the Russians know how to flatten everything. — Apollodorus

Including themselves, apparently. Ukrainians will teach them a lesson.

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. — Apollodorus

And did they know all the details of the regime? Did people visiting Nazi Germany in the 30s know every detail? How many times have people been in the dark about regimes, leaders, and other people, and only after the truth is revealed have they backed away from their praise? People praised Weinstein as well, up until it was clear they shouldn't.

Do you actually think that a regime will show visitors their murders and horrors in between welcoming drinks? :rofl: I know you desperately try to win an argument in any way possible, but this is just ridiculous.

in which they praised the communist system. — Apollodorus

There's nothing wrong with Marxism as a system and Russian communism was the Lenin/Stalin corruption of it. Without the knowledge of millions of people murdered, if you visited a nation that's among the first in the world to try and adapt anything from Marx and you get the snake oil sale pitch, of course, intellectuals were going to praise it. People praised Hitler as well, remember that he fixed the German economy, do you think people didn't praise him for that?

Judging people's opinions today by the context of 100 years of history into the future is downright stupid. We don't know what is revealed in 10 years or 30 years. We might, today, live in a time where we praise stuff that in 30 years' time will be revealed to be monstrous. You don't seem to understand how psychology works or how little people actually know.

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

Can you do anything other than strawmanning? If you are unable to then why should anyone discuss with you?

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: — Apollodorus

So you are in bullshitting mode again. You're not really making yourself relevant to the discussion. If you want to be a joke in here, I'm not interested.

Ukrainians will teach them a lesson. — Olivier5

Does your passion for getting other people to die for your moral didactics know no bounds?

They're still getting flattened, though. — Apollodorus

Indeed, but Russia will have to fold at some point; they cannot keep this up forever. So the Ukrainians are teaching them a lesson: a lesson in resilience.

Does your nastiness know limits, other than those imposed by your stupidity?

It's easy to be resilient when you get bankrolled, armed, trained, encouraged, and supported by the world's largest military organization.

Besides, Russia has also shown resilience by repelling numerous attempts to conquer and subjugate it since Napoleon's time and before ....

why don't you lead by example like a good NATO Nazi — Apollodorus

Is this enough proof that Apollodorus is playing into the Putin narrative of everyone against him and Russia are Nazis? I guess moderators are fine with it

It's easy to be resilient — Apollodorus

What is really easy, down right facile, is to be dismissive and contemptuous of people defending their country.

What is really easy, down right facile, is to be dismissive and contemptuous of people defending their country. — Olivier5

According to him, any defense against Russia and Putin is considered being a Nazi, so it's quite obvious where he stands.

It would be unrealistic to expect non-partisan moderation. The moderators are human beings; they have friends here, and you and I do not feature among them.

Seriously guys, I don't see any need to keep dragging the moderators into this brawl. You both know full well your own posts have been no less viscous, inflammatory and off-topic as anyone else's, so just give up with this pathetic 'appeal to the law'. If this thread were moderated more strictly, half your posts would be discarded with the rest, so if you want a different standard of debate, set it yourself first before criticising others for not enforcing rules you yourselves are not even prepared to keep to.

If a response offends you, flag it, and then, most importantly, don't just copy the exact same tone, that just so offended you, in response.

If a response offends you, flag it, and then, most importantly, don't just copy the exact same tone, that just so offended you, in response. — Isaac

We don't spend every moment of our day watching this thread, therefore moderation not being instant is not evidence that it won't be forthcoming. You can expedite the process by doing the above.

It would be unrealistic to expect non-partisan moderation. The moderators are human beings; they have friends here, and you and I do not feature among them. — Olivier5

Hate to interrupt your martyrdom, Jeanne d'Arc, but same applies to you. Further complaints can be directed to feedback or PM.

Like we are the ones who entered this thread in a tribalistic mentality and you are the one calling in mods. :rofl: I've been trying to get mods into this thread to properly moderate it since the beginning of this tribalistic attitude started and they refused, and now you try to play the good guy? :rofl:
My interest in this thread has fallen, it's not a discussion anymore, it's just bully egos and bullshit arguments.

I don't agree at all that a political discussion where there's a lot of emotion involved means it's better not to moderate it, I think it needs moderation much more because of it. At the moment, there's really nothing of intellectual value going on in this thread so the value of participating is down the drain.

I've deleted dozens of posts just in the last couple of days and I've had enough of baseless complaints we're not moderating the thread, especially by someone who needs moderation as much as anyone else here. Future comments on moderation will be deleted. Stay on topic or stay away.

Does your passion for getting other people to die for your moral didactics know no bounds? — Isaac

The Russians (and their Nazi compadres) can head home, the Ukrainians are already home.
The Russians (and their Nazi compadres) have homes, the Ukrainians are running :fire: shorter.

Unless ... "You can check out any time you like / But you can never leave" ...

The Russians (and their Nazi compadres) can head home, the Ukrainians are already home.
The Russians (and their Nazi compadres) have homes, the Ukrainians are running :fire: shorter. — jorndoe

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here (I rarely am with your posts, I have to say). The Russians are the invading party, yes. I think we're all agreed on that. My comment was directed against people sitting in comfort hundreds of miles away egging on strangers they've never given a shit about before (nor will after) to risk their lives so that these armchair wargamers can get their rocks off on a Russian defeat.

If @Olivier5, or you for that matter, think it such a good cause to die for, then get out there and start shooting, otherwise a little humility might be in order recognising it's other people's lives you're gleefully anticipating the consequences of risking.

it's other people's lives you're gleefully anticipating the consequences of risking. — Isaac

Where do you see any glee? Where does this accusation of gleefulness come from?

Maybe what you confuse with glee here, is hope.

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. — Apollodorus

Dude, I don’t mind your insults, it’s really that you arguments really suck. Even sarcasm is wasted on you.

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? — Apollodorus

Again?! I’m going to repeat the same answer I gave you in the previous post (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699578).
“Crimean Tatars" speak a “Crimean Tatar language” as their native language:
The Crimean Tatar language (qırımtatar tili, къырымтатар тили, tatar tĭlĭ, tatarşa, kırım tatarşa), also called Crimean language (qırım tili, къырым тили), is a Kipchak Turkic language spoken in Crimea and the Crimean Tatar diasporas of Uzbekistan, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as small communities in the United States and Canada. It should not be confused with Tatar proper, spoken in Tatarstan and adjacent regions in Russia; the languages are related, but belong to two different subgroups of the Kipchak languages and thus are not mutually intelligible. It has been extensively influenced by nearby Oghuz dialects.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatar_language

But for sure that’s not enough to call them “the Mongols of Crimea” as you did!

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"??? — Apollodorus

You do not only confuse cultural factors with biological factors but you do it on a historical scale (given your obsession for the mythic “origins”).

“Mongoloid race” has to do with biology:
Mongoloid (/ˈmɒŋ.ɡə.lɔɪd/[1]) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to large parts of Asia, the Americas, and some regions in Europe and Oceania. The term is derived from a now-disproven theory of biological race.[2] In the past, other terms such as "Mongolian race", "yellow", "Asiatic" and "Oriental" have been used as synonyms.
BTW
The concept of dividing humankind into three races called Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid was introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen School of History and further developed by Western scholars in the context of racist ideologies during the age of colonialism.[3] With the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid


“Tatar” has to do with language:
The Tatars (/ˈtɑːtərz/; Tatar: татарлар, tatarlar, تاتارلر, Crimean Tatar: tatarlar; Old Turkic: , romanized: Tatar) is an umbrella term for different Turkic ethnic groups bearing the name “Tatar".
[…] More recently, however, the term has come to refer more narrowly to related ethnic groups who refer to themselves as Tatars or who speak languages that are commonly referred to as Tatar, namely Tatar by Volga Tatars (Tatars proper), Crimean Tatar by Crimean Tatars and Siberian Tatar by Siberian Tatars.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

The Turkic peoples are a collection of diverse ethnic groups of Central, East, North and West Asia as well as parts of Europe, who speak Turkic languages.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples


Authors Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang analyzed ten years of genetic research on Turkic people and compiled scholarly information about Turkic origins, and said that the early and medieval Turks were a heterogeneous group and that the Turkification of Eurasia was a result of language diffusion, not a migration of a homogeneous population.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_migration#Origin_theories


Tatars are divided into 3 main ethno-territorial groups: Tatars of the Middle Volga and Ural regions, Siberian Tatars, Astrakhan Tatars. In addition, a separate group of Polish-Lithuanian Tatars is distinguished. Crimean Tatars, due to their ethno-historical development, are considered a separate people. Volga Tatars are divided into 3 groups: Kazan Tatars, Mishars and Teptyars, Kasimov Tatars form an intermediate group. Siberian Tatars are divided into 3 groups: Baraba, Tobolsk, Tomsk. Astrakhan Tatars are also divided into 3 groups: Yurt, Kundra Tatars and Karagash, close to the Nogais. The traditional occupation of the Tatars is arable farming, among the Astrakhan Tatars - cattle breeding and melon growing. Tatars are Sunni Muslims, with the exception of minor groups of Kryashens and Nagaybaks, who converted to Orthodoxy as early as the 16th-18th centuries. According to the anthropological type, the Kazan Tatars are Caucasoids, part of the Astrakhan and Siberian Tatars belong to the South Siberian type of the Mongoloid race.
Source: https://www.vokrugsveta.ru/encyclopedia/index.php?title=%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B

So the generic label “Tatars” may refer to different races, different turkic languages, and different ethnic groups in different historical periods and geographical regions! And I pointed that out on many occasions! Your misconceptions stem from your ignorance and confusion about the ethnohistory of the people called “Tatars”, and the result of this is your misconception that the Crimean Tatars are the Mongols of Crimea, which is false on historical, genetic and linguistic grounds!

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. — Apollodorus

So what?! Can you provide the link to the source you are referring to?

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. — Apollodorus

So what?! And who on earth said that “the Tatars” made up the majority?! In my previous post (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699578) I said: “after the Tatar-Mongol reign, the Crimean Tatars as indigenous people of Crimea became the majority by assimilating other ethnic groups (see this historical demographic map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_Population_of_Crimea_18th%E2%80%9321st_century.png)”

I never understood the label of “Crimean Tatars” as referring to Mongols or historical Tatar-Mongol (like the Golden Horde invaders and rulers), you did and I questioned it!

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"!!! — Apollodorus

What on earth did you just write?!!! I cited this ICCRIMEA article to support the claim that Crimean Tatars are NOT MONGOLS AS YOU CLAIM!!! And again, I never said that the Tatars as you understand them were the majority, but I explicitly said that the Crimean Tatars as the indigenous people of Crimea by assimilation of different ethnic groups became the majority prior to the Russification of Crimea, see the fucking historical demographic map I provided to you!!!

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 — Apollodorus

And how on earth does that prove that “the truth of the matter is that there is very little genetic difference between Mongols and Turkic people like the Tatars” as you claimed?! And how on earth does that prove that Crimean Tatars currently living in Crimea are Mongols or historical Mongol-Tatars as you claimed?!
Crimean Tatars are NEITHER MONGOLS (whatever the origin of the turkic language or of the Tatar migrations is !!!) NOR THE HISTORICAL TATAR-MONGOLS AS YOU CLAIMED OR SUGGESTED!!!! EXACTLY THE POINT I MADE A WHILE AGO!
Conclusion: Wikipedia historical trivia (yours included) do not question but confirm that the ethnic stratification of Crimean Tatars relate to the period prior to, during and after the Mongol empire (which per se was already a multi-ethnic empire as many ancient empires were! And that is also why genetic evidence about “generic” Tatars wrt Mongols is neither very useful nor conclusive!), that is why they are not Mongols in a historical sense either!
So any assimilation of Crimean Tatars with Mongols or middle-age Mongolian-Tatar hordes is, to be kind, an oversimplification, partly based on historical misconceptions (arguably still supported by Russian propaganda [2]).
[2] The firm belief that the Crimean Tatars were descendants of the Golden Horde, who settled on the peninsula in the first half of the 13th century, was firmly ingrained in the minds of many scholars. This myth appeared immediately after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 1783, and has since become firmly entrenched in official Russian and then Soviet historiography and continues to be replicated in the scientific literature. The falsifiers took the events related to the Horde period as the starting point of origin of the Crimean Tatars, which, in fact, is only a stage of a centuries-old, complex historical process. Source: https://culture.voicecrimea.com.ua/en/ethnogenesis-of-the-crimean-tatars/
Source: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/697542

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. — Apollodorus

Really?! You certainly mean: not expelled, but emigrated to avoid Russian imperialistic oppression that you should oppose, right?!
The Crimean Tatar diaspora dates back to the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 1783, after which Crimean Tatars emigrated in a series of waves spanning the period from 1783 to 1917. The diaspora was largely the result of the destruction of their social and economic life as a consequence of integration into the Russian Empire .
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatar_diaspora
And the phrase “Crimean Tatars have nowhere else to go than Crimea” is again a way to stress that Crimean Tatars are indigenous to Crimea and would prefer to stay in their homeland without suffering oppressive regimes like the one Russian imperialism is offering AND you should oppose!

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. — Apollodorus

What on earth did you just write?! You previously offered evidence in support to the claim that Crimean Tatars are neither Mongols nor the historical Tatar-Mongols, and now you want to move them to Central Asia?! How on earth would you do so?! You mean that Russian imperialists as privileged heir of the Greek civilisation and holy custodian of the Indo-European heritage should impose a racial test among Crimean Tatars and expel the ones who show more than 50% Mongoloid race owners DESPITE THE FACT THAT the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars proves that Crimean Tatars as indigenous to Crimea also by assimilating Indo-European Caucasoid people and that no western Indo-European Caucasoid ancestors can claim to have colonised the entire Crimea prior to Turkic people migrations AND THEREFORE they should be considered the rightful owners of Crimea ?! Are you crazy?!… And racist?!
(BTW I guess all the Indo-European Caucasoid that colonised America should be resettled in Europe or, even better, crammed into the Caucasian area where all the Indo-European came from, right?)

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. — Apollodorus

Oh I see, they acknowledged it, and that’s why the Russians are still oppressing Crimean Tatars in Crimea, right?! It makes perfect sense! Moreover you previously argued in favour of resettling Crimean Tatars back again to Central Asia as your theory demands, so Russians are wrong in giving resettled Tatars the right to return to Crimea, they should listen to you, right?!

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! — Apollodorus

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? — Apollodorus

Then start by defining what “genuine Turkic Crimeans” and “Greeks” mean, because as suggested in the ICCRIMEA article, since Crimean Tatars are ethnically intermixed, one can not send 28% of Northern Asian genes to Central Asia, if it makes sense to you, right?!
BTW, you are against imperialism, against forced deportation and for economic incentives, but Crimean Tatars didn’t see anything like that in centuries of russification of Crimea, did they? Besides how is this putative attitude of yours square with what you were claiming previously: “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”. Indeed, why would economic-civic oppression and deportation of Crimean Tatars be illegitimate if it’s matter of rectifying a horrible historical injustice that the Russians suffered for centuries?!

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. — Apollodorus

What on earth did you just write?! To me, if your “logic” solution is to deport some and brainwash the rest, the problem is in your preposterous theory of the rightful owners grounded on all sorts of historical, genetic, linguistic and ideological misconceptions. Ironically, even within your own misconceptions, you finally rejected your own previous claims by supporting that Crimean Tatars are, mostly, not the Mongols of Crimea and do not need any resettling!
What is still missing in your racist views is an argument to support the idea that the Turkic cultural identity is a false identity while the biological identity is a true identity (considering that is also based on obsolete racial theories like the distinction of Mongoloid or Caucasoid races)!
BTW shouldn’t Christianism be abandoned since it stemmed from Semitic people while true Westerners are Indo-European Caucasoid non-Semitic (Arians?) people?

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

Neither the opposite though, at least until you can provide a genetic study of the Crimean Tatars that proves there is no relevant genetic link between them and Ukrainians’ ancestors.
Still, unfortunately, this claim of yours is and has always been absolutely non pertinent to address my objections, because I talked about the Crimean Tatars to question your theory of “the rightful owners” and conclude not that Crimea belongs to Ukrainians, but that - according to your own theory of the rightful owners - the Crimean Tatars should most likely be considered the rightful owners of Crimea as indigenous people of Crimea, not the Russians! Ukrainians acknowledged this on legal grounds, while Russians are still oppressing Crimean Tatars.

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. — Apollodorus

Who on earth is making this Natoist argument?! I never made, implied nor suggested such a shitty argument! There is not even any remote resemblance to what I would be capable of arguing! So either you are bizarrely confusing me with other (imaginary?) interlocutors or you are blatantly making things up as the worst Russian trolls do, maybe with the intent to redirect people’s attention far from your preposterous racist theory of the rightful owners and resume your filo-Russian propaganda routine!

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. — Apollodorus

This is the best example of diversion with random anti-NATO and filo-Russian propaganda which bears no relation whatsoever to what I was disputing wrt Crimean Tatar issue. Is this really your best to prove you are not biased toward Russian propaganda?!

What an epic failure are you, dude!

Maybe what you confuse with glee here, is hope. — Olivier5

OK.

A little humility might be in order recognising it's other people's lives you're hopefully anticipating the consequences of risking.

A little humility might be in order recognising it's other people's lives you're hopefully anticipating the consequences of risking. — Isaac

I just hope they win. Rest assured it's a humble hope.

I just hope they win. — Olivier5

No. We all hope they win. You additionally hope they 'teach Russia a lesson'. I don't give a fuck about teaching Russia a lesson because doing so at the expense of other people's lives is a despicable objective.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here — Isaac

It was fairly straightforward. I thought your response to , missed a bit, so I added it.

^{(I guess some may knowingly walk into a minefield and expect pity when a leg is blown off, others may or may not feel schadenfreude if those unfortunate people walked in there to blow others up. I'll abstain, but that's just me.)}

Don't bomb others' home. If you do, then don't expect them to just lie down and die. The Ukrainians aren't anyway.

others may or may not feel schadenfreude if those unfortunate people walked in there to blow others up — jorndoe

It's not about coincidental schadenfreude though, it's about the active encouragement with schadenfreude as a goal. The difference (in your analogy) is between smirking as someone who shouldn't be in your front yard steps on a rake, and actively promoting the leaving of more and more lethal rakes, in someone else's backyard, at great expense to the landowner just for the pleasure of seeing the intruder get their comeuppance.

The costs of Ukraine's defence are enormous, both in terms of lives, and in terms of future economic devastation. Neither you, nor any of the other cheerleaders here are going to have to suffer that. Ukrainians are. There are clearly two options available.

1. Ukraine does the minimum required to ensure a future they can tolerate.
2. Ukraine inflicts the maximum damage on their antagonists.

Ukraine will do whatever they choose, we can support (and encourage) either depending, obviously, on what we think best.

Supporting (1) would be to maximise diplomatic efforts, maximise non-military solutions, stop fighting at the smallest opportunity from where diplomacy might be ale to take over.

Supporting (2) would be to keep framing the whole war as 'teaching Russia a lesson', exaggerating the necessity of driving them off, minimising the likelihood that any non-military solution will work, maximising the evils of the antagonist and minimising those of the defenders.

I think doing (2) whilst not actually being prepared to fight that fight oneself is morally reprehensible.

We all hope they win. You additionally hope they 'teach Russia a lesson'. I don't give a fuck about teaching Russia a lesson because doing so at the expense of other people's lives is a despicable objective. — Isaac

There's nothing "additional" here. It makes no practical difference if the Ukrainians win or the Russians lose. And if the Russians lose, one can only hope that they will learn a lesson from it.

There's nothing "additional" here. — Olivier5

It's exactly the 'additional' element about which the entire disagreement here revolves. As I said above, there are two options - one is to end hostilities at the earliest opportunity from which diplomacy might take over, the other is end hostilities at the last possible opportunity, inflicting the maximum damage to the antagonist. Concerning yourself (and your rhetoric) with the damage inflicted supports the second. Concerning ourselves with the costs of war supports the first.

Our entire disagreement here is about the morality of supporting either approach.

there are two options - one is to end hostilities at the earliest opportunity from which diplomacy might take over, the other is end hostilities at the last possible opportunity, inflicting the maximum damage to the antagonist. Concerning yourself (and your rhetoric) with the damage inflicted supports the second. Concerning ourselves with the costs of war supports the first.

Our entire disagreement here is about the morality of supporting either approach. — Isaac

Is it? I personally see no objection to Ukraine signing any peace treaty they want, at any point. I've said so already so I am a bit surprised by your apparent confusion.

I personally see no objection to Ukraine signing any peace treaty they want, at any point. I've said so already so I am a bit surprised by your apparent confusion. — Olivier5

Who said anything about anyone objecting to the signing of a peace treaty? I'm talking about what you support, not what you fail to object to.

I did. I said that I support the right of the Ukrainian leadership to decide their own peace terms when and how they see fit.

I said that I support the right of the Ukrainian leadership to decide their own peace terms when and how they see fit. — Olivier5

Yep, as I said, I'm talking about what you support, not what you fail to object to. Supporting someone's right to do something is the same as just not objecting to it.

I support your right to vote, I have not the slightest care whether you actually do so.

A campaigner for minimum wage supports fair pay, a campaigner for laissez faire supports the right of employers to pay minimum wage if they see fit.

I support your right to vote — Isaac

Thank you so much. Do you additionally support the right of Ukrainians to vote? If yes, you will agree with me and many others that the freely elected and hence legitimate government of Ukraine has the right and the duty to defend the lives and well being of the country's population, and to decide which peace they want, based not only on a consideration of immediate outcomes, tomorrow or next month, but also on whether or not a peace deal could be trusted to work in the long term.

Do take the long term into consideration. From a long term perspective, the idea of "teaching R a lesson" is NOT to harm them for the sake of it. It's about deterrence. The idea is to lower the chances of a future war of aggression from Russia, and therefore intended to reduce future damage inflicted by future wars to the Ukrainian people.

This, the Ukrainian leadership understands very well. And I think it's a legitimate war goal.