NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) that replaced the North Atlantic Cooperation Council.

On 24 June 2010 the Ukrainian government approved an action plan to implement an annual national program of cooperation with NATO that included training of Ukrainian troops in the structures of NATO members and joint tactical and strategic exercises with NATO.

On 8 June 2017, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law making integration with NATO "a foreign policy priority".

On 14 September 2020, Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO".

And in the meantime America and England were arming and training Ukrainian forces ….

So, not quite out of the blue.

In any case, if history teaches anything it is that the Germans know how to fight, the Americans and Brits know how to finance wars, and the Russians know how to flatten everything. Conclusion: if you’re a small country and don’t want to get flattened, don’t start a war with Russia!