A 'proof' is hard to find. I can provide evidence though. So what position of mine do you want evidence for?

The official number of Crimean Tatars in Turkey is 150,000 with some Crimean Tatar activists estimating a figure as high as 6 million. - Crimean Tatars, Wikipedia
So, you seem to be not only ignorant but also confused. — Apollodorus

About what exactly am I ignorant and confused?! And how on earth is your report pertinent wrt what I’m questioning?! 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!

You keep regurgitating at length and needlessly all sorts of trivia in your posts, while using links that I myself already provided and took into account in my comments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean–Nogai_slave_raids_in_Eastern_Europe , https://iccrimea.org/reports/genographic-results.html) YET WITHOUT FALSIFYING ANYTHING I SAID ABOUT THE CRIMEAN TATARS!
Moreover, I cited academic papers and books dedicated specifically to the Crimean Tatars history and ethnogenesis to support my claims about the Crimean Tatars, and yet you simply ignore them and come up with your pointless speculations about them as if you could claim to know more about the Crimean Tatars than those studies I cited. Are you crazy?!

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

So what?! CRIMEAN TATARS ARE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF CRIMEA on ethnohistorical grounds and they can not be conflated with the historical Crimean Nogai Tatars! What we refer to as "Crimean Tatars" today is the result of 2500 years of demographic stratification which in part - especially a subgroup of Crimean Tatars in the north of Crimea - may be related to the historical Crimean Nogai Tatars. Moreover there are Turkic people who settled in Crimea prior to the Crimean Nogai Tatars! Finally, you keep suggesting an assimilation between Mongols and Tatars by conflating linguistic-cultural factors with genetics, and conveniently overlooking the studies I cited that question this assimilation!
So for all your misconceptions, you call the Crimean Tatars of today the “Mongols of Crimea”?! And then you call me ignorant and confused?! Are you crazy?!

2. Given that several non-Turkic ethnic groups existed in Crimea (Tauri, Scythians, Greeks, Goths, etc.) prior to the arrival of the Tatars, it cannot be claimed that the Tatars were “the majority”. On the contrary, if we consider that even ordinary Tatars had several domestic, agricultural, and sex slaves, we can see that the non-Tatar population must have been significant. Indeed, about 75% of Crimea’s population under the Khanate (or Tatar State) itself were non-Tatar slaves and freedmen, i.e., mostly Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and Caucasians from places like Georgia and Circassia. — Apollodorus

It doesn’t matter who constituted the majority in those times: the point is that, 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) and today Crimean Tatars may count among their ancestors european slaves (which thing should also justify their rightful ownership to Crimea according to your theory, right?), post-Mongolian invasions Anatolian people, pre-Mongolian invasion Turkic people, and more!

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

So what?! It’s the period where the russification of Crimea was increasing, and prior to that period Russians also massively deported Greek-speaking Crimean Greeks outside Crimea!

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

So what?! I already talked about it: the deportation of the Crimean Tatars is part of Russian imperialism and colonialism in Crimea, which you should oppose!

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

As a result of Russian imperialism and colonialism, that you should oppose!

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

The Crimean Tatars of today’s Crimea CAN NOT be collectively considered the descendants of the Crimean-Nogai Tatar rulers (but surely there may be genetic traces of those rulers in some of today's Crimean Tatars), and the Slavic people victims of the Crimean-Nogai Tatars’ raids were not only the Russian ancestors but also and probably primarily the Ukrainian ancestors, yet Ukraine acknowledges Crimean Tatars as indigenous people of Crimea (https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/ukraine-adopts-law-recognizing-crimean-tatars-as-indigenous-peoples) on political grounds too, while Russians forcefully russified, annexed Crimea and oppress the Crimean Tatars as imperialists do!

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

So, is the Tauri community the “rightful owner” of the entire Crimea or only of the part of Crimea they have colonised? In any case, the Tauri community in part was assimilated to the Crimean Tatars, in part got DEPORTED BY THE RUSSIANS into other areas of Ukraine like Donetsk (does Donetsk belong to Greece now according to your theory?!)! And again, if you want to defend the Crimean Greeks self-determination in Crimea go for it. The Russians didn’t "liberate" Crimea for the Greeks as the rightful owners of Crimea because they russified Crimea instead of bringing back the Crimea Greeks, or the Ukrainian Greeks, or the Greeks there ! And now you are ridiculously stretching your ethnic based (and possibly racist) theory of the rightful owners to include the Greek cultural heritage and so legitimise your pro-Russian narrative?!

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

“Indigenous” means that what we call today “Crimean Tatars” is a population formed as a melting pot of different ethnicity in the Crimean peninsula across more than 2 millennia. Period.
Also the Russians formed through the historical fusion of some Slavic and Finnic tribes, neither of which were indigenous to the geographic area corresponding to today’s Russia.

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

Or, even better, Mongol of Crimea?!

To say the least, "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.
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!

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

For sure, this is how the Russian trolls are motivated to see this issue right?!
Anyway, given your confusion between genetic and cultural-linguistic features (Tatar -Mongol link misconceptions) and your obscure pseudo-historical theory of justice (why is Crimea a compensation for the injustice suffered by the Russians but not by the Ukrainians from the Crimean Nogai Tatars?! Why must the Crimean Tatars of today which may be only in part related to the Crimean Nogai Tatars suffer the Russification and annexation of Crimea by the Russians for what Slavic people - including non-Russians - have suffered from the Crimean Nogai Tatars centuries ago? What territorial compensation do Iranian and Azerbaijan deserve for the historical oppression they have suffered from Russians’ ancestors?! What territorial compensation do Ukrainians deserve for the historical oppression they have suffered from the the Russian Empire, the Soviets and today’s Russians?! How can the Russians be considered as “liberators” of Crimea just because they have been civilised by the Greeks who you claim to be the rightful owners of Crimea?! How can the Indo-European pre-history possibly help you decide who belongs Crimea to, given that all Westerners can claim to be Indo-European and have inherited the Greek cultural heritage according to your theory?! BTW how can one even ground a sedentary notion of land ownership based on prehistoric nomadic hunter-gatherer people?!), your theory of the “right owners” looks not only preposterous but conveniently advertised as long as it supports your pro-Russian propaganda.

Dude, it's pointless to waste your time desperately trying to justify your claim that Crimean Tatars are the Mongols of Crimea by reiterating ad nauseam your misconceptions and misreading of Wikipedia. So suck it up and move on. But if you still feel like arguing about this, then make sure you have pertinent rebuttals to my actual objections, especially based on a more consistent or intelligible theory of the “rightful owners” to prove - at the very least - that you are not ridiculously biased toward the Russians in the case of Crimea.

A 'proof' is hard to find. I can provide evidence though. So what position of mine do you want evidence for? — Olivier5

Right. Look at the article in question. https://labourheartlands.com/jacques-baud-the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-update/#The_Military_Situation_in_the_Ukraine-An_Update

Do you see a lack of evidence? It's littered with evidence. Every single blue highlight is a piece of evidence. Not to mention the author's credentials themselves as an expert.

So evidence is not the differentiating factor here. You need to show why your evidence shows your position to be true and the opposing evidence is insufficient to do the same for their position.

Simply saying "my position has evidence" is facile. Both positions have evidence. The mere presence of evidence is irrelevant to the truth or not of either.

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

You really think that the Soviet Union would have altered it's policies toward the Eastern European countries it held under it's control? Nonsense. It just wanted to water down the organization, make it into an UN type organization where it would have a veto-vote.

Because it's a bit hard to think that a basically Stalinist Soviet Union would apply things like Article 2:

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Russia joining NATO in the 1990's was a far more possible outcome and then it could have worked, but as I've said, you would had to have larger than life politician both in the US and in Russia back then. There was a window of opportunity for this. But then Russia ought to have understood that the Russian/Soviet Empire was over and it would be somewhat larger, but comparable, Great Power as France or the UK. As the Soviet Union had just collapsed in one night or so, there wasn't this feeling that everything had changed. And Putin's goal has been to "make Russia great again" by using violence.

The fact is that the KGB should have truly been disbanded, not just broken up into successor agencies and former KGB agents should not have been given the keys to the Kremlin. Then true change could have happened in Russia. Unfortunately, it didn't happen and here we are.

And for the US and the West, they should have understood that Russia will continue to play a role in the World. Which they didn't.

OK! So she mentioned that. So I stand corrected, enough to be corrected earlier in the article that I didn't notice it. Yet the issue is that now in every age group and income group, there is a majority for NATO membership. Which was left out. (So at least I have better in Finnish literacy than you are, Aussie.) — ssu

Your illiteracy knows no bounds, not in any language.

In this media environment, it is perhaps unsurprising that support for NATO membership is high: about 60% in Sweden and 75% in Finland.

...On 23 March, 44% of young people surveyed were for NATO and 21% against. Last week, 43% of them were for NATO and 32% against: a double-digit leap. Support for membership rises with each age bracket, with the elderly most staunchly in favour. — The Article

Russia joining NATO in the 1990's was a far more possible outcome and then it could have worked — ssu

Yeah but The Russia–NATO Council was established in 2002 for handling security issues and joint projects.

The idea of Russia becoming a NATO member has at different times been floated by both Western and Russian leaders, as well as some experts. No serious discussions were ever held.[155]

The thing is that, In 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent a letter to NATO, suggesting that Russia's long-term aim was to join NATO.[159]

What we mustn't forget is that According to Rasmussen, in the early days of Putin's presidency around 2000–2001, Putin made many statements that suggested he was favorable to the idea of Russia joining NATO.[158]

And... In early 2010, the suggestion was repeated in an open letter co-written by German defense experts. They posited that Russia was needed in the wake of an emerging multi-polar world in order for NATO to counterbalance emerging Asian powers.[160]

On Nov. 4, 2021 George Robertson, a former UK Labour defence secretary who led NATO between 1999 and 2003, told The Guardian that Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’.

So, in conclusion Russian gas exports came to be viewed as a weapon against NATO countries,[183] and the US and other Western countries have worked to lessen the dependency of Europe on Russia and its resources.[184]

Yeah but The Russia–NATO Council was established in 2002 for handling security issues and joint projects. — Isaac

Yes, the 1990's and basically early 2000's were the time that something really radical could have been done in Russia-US relations. As I've said earlier in this thread, people thought this could be a real possibility. A German military attache to Finland said to me with a straight face that Russia could possibly join NATO. That was then.

But perhaps think about this way. Assume that both US and Putin's Russia would have found each other and faced the War on Terror together as allies. The real question would be then, would Russia have become more like a Western democracy or would the US become like Russia. Putin had his corrupt ties already from St Petersburg and came like a "Mr Fixit" for Yeltsin and Yeltsin didn't face any charges for his corruption. He started the ruthless and violent war against the Chechens with similar results as we see from Ukraine now. For the neocons like Rumsfeld and Cheney, Russia could be the perfect ally: capable of operating in other continents, wouldn't flinch about casualties, and would have no problems of fighting dirty. Russia isn't an ordinary European state. But Russia chose China and basically chose with Putin to be a great Power on it's own with the objective to regain what it had lost.

A veteran Russian diplomat has resigned over what he called the "disaster" of his nation's invasion of Ukraine.
Boris Bondarev, 41, said he had "never been so ashamed of my country" and the "aggressive war" waged by President Vladimir Putin's forces. [...]
"Today, the ministry of foreign affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred."
https://news.sky.com/story/russian-diplomat-boris-bondarev-resigns-over-ukraine-war-saying-he-has-never-been-so-ashamed-of-my-country-12619768

You do realise I've just been randomly cutting and pasting sections from the relevant Wikipedia articles? I'm not even paying any attention to what's in them.

The first lot are from
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact
And the second from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations


It was supposed to be a joke I wasn't expecting it to actually work. Did the citation numbers left in the text not look a little suspicious?

What does it say about that style of discussion that one side can be entirely replaced by completely random sections of Wikipedia?

A in/famous Slovenian philosopher weighs in –
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/23/we-must-stop-letting-russia-define-the-terms-of-the-ukraine-crisis

You do realise I've just been randomly cutting and pasting sections from the relevant Wikipedia articles? — Isaac

I have. The numbers [15] tell it instantly. Although the topic doesn't make it random.

I've just assumed that you don't have anything else to say.

And likely you have no attention what I reply. But perhaps someone else does read them.

Because thinking that NATO and Warsaw Pact were the same and had similar objectives in nonsense.

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.

First there's Putin's response at the CSTO meeting tells it all:

As for the expansion [of NATO], including through new members of the alliance — Finland, Sweden — Russia wants to inform you that it has no problems with these states,” Putin said on Monday, speaking at a gathering in Moscow of leaders from the member countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Russia-backed military alliance. “Therefore, in this sense, expansion on account of these countries does not pose a direct threat to Russia.”

"The expansion of military infrastructure on this territory will undoubtedly cause us to respond,” Putin told the leaders of the five former Soviet republics, adding that NATO’s “endless expansionary policy” also “required additional attention on our part.

In a telephone conversation with the Finnish President, Putin acknowledged what had happened and just remarked that it was a mistake from Finland to join NATO. But no threats were made. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that "Finland's and Sweden's accession into Nato will most likely make not much difference".

Sweden has already stated that it doesn't want foreign bases or nuclear weapons on it's soil, and neither Finland has any appetite for them also. And actually NATO has no desire to do this (see here) The real deal is the membership part. As both countries do have satisfactory defence forces, there is no need for new bases.

And as now the US, the UK, Italy and even Poland has given security guarantees for the two countries during the time when the application forms are in (and the haggling continues with Turkey), the two EU countries can be quite calm. The only response to Finland has been the gas exports from Russia have stopped (because the Finnish side won't go into paying with rubles). But this has been anticipated for months. What also was lacking was the information (war) effort made towards Finland as done in 2014. Even the Russian ambassador stayed in Helsinki and no formal complaint was given to Finland. And when Russia doesn't have a war to be fought, it will likely improve it's armed forces facing Finland. But that will take time... and is totally acceptable: Russians can do whatever they want in their own territory.

The contrast is striking when compared to the Russian behavior towards Ukraine. The response to Finland and Sweden is (at least for now) is in my view totally normal. Which makes such a striking difference to the "denazification" and "disarmament" of Ukraine. If hypothetical NATO membership was a reason for all out war, but actual membership by other countries doesn't mean much, it simply doesn't add up.

All this just makes it more clear that Russia was more interested in subjugating and annexing more land from Ukraine than in "countering the NATO threat". This should be obvious to everyone at least now.

Bondarev's public statement is a clear sign that all isn't well in Russia. As actually is quite clear to see.

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

Precisely, as well as supporting what I've been saying all along, that the only "threat" that Nato pose to Russia is when it tries to grab nations within the geographical interest of Putin. If he and his minions want to rebuild some grand Russian empire, then they can invade and try... as long as that nation isn't a member of Nato. So the only connection there is that Nato threatens the expansion of Russia. Sweden and Finland have never really been part of this "dream". However, the strategic position of Gotland and Sweden being part of Nato is very important as it would close off how submarines can move through Öresund to get to the Atlantic ocean. So there's an interest there.

But I think the downplaying is part of some sort of internal collapse around Putin. It might be that their threats reached a point where they realized that they played the game a little too dangerously.

Sweden has already stated that it doesn't want foreign bases or nuclear weapons on it's soil, and neither Finland has any appetite for them also. And actually NATO has no desire to do this — ssu

Yes, the key interest for Nato is the Baltic sea, and Sweden and Finland defending these waters. If there were ever a situation of a third world war that didn't kick off with total nuclear annihilation, then the Baltic sea would be a place of massive sea and aerial battles.

All this just makes it more clear that Russia was more interested in subjugating and annexing more land from Ukraine than in "countering the NATO threat". This should be obvious to everyone at least now. — ssu

The setbacks of their attempts at Kyiv, as well as their attempts at the assassination of Zelenskyy, seem too much to be just a distraction. As well as replacing key military officials and other internal problems in Russia. I think Putin generally thought of taking control of the entire nation or at least splitting it in half, gaining Kyiv. With the losses they had in the first part of the war, this second one sees the Russian army fighting on their knees. If they had focused on a smaller distraction and put a larger focus on the eastern border from the beginning, then it would be totally different. The key right now seems to be creating a corridor down to Crimea, as well as blocking Ukraine's ability to export through the Black Sea.

Excellent piece. I liked his proposals, like this one:

Medvedev predicts that, because of the war in Ukraine, “in some states, hunger may occur due to the food crisis” – a statement of breathtaking cynicism. As of May 2022, about 25m metric tons of grain are slowly rotting in Odesa, on ships or in silos, since the port is blocked by the Russian navy. “The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has warned that millions of people are ‘marching towards starvation’ unless ports in southern Ukraine which have been closed because of the war, are reopened,” Newsweek reports. Europe now promises to help Ukraine transport the grain by railway and truck – but this is clearly not enough. A step more is needed: a clear demand to open the port for the export of grain, inclusive of sending protective military ships there. It’s not about Ukraine, it’s about the hunger of hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia. Here should the red line be drawn.

Why is this type of behavior by Russians so common? Why is the brutality systemic? We can criticize other nations for brutality and war crimes, but it generally happens as isolated cases, mostly under one asshole doing it. But in this, there are so many Russians showing total moral bankruptcy, a systematic level of the behavior. If it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, conservative values of "masculine power", national heroes, to achieve greatness, then they truly are living in the past as I've been saying. No wonder they want to expand the empire, create a new world order and create a massive Russia with a proud people under a strong man. It almost reminds me of...

Some little side benefits of expanding NATO:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2022/05/23/expanded-nato-will-shoot-billions-to-us-defense-contractors/?sh=63252d933189

Treaty obligations will a mean significant increase in defense spending. Finland has already ordered 64 new F-35 warplanes, the elite joint strike fighter developed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems (BAESY). The JSFs cost between $110 million and $135.8 million. More importantly, aligning with NATO is a commitment to interoperability with the American defense ecosystem. This directly benefits the big U.S. contractors. The market for their goods is expanding and they will face no competition for the foreseeable future.

American defense contractors are reliable technology partners. The companies are also backed-up by the largess of the U.S defense budget, a record $810 billion in 2021. There is no appetite politically to decrease military spending. And that sentiment is spreading globally, thanks to the carnage in Ukraine. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are currently the best way to play this bigger trend. At share prices of $90, $424, and $443, the stocks trade at 15.5x, 14.9x, and 16.3x forward earnings respectively.

--

But surely it must be because the pathetic Russian army which can barely face up to a bunch of weaponized tractors poses a threat to the rest of Europe.

Why is this type of behavior by Russians so common? Why is the brutality systemic? — Christoffer

Nothing to do with Russians being Russians IMO. It has to do with materialism.

If you think that humans are just meat machines, that human rights are a fiction, that might makes right, then you will find that brutality is the best way to rule those meat machines.

Nothing to do with Russians being Russians IMO. It has to do with materialism.

If you think that humans are just meat machines, that human rights are a fiction, that might makes right, then you will find that brutality is the best way to rule those meat machines. — Olivier5

Of course not because they are Russians, but the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. This is the biggest problem with Russia, the foundational destructive form of their traditional identity. 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? I have a hard time arguing for a moral philosophy that goes below that level and I can't help to position it as being an inferior moral philosophy that most of us moved away from long ago. You either put human lives and rights at the top or you put something else at the top under which human lives and rights are inferior, the latter won't judge murdering thousands to reach the peak of humanity and has been the root cause for many religions murdering thousands for a fabricated ideal held above human lives and rights. Can we then conclude this Russian perspective to be morally corrupt at its core? Just like we position capitalism as morally corrupt since it puts capitalist ideals before human well-being.

perhaps someone else does read them.

Because thinking that NATO and Warsaw Pact were the same and had similar objectives in nonsense. — ssu

And to whose thinking would that be relevant? Since the quote you responded to was...

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

Well, how is it different with America? — Apollodorus
— ssu

To which my parody of your response was entirely apt. The question was about the broad matter of control and influence. Rather than just saying "Yes, they're roughly similar there" like any normal person not trying to get a job at the White House PR office, you scattergun the thread with a load of pointlessly specific historical details unrelated to the actual question, just to try and deflect attention from the political point.

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. It's no secret that the US uses different tactics to achieve it's 'control and influence', no-one needs six pages of Wikipedia summaries to tell them that.

Of course not because they are Russians... — Christoffer

No. Of course it's not because they're Russian. It's just that...

the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. — Christoffer

...which we can all see is totally different from saying that it's because they're Russian. It's just their entire culture, mythology, political system, norms and personality types...

I mean, alternatively, we're hearing the war-fogged actions of a very small minority of Russians heavily mixed up with the actions of the know Neo-Nazi mercenaries fighting for Russia, exaggerated to maximum impact by a country desperate for weapons, knowing their survival relies on a wholly negative image of Russia...

But that would be crazy, far more likely that the entire culture of a nation has become systemically psychopathic.

exaggerated to maximum impact by a country desperate for weapons — Isaac

The number of mass graves and war crimes still being uncovered speaks against exaggeration and against it being a minority group as these sites are located spread out over Ukraine.

Between the racists, the people who cannot read, and the people who play Nazi-PR, the US-hegemony cheerleader squad had assembled quite the front. — Streetlight

You're still rambling and refuse to be specific with your remarks on what I wrote. Get off your high horse little bully.

The number of mass graves and war crimes still being uncovered speaks against exaggeration — Christoffer

Well, no. Seeing as they're being uncovered by the very parties in whose interest it is to exaggerate to maximum effect, as I said. If you're under the illusion that Ukraine (and US/European allied foreign observers, now) wouldn't have a vested interest in maximising the impact of every find then you're not only more naive than I thought, but you've clearly no real sense of the peril Ukrainians feel. Anyone in their position would demonise their enemy to the greatest extent possible. It's happened in basically every single war ever. I know you lot like to heroise, but suggesting that Ukraine remain calm and dispassionate in their interpretation of war crime evidence is utterly absurd. They will, and understandingly so, do their best to provide the worst possible interpretation.

What is far less forgivable is people sitting in their armchairs hundreds of miles away using such propaganda to make racist assumptions about an entire nation, the vast majority of whom are not even in Ukraine.

I'm speaking about the behavior of their politics influencing... — Christoffer

Re-writing really needs at least a few pages to go by...

the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. — Christoffer — Isaac

Well, no. Seeing as they're being uncovered by the very parties in whose interest it is to exaggerate to maximum effec — Isaac

Do you mean UN and ICJ investigators? Isn't it easy to just dismiss everyone involved as having some ulterior motive and interest? Or maybe you're just wrong and the findings in Ukraine by these independent investigators paint a far worse picture than you want to accept.

maybe you're just wrong and the findings in Ukraine by these independent investigators paint a far worse picture than you want to accept. — Christoffer

Yes, maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. That's the whole point I've been trying to get across in practically every comment I've made on this thread. We don't have enough information to be compelled to accept one narrative over another. The evidence is just not anywhere near overwhelming.

So the question becomes why do we choose one narrative over the other.

Yeah Christoffer isn't a racist, he is just indistinguishable from one. — Streetlight

Scarily similar to some of the early anti-Semitism in 30s Europe though, much of the writing at the time talked about the culture of Jewry rather than the actual genetic Jew. Didn't take long to mutate into pure racism.

Why is this type of behavior by [Jews] so common? Why is the brutality systemic? We can criticize other nations for brutality and war crimes, but it generally happens as isolated cases, mostly under one asshole doing it. But in this, there are so many [Jews] showing total moral bankruptcy, a systematic level of the behavior. If it's ingrained in [Jewish] traditional culture, conservative values of "masculine power", national heroes, to achieve greatness, then they truly are living in the past as I've been saying. No wonder they want to expand the empire, create a new world order and create a massive [Jewish homeland] with a proud people under a strong man. It almost reminds me of...

Can you imagine? I feel sick typing that.

Re-writing really needs at least a few pages to go by...

the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. — Christoffer
— Isaac — Isaac

Yes, as you can see, I start with "politics" and focus on the war behavior it spawns. What informs this political perspective? Maybe the hero culture, the masculinity norms and fascist power hierarchies where there has to be a hero leading the people and the people needs to follow this person as almost being godlike.

If anyone thinks this is racist, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. It's about the structure and moral philosophy informing their political behaviors that get spearheaded on the battlefield.

Yes, maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. — Isaac

You are. They are there investigating, they are uncovering this, and you call these people liers because the war crimes and atrocities being systematic by the Russian military don't fit with your opinions.

I mean, you have already pointed out that you don't do any research and that you just find things that support your opinion and won't care for anything else.

Scarily similar to some of the early anti-Semitism in 30s Europe though, much of the writing at the time talked about the culture of Jewry rather than the actual genetic Jew. Didn't take long to mutate into pure racism. — Isaac

Oh, so you mean that the Jews culture leads them to war crimes on a battlefield? That's a new one for me, I thought that they criticized Jews like that to paint them as bad when they weren't. Or maybe you're just doing a guilt by association fallacy, trying to connect dots where there aren't any in order to just paint me as a fucking nazi racist? Are you fucking serious right now? Do you have a brain meltdown not understanding what I'm talking about?

Can you imagine? I feel sick typing that. — Streetlight

Except Jews didn't do anything wrong, they didn't push politics that then pushed some military leaders to execute civilians. Do you think I'm just writing this out of context against Russians? Why the fuck do you just intentionally misinterpret everything like this?