Why? At law, the legal owner owns the land. If there is no law, then I'm not sure ownership is a meaningful concept; rather it falls under the control of the person who wants it and has the big enough gun to take it and keep it.

The lawful against the lawless is usually non-symmetrical for a while in favour of the lawless. But the verdict of history seems to be that the lawful prevail. And I conjecture that occurs because on the lawless side are internal stresses that sooner or later destroy that side.

There seems to be some confusion about trivialities.
Sometimes crayons can help with geography, attached. :)

If there is no law, then I'm not sure ownership is a meaningful concept; — tim wood

Right - but there's an entire page of posts over just this point. I'm trying to suggest (in my own inadequate way) that the discussion is pointless unless there is some sort of agreement over the ground rules. Otherwise everyone is just talking past one another.

He is selfish because we all have to waste our resources and time on an impossible project. — javi2541997

You realize this sentence is (most charitably) incoherent, yes? If English is your second language, then well done you! But you still have to make sense. I will assume you're smart enough to see the incoherence, but if not, I'll go through it.

Many people - including you - claims that they could be more developed if they were not part of the Russian presence. Well, this is a lie. — javi2541997

Not including me. But I will claim that the Russians themselves would be more developed and prosperous, and happy and better in every way, were it not for the Russian presence. Consider WW2 and the Korean war and its aftermath, and who now is prosperous and who is not. Even Viet Nam is prosperous. But Russia is not. Why is that?

is Ukraine independent of Russia, yes or no, what say you? Yes? Or no?
— tim wood
I do not know. What does the White House say? — javi2541997

Well then, fuck you! You know perfectly well it is, and you do not have the honesty or integrity or decency or civility to say what you know.

We are under no obligation to respect that which is not entitled to respect. And as the thing in question be disrespectable, we may be under even other obligations.
— tim wood

Oh really? According to you, we should not respect the Russian constitution because its damn 65th article says that the Russian Federation extends to Sevastopol. Yet, at the same time, our governments promote businesses in countries whose constitutions allow them to hit women, such as Morocco or Qatar. Aren't you tired of this Western hypocrisy? — javi2541997

Oh yes indeed, how I yearn for Russian-style plain murderousness. Hey, look, along those lines I have a constitution. I just wrote it, certified it by vote, notarized it and made it official. In it my article 65 says I can take your house, and fuck your wife whenever I want whether you or she likes it or not. And, I am an American, so I have lots and lots of guns. And I suppose that in virtue of my constitution as a constitution, you respect it. And now let's suppose that I've done it! And you true to your form, defend both my actions and me, because clearly your house is mine, and your wife is a provocation and a whore, and why should she be so selfish as to want to uselessly defend herself. Oh, the arrogance!

Now as outrageous and probably enraging as that is, it corresponds closely to the Russian actions and arguments, except the Russian arguments and actions are more and truly obscene, and more and more truly criminal. And your apologetics for them become almost immediately an apologetics for my outrageousness.

And the real question is, who are you, that you offer up such nonsense? Either very confused, or a sorry excuse for a man, or just a troll. I infer you're smart enough to be just a troll. But that, in the final analysis, is not very smart at all.

Well then, fuck you! — tim wood

:up:

And the real question is, who are you, that you offer up such nonsense? Either very confused, or a sorry excuse for a man, or just a troll. I infer you're smart enough to be just a troll. But that, in the final analysis, is not very smart at all. — tim wood

My name is Javier Miranda Jiménez. I am a 26-year-old Spanish citizen in Madrid. My aim is to defend free of speech and European borders and identity. I am 'pro': Habsburg Kingdom; Russian Tsars; Prussia; Otto von Bismarck; Dutch monarchy; Swedish monarchy; Danish monarchy; Norwegian monarchy; Austro-Hungarian Empire; Greek monarchy the Kingdom of Romania and the Kingdom of Bulgaria.
I do not recognise: 'Catalunya', 'Ukranian Crimea', 'Kosovo', 'Moldova', 'Macedonia' and the rest of artificial entities which were born recently.

If that's to be a 'troll' for you, OK. What can I do? I will not change my inner values and ideas.

I will leave this thread for a while, it is becoming boring to me. See you sooner or later, with the international recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea, mate! :smile:

The main problem I see in debating with people advocating pro-Russian views in this thread is that they seem to over-confidently rely on keywords like:
- “provocation” (as in “The West provoked Russia”)
- “culpability” (as in “Washington's culpability”),
- “belong” (as in “Crimea belongs to Russia”),
- “security” (as “the West ignored Russian security concerns”)
- “promises” (as in “the broken promises from the West to Russia”)
- “pushing” (as in “The US pushed the Ukrainians into this war”)
- “respect” (as in “We should respect Russian constitution”)
- "life" (as in the "No sense of the human life cost of this war")
all of which I find pretty mystiphicatory given how they are used.
Indeed their sense is practically never clarified in their meaning and implications, nor grounded on explicit assumptions about relations between states. Instead these keywords are taken as perfectly commonsensical and somehow universal, especially they can apply to issues concerning states or administrations as easy-peasy as a kindergarten teacher can apply them to two kids bickering over a toy. So much so, that even questioning them is taken to be hypocritical or unfair or propaganda-addicted or over-"intellectualising" or “childish” (since they are kindergarten teachers).
Yet these keywords can very much come loaded with all sorts of non-shared moral/ideological assumptions (and conceptual confusions too) which I find legitimate to question, especially in a PHILOSOPHY forum, because if philosophy is not ALSO about questioning anybody’s given-for-granted assumptions, I don’t know what is.

Putin:
“This is not a territorial conflict or even the establishment of a regional geopolitical balance. The question is much broader and more fundamental: we are talking about the principles on which the new world order will be based.
Lasting peace will be established only when everyone begins to feel safe, understand that their opinion is respected and that there is a balance in the world, when no one is able to force or force others to live and behave as the hegemon wishes, even if this contradicts sovereignty, genuine interests, traditions, and the foundations of peoples and states. In such a scheme, the very concept of any kind of sovereignty is simply denied and thrown, excuse me, into the trash.”
https://kremlin-ru.translate.goog/events/president/news/72444?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true

That's the most overlooked by the pro-Putin "cheerleaders" and Russian "propaganda-hopium" addicted and yet repeatedly emphasized Putin's goal: a new world order, which is a direct challenge against the West and mostly against the US. It's not about the past, but about the future. A future without the American hegemon. A future were everybody is gonna be happy, no more wars, no more exploitation, no more greedy elites, just nations and traditions coexisting peacefully or hand-in-hand. Putin as the new Messiah of the post-communist and post-fascist orphans.

Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club · Oct 5, 2023

Notice the old alternate world type stuff again?

We have to respond to the constantly growing military-political pressure. I have said more than once that we did not start the so-called “war in Ukraine.” On the contrary, we are trying to finish it. It was not we who organized the coup d’etat in Kyiv in 2014 – a coup d’etat, bloody, unconstitutional. Wherever it happens, we always immediately hear all the world media [mass media], subordinate, first of all, of course, to the Anglo-Saxon world: this is impossible, it is impossible, it is anti-democratic. But here you can. They even named the money, the amount of money that was spent on this coup. Everything is possible.
[...]
The war started by the Kyiv regime with the active, direct support of the West is now in its tenth year, and a special military operation is aimed at stopping it. And it reminds us that unilateral steps, no matter who takes them, will inevitably be met with retaliatory actions. Action, as we know, gives rise to reaction. This is what any responsible state, a sovereign, independent and self-respecting country does.
[...]
Look, you started with Ukraine and asked me whether it is fair that we publicly declare that we are striving for the denazification of the Ukrainian political system. But now we were just discussing the situation that developed in the Canadian parliament, when the President of Ukraine stood and applauded the Nazi who killed Jews, Russians and Poles. — Putin

Which makes this stuff ironic:

Unfortunately, we have to admit that our counterparties in the West have lost their sense of reality and have crossed all possible boundaries. In vain. — Putin

Shift the blame, claim they're doing what you're doing. It's like when Lavrov says "The West" is genocide'ing the Ukrainians, yet it's his military bombing the Ukrainians (ongoingly). Old. The Kremlin ordered the invasion of Ukraine and before that we already know that Russian (military) actors were running some things behind the scenes in Donbas. It's an MO seen elsewhere. There have been quality elections in Ukraine since 2014, and they might have been hard to digest for the Kremlin.

Listen, everyone here is informed, literate people. It’s a good idea, excuse the bad manners, to fool the minds of millions of people who perceive reality from the media. — Putin

Incidentally, a mantra of echo-chamber-maids, yet there are lots of people who check what comes out of freedom-deprived societies, Valdai, and whatever else.

Reports like this have been trickling in for a long time by now from various sources:

Ombudsman: Russia to open military camp for youth in occupied Crimea
^{— Nate Ostiller · The Kyiv Independent via Yahoo · Oct 4, 2023}

Not particularly peace-bound (except for the kind that comes after strife/killing). Gross. Some say it violates international humanitarian law. Would parents want the trajectory for upcoming generations these systematic efforts set out?

'They're just meat': Russia deploys punishment battalions in echo of Stalin
^{— Polina Nikolskaya, Maria Tsvetkova, Christian Lowe, Pravin Char · Reuters · Oct 3, 2023}

Storm-Z Shtrafbats? Wagner mercs are in it for the money; these folks are apparently addicts, riffraff, mentally challenged, ..., "undesirables".

They even named the money, the amount of money that was spent on this coup. Everything is possible. — Putin

Well, he is not wrong:

Victoria Nuland: Ukrainians Deserve Respect From Their Government

We've invested over 5 billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals, that will ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine. — Victoria Nuland

This was posted on December 19th, 2013. Months before the coup take place.

Did they make good on their promises to ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine? I think not, but you be the judge.

55 civilians dead in a Russian missile attack on a cafe/shop in a small village near Kharkiv:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67025706

Months before the coup take place. — Tzeentch

Terminology:

A coup d'état, or simply a coup, is an illegal and overt attempt by a military organisation or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership by force. A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from the Spanish: autogolpe), or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means. The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers

While a coup is usually a conspiracy of a small group, a revolution or rebellion is usually started more spontaneously and by larger groups of uncoordinated people. The distinction is not always clear. Sometimes, a coup is labelled as a revolution by the coup plotters to pretend to democratic legitimacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Do you have better definitions from your educational background?

Did they make good on their promises to ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine? — Tzeentch

Did Nuland specify any deadline for "a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine"? A Unix timestamp in UTC format somewhere?

These oompa loompas keep saying the quiet part out loud:



This time some cringy quotes from the Minister of Defence from my very own home country. In Dutch we say, "plaatsvervangende schaamte".

It is very much in our interest to support Ukraine, because they are fighting this war. We're not fighting it. — Kasja Ollongren

In a way of course supporting Ukraine is a very cheap way to make sure Russia with this regime is not a threat to the NATO alliance. — Kasja Ollongren

Ukraine's fight is being instrumentalized by the West. Occupying Russia in Ukraine is a great way of keeping NATO safe.

Let's ignore the fact that that very same NATO dangled the promise of safety infront of the Ukrainians and goaded them into playing hardball with the Russians.

NATO security at Ukraine's expense? It's what I and many others have been saying here for a while.

What's worse is that this "plan" is fucking stupid, excuse my French. It's probably what the Americans are whispering in the ears of our dimwitted European "leadership" to foster support for a war that's not in Europe's interest.

How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe?

But hey, folks like Kasja get to play pretend with the big boys in Washington, so all is well.

How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe?

But hey, folks like Kasja get to play pretend with the big boys in Washington, so all is well. — Tzeentch

Exactly. :up:

You explained pretty well what I defended with arguments in my latest posts, but some users just do not see or call you 'pro-Russian' if you have a more eclectic idea or opinion on this conflict.

It is obvious that the conflict will be perpetual if the Western world is obsessed with disapproving Russia in literally everything. I even posted my full opposition to all of those universities which are ready to block Russian culture, - I was called 'Pro-Putin' for just defending Dostoevsky... *sigh*
I only see a reliable ending, with good faith if both sides have mutual respect. I expect a similar effort from European states, and I even feel very ashamed of this situation, to be honest.

For me, it is clear that Washington is so interested in degrading Russia and pushing EU members against them. A terrible situation for both Europeans and Russians, but not for Americans. Yikes!

These oompa loompas keep saying the quiet part out loud: — Tzeentch

And she is not the only one: 'We are defending you,' says Zelensky on EU visit
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/european-union/article/2023/02/09/zelensky-addresses-eu-parliament-seeking-weapons-in-brussels-visit_6015008_156.html

What's the problem EXACTLY?

Ukraine's fight is being instrumentalized by the West. Occupying Russia in Ukraine is a great way of keeping NATO safe. — Tzeentch

What do you mean by "instrumentalized" EXACTLY?

NATO security at Ukraine's expense? It's what I and many others have been saying here for a while. — Tzeentch

Why do you keep repeating it for a while? What do you mean by "NATO security at Ukraine's expense"? What is the problem EXACTLY?

What's worse is that this "plan" is fucking stupid, excuse my French. It's probably what the Americans are whispering in the ears of our dimwitted European "leadership" to foster support for a war that's not in Europe's interest. — Tzeentch

Maybe it looks so stupid because there was no plan at all. Indeed when was the time to increase the military spending in Europe and to take a harsher position toward Putin, what did the Europeans do? Keep doing business with Putin financed his war machine too.
And If West and East Ukrainians are divided wrt to Russia. The same goes with West and East Europe.
If Europe outsourced to the US its security to avoid getting their hands dirty and just make business now they are paying the consequences.

How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe? — Tzeentch

Totally agree. Since the US might not handle it anymore given the pressure from within and from China, keeping Russia busy in an Ukrainian war will buy the Europeans time to re-balance and redistribute the burden of Western security? And maybe the re-balancing won't be homogeneous in Western vs Eastern Europe. And even if the US loses the grip on Western Europe, it's still on the Europeans to decide what to do next and to what extent coordinate their effort. Still it seems Russia can count on a wide popular and political support in the West. Yours included, since you do not see Russia as a threat to the West right?

The protests were sparked by President Viktor Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. Ukraine's parliament had overwhelmingly approved of finalizing the Agreement with the EU, but Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it. The scope of the protests widened, with calls for the resignation of Yanukovych and the Azarov government. Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations, and the influence of oligarchs. Transparency International named Yanukovych as the top example of corruption in the world. The violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November caused further anger. Euromaidan led to the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. — Euromaidan

By the way, that's not the "US–Ukraine Association Agreement", but the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement.

A "coup"? :chin: If so, then it's the right kind for good reasons, unlike various forceful army takeovers just by would-be dictators with guns, or this, or Jan 6 for that matter. They're now actively seeking to fulfill requirements for EU membership despite being in the middle of a war.

Indeed, notice that "the amount of money that was spent" wasn't a secret or anything, good point. The Ukrainians (and the UN) said "No" to the Kremlin (repeatedly), which invaded + grabbed land, accused Ukraine of being ruled by a Nazi regime, what-have-you. The Kremlin sort of moves toward a Cold War II, except now having learned from 1991.

There have been quality elections in Ukraine since 2014, and they might have been hard to digest for the Kremlin. — Oct 5, 2023

But there's nothing new in the above. Repeatedly calling 2014 just a US thing, ignoring the Ukrainians — like the Putinistas — is repeated misrepresentation.

And what do you make of the fact that Washington was deeply aware of the Kremlin's red lines, crossed them anyway and is now having Ukraine pay the bill?

Ah, like Iraq forced the US to invade it by violating US red lines? Or like the Poles forced Hitler to invade by violating his red lines?

I didn't talk about 'forcing'. The US was aware of and crossed the Kremlin's red lines despite over a decade of warnings, and now Ukraine is paying the bill while Western political figures are gushing about how this war is a cheap way of keeping Russia occupied.

What do you think about that?

On an added note, the Russians seem to be getting rather boisterous as of late.

I take that as a clear sign they believe the West is out of aces and they are winning the war. Any takers?

I didn't really see much response to the inquiries posed, , . Reads like responding to something else. :/

As to the former, now suppose that Ukraine had entered a defense agreement with, say, France, the UK, Luxembourg, Australia, South Korea, Japan, whoever, so that Ukraine had a multinational force (+ gear) present, and those countries had Ukrainian forces present. What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? (Say, anything significantly different from what we're seeing today?)

As to the latter ...

A "coup"? :chin: — Oct 6, 2023

Repeatedly calling 2014 just a US thing, ignoring the Ukrainians — like the Putinistas — is repeated misrepresentation. — Oct 6, 2023

What inquiries? I'll happily answer your questions, but you have a rather unclear way of asking them.

I take that as a clear sign they believe the West is out of aces and they are winning the war. — Tzeentch

What does "winning the war" mean exactly?

, it's not difficult to understand. (+ cross-links included, not hard to find)

What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? (two cases now) ← fairly specific
What's up with the repeated misrepresentation anyways?

Not particularly difficult to understand, but could be difficult to respond to, depending... No matter, if you can't or don't want to. :up:

What does "winning the war" mean exactly? — neomac

We did not start the so-called war in Ukraine. On the contrary - we are trying to finish it. The West always needs an enemy. We are doing the same, building the Eurasian Economic Union. Meanwhile, we are thinking about bringing it all together. And what if other BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization countries join the process? Listen, this is what joint work is all about. Of course, this is a difficult challenge that requires time but the understanding that it will benefit everyone will move the process further along. Our readiness for constructive interaction was misunderstood by some as submission, as an agreement that the new order will be built by those who proclaimed themselves the winners of the Cold War. All these years we have repeatedly warned that this approach not only leads to a dead end but is fraught with the growing threat of military conflict. But no one was going to listen to us, no one wanted to hear us. The arrogance of our so-called partners in the West was simply off the charts.
Lasting peace will be established only when everyone feels safe, understands that their opinion is respected and that there is balance in the world, when no one is able to force others to live and behave as the hegemon wishes. I have to say, unfortunately, that our counterparts in the West have lost their sense of reality and have crossed all possible boundaries. On the contrary, we’re trying to end it. — Putin

I couldn't have said it better. That's what is close to winning the war we ever could get.

Enough with the sass. If you want a straightforward answer, just ask a straightforward question. Unclear, loaded or passive aggressive questions I don't care to respond to.

Anyway, you've been mostly polite thus far:

What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? — jorndoe

If Ukraine's neutral status were threatened in some other way, we might expect the very same behavior from the Kremlin, especially if no meaningful dialogue takes place.

What's up with the repeated misrepresentation anyways? — jorndoe

I never said the Maidan coup was "just a US thing", so I'm not sure what misrepresentation you're talking about.

What does winning the war mean exactly? — neomac

Obviously I cannot look into the minds of the Kremlin, but if I had to make an educated guess:

- Either force a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem that involves a neutral Ukraine.

- In the absence of a diplomatic solution, Russia would annex those parts of Ukraine that it deems vitally important (unclear if this includes more than what it already holds), and turn the rest of Ukraine into a ruin.

Obviously I cannot look into the minds of the Kremlin, but if I had to make an educated guess:

- Either force a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem that involves a neutral Ukraine.

- In the absence of a diplomatic solution, Russia would annex those parts of Ukraine that it deems vitally important (unclear if this includes more than what it already holds), and turn the rest of Ukraine into a ruin. — Tzeentch

I don't need any educated(?!) guess, just an educated factual acknowledgment of the fact that Putin has committed himself to two notions of "victories":
1. denazification, demiitarization, neutralization of Ukraine
2. establish a new world order

Annexation of land bridge and wrecked Ukraine was never defined as a victory. Surely it's what Russia might take as a compensation to justify the war in case the first goal fails and prevent an Ukrainian military comeback. But it can't be a victory if there is no international acknowledgement and no peace treaty. It will become just a frozen conflict.
Besides calling the second scenario a victory, would mean for us that the famous security concerns Russia was talking about by NATO enlargement were just a territorial demand over Crimea and a land bridge to protect Russian minorities, but this means that security concerns weren't about Russia proper (historical fear of invasion, the missiles against Moscow, etc). But if they were, then why isn't the threat still there given that Ukrainians hate even more the Russians now than before the war and might want to take revenge as soon as they can? So, no the threat for Russia would still be there and therefore no victory because Russia can't call itself safe. Actually it's way less safe now that it was before the war, as the attacks in Russia proper prove.
You calling it a "victory" for the Russians, tells more about you than about the Russians.

I couldn't have said it better. That's what is close to winning the war we ever could get. — javi2541997

Yes this is what I take to be Putin's most ambitious and long term goal. It's a long run though.

You calling it a "victory" for the Russians, tells more about you than about the Russians. — neomac

Damn. I extend an olive branch and gave a serious response to your question, and you give me this? How sad.

Damn. I extend an olive branch and gave a serious response to your question, and you give me this? How sad. — Tzeentch

C'mon dude don't be so sensitive.

For some reason firefox doesn't let me see the links to twitter I made in this forum :chin: