Mmmkey, and what if Europeans tell themselves to do what the US tells them to do? — neomac
Stupid question. — Streetlight

The reason why the US is hegemonic and can persuade or impose their will on others is exactly because the US has the economic/military means, positive or negative incentives, to get what they want. And Russians and Chinese regional powers aspiring to challenge the dominant American power want simply to replace it in part or totally to exercise their hegemonic power. The problem is that they are authoritarian regimes and don't like soft-power as much as hard-power. If you prefer to live under their hegemony, I don't.
And as long as Europe is not strong enough to assert itself as a geopolitical power at the level of the other contenders, they have to pick their side according to their interests. And listen carefully what American likes or dislikes to not run in greater troubles for their own interest.
But I'm sure you have a solution to fix the World right?

No Nazis are literally Nazis, I don't need to redefine terms so as get away with defending Nazis. — Streetlight

Are the Russians Nazi too for bombing, killing, raping their Ukrainian "brothers" and "sisters", and their land-grabbing in the name of the ethnic Russians and the glory of Holy Russia? Is the Russification of the Donbas and Crimea Nazi enough to you?

It's very cute that your imagination is so brutally stunted that your question is - which non-European entity should tell Europe what to do? — Streetlight

Mmmkey, and what if Europeans tell themselves to do what the US tells them to do?

See, this is why you are an idiot not worth paying attention to. The Nazis who pushed Zelensky to war did so because they were Ukrainian nationalists who did not want any compromise with Russia - including ratifying Minsk, or say, not bombing the ever-living daylights out of Russian-speaking Ukraine. — Streetlight

Oh I see, in your personal idiom, "Nazi" are all Ukrainians who support Zelensky's choice to resist Russian interference/invasion b/c they want to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Out of curiosity, are the Russians Nazi too for bombing, killing, raping their Ukrainian "brothers" and "sisters", and their land-grabbing in the name of the ethnic Russians and the glory of Holy Russia? Do you also support the racial/racist theory of the rightful owners by any chance?

Europeans do what Americans tell them. — Streetlight

Should Europeans do what Russians tell them? Or you tell them?

Oh well that makes it OK then. — Streetlight

Only if it makes it OK for you that Russians are bombing, killing, raping their Ukrainian "brothers" and "sisters".

Besides it's not uncommon to have fascist/ultra-nationalists in the national armies: https://www.vice.com/it/article/5989xx/fascismo-para-folgore-esercito-italiano , https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/03/17/une-enquete-de-mediapart-devoile-la-presence-de-militaires-neonazis-dans-l-armee-francaise_6073486_3224.html
Not to mention the Russian ultra-nationalists very friendly to Putin.
What do you want to do about that, boss?

Logic, mathematics, scientific empirical methods — neomac


Weird. What scientific studies have you read about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Or weirder still mathematical ones? Did someone derive a new solution to quadratic equations which proves there are no Nazis in Ukraine? Does the theory that the US provoked Russia defy the law of the excluded middle?

...journalistic methods... — neomac


Do you mean phone hacking...?

administrative/institutional methods — neomac


...put the Kafka down.

common sense — neomac


Ah! Just when I'd finished playing cliche bingo and all, damn. I could have got "I arrived at my conclusions by Common Sense… — Isaac

As if chopping your way out to some dumb remark you can smirk about, wasn’t even more weird.

Or not.

The point (the one you interjected about) is that your speculation here might work out, or it might not. You can't possibly say for sure. The empirical evidence is insufficient to choose between theories, there's been no scientific paper on it, no mathematician has compressed it into an irrefutable formula, it hasn't been rendered into truth tables... You just have to choose which to believe.

So why do you believe that one? — Isaac

Insufficient for what? to whom? Uncertainty doesn’t prevent us from making rational choices. The points I made for example are sufficient to rationally justify my perception of the Russian threat against the West, in other words mine is not paranoia or Russophobia: is this perception of mine fallaciously grounded on somebody’s repeating to me that Russia is a threat or the result of peers psychological pressure (through ostracism or insults)? No it’s based on those evidences I listed and more. Are those evidences false? no. Is there any inconsistency between those evidences? No, they support each other. Is there any inconsistency between those evidences and historical patterns of aggressive behavior by authoritarian regimes or in particular by Russia? No, the aggression of Ukraine by Russia has disturbing echoes of Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland (https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/russias-attack-ukraine-through-lens-history), and the annexation/Russification of Crimea is a leitmotif of Russian politics since the end of 18th century being key to Russian commercial and military projection in the mediterranean area (including Middle East and North Africa, and surrounding Europe). Add to that the historical deep scars Ukraine, Finland, Poland and all other ex-Soviet Union countries in east Europe had with Russian empire and/or Soviet Union.
So, since thinking strategically requires one to spot potential threats, possibly way before they become too big because then it will be too late, what other evidence would one ordinary risk-averse Western citizen valuing their country’s democracy and economy more than Russian’s exactly need to perceive Russian aggressive expansionism and geopolitical interference as a threat to the West ?

You misspelled "so that they can siphon tax money to arms dealers and turn Ukraine into a debt prison producing Nikes for the Western middle class while eliminating a competitor model of capitalism that does not play by the West's rules while letting Ukrainians drop dead for those goals, thanks to a war they precipitated and did everything to encourage and continue to prolong". — Streetlight

Lots of Western business doesn’t welcome this war, its continuation and related sanctions precisely because it interrupted their business with Russia and Ukraine. On the other side the competitor capitalist model opposing the West is supported by authoritarian regimes. Nobody can easily get rid of Western arms dealers as long as they are instrumental in addressing Western security concerns competing with non-Western security concerns and related non-Western arms dealers. The problem is not arms dealers business per se but the security threat perception between State powers, and to authoritarian regimes the fear of losing power is arguably greater than any national security threats b/c dictators literally risk their skin, if their power is compromised. Ukrainians could surrender to the Russians if they wanted, but they didn’t and they don’t seem to need encouragement from abroad, they just need weapons. Westerners legitimately helped them due their security concerns and international commitments more than economic concerns.

Anyone who thinks the US in particular has 'security concerns' half-way across the fucking planet is a clown. — Streetlight

That’s exactly why I talked about the Europeans. For the US, the “security concerns” must be understood wrt their hegemonic power, of course.

To the degree that the Ukraine is crawling with Nazis who decisively tipped the course of events into war, then sure, I agree that the "Ukrainians are more pro-Western than anti-Western". Nazis being a uniquely Western apogee of civilization. — Streetlight

Apparently Ukrainians prefer to be Nazi than Russian, go figure how shitty it feels like to experience Russian hegemony (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-20th-century-history-behind-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-180979672/), go figure!

it's OK that Ukrainians should drop dead on the West's behalf. — Streetlight

Ukrainians have chosen to fight the Russians who are destroying their life and their country. That concerns the Ukrainian national interest, Westerners legitimately decided to support them for Western plausible security concerns too, of course. And the fact that Ukrainians are more pro-Western than anti-Western is one more reason to intervene. There is no need to talk in terms of "benevolence" especially when the "benevolence" of the alleged pacifists are so instrumental in reaching the arguably worst outcome for the Ukrainians according to the Ukrainians, and supporting Russian imperialistic ambitions.

'Epistemically fallacious'? What could that possibly mean in the context of persuasion. — Isaac

I can be persuaded by rational or irrational reasons what to hold to be true. Being persuaded by irrational reasons is fallacious, and as long as it has to do with truth then it's epistemically fallacious.

Interested now in what an epistemically non-fallacious method of persuasion might be — Isaac

Logic, mathematics, scientific empirical methods, journalistic methods, administrative/institutional methods are such methods. They vary in scope, rigor and pre-conditions for their application. Even common sense is epistemically pretty reliable in our ordinary daily life.

So epistemically non-fallacious? Or not? — Isaac

Well that depends on the reasons why one would opt for violence in the given circumstances.

No. That is why they may. You've yet to demonstrate that they do. — Isaac

It's impossible to "demonstrate" in the sense of providing evidences for future events or counter-factuals. But the "rhetoric" force concerns people's expectations in condition of uncertainty: the ratio of increasing the military, economic, and human costs of the Russian aggression for the Russians is in deterring them (an other powers challenging the current World Order) from pursing aggressively their imperialistic ambitions, and this makes perfect sense in strategic terms given certain plausible assumptions (including the available evidence like Putin's political declarations against the West + all his nuclear, energy, alimentary threats, his wars on the Russian border, his attempts to build an international front competing against Western hegemony, Russian military and pro-active presence in the Middle East and in Africa, Russian cyber-war against Western institutions, Putin's ruthless determination in pursuing this war at all costs after the annexation of Crimea which great strategic value from a military point of view, his huge concentration of political power, all hyper-nationalist and extremist people in his national TV and entourage with their revanchist rhetoric, etc.), of course.

arguably — neomac
Go on then... — Isaac

It's boring to repeat myself.

Yawn, then the first accusation of yours didn't even make sense when directed at me lol. Being Streetlight is a substitute for being dumb.

Sometimes, yeah. — Isaac

Then violence may be a good way to persuade the Russians to curb their imperialistic ambitions.

... but here I am explaining how persuasion works when that's not really what your post is about, is it? It's step one in a line of argument designed to persuade me (or others reading) of your theory. So it turns out you do know how persuasion works after all. — Isaac

Yet, persuading people through the threat of ostracism or insults or by repeating "putative" truths ad nausaum or pointing at somebody's "putative" inconsistency using maybe strawman arguments are all epistemically fallacious ways of persuading to me. Still when there is no ground for rational/moral agreement violence is an option as viable as one can afford, and as valid as its effectiveness. That is why Russian aggression and Western violent response to that have their "rhetoric" force in persuading or dissuading the two competing powers and other powers. Accordingly, the answer to your question ("Make war just so we don't seem weak?") can arguably be yes, while that rhetorical "just" in your question is arguably misleading or prejudicial.

This is just neoconservative parochial trash. Your paranoia does not mean you get to excuse and encourage Western bloodshed. The one lesson to be learnt from the mass murder of Ukranians taking place right now is that efforts to 'weaken' perceived enemies are above all the prime causes of mass death on a global scale. It will of course not be learnt. Anyone with a pulse will have learnt this paying attention to even an iota of US foreign policy since the end of the second world war, but warmongering stains like you continue to champion this utter death-generating rubbish over and over again. — Streetlight

Yawn. This is just far-leftist parochial trash. Your paranoia does not mean you get to excuse and encourage non-Western bloodshed. The one lesson to be learnt from the mass murder of Ukranians taking place right now is that efforts to 'weaken' perceived enemies are above all the prime causes of mass death on a global scale. It will of course not be learnt. Anyone with a pulse will have learnt this paying attention to even an iota of the US hegemony challengers' foreign policy since the end of the second world war, but warmongering stains like you continue to champion this utter death-generating rubbish over and over again.
Anyway you are right, my bad, I shouldn't have talked to you. Mutual ignoring is best.

how about violence? Is it a way to persuade people? "Ostracism" and "insulting" seem a form of psychological violence.

↪neomac
Yes, and? That the West feels left out in the bloodshed — Streetlight

For now (and if we exclude Westerners are participating also with volunteers fighting and dying there). The stronger Russia remains the more likely they will be able to come back after us one way or the other in the West and outside, and encouraging the anti-Western front in the rest of the World. And Europeans are exposed to these existential threats much more than the US.

If we don't encourage the wonton murder of Ukranians, the West will be seen as weak — Streetlight

On the contrary, you will be seen as strong, since the wanton murder of Ukrainians is what their big Russian "brothers" are doing.

You don't seem to have finished your argument. — Isaac

I did it on purpose, to have Manuel's feedback on this.

We persuade. — Isaac

And on what grounds do we persuade?

If we disagree, we've absolutely no ground on which to resolve that disagreement, and if we agree we're just building castles in the air.

What we can discuss is our reasons for believing some expert or other. In other words, our political opinions, our narratives. — Isaac

And what ground do we absolutely have to resolve narrative or political opinion disagreements?

By pressuring our governments, voting our politicians in or out, engaging in demonstrations that could push or stop legislation, sending letters to our representatives all of which are an essential part of democracy.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest. — Manuel

The right that you want to exercise and you don't see granted in Russia is likely perceived by the ruthless Russian president and his Chinese counterpart - both leaders of authoritarian regimes and challengers of the current World Order - as a sign of Western weakness, one that could bolster their economic and military aggressiveness by exploiting the Western internal divisions and lack of resolve. Therefore, wanting to exercise this right to promote appeasement and concessions to them even when they are violating international rules to oppress, murder and destroy an independent state striving to be part of the West, will likely prove to them and the rest of the world they were on the right track.

yet I don't know how long it will hold up for the US, Italy (how stable are Italian governments?!) or the rest of the EU (Eastern and Western European countries have a different perception of the Russian threat, Turkey and Hungary are capable of backstabbing). Even for Biden&co it's already hard to tell if they are moving just with great prudence or lack of resolve. And if Russia will manage to get away with their territorial plunder (BTW considering the late Russian military success against the Ukrainian resistance, can we really exclude the risk of a Ukrainian resistance's collapse?), Russian may still claim a victory that could erode Western confidence or resolve.

trying to adapt to your mental capacity. No need to thank me.

agreed, but they could be a minority and those who protested or could protest, especially from the city, were imprisoned or left the country. What is also remarkable is this perceived feeling of betrayed "brotherhood" between Ukrainians and Russians , and lots of Russians have relatives in Ukraine (and got their feedback too). So even hypocrisy or prudence has its toll and yet most Russians are ready to pay for it apparently.

small brain.

right, but I wouldn't underestimate their impact on a larger scale: indeed they are very vocal also because they have gained support also from mainstream media and politicians too (both in the US and in the EU see Italy & Salvini).

The real problem isn't with the Russian people, but with Russian institutions, namely the military culture. — Moses

We can't say that the Russian people aren't the problem either. The support for Putin (celebrated as a great leader like Stalin) and his war is pretty high in Russia and I doubt this is only due to the regime propaganda (propaganda seems so effective because Russians may be predisposed to it due to historical anti-Western feelings ingrained in their culture). Western people are a problem too: in the West there is great polarization toward this war, there are many pro-Russian or anti-NATO/WEST/EU/(NEO)CAPITALIST/GLOBALISATION whatever you want to call them.

we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent. — Manuel

How?

just more lies about my claims, strawman arguments, reiterated conceptually confused claims, and more shitty pro-Russian propaganda, as if you didn't humiliate yourself enough. I'll let you enjoy your intellectual misery. Yuck!

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

So what?! It still is an excellent example of dialectic diversion, exactly because that piece of anti-NATO propaganda routine has nothing to do with what I was questioning. Indeed even if there was no NATO and no war between Russia and Ukraine involving NATO, all my arguments challenging your theory of the rightful owners as applied to the case of the Crimean Tatars would have been exactly the same.

As for your "disputing wrt Crimean Tatar issue" you could have saved yourself that long and incoherent rant because it looks like you don't have a clue what you're disputing! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You claimed that "Crimean Tatars became the majority" and then backpedaled by saying "I never said that the Tatars were the majority"!
So, were they the majority or not???
And, obviously, in order to even discuss Crimean Tatars and your spurious claim that "Crimea is owned by Tatars therefore it belongs to Ukraine (or America?)”, we need to establish what a Crimean Tatar is. — Apollodorus

Dude, congrats, you just offered the epitome of your intellectual misery!
Now tell me, where on earth did I claim “Crimea is owned by Tatars therefore it belongs to Ukraine (or America?)” ?! How on earth can you be so intellectually dishonest to double quote something I never written nor implied nor suggested nor believe, yet suggesting I made that claim which is a blatant lie?!
BTW if we need to establish first what “Crimean Tatar” means before discussing “Crimean Tatars” and I also repeatedly clarified what “Crimean Tatar” means to me in my past posts, why on earth do you feel so confident in mixing your claims about “Tatars” with my claims about “Crimean Tatars” to artificially suggest an inconsistency or backpedaling that doesn’t exist ?!

I stand by what I wrote and am responsible for what I write not for that you are incapable of understanding. To repeat once more the point, briefly: “Crimean Tatars” are ethnically indigenous people of Crimea who speak natively Crimean Tatar language (along with whatever cultural&genetic heritage this native language enables people to share, of course) and whose ethnogenesis show a genetic admixture of different ethnic subgroups happening within Crimea in more than 2 millennia.

But if you do not like my definition we can relay on a mainstream source like Wikipedia:
Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar: qırımtatarlar, къырымтатарлар) or Crimeans (Crimean Tatar: qırımlar, къырымлар or qırımlılar, къырымлылар), are a Turkic ethnic group and nation who are an indigenous people of Crimea. The formation and ethnogenesis of Crimean Tatars occurred during the 13th–17th centuries, uniting Cumans, who appeared in Crimea in the 10th century, with other peoples who had inhabited Crimea since ancient times and gradually underwent Tatarization, including Greeks, Italians and Goths.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

The Crimean Tatar language (qırımtatar tili, къырымтатар тили, tatar tĭlĭ, tatarşa, kırım tatarşa), also called Crimean language (qırım tili, къырым тили),[1] 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.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatar_language

Turkic people are defined as "descended from agricultural communities in Northeastern China and wider Northeast Asia, who moved westwards into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC" (Wikipedia). This is scholarly opinion corroborated by genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence, not a "myth".
This is why they are referred to as "Mongoloid", because they are related to Mongols and some even look like Mongols. "Mongoloid" is the term used by scholars:
Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978).
Erdogan calls them "Crimean Turks". How is that better than "Crimean Mongols"???
Obviously, there must be some Crimean Mongols as Crimea was invaded and occupied by the Mongols. But I didn't say ALL Crimean Tatars are Mongols. — Apollodorus

You just summed up the roots of your misconceptions about the Crimean Tatars. Crimean Tatars are not the Mongols of Crimea as you called them. Period! Now you are ridiculously backpedaling: proof is that you stopped to call them Mongols of Crimea and you even dare to say ”I didn't say ALL Crimean Tatars are Mongols” (which is not only shameless but goofy because calling the Crimean Tatars “The Mongols of Crimea” doesn’t necessarily suggest that ALL Crimean Tatars are Mongols, they could just be the majority which is again arguably wrong!). If there was nothing wrong with this label promoting Russian propaganda, you would keep calling them the Mongols of Crimea, instead of moving to “The Tatars of Crimea”.
What is mythical in your flawed reconstruction is the assimilation of Crimean Tatars to Mongols because of their putative historical origins and by conflating cultural aspects (the turkic language which doesn’t even guarantee intercommunicability between Crimean Tatars and Mongols or other Turkic people) with biological aspects (based on the obsolete distinction between Mongoloid and Caucasoid, and notice that phenotypical traits relevant for racial classifications do not necessarily prove anything conclusive about a single genotype, go figure for a mixed genotype, https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/phenotype-variability-penetrance-and-expressivity-573/).
I remind you also of the fact that you claimed “Tatars and other Turkic peoples originally came from the same area as the Mongols and are genetically closely related to them.” which is contradicted by what you just cited “about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978)” exactly for the reason that if 80% of the Volga Tatar genetic pool is Caucausoids then more closely related to Caucasoids then to Mongols and THEREFORE they should be called Caucasoid, and not Mongoloid!!!
That is also why I refuse to use the generic term “Tatars” to refer to Crimean Tatars, because that terminology will more easily trigger all your misconceptions.
By calling Crimean Tatars “Crimean Turks” Erdogan may be promoting his own propaganda as much as the Russians are promoting theirs by calling the Crimean Tatars “The Mongols of Crimea”, that’s hardly surprising: Putin is even denying the Ukrainian national identity and despite Russians consider them their “brothers” (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/16/we-are-one-people-why-would-we-fight-our-brothers-russians-react-to-ukraine-war-threat-a76414), they are now bombing them, looting them, and raping them to pursue their imperialist ambitions which are arguably more immoral than ancient Mongol-Tatar (non-Slavic) tribes killing, looting and raping ancient Slavic tribes!

On the contrary, my point was that the genetic evidence suggests that many of them are NOT Mongols, NOT Turkic, and therefore NOT Tatars, depending on their genetic makeup. — Apollodorus

You are disastrously reiterating your conceptual confusion: you are conflating biological factors (genetic evidences) with cultural classifications/identities (e.g. what language is natively spoken)! One can be 80% Caucasoid and still speak a Turkic/Tatar language natively!

What makes you think that I must prefer your NATO propaganda to mainstream sources???
And NO, your Tatar witness does NOT support your claim that Tatars are "indigenous to Crimea". — Apollodorus

First of all, this is my quote “I cited this ICCRIMEA article to support the claim that Crimean Tatars are NOT MONGOLS AS YOU CLAIM!!!”
Second, my Crimean Tatar witness supports my claim that Tatars are "indigenous to Crimea" “The above DNA test results reaffirm what we have known from history that Crimean Tatars are descendants of the various peoples who settled and lived in Crimea for centuries. The Crimean Tatars, indigenous people of Crimea, did not just come from the East, as many are inclined to think. Rather, they are the descendants of the people who moved to Crimea from different directions: Scythians, Goths, Byzantines, Genovese, and Turkic groups such as Khazars, Kipchaks, Tatars and Ottoman Turks.” Source: https://iccrimea.org/reports/genographic-results.html
Third, even assumed that the ICCRIMEA article is NATO propaganda, for sure there is no contradiction between NATO propaganda and mainstream sources, concerning the fact that Crimean Tatars are indigenous people of Crimea. Indeed I cited from other sources too: Wikipedia articles, books and anthropological papers dedicated to the Crimean Tatars, scientific papers on the genetics of the Crimean Tatars [1]. All of them support the claim that Crimean Tatars are not the Mongols of Crimea and they are indigenous to Crimea.

Approximately 75 percent of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freedmen — Apollodorus

My question to you is still the same: if the victims of these raids and slavery market where not only the ancestors of Russians but also the ancestors of Ukrainians or from other Eastern European areas, why are ONLY the Russians repaid for the Mongol-Tatars’ past injustice through the annexation of the entire Crimea?!

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

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

So what?! If the test doesn’t report genes that the laboratory could classify as Eastern European this is neither her fault nor laboratory’s fault. Besides the equations you are suggesting are your personal conjectures since the study maps geographic areas with DNA pools, and doesn’t offer any strong evidence to support whatever you may infer from it in racial terms.

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

These are your personal conjectures (where again you confuse racial with ethnic concepts), besides the reference to other turkic groups is contextual to a comment about Crimean Tatars in general not to her case in particular (she didn’t say ALL Crimean Tatars! LOL).

Incidentally, note how she conveniently leaves out the Taurian people who were the original, indigenous inhabitants of Crimea!
Also note how she conveniently leaves out the Crimean Greeks who have lived in Crimea from the 7th century BC, i.e., many centuries before the Tatars. — Apollodorus

That she did so out of convenience is just your personal conjecture. Besides, I don’t know her personally, but I know your ideological bias enough to understand why you are motivated to frame her article this way.
Concerning the “indigenous” question, which is the substantial one, let’s clarify another source of misunderstanding: the claim that some people are “indigenous” may be LEGITIMATELY understood in relative historical terms, in the sense some people are “indigenous” if they occupy a land prior to the expansion of a foreign colonial power or the formation of nation state by foreign people in that land. In that sense “Crimean Tatars” are indigenous of Crimea wrt Ukrainians and Russians (as the foreign State contenders of this territory), and so they are officially acknowledged with the status of “indigenous people” by Ukrainians, EU and UN. And this is echoed in mainstream sources too.
However, the claim that some people are “indigenous” may be LEGITIMATELY understood in absolute historical terms as the earliest traceable settlers on a given territory. So the Tauri as the earliest Greek settlers in Crimea can be legitimately considered the “indigenous” people of Crimea in absolute historical terms. Does this settle the issue about the indigenous inhabitants of Crimea in absolute historical terms once for all? To me, ABSOLUTELY NO for three reasons (all supported by mainstream sources): a) in ancient times, the colonial or (semi-)nomadic nature of various ethnic groups and tribes’ settlements didn’t ensure any wide and permanent territorial occupation and control. For example, the Tauri didn’t populate the entire Crimea, but mainly the southern coastal areas of Crimea. The northern part of Crimea was exposed to different waves ethnic semi-nomadic tribes (Iranic, Germanic and Turkic). So none of those ethnic groups had stable, complete or dominant territorial occupation over the entire Crimea. In that sense even nomadic people who settled in Crimea AFTER the Tauri could be considered the earliest inhabitants of Crimea, and so indigenous in absolute historical terms, simply because they were occupying regions of Crimea never inhabited nor dominated by the Tauri! b) The assimilation of earliest ethnic groups (including the Tauri) into the Crimean Tatar ethnic group, so the blood of the ancient Tauri (and other earliest inhabitants) is still running into Crimean Tatars’ veins and being their descendants they share the “indigenous” status in Crimea in absolute historical terms. c) from an ethno-genetic perspective, since the Tatarization of the entire Crimea was possible starting from the 15th century under the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire, the earliest dominant ethnic group native to Crimea in the entire Crimea were the Crimean Tatars ("The Crimean Tatar language was the universal means of communication in the Crimea from the 15th to the 19th centuries" Source:https://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/crimean_jews.shtml). And the fact that the officially acknowledged indigenous people of Crimea are so far only Crimean Tatars, Crimean Karaites, and Krymchaks suggests that there are no Tauri descendants that could claim or could be acknowledged the status of “indigenous” for a distinctive Tauri ethnic-group. So until you can provide evidence for the existence of an ethnic-group with mainly ancient Tauri ancestors distinct from other indigenous people of Crimea, I don’t even see the relevance of talking about them.

Finally, as I already repeatedly argued in the previous posts,
IF your theory of the rightful owners establishes for whatever reason that the Tauris as the unique earliest inhabitants of Crimea or generically “the Greeks” (as Greek is the Tauris’ original ethnicity) are the rightful owners of (part of or the entire?) Crimea,
THEREFORE you should oppose the imperialist annexation or russification of Crimea by Russians
AND promote instead the annexation/concession of (part of or the entire?) Crimea to the Crimean Tauri descendants as distinct indigenous ethnic community (if they still exist) or the Greeks
AS WELL AS the annexation/concession of (part of or the entire?) the Russian Krasnodar Krai since in the same ancient times the Tauris also colonised as first known settlers some coastal areas of the actual Krasnodar Krai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnodar_Krai#History)!
So, now you have 2 ways to oppose Russian imperialism and promote the magnificent Indo-European Caucaisoid Greek Tauri civilisation (“in his Histories, Herodotus describes the Tauri as living “by plundering and war” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauri )! Good luck with that!

There is really nothing you can do to recover all the bullshits your have shamelessly thrown at me. You are intellectually miserable. I would even respect more professional Russian trolls than you, coz at least they are paid for it.


[1]
The fact that Crimean Tatars' ethnogenesis took place in Crimea and consisted of several stages lasting over 2500 years is proved by genetic research showing that in the gene pool of the Crimean Tatars preserved both the initial component for more than 2.5 thousand years, and later in the northern steppe regions of the Crimea. (Source: https://us.edu.vn/en/Crimean_Tatar_people-0262024006)


“The Crimean Tatars were formed as a people in Crimea and are descendants of various peoples who lived in Crimea in different historical eras. The main ethnic groups that inhabited the Crimea at various times and took part in the formation of the Crimean Tatar people are Tauri, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Greeks, Goths, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Italians and Circassians. The consolidation of this diverse ethnic conglomerate into a single Crimean Tatar people took place over the course of centuries. The connecting elements in this process were the commonality of the territory, the Turkic language and Islamic religion.
An important role in the formation of the Crimean Tatar people belongs to the Western Kipchaks, known in historiography as Cumans. They became the consolidating ethnic group, which included all other peoples who inhabited the Crimea since ancient times. Kipchaks from the 11th-12th century began to settle the Volga, Azov and Black Sea steppes (which from then until the 18th century were called the Desht-i Kipchak – "Cumanian steppe"). Starting in the second half of the 11th century, they began actively moving to the Crimea. A significant number of the Cumans hid in the mountains of Crimea, fleeing after the defeat of the combined Cumanian-Russian troops by the Mongols and the subsequent defeat of the Cumanian proto-state formations in the Northern Black Sea region.
By the end of the 15th century, the main prerequisites that led to the formation of an independent Crimean Tatar ethnic group were created: the political dominance of the Crimean Khanate was established in Crimea, the Turkic languages (Cuman-Kipchak on the territory of the khanate) became dominant, and Islam acquired the status of a state religion throughout the Peninsula. By a preponderance Cumanian population of the Crimea acquired the name "Tatars", the Islamic religion and Turkic language, and the process of consolidating the multi-ethnic conglomerate of the Peninsula began, which has led to the emergence of the Crimean Tatar people.[19] Over several centuries, on the basis of Cuman language with a noticeable Oghuz influence, the Crimean Tatar language has developed.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars#Origin


This sort of debate has also swirled around the issue of the ethnic identity of one of Europe's most misunderstood Muslim ethnic groups, the Crimean Tatars. While the Crimean Tatars (who were exiled in toto from their homeland from 1944±1989 by Stalin) see themselves as the indigenous people (korennoi narod) of their cherished peninsular homeland, with origins traceable to the pre-Mongol period, they have long been portrayed in western and Soviet sources as thirteenth-century ``Mongol invaders’’.
Source: Williams, Brian Glyn. 2001. "The Ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars. An Historical Reinterpretation"


While the Crimean Tatars are traditionally described as descendents of the Golden Horde, the formation of this Turkic-speaking, Sunni Muslim people has pre-Mongol origins in the ancient, indigenous peoples of the Crimean peninsula. They believe their history begins with the tribes living
in Crimea in prehistoric and ancient times, including the Tavriis and Kimmerites, who occupied the peninsula from 2-1,000 B.C.E. (Kudusov 1995: 15). The Crimean Tatars therefore consider themselves one of the indigenous peoples, along with the Karaims and Krymchaks
Source: The Crimean Tatars’ Deportation and Return - GRETA LYNN UEHLING (2004)


Under the Imperial Russians, the Crimean Tatars, whose ethnic origins went back to the eleventh century Kipchaks and beyond to earlier south Crimean peoples, such as the Medieval Goths, Greeks and Italians, would begin to disintegrate as hundreds of thousands of the Tsarina’s new Muslim subjects fled Russian repression to the sheltering lands of the Ottoman sultans/caliphs. The majority of the Crimea’s Muslim Tatar peasants would ultimately leave the peninsula to par- take in hijra (migration to preserve Islam from oppression by the non- believer) to the Ottoman Empire.
Source: BRIAN GLYN WILLIAMS “The Crimean Tatars” (2016)

2. “The Westasian and Mediterranean genetic components (population of Asia Minor and Balkans) predominate in the gene pool of Crimea Tatars, the Eurasian steppe component is much fewer.” Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311805917_The_Tatars_of_Eurasia_peculiarity_of_Crimean_Volga_and_Siberian_Tatar_gene_pools
3. The Eurasian genetic influence concerns particularly a subgroup of Crimean Tatars:
“It is the most likely that discovered features of Steppe Crimean Tatars gene pool reflect the genetic contribution of medieval Eurasian Steppe nomads. The component predominant in Mountain and Coastal Crimean Tatars gene pools and in Crimean Greeks suggests that genetic contribution of East Mediterranean populations continued in Crimea for many centuries.”
Source: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-gene-pool-of-indigenous-crimean-populations-mediterranean-meets-eurasian-steppe/pdf

Nope, you weren't "questioning my theory of rightful owners" but your deliberate misinterpretation of it!
It's precisely that kind of statement that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you ARE ignorant and confused. Are you sure you aren't related to ssu and @Christoffer? :rofl:
As a matter of fact, you haven't really addressed any of the many legitimate points I've made. All you're doing is resort to evasion and diversion to cover up your ignorance and duplicity. — Apollodorus

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

If the Crimean Tatars are "indigenous Crimeans", why don't they call themselves Indigenous Crimeans? Why do they call themselves “Tatars”, a name given to Mongols and Turks from Central Asia? — Apollodorus

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

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

Wikipedia - and all other sources - state very clearly (a) that Tatars are a Turkic people and (b) that Turkic people are a Mongoloid group that originated in Siberia. What exactly have I "misunderstood"??? — Apollodorus

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

According to sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), 75% of Crimea’s population under the Tatar Khanate were non-Tatar slaves and freedmen, i.e., mostly Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and Caucasians from places like Georgia and Circassia. — Apollodorus

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

When Russia took Crimea from Turkey in 1783, the majority of Crimeans are supposed to have been Tatars. However, this is obviously misleading as it depends entirely on how “Tatar” is defined.
Many Russians and Ukrainians, and I suspect even Putin himself, have some Tatar (Mongol-Turkic) ancestry and may even have some Tatar features. But modern genetic analysis shows that even those who self-identify as “Tatar” often have more European DNA than Tatar. This renders the claim that Tatars made up “the majority” prior to the Russian takeover of Crimea highly questionable. — Apollodorus

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

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

As you can see for yourself, the Tatar lady who posted her DNA data on ICCRIMEA is only 28% Northern Asian, i.e., Siberian-Mongol-Turkic or Tatar proper. Are you now denying your own evidence? :grin:
In some Crimean Tatars the percentage may indeed be higher or lower as she suggests, but if her DNA is anywhere near average, this indicates that genuine Tatars with more than 50% Northern Asian DNA could not have been the majority! Your own evidence contradicts your claim that Tatars were "the majority"!!! — Apollodorus

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

The true ratio of Northern/East Asian and European DNA in Tatar populations is corroborated by data from individuals outside Crimea, such as the Volga-Ural region, showing that the mitochondrial gene pool of the Volga Tatars has a Eurasian (Caucasoid) component that prevails considerably over the Eastern Asian (Mongoloid) one:

The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River (Khalikov 1978; Kuzeev 1992). The Volga Bulgars settled on the Volga in the eighth century, where they mingled with Scythian- and Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples. After the Mongol invasion, much of the population survived and mixed with the Kipchak Tatars. Anthropologically, about 80% of the Volga Tatars belong today to Caucasoids and 20% to Mongoloids (Khalikov 1978). Linguistically, they speak a language of a distinct branch of the Turkic group, within the Altaian family of languages.


Mitogenomic Diversity in Tatars from the Volga-Ural Region of Russia - Oxford Academic — Apollodorus

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

As for claims that “Crimean Tatars have nowhere else to go than Crimea”, they are complete nonsense given that most Crimean Tatars emigrated (note, emigrated, not “expelled”) to Turkey between 1783 and 1897, thus settling that question of their own accord. — Apollodorus

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

The way I see it, the correct application of the principle that “every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners” is not for Crimean Tatars to join Turkey – as Turkey itself is territory illegally taken from Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and others – but to return to Turkic countries in Central Asia. — Apollodorus

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

Stalin’s resettlement of Crimea’s Tatar minority (about 20% of the total population) to their original homeland in Central Asia was unfair on those Tatars who were actually European, and this was readily acknowledged by the Russian authorities who eventually gave resettled Tatars the right to return. — Apollodorus

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

To the extent that it was arbitrary, that resettlement scheme was a mistake. It is one thing to relocate genuine Turkic Crimeans to Central Asia where they had come from. It is quite another to send Greeks who had lived in Crimea since the 7th century BC to Kazakhstan! — Apollodorus

This is why, personally, I’m against forced deportations and I think diplomatic solutions backed by financial incentives are to be preferred. But the process has to start with correctly identifying who should relocate. Otherwise, how are we going to know which territory rightfully belongs to whom? — Apollodorus

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

In the Crimean context, the problem seems to be not as much genetic as CULTURAL. The genetic evidence indicates that “Tatars” are mostly Indo-Europeans (Caucasoids) who were forced to speak Tatar (a Turkic language) and to convert to Islam under Mongol-Turkic rule. In other words, they assumed an alien cultural and linguistic identity under foreign occupation and this identity is now blown out of proportion for political ends.
And if the problem is cultural, one logical solution would be not to resettle Crimeans of European descent but to encourage them to shed their false Turkic or “Tatar” identity. — Apollodorus

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

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

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

Yet the Natoist argument seems to be as follows:

A. Crimea is “Tatar”.
B. Tatars are “Ukrainians”.
C. Therefore Crimea is Ukrainian.
D. And Ukraine is Western.
E. Therefore Ukraine and Crimea belong to America and its NATO Empire.
F. But Russia doesn’t think that Crimea and Ukraine belong to America.
G. Therefore Russia must be destroyed so that it never again deviates from what America says the world should think. — Apollodorus

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

If America is prepared to do this to Russia, how can other countries be sure that it won’t do the same to them?
Moreover, the destruction of Russia is likely to result in Turkey, China, Iran, and other powers trying to fill the vacuum and potentially lead to decades of instability and war in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
Eastern Europe is already heading for a serious recession, probably to be soon followed by Western Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Economic hardship and wars will result in millions of refugees fleeing to Western Europe and other parts of the First World. These are enormous problems that America has created but is unwilling and unable to solve.
America has a long and well-documented history of “solving” some problems whilst creating many other new ones. We need only look at Iraq where they removed Saddam Hussein but created ideal conditions for Islamic State a.k.a. ISIS to emerge - who turned out to be far worse than Saddam.
In these circumstances, European and other leaders around the world may start asking themselves whether it isn’t time to break free from America’s policy of world domination in which the only thing that matters are the interests of US oil and defense corporations.
IMO a far more balanced – and philosophically acceptable – position would be to follow the lead of less-ideologically-committed analysts, and advise Ukraine to (a) stay neutral and (b) cede some territory, e.g., Crimea, to Russia.
As Henry Kissinger has said, “the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be taught rules of conduct established by Washington.” I think philosophers would do well to consider the implications of refusing to follow Kissinger’s advice. — Apollodorus

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

What an epic failure are you, dude!

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

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.

↪neomac
Rather than arguing about the racial origins of Crimean Tatars, let me tell you something about the actual people. I bet that most here have never seen a Crimean Tatar in person - they are not so numerous now, and they have historically lived compactly in and around Crimea - before Stalin's deportation, that is. — SophistiCat

:ok:

If you really want to know who the original inhabitants of Crimea were, then you should try to find out instead on fixating on Tatars just because it serves your political agenda. — “Apollodorus

YOU should feel compelled to find out who the original inhabitants of Crimea were by your own theory of the rightful owners, NOT ME! And in any case it’s NOT the Russians!

Tatars and other Turkic peoples originally came from the same area as the Mongols and are genetically closely related to them. — Apollodorus

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

You keep talking about the origins of the Tatars and Turkic peoples (while conflating genetic with cultural-linguistic factors), not about the Crimean Tatars whose origins are indigenous to Crimea and stem from millennia of demographic stratification that preceded and followed Mongol invasions! You didn't disprove anything I said about the Crimean Tatars! They are NOT the Mongols of Crimea as the filo-Russian propaganda would claim!

The Greeks were the first to introduce civilization and to build cities in Crimea from the 5th century BC, and southern Crimea remained Greek until it was conquered by Turkey in 1475, i.e., it was GREEK for a thousand years! — Apollodorus

From the evidence I provided the ancient Tauri community merged with the Crimean Tatars (at least in good part, considering that the Crimean Greek-speaking Greeks were deported outside Crimea again by the Russians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greeks#History), so I don't see how the distinction you make can be of any help to you. But hey if you think that the original inhabitants of Crimea are the Greeks, then, again, you should support the "Crimean Greeks", or the Ukrainian Greeks or the Greeks in general (if you want to go as far as to claim that Crimea and other parts of Ukraine like Mariupol and Donetsk belong to Greece!) and - for exactly the same reason - oppose the Russification of Crimea (and Ukraine) as an imperialist and colonialist process against indigenous people of Crimea!

In any case Crimean Tatars have surely more of a claim on Crimea than the Russians for historical reasons! In other words Russians are not the right owners of Crimea!

By taking Crimea from the Tatars and Turks in 1783, Russia reintegrated Crimea into Europe, put an end to the Tatar depredations, and redressed a historic injustice. And justice, after all, is what this is about. — Apollodorus

The "historic injustice” you are referring to concerns the raids of the Crimean–Nogai Horde of centuries ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean%E2%80%93Nogai_slave_raids_in_Eastern_Europe) to the Russians of centuries ago not to the current Crimean Tatars and, as I argued, only a sub-group of Crimean Tatars may have genetic ties with the Crimean–Nogai Horde! (“It is the most likely that discovered features of Steppe Crimean Tatars gene pool reflect the genetic contribution of medieval Eurasian Steppe nomads. The component predominant in Mountain and Coastal Crimean Tatars gene pools and in Crimean Greeks suggests that genetic contribution of East Mediterranean populations continued in Crimea for many centuries.” Source: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-gene-pool-of-indigenous-crimean-populations-mediterranean-meets-eurasian-steppe/pdf, “The Westasian and Mediterranean genetic components (population of Asia Minor and Balkans) predominate in the gene pool of Crimea Tatars, the Eurasian steppe component is much fewer.” Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311805917_The_Tatars_of_Eurasia_peculiarity_of_Crimean_Volga_and_Siberian_Tatar_gene_pools). But notice that Turkic people inhabited Crimea for centuries prior to the Crimean-Nogai Horde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars) and even prior to the formation of Kievan Rus’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27)!
Finally, not only the Russian ancestors were the victims of Crimean-Niogai Tatars' raids but also the Ukrainian ancestors (more likely so, since Crimea is attached to Ukraine) so why on earth should Crimea be a compensation for the Russians and not for the Ukrainians?!

But tell me more about how your "historic injustice” theory work, should the Russians become the right owners of Mongolia too, or Crimea is enough as a compensation?! BTW Russian ancestors pillaged, raped and enslaved Azerbaijani and Iranian people too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus%27 so are Azerbaijan and Iran right owners of pieces of Russia as a compensation now?! And what is the compensation for the Ukrainian oppression by the Russian empire as Lenin acknowledged (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm) and by Stalin, the Russian national hero (https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor)?!

If we say that “Crimea belongs to the Tatars” and the Tatars are considered to be Turks, we can see how this can be an invitation for Turkey to try and bring Crimea under its control and we’re playing into the hands of Erdogan who aims to rebuild the Ottoman Empire. — Apollodorus

According to YOUR theory, if Crimean Tatars want to join Turkey, that should be fine with you too!

They already had them as Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union — ssu

Yet, "Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. The security measures against unauthorized use were under Moscow’s control. The Ukrainians might have found ways around those security measures, or they might not have. Removing the warheads and physically taking them apart to repurpose them would be dangerous, and Ukraine did not have the facilities for doing that. Nor did Ukraine have the facilities to maintain those warheads Source: https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/

The truth of the matter is that there is very little genetic difference between Mongols and Turkic people like the Tatars. — Apollodorus

In other words, Mongols were from Mongolia proper, and Turkic people were Mongols from adjacent areas. — Apollodorus

You didn't provide any evidence to support these claims. I have evidences that question them. Indeed Turkic people may be genetically very different from Mongols:

Only two out of five Siberian Tatar groups studied show partial genetic similarity to other populations calling themselves Tatars: Isker–Tobol Siberian Tatars are slightly similar to Kazan Tatars, and Yalutorovsky Siberian Tatars, to Crimean Tatars. The approach based on the full sequencing of the Y chromosome reveals only a weak (2%) Central Asian genetic trace in the Siberian Tatar gene pool, dated to 900 years ago. Hence, the Mongolian hypothesis of the origin of Siberian Tatars is not supported in genetic perspective.
Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026893316060029

In particular another study shows: The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations [...] These results confirmed the lack of strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks despite the close relationship of their languages (Altaic group) and shared historical neighborhood. .
source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12753667/

So again the genetic link between Crimean Tatars and Mongols is highly questionable also through the reference to generic "Tatars" or "turkic people" group (assuming this was sufficient, which is not even the case!). This is even less surprising if one understands that the ethnonym "Tatar" may be highly equivocal: Frequently different peoples, at times ethnically not connected with each other, were called Tatars. Many historians and ethnologists in the 19th-20th centuries, following the Kazan missionaries, designate with the ethnonym Tatar (without definitions) the peoples who in the past were called Tatars by someone, for example, the ancient Tatars, and the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars and the modern Bulgaro-Tatars, all of them are just simply called Tatars. As a result these ethnically not connected or only partially connected Tatars were group identified. We find this identification in the monographs on the history of Tatars, and in the "Tatar" sections of the school and high school textbooks written by some Russian, and sometimes by foreign authors. It resulted in rude distortions in the study of the ethnogenesis for the specific Tatars
Source: https://www.podgorski.com/main/tatar-origins.html

The original inhabitants of Crimea were the Tauri who lived mainly in the southern highlands while the lowlands were invaded by a succession of various tribes. But by the time of the Mongol invasions, Crimea was controlled by Russia who later took it back from the Mongols and Turks. — Apollodorus

To indigenous Russians and Ukrainians there was no difference between Mongols, Turkic people, and Tatars. The term “Tatar” referred to the non-Slavic, Mongol and Turkic tribes that invaded the region in the Middle Ages. Crimean Tatars are a subgroup of the Tatars and are, by definition, Turkic, i.e, closely related to the Mongols. — Apollodorus

Dude you are desperately trying to support your claim that Crimean Tatars are "the Mongols of Crimea" (now you revised your claim "closely related to Mongols"! How closely?!) and suggested their strong link to Middle Age invaders of Russian lands (including Crimea, right?).
Unfortunately you didn't provide anything that supports those claims and contradicts what I said. Besides the fact that Tatar and Mongols can not be confused from a genetic and historical point of view [1], that Tatars were originally a confederation of Turkic nomadic tribes covering a huge territory which is consistent with their great genetic variability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary#/media/File:1806_Cary_Map_of_Tartary_or_Central_Asia_-_Geographicus_-_Tartary-cary-1806.jpg), and that relying on blood purity is not only foolish but also gives a Nazi flavor to your theory matching ethnic groups with territorial claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil), the main problem is that you didn't provide any evidence specific to the Crimean Tatars in support of the idea that Crimea belongs to Russia more than to Crimean Tatars!

Concerning specifically the Crimean Tatars here are the claims you should address with pertinent evidences from the available literature:

- Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people of Crimea (not the Russians!) and it doesn't matter how pure their blood is for being considered indigenous (even actual Russians may have Tatar and Mongol genetic traces, Italians and Spaniards may have people with Arab ancestors yet they are not Arabs!). This is enough to say that, according to your theory, Crimean Tatars are the rightful owners of Crimea and not the Russians. Period.

- Crimean Tatars stemmed from merging different groups including pre-Mongol ethnic groups (like the Tauri, and others: Scythians, Goths, Byzantines, Genovese, later merging with Turkic groups such as Khazars, Kipchaks, Tatars and Ottoman Turks https://www.iccrimea.org/reports/genographic-results.html). The fact that Crimean Tatars' ethnogenesis took place in Crimea and consisted of several stages lasting over 2500 years is proved by genetic research showing that in the gene pool of the Crimean Tatars preserved both the initial component for more than 2.5 thousand years, and later in the northern steppe regions of the Crimea. (Source: https://us.edu.vn/en/Crimean_Tatar_people-0262024006)

- Crimea Tatars are not Mongols from a genetic point of view. This is a corollary of what I said before but here some recent genetic studies to confirm that once more:
1. 62% of the Crimean Tatars' genetic pool is not even of Asian origins! Source: https://www.iccrimea.org/reports/genographic-results.html
2. “The Westasian and Mediterranean genetic components (population of Asia Minor and Balkans) predominate in the gene pool of Crimea Tatars, the Eurasian steppe component is much fewer.” Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311805917_The_Tatars_of_Eurasia_peculiarity_of_Crimean_Volga_and_Siberian_Tatar_gene_pools
3. The Eurasian genetic influence concerns particularly a subgroup of Crimean Tatars:
“It is the most likely that discovered features of Steppe Crimean Tatars gene pool reflect the genetic contribution of medieval Eurasian Steppe nomads. The component predominant in Mountain and Coastal Crimean Tatars gene pools and in Crimean Greeks suggests that genetic contribution of East Mediterranean populations continued in Crimea for many centuries.”
Source: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-gene-pool-of-indigenous-crimean-populations-mediterranean-meets-eurasian-steppe/pdf


Conclusion: Wikipedia historical trivia (yours included) do not question but confirm that the ethnic stratification of Crimean Tatars relate to the period prior to, during and after the Mongol empire (which per se was already a multi-ethnic empire as many ancient empires were! And that is also why genetic evidence about “generic” Tatars wrt Mongols is neither very useful nor conclusive!), that is why they are not Mongols in a historical sense either!
So any assimilation of Crimean Tatars with Mongols or middle-age Mongolian-Tatar hordes is, to be kind, an oversimplification, partly based on historical misconceptions (arguably still supported by Russian propaganda [2]). And I would question also its relevance even if it was true! So if you are against any form of imperialism (at least the one that violates what belongs to the rightful owners), then you should oppose Russian imperialism in Crimea, instead of promoting it by spreading their lies about Crimean Tatars!

And they’re currently a small MINORITY (about 10%) in Crimea while the majority are ethnic Russian. — Apollodorus

Oh really?! Did you conveniently forget that they are a minority due to the Russification of the peninsula by Russian imperialism (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_Population_of_Crimea_18th%E2%80%9321st_century.png, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Tatarization_of_Crimea), the kind of imperialism you claim to be opposing?! If you haven't, then you should oppose Russian imperialism in Crimea as much as you oppose NATO imperialism. Even more so with Russian imperialism, since Crimean Tatars have more problems with Russians than with NATO or Ukraine! (https://newlinesmag.com/essays/the-suffering-of-crimeas-tatars/ , https://theconversation.com/why-crimean-tatars-are-fearful-as-russia-invades-ukraine-178396)

[1]
The Tatars (/ˈtɑːtərz/; Tatar: татарлар, tatarlar, تاتارلر, Crimean Tatar: tatarlar; Old Turkic: , romanized: Tatar) is an umbrella term for different Turkic ethnic groups bearing the name "Tatar".[34] Initially, the ethnonym Tatar possibly referred to the Tatar confederation. That confederation was eventually incorporated into the Mongol Empire when Genghis Khan unified the various steppe tribes.[35] Historically, the term Tatars (or Tartars) was applied to anyone originating from the vast Northern and Central Asian landmass then known as Tartary, a term which was also conflated with the Mongol Empire itself. More recently, however, the term has come to refer more narrowly to related ethnic groups who refer to themselves as Tatars or who speak languages that are commonly referred to as Tatar, namely Tatar by Volga Tatars (Tatars proper), Crimean Tatar by Crimean Tatars and Siberian Tatar by Siberian Tatars. The largest group amongst the Tatars by far are the Volga Tatars, native to the Volga-Ural region (Tatarstan and Bashkortostan), who for this reason are often also known as "Tatars" in Russian. They compose 53% of the population in Tatarstan. Their language is known as the Tatar language. As of 2010, there were an estimated 5.3 million ethnic Tatars in Russia.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

[2]
The firm belief that the Crimean Tatars were descendants of the Golden Horde, who settled on the peninsula in the first half of the 13th century, was firmly ingrained in the minds of many scholars. This myth appeared immediately after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 1783, and has since become firmly entrenched in official Russian and then Soviet historiography and continues to be replicated in the scientific literature. The falsifiers took the events related to the Horde period as the starting point of origin of the Crimean Tatars, which, in fact, is only a stage of a centuries-old, complex historical process.
Source: https://culture.voicecrimea.com.ua/en/ethnogenesis-of-the-crimean-tatars/

Putin sees no threat from NATO expansion, warns against military build-up :chin:
source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-calls-finland-sweden-joining-nato-mistake-with-far-reaching-consequences-2022-05-16/

The more I read anti-NATO imperialism supporters the more I feel like becoming a NATO imperialist supporter: Putin's self-fulfilling prophecy about NATO expansion seems to work also for anti-NATO imperialism propaganda.

Meanwhile, in a popular Russian talk show, retired Russian Col. Mikhail Khodaryonok gives his grim assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine:

Since we are part of a philosophy forum debate not an ordinary political debate, I don't think that discussing with Nazis about their views is a way to legitimize them. Besides in this case I'm questioning Apollonuts' legitimacy claims which, among others, spread filo-Russian imperialist propaganda in contradiction to his own principles. So I think I'm done with him ;)

Also, “The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate, an Ottoman vassal state during the 16th to 18th centuries” - Wikipedia.
Of course, they would have some non-Mongol DNA as they enslaved the local population and raped thousands of local women! The Cumans themselves were a "Turkic nomadic people that eventually settled to the west of the Black Sea" (Wikipedia). — Apollodorus

Dude, I quoted you not only Wikipedia but ethnogenesis studies on the Crimean Tatars, that prove Crimean Tatars' origins were pre-Mongol. And also specific genetic studies on Crimean Tatars prove that they can not be assimilated to Mongols! https://www.iccrimea.org/reports/genographic-results.html
(BTW there are more recent genetic studies that prove the hypothesis that Siberian Tatars stem from Mongols wrong: "The approach based on the full sequencing of the Y chromosome reveals only a weak (2%) Central Asian genetic trace in the Siberian Tatar gene pool, dated to 900 years ago. Hence, the Mongolian hypothesis of the origin of Siberian Tatars is not supported in genetic perspective". source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026893316060029)
And if the Crimean Tatar genetic pool shares something with the Mongols this is for the same reason why also Russians may have Mongol and Tatar ancestors, namely due to ancient nomadic tribes' migrations and the Mongolian invasions!
Finally, and most importantly, it's not matter of how pure their blood is (see how racist your principle starts sounding?), but who are the indigenous inhabitants of Crimea. Not the Russians! But the Crimean Tatars (https://ctrcenter.org/en/o-krymskih-tatarah, Here some more on their history [1])! So they should be the right owners according to your views!

In any case, that doesn’t make Crimea “Ukrainian”! :grin: — Apollodorus

Sure, according to your principle (not mine), Crimea belongs to Crimean Tatars, so neither "Ukrainian" nor "Russian"! But Crimean Tatars seem to fear more the Russians than the Ukrainians: https://theconversation.com/why-crimean-tatars-are-fearful-as-russia-invades-ukraine-178396
This is something that should concern you, because you too have now reasons to oppose Russian imperialism in Crimea based on your own principles!


[1]
The antinationalist, multiethnic Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Re- public(RSFSR), guidedbyitsMarxist,class-orientedideology,stoodfourth in line of descent of ethnically heterogeneous empires under which Crimean Tatars had struggled to retain a distinctive group identity. Beginning with the Mongols early in the thirteenth century, the Qipchaq component of the inhabitants who populated the peninsula, Tatars, rather soon found themselves a minor segment in another conglomerate, the Ottoman Empire, a government led by politicians more willing than later imperial rulers to leave Crimean Tatar unity intact. Russian emperors in their turn sought not only to absorb the geography and economy of Crimea into their unitary state but to destroy or dissolve any viability of the Crimean Tatar community.
source: "The Tatars of Crimea" E. A. Allworth (1998)

The problem is not just the American reluctance to seat at the negotiation table (they might prefer to wait until they have Sweden and Finland joining NATO, and bled the Russians' military machine and economy as close as possible to the brink of collapse). The point is that Russians may have made clear their demands, but they didn't clarify what they are ready to concede to Ukrainians in terms of material and psychological compensations and assurances for now and the future. If the only thing Russians are ready to concede to Ukrainians is peace now, Ukrainians will keep fighting for the reasons you just explained, and also because surrender to Russians demands would likely look as their humiliation: to the ones still alive and for the ones they have lost due to Putin's criminal aggression.

What you appear to conveniently forget - but only serves to expose your ignorance - is that Mongol presence in Crimea was the result of the Mongol invasions during the Middle Ages when they invaded and occupied Russia, Ukraine, Eastern and Central Europe, the Mid East, Persia, India, and China. — Apollodorus

If the Tatars “own” Crimea for invading it, then they also “own” Ukraine, Russia, China, and many other countries in Asia and Europe! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: — Apollodorus

So, NO, they don’t qualify as “rightful owners” of any territories they invaded and whose inhabitants they enslaved, though I wouldn't be surprised if YOU thought that they do. — Apollodorus

In expelling some of the Mongols of Crimea and resettling them in Central Asia from where they had invaded, Russia arguably redressed a historic injustice. — Apollodorus

What?! Why on earth are you talking about Mongols?! Crimean Tatars are indigenous to Crimea, they are NOT Mongols!

“The Crimean Tatars were formed as a people in Crimea and are descendants of various peoples who lived in Crimea in different historical eras. The main ethnic groups that inhabited the Crimea at various times and took part in the formation of the Crimean Tatar people are Tauri, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Greeks, Goths, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Italians and Circassians. The consolidation of this diverse ethnic conglomerate into a single Crimean Tatar people took place over the course of centuries. The connecting elements in this process were the commonality of the territory, the Turkic language and Islamic religion.
An important role in the formation of the Crimean Tatar people belongs to the Western Kipchaks, known in historiography as Cumans. They became the consolidating ethnic group, which included all other peoples who inhabited the Crimea since ancient times. Kipchaks from the 11th-12th century began to settle the Volga, Azov and Black Sea steppes (which from then until the 18th century were called the Desht-i Kipchak – "Cumanian steppe"). Starting in the second half of the 11th century, they began actively moving to the Crimea. A significant number of the Cumans hid in the mountains of Crimea, fleeing after the defeat of the combined Cumanian-Russian troops by the Mongols and the subsequent defeat of the Cumanian proto-state formations in the Northern Black Sea region.
By the end of the 15th century, the main prerequisites that led to the formation of an independent Crimean Tatar ethnic group were created: the political dominance of the Crimean Khanate was established in Crimea, the Turkic languages (Cuman-Kipchak on the territory of the khanate) became dominant, and Islam acquired the status of a state religion throughout the Peninsula. By a preponderance Cumanian population of the Crimea acquired the name "Tatars", the Islamic religion and Turkic language, and the process of consolidating the multi-ethnic conglomerate of the Peninsula began, which has led to the emergence of the Crimean Tatar people.[19] Over several centuries, on the basis of Cuman language with a noticeable Oghuz influence, the Crimean Tatar language has developed.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars#Origin


This sort of debate has also swirled around the issue of the ethnic identity of one of Europe's most misunderstood Muslim ethnic groups, the Crimean Tatars. While the Crimean Tatars (who were exiled in toto from their homeland from 1944±1989 by Stalin) see themselves as the indigenous people (korennoi narod) of their cherished peninsular homeland, with origins traceable to the pre-Mongol period, they have long been portrayed in western and Soviet sources as thirteenth-century ``Mongol invaders’’.
Source: Williams, Brian Glyn. 2001. "The Ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars. An Historical Reinterpretation"


While the Crimean Tatars are traditionally described as descendents of the Golden Horde, the formation of this Turkic-speaking, Sunni Muslim people has pre-Mongol origins in the ancient, indigenous peoples of the Crimean peninsula. They believe their history begins with the tribes living
in Crimea in prehistoric and ancient times, including the Tavriis and Kimmerites, who occupied the peninsula from 2-1,000 B.C.E. (Kudusov 1995: 15). The Crimean Tatars therefore consider themselves one of the indigenous peoples, along with the Karaims and Krymchaks
Source: The Crimean Tatars’ Deportation and Return - GRETA LYNN UEHLING (2004)


Under the Imperial Russians, the Crimean Tatars, whose ethnic origins went back to the eleventh century Kipchaks and beyond to earlier south Crimean peoples, such as the Medieval Goths, Greeks and Italians, would begin to disintegrate as hundreds of thousands of the Tsarina’s new Muslim subjects fled Russian repression to the sheltering lands of the Ottoman sultans/caliphs. The majority of the Crimea’s Muslim Tatar peasants would ultimately leave the peninsula to par- take in hijra (migration to preserve Islam from oppression by the non- believer) to the Ottoman Empire.
Source: BRIAN GLYN WILLIAMS “The Crimean Tatars” (2016)

Dude, just because Tatars “constituted the ethnic majority until the Russian colonization by the Russian empire in the late 19th century”, that doesn’t mean that Crimea belongs to Ukraine! — Apollodorus

Dude, I was inquiring about who are the right owners of Crimea according to your Utopian principle (not mine!) mapping territories and ethnic groups (as the right owners). Not Ukranians all right, forget Ukrainians. Russians? No, Crimean Tatars were before the Russians! If not Crimean Tatars who else?

What really matters in the context of the current conflict is that Crimea has NEVER had an ethnic-Ukrainian majority. — Apollodorus

In any case, the bottom line is that NATO has failed to produce any evidence that Ukraine has more rights to Crimea than Russia has, least of all in demographic or ethnic terms. — Apollodorus

NATO didn't fail, they just do not need to justify the fact that Crimea belongs to Ukraine in ethnic terms.

Ukrainian minorities in Crimea “have been expelled by Russia”?! I bet you were there (in your dreams) and you saw it with your own eyes (or optic sensors)! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Crimea is a Russian-majority territory that has never been Ukrainian (there has NEVER been a Ukrainian majority there!) and that had a special status even within Ukraine. — “Apollodorus

Still rofling, dude?! Still chopping conveniently my quotes to suggest claims I never made?!
Still countering objections I never raised, nor implied, nor suggested, nor even need to raise to make my point against your claims?! Really?!
This was my question to you, read carefully (since you do not have optic sensors, I bolded the salient parts for you): “Shouldn’t your Utopian principle mapping territories with ethnic groups, consider the reinstatement of all the non-Russian minorities that have been expelled from Crimea?”. In other words I was questioning your Utopian principle wrt the demographic history of Crimea. Do you know there is an ethnic group indigenous to Crimea (so indigenous they got labelled with the word “Crimea” in their name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars)? Do you know they constituted the ethnic majority until the progressive Russian colonisation by the Russian empire in the late 19th century (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_Population_of_Crimea_18th%E2%80%9321st_century.png, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Tatarization_of_Crimea)? And that to ensure a Russian majority in Crimea the soviets had to expel other non-Russian minorities, in great part Crimean Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars)? How about their ongoing oppression by the Russian imperialists (https://newlinesmag.com/essays/the-suffering-of-crimeas-tatars/)?! You didn’t say anything in defense of their rights to own Crimea, dude! They are waiting for you to defend them from Russian imperialism already! That’s your anti-imperialist job, right?!