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 — Olivier5

Yeah, and we're back into your obvious nonsense that we've been through before. Entertaining though your mental gymnastics are, there's little to be gained from seeing you do the same trick twice. I want something new at least.

Of course we've been through this before. You already got your little games debunked and your truculent questions answered. Your waste of bandwidth is noted.

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. — neomac

It doesn't say anywhere that people aren't allowed to make anti-NATO arguments!

As for your "disputing wrt Crimean Tatar issue" you could have saved yourself that long and incoherent rant because it looks like you don't have a clue what you're disputing! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You claimed that "Crimean Tatars became the majority" and then backpedaled by saying "I never said that the Tatars were the majority"!

So, were they the majority or not???

And, obviously, in order to even discuss Crimean Tatars and your spurious claim that "Crimea is owned by Tatars therefore it belongs to Ukraine (or America?)", we need to establish what a Crimean Tatar is.

My definition of Tatar is identical to the accepted definition in the literature, i.e., a member of several Turkic ethnic groups speaking Turkic languages and living mainly in Russia, including Crimea.

Turkic people are defined as "descended from agricultural communities in Northeastern China and wider Northeast Asia, who moved westwards into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC" (Wikipedia). This is scholarly opinion corroborated by genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence, not a "myth".

This is why they are referred to as "Mongoloid", because they are related to Mongols and some even look like Mongols. "Mongoloid" is the term used by scholars:

Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978).

Erdogan calls them "Crimean Turks". How is that better than "Crimean Mongols"???

Obviously, there must be some Crimean Mongols as Crimea was invaded and occupied by the Mongols. But I didn't say ALL Crimean Tatars are Mongols. On the contrary, my point was that the genetic evidence suggests that many of them are NOT Mongols, NOT Turkic, and therefore NOT Tatars, depending on their genetic makeup. That's precisely what people make DNA tests for, to establish their ethnic and geographical roots.

In contrast, your "definition" is more than useless as it is totally meaningless and incapable of identifying a Crimean Tatar, or anything else for that matter!!! :rofl:

If you want to know what a real Crimean Tatar looks (and sounds) like, try this:

(Scroll down to "A speaker of Crimean Tatar, recorded in Romania".)

Crimean Tatar language – Wikipedia

Or the same clip on Youtube:

WIKITONGUES: Neceadin speaking Crimean Tatar - Youtube

The Britannica article that you pretend not to find says very clearly:

Some Islamic states, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, and the Sokoto caliphate, must be termed slave societies because slaves there were very important numerically as well as a focus of the polities’ energies.

More long-term was the slavery practiced in the Crimean Khanate between roughly 1475 and its liquidation by the Russian empress Catherine the Great in 1783. The Crimean Tatar society was based on raiding the neighbouring Slavic and Caucasian sedentary societies and selling the captives into the slave markets of Eurasia.

Approximately 75 percent of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freedmen, and much of the free population was highly predatory, engaged either in the gathering of slaves or in the selling of them. It is known that for every slave the Crimeans sold in the market, they killed outright several other people during their raids, and a couple more died on the way to the slave market.

Slavery - Britannica

What makes you think that I must prefer your NATO propaganda to mainstream sources???

And NO, your Tatar witness does NOT support your claim that Tatars are "indigenous to Crimea". Her DNA is as follows:

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

In case you forgot, Crimea is in Eastern Europe. There is no Eastern European DNA in your "evidence"!

Incidentally, note how she conveniently leaves out the Taurian people who were the original, indigenous inhabitants of Crimea!

Also note how she conveniently leaves out the Crimean Greeks who have lived in Crimea from the 7th century BC, i.e., many centuries before the Tatars.

And note that she mentions four Turkic groups among her ancestors, which amounts to an admission to being at least in part of Turkic, i.e., Mongoloid-Siberian descent.

But when she lists her DNA makeup, it turns out that she is only 28% Turkic and 42% European, the rest being “Middle Eastern” which could be anything!

And still nothing to specifically link her to Crimea as one might expect in someone that is supposedly "indigenous" to Crimea. So, you've got nothing, really.

That's why I prefer to go by proper scientific publications than your cut-and-paste stuff randomly collected from activist sources .... :smile:

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

I think more "downright facile" is to claim that stating that Ukrainians are "bankrolled, armed, trained, encouraged, and supported by the world's largest military organization" is "facile".

In the real world, resilience is very short-lived without cash, weapons, ammo, etc.

In any case, it should be obvious that the longer the war drags on with US assistance, the more people will die on both sides. In other words, Europeans killing Europeans for America ….

In any case, it should be obvious that the longer the war drags on with US assistance, the more people will die on both sides. — Apollodorus

That's what wars do, indeed. What else is new?

That's what wars do, indeed. What else is new? — Olivier5

No one's commenting about the novelty of it. We're commenting about the ethics of it.

You are commenting on the ethics of war, now? Let me guess: you think war is bad.

What else is new?

You are commenting on the ethics of war, now? — Olivier5

Not just 'war'. This war. Yes, it's always been about the ethics, not just 'now'. As I've said a dozen times none of us are qualified to offer an opinion on the technicalities so it's pointless to act as if we could. What we can discuss is the ethics, the politics... That, we are perfectly as qualified as any other to discuss.

The point being made right now is that supporting the continuation of war is unethical. War is something which should be avoided at the first opportunity, not encouraged until the last.

Your rhetoric of 'teaching lessons', minimising the risks of arms support, heroising those who fight, demonising those who advocate diplomacy... is unethical because it supports war beyond the first opportunity at which it could be avoided.

Your repeated attempts to pretend you're nothing but a dispassionate observer, reporting the facts and leaving all decisions up to the Ukrainians are transparent as attempts to simply dodge the ethical question.

What's unethical is to spread lies. So stop it.

Where have I disparaged diplomatic efforts, ever?

Where have I disparaged diplomatic efforts, ever? — Olivier5

Who said anything about disparaging diplomatic efforts? There's a quote function here for a reason. Quote the section of my post you consider to be a lie. I know how much you love the old "liar" dodge, but some minimal effort to actually find a lie is not too much to ask surely?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/23/henry-kissinger-warns-against-defeat-russia-western-unity-sanctions/

How psychopathic do you have to be to be more Hawkish than Henry fucking Kissinger?

Your singling out of Russian foreign policy as being "all about control and influence" was simply wrong. It's no more so than most other powerful countries. The difference between NATO and the Warsaw Pact has nothing to do with it. — Isaac

From the political history of my country, I can really see that this isn't the case. Russia is a genuinely different actor than let's say the UK, France, the US or even China.

The difference between NATO and the Warsaw Pact has everything to do with it. It shows in the most clearest way the differences.

You're still talking about methods when the comment was about objectives. Russia clearly has no greater an objective of "control and influence" than America. Gods! If America weren't aiming for "control and influence" then the almost global level of "control and influence" they have acquired (apparently by chance!) must have come as a tremendous shock to them.

American culture, industry, military and politics is present in one form or another in every country in the world. Dominant in most. Russian culture, industry, military and politics holds sway in a very narrow band of contested countries at its borders.

Unless you're suggesting that situation came about entirely by luck, then its absolutely unarguable that America has sought "control and influence" to no lesser, if not a greater, extent than Russia.

Even somewhere like Finland. Take a serious look at your financial institutions, your corporate governance, your media... and tell me exactly how that's more controlled by Russia than by the US. I'll eat my hat if Black Rock and Vanguard don't own at least half the companies in Finland.

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. — Isaac

But this doesn't make sense. Russia is attacking in Ukraine, in the Donbas, right now.

What on Earth is for Ukraine to "stop fighting at the smallest opportunity" when the other side is attacking you? At least you should have some stalemate where Russian's can see they aren't making progress with continuing the attack.

The only way for Ukraine to get a peace agreement with Russia is when Russia cannot gain it's objectives through military force and it is worse for Russia to continue the war than to have a peace agreement. And likely Ukraine has to at least accept that it has lost Crimea, which will be a huge letdown for the Ukrainian people who likely won't know the real situation on the battlefield.

Making this about all about Ukraine is simply logically wrong. Both sides have to make the conclusion that a ceasefire is better than continuing the war. Hence you have to look at this from both sides, not just Ukraine.

What on Earth is for Ukraine to "stop fighting at the smallest opportunity" when the other side is attacking you? — ssu

Concede the independence of Dombas and Crimea, and the independence from NATO. Then deal with their independent governance via diplomatic means. It's not complicated.

The only way for Ukraine to get a peace agreement with Russia is when Russia cannot gain it's objectives through military force and it is worse for Russia to continue the war than to have a peace agreement. — ssu

The bizarre, near maniacal, certainty you have about Russia's 'objectives', is not shared by...well, anyone rational. The rest of us take a more circumspect approach to what it is that they might concede to in negotiations.

Ukraine has to at least accept that it has lost Crimea, which will be a huge letdown for the Ukrainian people — ssu

I think we've roundly established that invading a country just because you want it back under your control is wrong. It's wrong if Russia do it, its wrong if Ukraine do it. Crimea is now under Russian control. Invading it to get it back is warmongering. The correct course of action is sanctions and political activism to allow the people of Crimea to elect the leadership they want.

If we haven't established that using tanks to effect political change is a bad idea by now then there's little hope for the world.

At least you should have some stalemate where Russian's can see they aren't making progress with continuing the attack.

The only way for Ukraine to get a peace agreement with Russia is when Russia cannot gain it's objectives through military force and it is worse for Russia to continue the war than to have a peace agreement. — ssu

This incoherent double standard again. Is Russia losing really badly or not? Make up you mind.

When you want to advocate further arms sales, you claim Russia are useless, losing horribly. Then when is comes to joining NATO, Russia are a force to be reckoned with again. Then when assessing objectives, Russia are back to being useless, couldn't hold the ground they wanted. Then when the idea of negotiated peace is raised, Russia are back to winning again, nothing for them to gain by a peace settlement...

Who said anything about disparaging diplomatic efforts? — Isaac

You did.

demonising those who advocate diplomacy. — Isaac

That was disingenous. Nobody here has ever demonised any diplomacy advocate. You are inventing your own debate, obsessed as you are with pointing fingers at other posters.

Calm down already. What we do here is called a conversation, not a war.

You're still talking about methods when the comment was about objectives. Russia clearly has no greater an objective of "control and influence" than America. — Isaac

Wrong. Methods do matter. In fact, it's all about those methods.

The US hasn't approached every other country in the world as it has gone with socialist Cuba. It hasn't tried to poison or kill the Canadian prime minister. It hasn't sponsored a group of Canadian militants and pushed them over the border to start a guerilla campaign to overthrough the Canadian government. It hasn't put stiff sanctions towards Canadia. It hasn't thought about invading Canada. All that it has done towards Castro's Cuba. US-Cuban relations don't depict all of the relations the US has with other countries.

Hence if your way of gaining that "control and influence" is by creating a mutual defense organization where you assist the countries if they are attacked, where countries can choose if they participate and with what kind of force to your endeavors, where other members than you have a say. Many country may like that deal and join voluntarily your organization. And naturally you will have amoung your citizens a debate just why are carrying so much weight for these other countries.

Concede the independence of Dombas and Crimea, and the independence from NATO. Then deal with their independent governance via diplomatic means. It's not complicated. — Isaac

Wrong again. Crimea isn't independent. Russia sees Crimea as part of itself. Get the facts straight, Isaac!

And how do you do it now? Just admit that hey, you are open to give everything this away right now, immediately. That works wonders for morale for the Ukrainians now defending the Russian attack, I guess.

And if as the response Russia says, nah... we would like Odessa too. At least to get the Novorossiya. And then what? Wait for the next time that Russia invades after it has restocked in equipment and trained new batch of soldiers. Come to finish you let's say in 2030?

The bizarre, near maniacal, certainty you have about Russia's 'objectives', is not shared by...well, anyone rational. The rest of us take a more circumspect approach to what it is that they might concede to in negotiations. — Isaac

I think Putin has made those objectives quite clear. Not only the Donbas, but the demilitarization of Ukraine and of course the denazification. Or you disagree?

This incoherent double standard again. Is Russia losing really badly or not? Make up you mind. — Isaac

1) Russia has had losses. It has had to limit it's objectives.
2) Yet it is making some progress, even if little.
3) It is extremely unlikely that it can now military overtake the whole country.
4) What will happen in peace talks or with a peace agreement is still very much open.

What we do here is called a conversation, not a war. — Olivier5

Thinking of it, the Putinistas may be under the impression that their esteemed contributions here are part of the war, part of a battle for public opinion.

This battle did take place, but it's over now. It's been won by Ukraine and there's nothing the Putinistas can do about it, except cry and bitch.

Hence the aggressive tone of @Isaac, hard to understand but logical in his position: he's like one of these Japanese soldiers stranded alone on some Pacific island, still fighting a long lost war years after 1945.

Nobody here has ever demonised any diplomacy advocate. — Olivier5

Myself, Boethius, benkei, streetlight among others have advocated diplomacy. You've demonised all. Accusations of working for the FSB, supporting terrorism, condoning rape etc. It is an indisputable fact the you have demonised posters here who advocate diplomacy. The latest of which is referring to them as...

...the Putinistas — Olivier5

You really are stupid aren't you. In the same posts as you're trying to claim you don't demonise, you refer to anyone with a different opinion to you as supporters of a war criminal. Do you even think for a second before spewing out whatever crap it next occurs to you to write?

Wrong. Methods do matter. In fact, it's all about those methods. — ssu

Who said methods didn't matter. The question was about objectives. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

Wrong again. Crimea isn't independent. — ssu

Did I say it was? I suggested it might be a negotiating concession, not an existent state of affairs. Your reading comprehension is appalling.

Just admit that hey, you are open to give everything this away right now, immediately. That works wonders for morale for the Ukrainians now defending the Russian attack, I guess. — ssu

So? The future of Western Europe is decided by what's best for the morale of the Ukrainian army? Why?

then what? Wait for the next time that Russia invades after it has restocked in equipment and trained new batch of soldiers. Come to finish you let's say in 2030? — ssu

Yes. That's exactly it. Because fighting a devastating war because you think someone might otherwise attack you in ten year's time is monstrous.

I think Putin has made those objectives quite clear. Not only the Donbas, but the demilitarization of Ukraine and of course the denazification. Or you disagree? — ssu

No. This is a negotiation.



What remains inconsistent is the idea of a Russia both immanently about to lose and one which would have nothing to gain from a peace deal.

So? The future of Western Europe is decided by what's best for the morale of the Ukrainian army? Why? — Isaac

Zelensky has already made the proposal of going back to the pre 24th February limits, which means that Russia gets Crimea and the part of Donbas they already had.

Hence it's the Ukrainians who already have made concessions here. Have they have to give more to an imperialist aggressor here or what?

This war was started by Russia and Russia can also stop this war of aggression. Ukraine cannot stop it, or then perhaps accept terms that Putin wants. Hence it's a bit odd just to focus on Ukraine.

Myself, Boethius, benkei, streetlight among others have advocated diplomacy. You've demonised all. Accusations of working for the FSB, supporting terrorism, condoning rape etc. — Isaac

I've not criticized any of you BECAUSE you advocated diplomacy, to the extent that you have actually done so, which is unclear.

None of you have advocated a specific diplomatic approach or solution.

Vague gesticulations towards it, yes, but I haven't seen anything serious and precise. And I suspect that these gesticulations -- including your whining here -- are part of an effort to make others look bad. It's a 'demonising tool' and nothing more

IFF you start to propose specific approaches and ideas for a peace process, I'm a taker. But if all you want is to posture as the most morally woke TPFer, don't expect me to be impressed.

Not sure that Draghi's initiative is going anywhere, but at least he's trying. What do the pretend peace lovers here think of it?



Russia has not seen Italian peace plan for Ukraine
Reuters

May 24 (Reuters) - Russia has not yet seen an Italian peace plan for Ukraine, but hopes to receive it through diplomatic channels, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio gave the broad outlines of the plan last week and said that he had discussed it with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres during a visit to New York.

"We haven't seen it yet, we hope it will be delivered to us through diplomatic channels and we will familiarise ourselves with it," Peskov said.

The plan would involve international groups such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which would act as facilitators to organise localised ceasefires initially, Di Maio told a news conference in Italy last Friday. [...]

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, was dismissive of the plan and other such initiatives by the West. [...]

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Italy's broad ruling coalition is divided over the issue of whether to supply more arms to Ukraine.

Zelensky has already made the proposal of going back to the pre 24th February limits, which means that Russia gets Crimea and the part of Donbas they already had. — ssu

Good for him. I'm talking to you, not Zelensky.

it's the Ukrainians who already have made concessions here. Have they have to give more to an imperialist aggressor here or what? — ssu

As far as I'm aware Russia has not made any greater demands than that. What's needed are some independent authorities willing to help broker such a deal. If America weren't hell bent on throwing Ukrainian bodies under Russian tanks a deal might well have been made already. What's needed is the mechanism, the involvement of agencies outside of the conflict. Which is why it's so important to talk about their role in this, to put pressure on them to do the right thing here.

If Ukraine, together with a couple of third parties (say the US and China) are actively willing to make a deal but Russia refuse, then we can bleat about how they've no incentive to stop.

Right now we have the last official word from Russia being that they demand an independent Dombas, Crimea, and no NATO membership. We have Ukraine offering much the same. So what's missing? Any serious united international help to get them together.

There's nothing wrong with Marxism as a system and Russian communism was the Lenin/Stalin corruption of it. — Christoffer

How do you know that “there is nothing wrong with Marxism as a system”, when Marxism has never been implemented as a system aside from in places like Russia, China, and North Korea?

The fact is that Russia is different and it has the right to be different.

Russia’s ideology is a matter for the Russian people, not for you.

I don’t see how Western ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Imperialism, Unipolarism, Natoism, etc., are “superior” to what you call “Russian ideology”.

If NATO can bomb and invade other countries, so can Russia.

Russia would have had no reason to invade Ukraine if it hadn’t been for NATO’s expansionism.

Why are you so concerned about Russia’s “ideology”?

When did Russia last invade your country?

Has your country never invaded anyone?

Now that Britain has promised to protect you and you’re joining NATO (with Turkey’s help :wink:), why are you still afraid of Russia?

Plus, there is nothing you can do about it anyway, so what’s your point? Who are you trying to convince, Western Russophobes and NATO jihadis who already think that Russia is “evil”? :grin:

That's what wars do, indeed. What else is new? — Olivier5

What seems to be “new” (at least to some here) is that there is more than one side to every conflict. One side is that Ukrainians are defending their country. Another side is that Russians are defending what they believe to be their country. And a third side is that Europeans are killing Europeans for the sake of America and its NATO Empire.

IMO it seems unphilosophical to take a one-sided view of the conflict.

Incidentally, the way things currently stand, the most likely scenario is that Russia will be able to hang on to Crimea and the Donbas. So, it’s difficult to see what exactly Zelensky is trying to achieve. Arguably, he’s waiting for more heavy weapons from the West, but (a) that requires people who know how to operate them and (b) Russia still has a number of options available.

Zelensky says he is “ready to talk to Putin” and is “willing to leave Crimea out of the talks”.

But:

He wants Russia to withdraw “from the territory it has occupied since 24 February” as a precondition for the talks.

and

He “would not compromise over Ukraine’s territorial integrity”.

So, what exactly does he want to talk about???

He talks like someone who either doesn't know what he's talking about or is just being dishonest. He has said things before that turned out to be untrue. For example, when he said that everyone should calm down because there wasn't going to be an invasion, when he said that the Ukrainian troops ensconced in the Azovstal works will never surrender but they did surrender, etc.

My guess is that he says what he's told to say by his US and British "advisers" to whom he now owes zillions of dollars .... :smile:

Another side is that Russians are defending what they believe to be their country. — Apollodorus

If they believed so, they wouldn't bomb civilians so much.

They just believe that they are entitled to bomb anyone, including their own people.

IMO it seems unphilosophical to take a one-sided view of the conflict. — Apollodorus

In my opinion, it is unprincipled not to do so.

Once Russia withdraws, how will Ukraine be different? Will it be more democratic or more authoritarian? Will it keep a standing army?

https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2022/05/23/defeating-putin-is-the-only-route-to-peace-in-ukraine/

Applebaum is an insane person who has been preaching for - in her words - "total war" with Russia for nearly 10 years. A neocon warmongerer only slightly less dangerous than Putin because she happens not to be a head of state.