The fact that America and its NATO Empire are an imperialist, expansionist entity that has caused this conflict.

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change.

American Imperialism - Wikipedia

Given back? When did the Ukrainians give back Crimea? — ssu

I didn't say the Ukrainians gave back Crimea, I said "it was given back". So, you can laugh at yourself!

Meantime, you can learn how to read!

If you're against borders being moved, you should be against Crimea's borders being moved in 1954 in the first place.

Plus, if Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, it can take it back in 2014. In doing so, it merely takes back what belonged to it! :rofl:

"Ought to", "possibly", "they can bet", "hell" ....

That's exactly what I'm saying, you're reducing the discussion to conjecture, speculation, exaggeration, and empty rhetoric.

Whether or not the Ukrainian leadership abandon their claim on any territory is, of course, a matter for the Ukrainian leadership. I have no influence on them and neither do you.

The fact still remains that were it not for NATO's insistence on a spurious "right" to infinite expansion regardless of consequences, this conflict wouldn't have happened. So, American imperialism does have its share of blame.

You don't apparently see it yourself, Apollodorus. — ssu

I "don't see" what exactly???

1. Crimea was taken from Russia and given to Ukraine in 1954.

2. Crimea was taken from Ukraine and given back to Russia in 2014.

3. It follows that the original borders were restored.

You should welcome that if, as you claim, you're for permanent borders. And for the same reason you should also insist on the borders of Tibet, Cyprus, etc. to be restored!

As for your statement that "Russia is Finland's neighbor, not China or Turkey", it only demonstrates that you don't really care about others unless it affects you personally. And yet you're pretending to have some God-given monopoly on the moral high ground here .... :grin:

Just like the Holocaust is 'unproven' to some. — Olivier5

So, because the Holocaust is "unproven" to some, this somehow "proves" that Russia is going to exterminate the Ukrainians??? :rofl:

As far as I'm aware, you admitted to be unable to predict or demonstrate the future:

I cannot demonstrate the future. — Olivier5

Basically, it seems that you're trying to sell us your conjectures and speculations as "fact".

My point was that I'm against world government and that many leading personalities see the UN as a form of world government:

A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government ...

World government - Wikipedia

Indeed, the UN does make policies that affect all its members, much as a government does.

It’s got a General Assembly, Security Council, World Court, World Bank, World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, etc.

And it closely cooperates with NATO, the world's largest military organization and growing!

The complexity of today’s security challenges has required a broader dialogue between NATO and the UN. This has led to reinforced cooperation and liaison arrangements between the staff of the two organisations, as well as UN specialised agencies.

Relations with the United Nations - NATO

Natoism is definitely a form of Nazism as well as being a manifestation of US imperialism.

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change – Wikipedia

American imperialism - Wikipedia

That’s why I think smaller powers like Europe, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Africa, should be supported in their struggle against US hegemony, neocolonialism, and imperialism.

And you still haven't demonstrated that Crimea should be given to Ukraine or America ....

No one is willing to bet on that, though. — Olivier5

Right. So, you're reducing the discussion to "betting", "guessing", extrapolating, speculating, and name-calling.

All you need to do now is post some pics to "prove" that your guesses are "true", and you'll be indistinguishable from @ssu .... :smile:

I never said that "no crimes were committed". And I never said "only a Russian court" can establish a war crime.

War crimes do happen, on both sides. It still doesn't amount to proof that Ukrainians are in danger of "going the way of the Uighurs".

The way I see it, the Russians haven't got the manpower to keep the whole of Ukraine permanently occupied, especially when the West keeps arming the Ukrainians. They may be able to hold areas that are Russian-speaking or ethnic-Russian. But (a) that's a different matter and (b) it's got nothing to do with "Uighurs".

1. "Murder" is a very serious crime that needs to be established by the courts, not by social media activists.

2. An act of murder committed now is NOT evidence of murders committed in the future.

3. A far more likely scenario seems to be that once the military hostilities have ceased, so will the violence against civilians.

Incidentally, here is some interesting news for you:

It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan. On the contrary, things are going very badly indeed ….

Russia is winning the economic war - and Putin is no closer to withdrawing troops – The Guardian

I cannot demonstrate the future — Olivier5

Well, as far as I'm aware you can't even demonstrate your claims relating to the present! :smile:

It is entirely possible that some Ukrainians are "angry" and "fearful", but why bring the "Uighurs" into it, when, per your own admission, you can't demonstrate that there is any prospect for the Ukrainians to "go the way of the Uighurs"?

Should Europeans do what Russians tell them? — neomac

Europeans should, of course, do what Europeans say.

However, it depends on what kind of Europeans we're talking about, and under the influence of which non-European power they operate. From what I see, America has far more influence on Europe than Russia.

So, @Streetlight does seem to have a point.

Raise any actual points and you just dismiss them all with bald assertion and vague handwaving... — Isaac

And when that fails, he resorts to name-calling and hurling abuse. Are you sure he isn't related to @ssu? I for one seem to detect a striking resemblance of ideology, attitude, and language.

Ukrainians have shown a certain resolve and interest is staying independent. I guess they don't want to go the way of the Uighurs. — Olivier5

To be fair, the Russians also have shown a certain resolve and interest in staying independent from America and its NATO Empire.

As for your "guess", (1) a guess is NOT the same as established fact and (2) you haven't demonstrated that there was any prospect of Ukrainians "going the way of the Uighurs".

You seem to be confused.

How exactly is being for a multipolar world order and against imperialism and world government "extreme right"???

I think what is extreme right is your advocacy of world government, American imperialism, and Natoism!

BTW, if you're afraid of the "extreme right", then surely it's in YOUR mind, not mine! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Only by ignorant outsiders. — Jamal

Not necessarily.

I don't know where you're from but, historically, the term "Russia" has been applied to the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union (USSR), and, currently, to the Russian Federation, in everyday language.

As far as I’m aware, people said, and continue to say, "Russia" instead of "Russian Empire", "Soviet Union", or "Russian Federation". The latter terms tend to be used in more formal political or academic contexts.

“Russia” and “Soviet Union” are certainly used interchangeably in the press:

Russia Under Stalin 1924-1953 – New York Times, March 8, 1953

Israel Fears Russia Is Preparing For War – The Times (London), Jan. 25, 1953

Ministers To Propose Talks With Russia – The Times (London), July 12, 1953

How do you describe your own politics? You're one of those crackpots who's so fucking afraid of them world-dominating leftists? — Olivier5

Well, I appreciate your sense of humor, but I don't see how being against world government and advocating a multipolar world order is "crackpot".

As for being "afraid", it sounds very much like you're afraid of some imaginary "extreme right". But that only means that you're afraid of your own politics as Natoism is definitely a form of Nazism (it even sounds similar) as well as being a manifestation of US imperialism! :grin:

American imperialism – Wikipedia

Well, it seems that not everyone is level headed. And some aren't even trying.

As for the war being over soon, that's unlikely if NATO keeps throwing more and more weapons into it ....

Many, however, felt that the UN, essentially a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, was insufficiently empowered for the task. A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government ...

World government - Wikipedia

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. — ssu

Is that why you keep calling others "trolls" and "delusional"? :rofl:

50% Russian means Russians were the largest and dominant ethnic group and Russia was the largest political and territorial entity, that's why the country was called "Russia" as a general designation.

The Soviet Union was referred to as "Russia" in every-day language including in the press.

And Russia is the continued legal personality of the Soviet Union.

Even if the Soviet Union and Russia were totally distinct and unconnected, Crimea can still be taken back from Ukraine in the same way it was given to it.

It isn't my fault that you don't understand something as simple and easy to understand as that .... :smile:

"World government" is an extreme right trope. — Olivier5

Says WHO? The extreme left?

Victor Hugo, H G Wells, Roosevelt, Bertrand Russell, and many other advocates of world government, are “extreme right”?

The UN may or may not be far from being world government. That doesn't mean it isn't on the road to becoming one.

Plus, in the meantime, America and NATO seem to be playing the role of interim world government ... :grin:

You have a problem with diplomacy? — Olivier5

Diplomacy leading to world government? Yes. I believe in a multipolar world order.

Was Nikita Khrushchev the leader of Russia or the leader of the Soviet Union — ssu

As usual, you do no more than expose your ignorance.

1. The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was approved by the Soviet government and signed by the legal head of state, Klim Voroshilov.

2. The Soviet Union was majority Russian and was usually referred to as “Russia”.

3. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia ‘a.k.a. the “Russian Federation” assumed the Soviet Union's rights and was recognized as its continued legal personality in international affairs.

4. It follows that Russia, as the continued legal personality of the Soviet Union, took back Crimea that it had earlier given to Ukraine.

But, as I said, its fun to see NATO Nazis trying to "think" .... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

When the sovereignty of a state is recognized, you recognize it's borders. — ssu

"Recognizing borders" doesn't prevent a country from de-recognizing them or from invading the country whose borders it had recognized.

You even mix up Russia and Soviet Union, — ssu

How exactly do I "mix up Russia and Soviet Union"???

If, according to you, the Soviet Union can take Crimea from Russia and give it to Ukraine, Russia can take it back. Very simple and easy to understand. Though, obviously, not for confused and clueless NATO Nazis .... :rofl:

The prohibition of aggression suffers one exception: a war or a military operation can be approved by the UN security council (another cornerstone of the present world order). — Olivier5

Sounds like what you're advocating world government there. :smile:

These principles (that a UN charter signatory should not wage war on another; and that an aggressed signatory nation has a right to defending herself) are the cornerstone of our present world order. — Olivier5

That depends on (1) how you define "aggressed signatory nation" (2) what happens when a nation has the "right" to defend itself but not the means to do so, and (3) what if that nation isn't even recognized as a nation.

Tibet was invaded and annexed by China in 1951. What has the UN done to enforce the Tibetan nation's "right to defend herself"?

Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus in 1974. What has the UN done to help its member nation?

The Kurdish nation amounts to about 40 million people, i.e., the size of Ukraine. It was promised a state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres (that you ought to have heard about). But it never got one.

Even worse, NATO allows its member Turkey to invade Kurdish territories in Syria and to suppress Kurds in Turkey itself with impunity.

Oh I have considered them and refuted them, for the most part. I or someone else here. I'm just not ready to dignify what I see as little more than "NATO caca" over and over again, during hundreds of pages, sorry. — Olivier5

I thought you might say that! Unfortunately, I don't recall anything that would qualify as "refutation". Perhaps you're talking about the pro-NATO propaganda peddled by people like @ssu .... :grin:

Incidentally, according to Ukraine’s ministry of defense, the Ukrainians killed nearly 30,000 Russian troops.

But US and UK intelligence says it’s more like 15,000.

If official Ukrainian claims are only 50% true, then the remaining 50% must be lies.

See also:

Former Navy officer reveals chaos of Ukrainian army – ITN

A former military British fighter gives Channel 4 News a first hand account of life on the frontline in Ukraine after travelling to join the fight against the Russian invasion. He says disorganisation has led to the death of several British fighters already …

Ukraine Faces Brutal Fight Against Russia in the East, Losing Men and Ground - The New York Times

Though much of the world’s focus in the war has been on Russia’s disorganized and flawed campaign, Ukraine, too, is struggling. Ukraine’s army has suffered heavy losses, shown signs of disarray and, step by step, fallen back from some long-held areas in Donbas, the eastern region that is now the war’s epicenter.
To fill gaps in the frontline, Ukraine has resorted to deploying minimally trained volunteers of the Territorial Defense Force, which mobilized quickly as the war started. Hints of morale lapses have surfaced. One unit recorded a video protesting dire conditions. In interviews, soldiers said their artillery guns sometimes go quiet for lack of ammunition ….

All this demonstrates that it isn’t just the Russians who are telling lies.

So, what exactly is it that makes Ukrainian lies “better”, “more true”, or “worthy of consideration”???

Yes. I'm aware of the agreement Bush Sr.(???) made after the fall of the Berlin wall to not expand NATO "one inch farther" to the east. Then, during the Clinton administration(I think???) that promise/agreement was broken. — creativesoul

Correct. On February 9, 1990, George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker said to Soviet leader Gorbachev that following the unification of Germany, "there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east". A few years later under Clinton NATO began to expand.

IMO, US statements of this kind often were (a) deliberately ambiguous and/or (b) not put into any legally binding agreement so that they could be reinterpreted or retracted at a later point.

But the real problem here seems to be people like @ssu and @Olivier5 who insist that to even consider Russia’s case would be “unprincipled” or that Russia recognized Ukrainian independence and borders in eternity and it isn’t allowed to change its mind, etc.

Ain't that the truth? — Olivier5

It may be the "truth" according to Biden and his European cheerleaders. Not according to most of the world, though. You keep looking at it through the lens of America and its European client-states. And you call it "philosophy" ....

Their lies and excuses are not worthy of consideration — Olivier5

How do you know something isn't worthy of consideration when you haven't considered it???

Besides, to say that “to look at the other side’s evidence is unprincipled”, goes against the very principle of justice that you claim to be defending. Moreover, it amounts to saying that expanding your knowledge is “unprincipled” and “unphilosophical”!!!

And let’s not forget that France is a pro-American country. So, hardly “unbiased”. This explains why you and @ssu hold similar views. As they say, birds of a feather flock together.

Yes, and that's comforting. — Olivier5

So, that's what it's all about, your need to be "comforted"! Perhaps, you should get yourself a girlfriend or something? I hear there’re quite a few Ukrainians available in France these days …. :wink:

I think the US has been quite decent in it's response. And what is notable that it has been a quite unified response from the West. — ssu

By "unified" you probably mean "in lockstep with America". Not in the least surprising, given that the West is dominated by America! :rofl:

You’ve already admitted to being from Finland (probably from a small village) and to being born in the 70’s. And that’s exactly what your comments are reflecting. You’re trying to impose on others the views of someone who was brought up in fear of Communist Russia and is unable to see (a) that Russia (and the world) have changed and (b) that America may have contributed to the creation of the current conflict.

Your claims that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, that borders can’t be changed, that Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence in 1991, and Ukraine’s borders in 1994, etc., have been exposed as baseless.

Crimea has never had more than a small Ukrainian minority and has never been “Ukrainian”. When Khrushchev “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, this was purely a matter of internal administration within the Soviet Union. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, Russia allowed it to keep Crimea but on the understanding that it could continue to use the military and naval bases there which Russia had used since 1783. This became impossible when Ukraine decided to join NATO. Very simple and easy to understand, IMO.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea is arguably legitimate (a) because it had been Russian from 1783 and (b) because a NATO-controlled Crimea would virtually turn the Black Sea, which Russia needs for transit to the Mediterranean, into a NATO lake. To claim that NATO, i.e., AMERICA, has more rights over Crimea than Russia is simply absurd.

As I explained to you already, Ukrainian independence wasn’t a problem at the time. It became a problem after 1994 when Ukraine decided to get closer and closer to NATO and NATO became increasingly hostile toward Russia.

Moreover, declassified minutes of a March 6, 1991 Quadripartite Meeting Of Political Directors in Bonn, Germany (between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany) show that the West did actually agree that NATO will not expand to the east.

This was confirmed by British and German diplomats:

A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.” West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog said of the 1991 agreement: “We made it clear to the Soviet Union, in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe. NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially.” Hrobog further noted that West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher had agreed with this position as well.

Has NATO reneged on a 1991 agreement with Russia - Euro Weekly News

For more details see:

Michel Disdero, Quadripartite Meeting – Academia Edu

Original doc (PREM19/3326) available at the UK National Archives:

EUROPEAN POLICY. European security and defence: part 1 - The National Archives

And, as already stated, the 1994 “Budapest Memorandum” is NOT a legally binding guarantee.

US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt said in May 2014 that "the Budapest Memorandum was not an agreement on security guarantees" and the official US position has always been that the memorandum is a “political commitment that is not legally binding" ("Belarus: Budapest Memorandum". U.S. Department of State. 12 April 2013).

Obviously, for the memorandum to qualify as a guarantee, it would need to specify measures to be taken by the signatories in the event any of them violate the agreement. That’s precisely why it is called “Memorandum on Security Assurances” and not “Memorandum on Security Guarantees”. The term “guarantee” does not occur anywhere in the memorandum.

Anyway, Russia has a right to recognize or de-recognize anything according to its own national interests.

Borders are NOT eternal. They change. If Russia changed the borders by “gifting” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, it can change them again by annexing Crimea 60 years later! :smile:

So, the way I see it, it all depends on how threatened by NATO Russia felt. If it had good reasons to feel threatened, and it thought its actions would eliminate or reduce that threat, then its actions are legitimate, period. It isn't for Finland to decide either way.

In other words, crank up the pressure on Moscow while avoiding WW3. — Olivier5

In other words, escalation that can sooner or later lead to WW3.

Biden did say "For God's sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power".

And don't forget the influence defense corporations like Lockheed Martin, that are making a fortune from selling weapons to Ukraine and other European countries, have on the US government.

So, when Russian TV says that NATO has already started WW3, it seems close enough to the reality on the ground, given that multiple powers are now involved in their proxy-war against Russia.

While it may be argued that the conflict is currently "local", it still has the potential to become worldwide. In any case, the more weapons America and NATO give Ukraine, the more Russia will feel forced to escalate. And all this could have been avoided by taking into consideration Russia's security concerns.

As for European countries, there are significant differences between them. The most belligerent seem to be countries with a long anti-Russian track record like England and Poland. A distinction must also be drawn between governments calling for all-out jihad on Russia and ordinary people for whom war is the last thing they needed ....

it is neither naïve nor immoral nor unphilosophical to support a democracy that is being attacked by a dictatorship. — Olivier5

I think that is true only after due consideration of all the facts. But you have expressly stated that considering Russia's case would be "unprincipled". And taking things at face value while ignoring the underlying causes does seem superficial and unphilosophical.

What if your "democracy" isn't a genuine democracy but a front for rule by oligarchs and kleptocrats?
Even if a democracy is genuine, it can still be used by third parties to threaten Russia, for example by taking over the Black Sea and stationing nuclear systems on Ukraine's territory.

I think Biden is doing what he can. He needs to avoid escalation. — Olivier5

He mustn't be very good at "avoiding escalation" then, as he keeps escalating! :grin:

He's just agreed to give Ukraine advanced rocket systems:

The United States is providing Ukraine with high mobility artillery rocket systems that can accurately hit targets as far away as 80 km (50 miles) after Ukraine gave "assurances" they will not use the missiles to strike inside Russia, senior administration officials said.

Biden agrees to provide Ukraine with longer range missiles - Reuters

The likelihood that Ukraine will stick to its "assurances" seems pretty slim. Plus, the rocket systems (MLRS) that Biden is giving to Ukraine can be used to fire long-range munitions supplied by other countries or bought on the black market.

Obviously, this goes far beyond the original commitment NATO made to only send “defensive systems” to Ukraine.

I think what Biden is doing is escalate by stealth. And the same applies to Boris Johnson who has also called for the West to give Ukraine long-range weapons ....

the topic isn't how bad the US is — ssu

More distraction and diversion from the NATO Troll in chief. :grin:

IMO "how bad the US is" is very much the topic, given that according to Russia it invaded Ukraine to keep NATO out which, as everyone knows, is an instrument of US imperialism.

American imperialism - Wikipedia

Plus, it is America that is bankrolling and driving the West's jihad on Russia.

Not only are you a self-identified defender of American imperialism and Natoism, but you've failed to explain why you're trying to hijack the thread if you're not a pro-NATO propagandist and activist.

And what exactly makes you think that the world must see this conflict through the eyes of Finland???

'Empire', 'domination'... Rhetorical drivel. — creativesoul

Yep. Empire and domination is "rhetorical drivel" when talking about America but "gospel truth" when talking about Russia. Well done, you can congratulate yourself on your impeccable objectivity! :lol:

Meantime, the facts on the ground show that it's NATO that is constantly expanding (from 12 countries in 1949 to currently 30!), not Russia ....

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory. — Manuel

Above all, war comes with dead civilians, flattened cities and villages, and destroyed infrastructure. America showed how it's done in Japan, Germany, and Iraq, especially Fallujah.

I agree that ideology can't always be kept out of discussions, but when it is deliberately used as a substitute for fact-based objective analysis, then it tends to suppress rather than encourage fruitful discussion.

From what I see, people like @ssu are trying to take advantage of the fact that most people, especially Americans, have no knowledge of European geography, history, or politics, in order to peddle their NATO Nazi propaganda and disinformation.

The fact is that even before the Russian Empire, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine were simply different regions within the Land of the Russians, (Rusiskae Zemle) or short, Rus. In other words, Russia and Ukraine entered history as one people and one country.

The idea of Ukraine as a separate country was introduced by foreign powers – the Mongol Horde, Lithuania, Poland, Austria, Turkey - that occupied parts of Ukraine and encouraged separatism.

After the 1917 revolution, Ukraine came under German control, while England and France had their own plans to divide Russia into zones of influence:

As admitted by Churchill, the Franco-British Agreement stated:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

This divide-and-rule policy was resumed by America in the 90’s, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The 1994 "Budapest Memorandum" mentioned by @ssu as part of his straw man argument is a prime example of this policy that was obviously intended to disarm Ukraine and incorporate it into America's expanding NATO Empire.

While it may be argued that Ukraine decided to join America's NATO Empire of its own accord, we still need to take into consideration (1) financial and economic incentives that may have acted as motivating factors, (2) Ukraine's domination by an oligarchic (i.e., criminal and hence illegitimate) class, and (3) America's own intention and motives that may have conflicted with Ukraine's best interests.

We mustn't forget that Zelensky came to power only because he promised to get rid of the oligarchs. Ukraine prior to 2019 and even prior to 2022 was as much dominated by oligarchs and kleptocrats as Russia.

So, it is incorrect to say that Ukraine's increasing closeness to the West has amounted to unmitigated "progress". In fact, it was the West that facilitated the rise of the oligarchs and kleptocrats in Russia and Ukraine in the first place, by providing financial aid and by facilitating the transfer and investment of the stolen money in Western banks, businesses, and assets.



I think the inclusion of places like Australia and Canada in that map is misleading as they are very large territories with very small populations. They make the Natoist camp look much bigger than it actually is.

Essentially, it's just America and its European (EU-NATO) client-states .... :grin:

It seems you mentally block out what it means to recognize the independence of another state. — ssu

On the contrary, it’s YOU who’s blocking out the fact that a state can de-recognize something it previously recognized if circumstances change!!! :rofl:

In December 1991 Ukraine was a friendly state and co-member with Russia of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This began to change after 1994 when Ukraine decided to get closer and closer to NATO, and America and its NATO Empire tried to bring Russia under their domination, with the result that US-Russia relations soured.

As for the “Budapest Memorandum” of 1994, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a well-known fact that that memorandum was only a formality that without a sanctions mechanism provided no real guarantees to Ukraine.

When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Ukraine waved the agreement but to no avail. Theoretically, you could argue that Russia violated the agreement by annexing Crimea, but then so did America and other signatories by refusing to take any action.

Plus, the memorandum was just an American trick to get Ukraine to get rid of its nukes that America claimed were directed at it. So, basically, you’re doing nothing except expose yourself as a clueless NATO Nazi!

Anyway, now that Turkey’s Sublime Sultan Erdogan has vowed to personally assist Finland to join NATO as fast as possible, you’ve got nothing to fear. I’m sure you’ll be in by Friday after prayers. Whether it’s gonna be this Friday, or this year, or this century, is hard to tell. But that’s another story …. :rofl:

its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. — Manuel

Well, yes. It tends to be folks that allow themselves to be guided by emotions (@Olivier5), propaganda (@ssu), or political ideology (@Christoffer), instead of reason. In any case, when they start saying that it is “unprincipled” to consider all the facts, you know that this is getting toxic .... :grin:

I for one think that it makes more sense to see (1) territorial claims, (2) Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and (3) alleged Russian “war crimes” as separate issues.

Real war crimes are established through evidence-based legal process, not through Ukrainian propaganda or allegations made by Western media outfits and NATO activists.

Besides, not being on the ground in Ukraine, we can’t know for sure what’s happening and bombing residential buildings isn’t necessarily proof of intent to harm civilians.

Obviously, Russia’s actual goal is to hit Ukraine’s military facilities and troops. But my guess is that the Russians are simply using the weapons they’ve got, i.e., old-fashioned multiple rocket launchers that fire unguided rockets. Even when they’re using guided missiles, if the military target is close to civilian areas, collateral damage can’t always be avoided.

In any case, until such “crimes” have been officially established, it is pointless to even start speculating about them.

The central issue for now remains the legitimacy of claims made by both sides in relation to territorial and security concerns.

From what I see, no one has demonstrated that placing the ethnic-Russian Donbas region, Crimea, and the Black Sea under NATO, i.e., under US control, should be of no concern to Russia!

And, as I said before, much of what’s posted on this thread isn’t philosophical statements but the politically-motivated (and/or Covid-19-affected?) outbursts of angry, middle-aged Western males trying to vent their frustration over Russia’s challenge to America’s neo-colonialist New (or not-so-new) World Order.

And you’re absolutely right about Western duplicity and hypocrisy. NATO member Turkey has repeatedly invaded Kurdish territories in Syria and has proudly announced that it will do so again:

Erdogan: Turkey's Syria operation could happen 'suddenly' - The Independent

Thousands of Kurdish civilians killed, millions displaced or deported, thousands of villages destroyed. Is America or NATO giving drones, howitzers, and missile launchers to the Kurds to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity???

Of course not. On the contrary, NATO claims that Turkey has “legitimate security concerns” in the region and seems to think that it can murder as many innocent Kurdish men, women, and children, as it pleases! Not to mention the massacres and other atrocities committed against Kurds (and others) in Turkey itself. And what do our "moralists" here have to say? "NATO doesn't get involved in the internal affairs of its members"!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP doesn’t seem to disallow “pro-Russian” or “anti-NATO” arguments. So, saying that an argument is “pro-Russian/anti-NATO” isn’t really a valid objection.

Moreover, all I’m arguing is that the conflict involves two parties and that a balanced analysis/discussion requires taking into consideration both sides.

Unfortunately, we’ve got people on here who believe that only the Ukrainian/NATO side should be considered as to do otherwise would be “unprincipled” ()!

Such people are clearly IN DENIAL as they deny the truth of Ukrainian/NATO actions that may have prompted Russia to invade Ukraine.

While in some cases (Type 1, e.g., @Olivier5) this denial may be a conscious decision on grounds of spurious and unexamined “ethical principles”, in other cases (Type 2, e.g., @ssu) it fits the definition of denial as “an unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings” and seems to be rooted in psychological issues.

In addition to denial, there also seems to be a case of mental confusion (both in Type 1 and Type 2), as such individuals seem to be unable to distinguish between (a) Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine and (b) Russia’s alleged “crimes” against Ukrainian civilians after the invasion.

The facts of the matter are as follows:

1. On June 22, 1994 Russia at NATO’s invitation signed the Partnership for Peace Framework Document (PfP) that according to Clinton was "the track to NATO membership".

So, there can be no doubt that America planned to incorporate Russia into its NATO Empire. But if the purpose of NATO was to “defend its members”, against whom did NATO think it needed to “defend” its prospective member Russia??? Clearly, there was no such need, and this exposes NATO's expansionist agenda!

The truth is that Russia was in a dire economic situation and there were hopes of Western financial and technological assistance that would have come with membership in NATO and other US-EU projects. Yeltsin was an alcoholic who didn't always know what he was doing. And Clinton who as everyone knows is a highly opportunistic character, took full advantage of the situation (as did the Russian kleptocrats, oligarchs, mafia, and their Western accomplices).

2. Russia gave up on cooperation with NATO when it correctly realized that such cooperation meant submission to US domination.

3. Even if “the desire for Russia to annex Crimea was there all along”, it doesn’t mean that this desire was not legitimate, given that Crimea had been Russian since 1783!

But it isn’t my job to educate the ignorant and the uneducated. Folks that are in denial and tend not only to ignore facts but to deny them when they’re pointed out to them, can’t be helped anyway.

If you guys think that what you’re doing is “philosophy”, do carry on, by all means. All I can say is that after nearly 8K posts, this thread is getting far too repetitive and pointless, and beginning to look like some social club for the retired and the unemployed. Boring for the most part, hilarious at times, but at the end of the day, there’re much better things to do in life …. :grin:

I think what you guys fail to see is that even if aspects of what Russia is doing are wrong (and I never said they weren't!), America still bears a lot of responsibility for Russia's actions.

The fact is that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO should have disbanded. But, instead, it decided to expand, shifting its defense line eastward and seeking to draw Ukraine and other former Soviet republics into its orbit.

Indeed, when Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, it had no reason to feel threatened by Russia.

On the contrary, on 8 December 1991, Ukraine joined Russia and Belarus to establish the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.

These three countries had been the core of the Kievan Rus and later of the Russian Empire and were very close to each other historically, culturally, and linguistically. The logical step to take would have been for them to remain on friendly terms and this was recognized by all three when they formed CIS.

It was NATO leaders who on 6 July 1990 (even before Ukraine became independent) proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

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

On 22 February 1992, Ukraine announced its intention to pursue a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP).

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

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

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

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

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

IMO what the facts indicate is that the expansion process was initiated by NATO, not by Ukraine.

It is often claimed that countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic wanted to join NATO because they were "scared to death" of Russia. But NATO aimed to incorporate not only smaller Warsaw Pact countries but also Russia itself.

If NATO is a "defensive organization", against whom exactly did Russia need to be “defended” by NATO??? :smile:

Clearly, there was an expansionist agenda on NATO’s part! Russia was initially interested – which, incidentally, demonstrates that it had no hostile intentions – but eventually declined when it realized that joining NATO meant submitting to US domination.

On October 22, 1993, Russian President Yeltsin and US Secretary of State Warren Christopher held a meeting in Moscow.

According to minutes of the meeting,

With a great deal of care and study, President Clinton decided on what recommendation to make to the NATO summit in January. “In this respect your letter came at exactly the right time and it played a decisive role in President Clinton’s consideration.” There could be no recommendation to ignore or exclude Russia from full participation in the future security of Europe. As a result of our study, a “Partnership for Peace” would be recommended to the NATO summit which would be open to all members of the NACC [North Atlantic Cooperation Council] including all European and NIS States [Newly Independent States].
President Yeltsin jumped in at this point and asked if he understood correctly that all countries in CEE and the NIS would, therefore, be on an equal footing and there would be a partnership and not a membership. Secretary Christopher replied, “Yes, that is the case, there would not even be an associate status.” Yeltsin replied, “This is a brilliant idea, it is a stroke of genius.”
President Yeltsin then said that this serves to dissipate all of the tension which we now have in Russia regarding East European States and their aspirations with respect to NATO. It would have been an issue for Russia particularly if it left us in a second class status. Now, under your new idea we are all equal and it will ensure equal participation on the basis of partnership.

Secretary Christopher's meeting with President Yeltsin, 10/22/93, Moscow - National Security Archive

There is absolutely no evidence that Russia at the time had any hostile or expansionist intentions toward the West. It simply wanted to be treated as an equal partner.

Though not put into a formal treaty, it is obvious from official US documents that the understanding was that Russia would not be "ignored or excluded from full participation in the future security of Europe" but integrated in a "Partnership for Peace" which would put Russia and other newly independent former Soviet republics ("NIS") on an equal footing with NATO.

Unfortunately, as in other areas of international relations, “partnership with America” really means submission to American domination which, of course, is unacceptable to Russia.

It follows that the root of the problem is not Russia but NATO expansionism and disregard for Russia’s legitimate security concerns. Russia did not invade Finland or America. It invaded Ukraine because Ukrainian membership of NATO would have put Crimea, the Donbas region, and the Black Sea (which Russia needs for its naval bases and for access to the Mediterranean) under NATO, i.e., US control.

In addition, I’m not at all convinced that thousands of dead civilians, millions of refugees, scores of flattened cities and villages, and destroyed infrastructure, are a price worth paying for a scrap of land that Ukraine could, and should, have peacefully shared with Russia. I think even Ukrainians are beginning to have second thoughts on it.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.

Ukraine war: 'This is just the beginning, everything is still to come' - BBC News

A counter argument to @Apollodorus suggesting they could have because American's certainly did and yet caused no fewer civilian casualties. — Isaac

IMHO, the whole point of philosophy is to look beyond appearances by questioning the “officially correct” narrative.

Though the Ukraine conflict is being sold by politicians and the media as a war between Russia and Ukraine, most serious analysts see it as a proxy-war between America and Russia.

Therefore, to get to the bottom of it, we need to look at both sides of the story.

As an illustration, suppose citizen X is involved in a gunfight with citizen Y. Prima facie, X appears to have fired the first shot. This may give the impression that X caused the shooting and tempt us to conclude that he is the “culprit”. But experience tells us that first impressions are not a valid criterion by which to judge a case, as they can be refuted by later evidence or arguments.

A proper judgement can only be made when all the facts of the incident have been established and duly considered.

Things that need to be looked into include:

1. What was done.
2. When it was done.
3. By whom it was done.
4. With what intention.
5. For what motive.

If possible, we also need to look at the history of each party involved.

In contrast, if we decide in advance (a) that Russia is “evil” and (b) that America is not the world’s largest economic, financial, and military empire but some philanthropic organization dishing out free cash and food to the world’s poor and selflessly protecting them from aggressors, then no proper judgement can be arrived at, and no genuine discussion can take place.

This thread could have, and I believe should have, been an interesting discussion. The OP sounds balanced enough to ensure that. Unfortunately, the thread got hijacked by people who were biased against Russia from even before the conflict. Notably among these are people like @ssu and @Christoffer who appear to be from a small country or village on Russia’s border and who may or may not have a legitimate reason to be “afraid of Russia”. What is not legitimate is to allow their fear (or phobia?) to color their analysis of the situation in Ukraine.

This leads to preposterous claims that I am “pro-Russia” or “pro-Putin” when in fact I am pro-Western, but I believe that it is in the West’s best interest for America, Europe, and Russia to be allies, not enemies. Unfortunately, this is impossible when America has made it its life mission to “keep the Germans down and Russia out”.

Also, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, there are no Russians on this thread. So, with one or two exceptions, the whole thing tends to become an echo chamber for angry Westerners to vent their frustration over Russia daring to challenge America’s New World Order.

IMO this can’t possibly make good philosophy or even good politics. It might be alright for a bit of fun or for people who’ve got nothing else to do to kill time, but it seems pretty pointless otherwise …. :smile:

Ports and oil — unenlightened

The ports of Crimea were Russian from 1783 up to Ukrainian independence in 1991 after which they became "Ukrainian" but on the understanding that Russia would be allowed to use them as bases for its Black Sea Fleet.

All this changed with NATO insisting on its "right of infinite expansion" and on making Ukraine, Crimea, and most of the Black Sea "NATO (i.e., US) territory".

There's a difference. — ssu

There may be a difference.

However, my point was that (a) even local combatants in those countries don't care much about civilian casualties and (b) the same applies to Western powers that instigate civil wars or uprisings for their own ends, resulting in civilian casualties.

Plus, you're making the same mistake as @Olivier. Focusing exclusively on the number of dead civilians prevents you from seeing the wider ramifications of a conflict and its causes.

As I said, it is true that Russia started the military conflict. But it is equally true that NATO could have avoided the conflict if it had taken into consideration Russia's legitimate security interests.

After all, there must be a reason why Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas region, and not Finland or America, for example.

You're doing no more than expose your abject ignorance. But do carry on, by all means .... :lol:

You seem to be getting increasingly confused and irrational. :smile:

You posted that propaganda piece on Tatar DNA to “prove” that Crimea belongs to Tatars and that Tatars are Ukrainians hence Crimea belongs to Ukraine.

But you haven’t answered my question of why (a) she leaves out the Tauri and the Greeks, and (b) why she has zero Eastern European DNA.

You probably imagine that we haven’t noticed, but her post was republished by Euromaidan Press, an anti-Russian outfit, back in 2015 to “prove that Putin is wrong about Crimea”! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

In other words, your "evidence" is not from some reputable scientific publication, of course not, but from evidence-free, anti-Russian propaganda literature.

Not only you have no evidence for your spurious claims, but it was YOU who brought up the Crimean Tatars!

My original argument was (1) that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners” and (2) that if NATO wants to give Crimea to Ukraine after it’s been annexed by Russia, it should start by returning Tibet to the Tibetans, North Cyprus to the Cypriots, Kurdistan to the Kurds, etc.

You seem to have got mad at the suggestion that Tibet belongs to the Tibetans and started hurling invectives. And you’ve been incoherently ranting ever since.

It should be obvious that Crimea doesn’t need to be given to the Tatars the same way Tibet should be returned to Tibetans (1) because Tatars are an alien minority in Crimea whereas Tibetans are native to Tibet and (2) because Crimea has been Russian (not Tatar) since 1783; for the same reason, Crimea should not be given to Ukraine.

However, as I’ve repeatedly stated, the principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners needs to be applied on the merits of each individual case.

In Crimea’s case, I never said that it MUST belong to Russia. On the contrary, given that when Russia took Crimea from the Turks, Russia and Ukraine were one country, Crimea in an ideal situation should be amicably shared by Russia and Ukraine (with some additional rights given to Crimean Greeks and others).

In fact, Crimea was initially shared after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Russia was able to use the naval bases there. But this was rendered impossible when America insisted on drawing Ukraine deeper and deeper into its NATO spiderweb.

Very simple and easy to understand IMO. Unfortunately, the ignorant and the uneducated are unable to understand, and NATO jihadis don’t want to understand. This is why they irrationally insist that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine belongs to NATO, and NATO belongs to America!

As for my referring to Crimean Tatars as “Mongols of Crimea” it’s the same as the Turkish government calling them “Crimean Turks”. It simply refers to their generally accepted Turkic/Mongol ethnicity:

Mongoloid adj.
1. Resembling or having some of the characteristic physical features of Mongolians; spec. designating or relating to the division of mankind including the indigenous peoples of eastern Asia, South-East Asia, and the Arctic region of North America, who are characterized by dark eyes with an epicanthic fold, pale ivory to dark skin, straight dark hair, and little facial and bodily hair. – Oxford English Dictionary, online version (2022).
Mongoloid
/ˈmɒŋ.ɡə.lɔɪd/ is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of East Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Siberia, the Arctic, parts of the Americas and the Pacific Islands, and small parts of South Asia. – Audiopedia
Mongoloid
Pertaining to a race of mankind, characterized by a faintly yellowish skin, an epicanthic fold, sparse body hair, and black straight head hair. – A Dictionary of Genetics (2007).
Mon•gol•oid
(ˈmɒŋ gəˌlɔɪd, ˈmɒn-) adj. 1. of, designating, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by yellowish complexion, prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds, and straight black hair and including the Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, Eskimos, and, in some classifications, the American Indians. – Websters College Dictionary (2010).
Mongoloid
anthropological term designating one of the major groups of human beings originating from Asia, excluding the Indian subcontinent and including Native American Indians. – Forensic Science Communications, FBI Laboratory (2005).

See also:

Tatar n.
1. A native inhabitant of the region of central Asia extending eastward from the Caspian Sea, and formerly known as Independent and Chinese Tartary. First known in the West as applied to the mingled host of Mongols, Tartars, Turks, etc., which under the leadership of Genghis Khan (1202–1227) overran and devastated much of Asia and Eastern Europe; hence applied to the descendants of these now dwelling in Asia or Europe; more strictly and ethnologically, to any member of the Tâtar or Turkic branch of the Ural-Altaic or Turanian family, embracing the Turks, Cossacks, and Kirghiz Tartars. – Oxford English Dictionary (online version, 2022).

Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids – “Mitogenomic Diversity in Tatars from the Volga-Ural Region of Russia” (2010).

I even demonstrated to you what a REAL Crimean Tatar looks like. I think even the blind can see the resemblance with Mongols:

WIKITONGUES: Neceadin speaking Crimean Tatar - Youtube

So, I’d highly recommend you go and educate yourself before discussing things of which you have no knowledge or understanding.

The fact is that the Crimean Tatars EMIGRATED. They weren’t “expelled”. Millions of people from England, France, Germany, and other European countries including Russia emigrated to America. It doesn’t mean they were “expelled” or “persecuted”.

Moreover, the vast majority of Crimean Tatars emigrated to Turkey between 1783 and 1897 because they were a Turkic group. Clearly, they saw themselves as non-Europeans and preferred to live among their Turkish kinsmen than among Europeans. The Turkish government refers to them as “Crimean Turks” and “our kinsmen”.

Given that Tatars were a Turkic group that originated in Northern or Eastern Asia (Siberia), the original Tatars had Northern/Eastern Asian DNA.

As they migrated to Central Asia and then Europe, they mixed with the local, non-Asian populations and acquired non-Asian DNA.

If Tatars had been the “majority” in Crimea prior to its takeover by Russia in 1783, Crimean Tatars would have more than 50% Tatar DNA. But your own “witness” has majority-European not Tatar DNA and this is confirmed by Volga Tatars who are more European than Tatar.

This is entirely natural, as Tatars were a MINORITY that subjugated the local population and imposed its language on the locals. Even you have admitted that Tatars “became the majority by assimilating local populations”. Assimilation of other populations means Tatars assimilating non-Tatar DNA, resulting in Tatars with significant and even overwhelming non-Tatar DNA, e.g., your “witness” or “evidence”!

Three things become obvious from this:

1. Tatars proper were never a majority in Crimea.

2. People currently called “Tatars”, including Crimean Tatars, are in reality mostly European with some Tatar admixture.

3. Not all Crimeans who spoke or speak Tatar (a Turkic language) are Tatars proper. For example, many Tatar-speakers are in fact Greeks, also known as Urums (from Arabic-Turkish Rum, Roman).

This means that Crimean Tatars must be carefully distinguished by their ethnicity:

Tatars proper (with majority North/East Asian DNA).
Ethnically mixed Tatars (with a mixture of Tatar and non-Tatar DNA).
Tatarophone non-Tatars (with non-Tatar DNA but speaking Tatar), e,g., Crimean Greeks.

It follows that when applying the principle that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners”, a wide range of factors such as genetics, geography, history, language, and culture must be taken into consideration, and a decision must be taken on the merits of each individual case.

Tatars proper (“Crimean Mongols” or “Crimean Turks”) cannot be regarded as “rightful owners” because they came to the area as invaders.

Moreover, they are currently a small minority and therefore not an issue. It is made an issue by anti-Russian Westerners and CIA-NATO trolls.

In any case, Crimea has never belonged to Ukraine. It was taken by Russia (i.e., local Eastern Europeans) from the Turks (who were invaders from Central Asia) and it has been Russian ever since. So, nope, it doesn't "belong to Ukraine" and even less to America! :grin:

It's precisely because I care for the truth that I am not interested in your numbered propaganda items. — Olivier5

Numbered propaganda items?! :rofl:

I think you’re in denial. Some estimates attribute 186,318 Iraqi deaths to the US-led Coalition.

Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties – Wikipedia

Is your counting dead Ukrainian civilians any better???

Besides, this isn’t about counting civilian casualties, it’s about the enormous worldwide ramifications of this war that was started by Russia but instigated by America and its European client-states.

Lockheed Martin, one of the largest US defense contractors, donated $256,500 to the campaigns of members of Congress, a gubernatorial campaign, and Republican and Democratic political action committees. In total about 150 lawmakers. This is how it gets decided how much America invests in the war, which defense companies are awarded contracts, etc., etc.

Lockheed Martin's PAC also donated to the campaigns of 27 members of the House Armed Services Committee, including Democratic member and chairman Rep. Adam Smith of Washington.
Lockheed Martin co-produces Javelin anti-tank missile systems, which Ukrainian defenses have used against Russian forces — the US has sent Ukraine at least 5,500 Javelin systems since Biden took office, with the majority coming after Russia's invasion, according to Breaking Defense. The company also produces fighter jets and a wide variety of other military and defense systems.
Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies announced in mid-May that the two companies' joint Javelin venture was awarded two contracts worth $309 million by the US Army to produce more missiles.
In addition to contributions from its PAC, Lockheed Martin also spends millions each year directly lobbying the federal government, including Congress.
During the first quarter of 2022 alone, Lockheed Martin spent $3.3 million on federal-level lobbying efforts, according to data compiled by nonpartisan research organization OpenSecrets.

One of the largest defense contractors in the nation donated to nearly 150 members of Congress as they debated Ukraine military aid – Business Insider

THAT is what drives America’s war effort in Ukraine. Of course, to those who are in denial this is not truth but “propaganda” and “conspiracy theory” …. :grin:

The numbers from Afghanistan, Syria and the two Chechen wars simply show that Russia doesn't care so much about civilian casualties. — ssu

Really?! Well, it looks to me like NOBODY in those countries cares about civilian casualties. And neither does the West, otherwise it wouldn't have instigated civil wars there.

Plus, as you say, the Russians haven't killed 150,000 Ukrainians yet. Though, I'm sure Zelensky believes it's 60+ million .... :grin:

I didn't think you'd care about the truth. But thanks for the confirmation.

It isn't "a list of lies", but of things they could say in response to your claim.

Whether (a) they're actually saying that and (b) they're lies, remains to be seen.

The responsibility for the ensuing starvation is categorically the result of the underdevelopment-related vulnerability of these nations to fluctuations in imports for which Russia is far less responsible than America, or, even more so, Europe. — Isaac

Starvation is, and has been, going on for decades. Millions died of starvation under British rule in India, Africa, Ireland ....

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule - Wikipedia

Great Famine (Ireland) - Wikipedia

The British era is significant because during this period a very large number of famines struck India. There is a vast literature on the famines in colonial British India. The mortality in these famines was excessively high and in some may have been increased by British policies. The mortality in the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 was between seven and 10 million; the Chalisa famine of 1783–1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791–1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837–1838, 800,000. In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860–1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876–1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896–1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899–1900, 1 million. The Bengal famine of 1943, which affected the Bengal region during wartime, was one of the major South Asian famines in which anywhere between 1.5 million and 3 million people died ...

They could say any number of lies. — Olivier5

Of course they could. And so could the West. As Churchill put it:

In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies ...

If they believed so, they wouldn't bomb civilians so much. — Olivier5

Depends. They could always say:

1. Civilians who have sided with NATO.

2. 150,000 got killed in America's jihad on Iraq. Russia hasn't killed anything in Ukraine that even remotely approaches that.

3. The Ukrainians are keeping their military casualties secret, but many more of their forces must have got killed than people believe. Of course, it serves NATO propaganda to make the world believe that Russians only kill civilians. But propaganda shouldn't be confused with facts.

4. Bombing civilians is considered acceptable in some parts of the world. Sometimes even in the West: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Germany, etc.

5. That's how Russia fights. And Ukraine and its Western paymasters knew it perfectly well from the start.

As I say, giving Russia Crimea and the ethnic-Russian areas of Donbas, and staying out of NATO, would have been a small price to pay for peace. This is why I believe that Zelensky is being pushed by America and Britain to carry on and escalate in order to (1) promote the interests of Western defense industries and (2) weaken or destroy Russia to facilitate its takeover by the West (which is what they already tried to do in the 90's).

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: