Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean Tartars, but
>> they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
>> Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
>>
>> This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification', scattering non-Russians
>> across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their place. In 1989, less
>> than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
>>
>> On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954, when Khrushchev
>> transferred it to Ukraine.
>>
>> So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly Russian, and it was
>> part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred to Ukraine, and
>> then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>
>Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first military aggression
>against Crimea took place.

That would be in the Greeks in the 5th century BCE then.

In article <Ljg%K.112973$tRy7.57798@fx36.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6,
>pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean
>Tartars, but
>>> they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
>>> Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
>>>
>>> This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification',
>scattering non-Russians
>>> across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their
>place. In 1989, less
>>> than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
>>>
>>> On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until
>1954, when Khrushchev
>>> transferred it to Ukraine.
>>>
>>> So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are
>mostly Russian, and it was
>>> part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally
>transferred to Ukraine, and
>>> then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>>
>>Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the
>first military aggression
>>against Crimea took place.
>
>That would be in the Greeks in the 5th century BCE then.
>
Neanderthals, surely? Unless that was Denisovian territory.

It seems to me the just solution is to offer the Russians and
Ukrainians John Savard as official scapegoat.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:15:11 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean Tartars, but
> >> they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
> >> Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
> >>
> >> This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification', scattering non-Russians
> >> across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their place. In 1989, less
> >> than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
> >>
> >> On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954, when Khrushchev
> >> transferred it to Ukraine.
> >>
> >> So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly Russian, and it was
> >> part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred to Ukraine, and
> >> then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
> >
> >Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first military aggression
> >against Crimea took place.
> That would be in the Greeks in the 5th century BCE then.

There's evidence of at least one earlier (Scythians replacing Cimmerians in 7th century BC).

But the Cimmerians presumably replaced someone else. There have been humans, and proto-humans there for tens of thousands of years.

pt

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 08:40:17 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 10/4/2022 8:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 03:19:52 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:28:05 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that that will stop Putin using the claim that Ukraine is invading
>>>> Russia to justify whatever bit of nastiness he's thinking of these days.
>>>
>>> Very true but the moment Putin uses the first nuke, NATO objectives
>>> WILL include "regime change" as a high objective - and given the
>>> Ukrainians are counting on NATO support for their arms and ammunition
>>> supply they will be as well.
>>>
>>> I have even heard claims that China has pledged to the Ukrainian
>>> government that THEY will respond in kind against Russia if Putin ever
>>> used nukes against Ukraine.
>>
>> They apparently have also warned against admitting Ukraine into NATO.
>> (Apparently, they are trying to keep the conflict conventional. Even
>> if Russia (well, Putin, really) loses.)
>>
>> Delaying Ukraine's NATO entry might, indeed, be something to put on
>> hold for a while.
>>
>> Driving the Bear out of Ukraine is one thing. Poking it in the eye
>> with a stick is something else.
>>
>While not poking the bear in the eye with a stick just leaves it
>inclined to try again. Given that "Ukraine is going to join NATO" was
>one of the given reasons for invading, not letting Ukraine join NATO
>because of the invasion is rewarding Russia.

For now, it may be prudent. Allowing Ukraine into NATO now would mean
that NATO is at war with Russia. The whole point of supporting Ukraine
is to avoid NATO being at war with Russia.

After Russia is out of Ukraine -- all of Ukraine -- things will be
different.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10-a268-5ca59c1c0234n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>
>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>base in Sevastopol.

(Hal Heydt)
That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 7:43:09 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:53:41 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> > Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first military aggression
> > against Crimea took place.

> God, the historical ignorance here blows my mind. Crimea is one of the most fought
> over, conquered and reconquered spots on Earth. The first *known* invasion was the
> Scythians booting the Cimmerians about 1000 BC. They were followed by Greeks,
> Romans, Huns, Byzantines, Kievian Rus, Mongols, Ottomans, Russians, British and
> French, Russians, Germany, Russians again.
>
> Even before that, there are human remains going back to 32,000 BP, and Neanderthal to
> 80,000 BP (yes, they overlap).
>
> You tell me who "lived there before the first military aggression". If you pick a spot,
> give your reasons.

All right, it's true that some locations do have histories going quite far back.

Since the Neanderthals are extinct, giving Crimea back to them is obviously
not one of the options available for consideration.

Due to the recent Russian aggression, though, I really had it narrowed down to
the Ukrainians and the Tatars. But in this case, "Ukrainians" would include the
many ethnic Russians who were living in Ukraine as peaceful law-abiding
citizens, who preferred to live there instead of in Russia itself under Putin,
and who did not have the grievances that Putin imagined.

Mind you, if I could find any modern-day Cimmerians, I would be happy to
have soldiers with the fitness of Conan the Barbarian added to the Ukrainian
forces, and I think something could be worked out.

I mean, it's aggressions like this recent one by Russia which shows how the world
needs the mililtary might of the United States, and this delays serious thought about
somehow giving the place back to the Indians. Because you are quite correct, the
genuinely appropriate rule is to give every part of the Earth back to the ethnic group
to which the first anatomically modern humans who set foot on it belonged.

So presumably most of the Americas would not belong to the indigenous people who
live there now, but instead one huge chunk would belong to the Inuit, and everything
else would belong to the natives living in Tierra del Fuego, who were chased down there
by the aggressors who followed them.

But of course the _basic_ rule, however much it reflects basic moral principles, would
have to be modified in practice. Things wouldn't be so complicated if the human race
were well-behaved and morally responsible from the first moment of its existence.

John Savard

On 10/5/2022 9:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 08:40:17 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2022 8:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 03:19:52 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:28:05 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not that that will stop Putin using the claim that Ukraine is invading
>>>>> Russia to justify whatever bit of nastiness he's thinking of these days.
>>>>
>>>> Very true but the moment Putin uses the first nuke, NATO objectives
>>>> WILL include "regime change" as a high objective - and given the
>>>> Ukrainians are counting on NATO support for their arms and ammunition
>>>> supply they will be as well.
>>>>
>>>> I have even heard claims that China has pledged to the Ukrainian
>>>> government that THEY will respond in kind against Russia if Putin ever
>>>> used nukes against Ukraine.
>>>
>>> They apparently have also warned against admitting Ukraine into NATO.
>>> (Apparently, they are trying to keep the conflict conventional. Even
>>> if Russia (well, Putin, really) loses.)
>>>
>>> Delaying Ukraine's NATO entry might, indeed, be something to put on
>>> hold for a while.
>>>
>>> Driving the Bear out of Ukraine is one thing. Poking it in the eye
>>> with a stick is something else.
>>>
>> While not poking the bear in the eye with a stick just leaves it
>> inclined to try again. Given that "Ukraine is going to join NATO" was
>> one of the given reasons for invading, not letting Ukraine join NATO
>> because of the invasion is rewarding Russia.
>
> For now, it may be prudent. Allowing Ukraine into NATO now would mean
> that NATO is at war with Russia. The whole point of supporting Ukraine
> is to avoid NATO being at war with Russia.
>
> After Russia is out of Ukraine -- all of Ukraine -- things will be
> different.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply inviting Ukraine into NATO while at war
with Russia.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/5/2022 9:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10-a268-5ca59c1c0234n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>
>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>> base in Sevastopol.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).

Kind of moot since there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL that Russia
would disarm.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 05/10/2022 10.44, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:15:11 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954, when Khrushchev
>>>> transferred it to Ukraine.
>>>>
>>>> So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly Russian, and it was
>>>> part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred to Ukraine, and
>>>> then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>>>
>>> Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first military aggression
>>> against Crimea took place.
>> That would be in the Greeks in the 5th century BCE then.
>
> There's evidence of at least one earlier (Scythians replacing Cimmerians in 7th century BC).

Where was Conan? He would've stopped that nonsense!

<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?25742>

--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:04:25 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/5/2022 9:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
> >>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
> >>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
> >>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
> >>
> >> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
> >> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
> >> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
> >> base in Sevastopol.
> >
> > (Hal Heydt)
> > That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
> > fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
> > defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
> > not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
> > agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
> Kind of moot since there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL that Russia
> would disarm.

The ideal outcome would be for the Russian Empire to fall apart, with many of the
territories going on to become independent states, and the remaining rump states
each too small to even dream of threatening other countries.

The thing that I worry about is " Russkiy Mir" ('Russian World'). At the mild end, this
says that all territories with significant numbers of ethnic Russians must be ruled
from Moscow. At the expansive end its a 'Manifest Destiny' ideology,
in which Russia should spread its authoritarian, conservative, Orthodox culture to
the rest of the world, because its *better* than than effete West Liberal Democracy.

Neither end is acceptable to the rest of the world as a national policy.

Dugin is an acknowledged spiritual mentor to Putin, and a flag carrier for Russkiy Mir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:15cbfd49-4bee-4798-8d61-34b0f7843e65n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:53:41 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6,
>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the
>> > Crimean Tartars, but they were about 11% of the population in
>> > 2014. At that point, ethnic Ukrainians were only 16%, while
>> > ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
>> >
>> > This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification',
>> > scattering non-Russians across the union, while moving ethnic
>> > Russians into their place. In 1989, less than 2% of Crimeans
>> > were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
>> >
>> > On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until
>> > 1954, when Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine.
>> >
>> > So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are
>> > mostly Russian, and it was part of Russia until 70 years ago.
>> > OTOH, it was legally transferred to Ukraine, and then
>> > illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>> Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the
>> first military aggression against Crimea took place.
>
> God, the historical ignorance here blows my mind.

Are you really surprised? Seriously, how could you possibly expect
anything else from Quaddie?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rJAFHD.FMv@kithrup.com:

> In article
> <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10-a268-5ca59c1c0234n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
>>wrote:
>>
>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to
>>> continue to lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They
>>> would, of course, have to pay the lease payments not paid
>>> during their illegal occupation and the rates might well go up
>>> going forward.
>>
>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a
>>fleet to base in Sevastopol.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue
> water" fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to
> coastal defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast
> Guard, even if not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports
> (though not, I'd agree, necessarily ones leased from some other
> country).
>
Not to mention merchant marine traffic.

But you've already exceeded Quaffie's mental capacity. He just wants
to vicarously bomb people he doesn't like.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:thkkfk$31vr6$2@dont-email.me:

> On 10/5/2022 9:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article
>> <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10-a268-5ca59c1c0234n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to
>>>> continue to lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They
>>>> would, of course, have to pay the lease payments not paid
>>>> during their illegal occupation and the rates might well go
>>>> up going forward.
>>>
>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would
>>> promptly agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and
>>> adopt a peace constitution similar to Japan's. So they would
>>> not *have* a fleet to base in Sevastopol.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue
>> water" fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to
>> coastal defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast
>> Guard, even if not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports
>> (though not, I'd agree, necessarily ones leased from some other
>> country).
>
> Kind of moot since there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL
> that Russia would disarm.
>
Voluntarily.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <15cbfd49-4bee-4798-8d61-34b0f7843e65n@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:53:41 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean Tartars, but
>> > they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
>> > Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
>> >
>> > This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification', scattering
>non-Russians
>> > across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their place. In
>1989, less
>> > than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
>> >
>> > On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954,
>when Khrushchev
>> > transferred it to Ukraine.
>> >
>> > So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly
>Russian, and it was
>> > part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred
>to Ukraine, and
>> > then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>> Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first
>military aggression
>> against Crimea took place.
>
>God, the historical ignorance here blows my mind. Crimea is one of the
>most fought
>over, conquered and reconquered spots on Earth. The first *known*
>invasion was the
>Scythians booting the Cimmerians about 1000 BC. They were followed by Greeks,
>Romans, Huns, Byzantines, Kievian Rus, Mongols, Ottomans, Russians,
>British and
>French, Russians, Germany, Russians again.
>
>Even before that, there are human remains going back to 32,000 BP, and
>Neanderthal to
>80,000 BP (yes, they overlap).
>
>You tell me who "lived there before the first military aggression". If
>you pick a spot,
>give your reasons.

(Hal Heydt)
That goes to one of the great problems of how to decide who (in
the sense of a government) "owns" *any* piece of land. So the
question usually devolves to: How long do you have to control a
chunk of territory before you own it? The answer usually seems
to be "just less than the time since the other guy had control of
it."

I know of *one* chunk of land that kept changing hands that
finally got settled after 1000 years. That's splitting
Schleswig-Holstein between Denmark and Germany. It was settled
by putting the border where the linguistic survey showed native
language change. That was done in--IIRC--1921. After WW2, the
Allies offerred it all back to Denmark. The Danes refused,
saying that they'd *finally* settled the issue in 1921, so just
put the border back there again.

Side note... For all practical purposes, after WW2, the Soviet
Union picked up Poland and moved it west by about 150 miles.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:51:49 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <15cbfd49-4bee-4798...@googlegroups.com>,
> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:53:41 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean Tartars, but
> >> > they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
> >> > Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
> >> >
> >> > This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification', scattering
> >non-Russians
> >> > across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their place. In
> >1989, less
> >> > than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
> >> >
> >> > On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954,
> >when Khrushchev
> >> > transferred it to Ukraine.
> >> >
> >> > So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly
> >Russian, and it was
> >> > part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred
> >to Ukraine, and
> >> > then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
> >> Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first
> >military aggression
> >> against Crimea took place.
> >
> >God, the historical ignorance here blows my mind. Crimea is one of the
> >most fought
> >over, conquered and reconquered spots on Earth. The first *known*
> >invasion was the
> >Scythians booting the Cimmerians about 1000 BC. They were followed by Greeks,
> >Romans, Huns, Byzantines, Kievian Rus, Mongols, Ottomans, Russians,
> >British and
> >French, Russians, Germany, Russians again.
> >
> >Even before that, there are human remains going back to 32,000 BP, and
> >Neanderthal to
> >80,000 BP (yes, they overlap).
> >
> >You tell me who "lived there before the first military aggression". If
> >you pick a spot,
> >give your reasons.
> (Hal Heydt)
> That goes to one of the great problems of how to decide who (in
> the sense of a government) "owns" *any* piece of land. So the
> question usually devolves to: How long do you have to control a
> chunk of territory before you own it? The answer usually seems
> to be "just less than the time since the other guy had control of
> it."

Too true. There are a lot of groups who, after leaving an area under duress,
want it back. Native peoples in particular, faced with more developed
colonizers. Pre Contact New Worlders, Australian aborigines, Chagos
Islanders, the Marshallese of Bikini atoll.

An extreme example is the Jewish Diaspora. The Jews were exiled from
Israel for over 1800 years before getting it back, which is a lot longer
than Ancient Israel was a going concern (less than 1000 years).

Pt

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 3:11:47 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> >> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
> >> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
> >> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
> >> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
> >
> >If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
> >agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
> >constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
> >base in Sevastopol.
> (Hal Heydt)
> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).

It's Quadi, any correlation between his beliefs and reality is coincidental

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 1:27:37 AM UTC+11, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 6:14:08 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:21:11 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Even in this age of nuclear weapons, as the Cold War demonstrated, aggression
> > >> needs to be met with firm resolve and not appeasement.
> > >>
> > >> John Savard
> > >
> > >But, the Ukraine has no known nuclear weapons. Russia has a lot of
> > >them. Including the nuclear weapons Ukraine turned over to Russia in
> > >the not too distant past.
> > >
> > >If I was Ukraine, I would not advance my troops across the border.
> >
> > Trouble is where do you define "the border" to be? Zelensky says 'the
> > border' is the 1/1/1992 boundaries of Ukraine and that very much
> > includes all the "separatist provinces" as well as the Crimea. And has
> > said so publicly within the past month.
> >
> > Even if the man in Moscow is someone other than Putin while they might
> > well get their 4 provinces back (e.g. the Eastern Ukraine provinces),
> > getting Crimea back at the peace table could be tough unless they're
> > physically in possesion of it when the fighting eventually stops and
> > if Putin says he's "putting a nuclear umbrella over Crimea" that could
> > be difficult.
> Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean Tartars, but
> they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
> Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
>
> This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification', scattering non-Russians
> across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their place. In 1989, less
> than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.

12% now
>
> On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954, when Khrushchev
> transferred it to Ukraine.
>
> So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly Russian, and it was
> part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred to Ukraine, and
> then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>
> ... and no one seems to be asking the Tartars what *they* want.
>
Nor for that matter the ethnic russians who live in Crimea (the trustworthiness of the Russian poll is nil)
Considering the russian behaviour in Crimea and other occupied territories it seems unlikely they'd be looking favourably on Russia now

In article <f5f6ac39-ea46-4530-ab39-81f0413ddc4bn@googlegroups.com>,
"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:04:25 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler
> wrote:
> > On 10/5/2022 9:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > > In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
> > >>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
> > >>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
> > >>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
> > >>
> > >> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
> > >> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
> > >> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
> > >> base in Sevastopol.
> > >
> > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
> > > fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
> > > defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
> > > not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
> > > agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
> > Kind of moot since there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL that Russia
> > would disarm.
>
> The ideal outcome would be for the Russian Empire to fall apart, with
> many of the territories going on to become independent states, and
> the remaining rump states each too small to even dream of threatening
> other countries.
>
> The thing that I worry about is " Russkiy Mir" ('Russian World'). At
> the mild end, this says that all territories with significant numbers
> of ethnic Russians must be ruled from Moscow.

Does significant include cities in the USA that support a Russian
Orthodox church?

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:

> Does significant include cities in the USA that support a Russian
> Orthodox church?

Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy. Bullies pick on those who they
see as weaker than themselves. Ukraine, not the United States, in the
case of Putin and Russia.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:47:40 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>
> > Does significant include cities in the USA that support a Russian
> > Orthodox church?

> Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy. Bullies pick on those who they
> see as weaker than themselves. Ukraine, not the United States, in the
> case of Putin and Russia.

But then, speaking of the Orthodox Church, popular Orthodox priest, the
youthful Okhlobystin, gave a speech in Red Square where he declares that
the countries of the world hostile to Russia, as they are ruled by perverts
and Satanists, should tremble.

No doubt *that* included the United States and most of its allies. But rhetoric
is not military action - and does not *always* anticipate military action intended
in the future.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:51:39 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> But then, speaking of the Orthodox Church, popular Orthodox priest, the
> youthful Okhlobystin,

I did not have my facts co-ordinated. Ivan Ivanovich Okhlobystin is merely
a former Orthodox priest; despite their shared support of Putin's war,
Patriarch Kyrill had some reason to defrock him.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 2:51:39 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:47:40 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >
> > > Does significant include cities in the USA that support a Russian
> > > Orthodox church?
>
> > Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy. Bullies pick on those who they
> > see as weaker than themselves. Ukraine, not the United States, in the
> > case of Putin and Russia.
> But then, speaking of the Orthodox Church, popular Orthodox priest, the
> youthful Okhlobystin, gave a speech in Red Square where he declares that
> the countries of the world hostile to Russia, as they are ruled by perverts
> and Satanists, should tremble.

I've been seeing reports that Orthodox churches in the US are seeing an
uptick in membership from right-wing conservatives - the patriarchal,
conservative, homophobic, transphobic positions of the church are
attractive to the same crowd that likes Trump.

pt

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:7b287035-a931-4cfb-9371-a50cfea8220cn@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert
> Woodward wrote:
>
>> Does significant include cities in the USA that support a
>> Russian Orthodox church?
>
> Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy.

There is consideable evidence that he actually is. He's encouraged by
how weak an ineffective the current administration is.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 2:51:39 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:47:40 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does significant include cities in the USA that support a Russian
> > > > Orthodox church?
> >
> > > Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy. Bullies pick on those who they
> > > see as weaker than themselves. Ukraine, not the United States, in the
> > > case of Putin and Russia.
> > But then, speaking of the Orthodox Church, popular Orthodox priest, the
> > youthful Okhlobystin, gave a speech in Red Square where he declares that
> > the countries of the world hostile to Russia, as they are ruled by perverts
> > and Satanists, should tremble.
> I've been seeing reports that Orthodox churches in the US are seeing an
> uptick in membership from right-wing conservatives - the patriarchal,
> conservative, homophobic, transphobic positions of the church are
> attractive to the same crowd that likes Trump.
>
> pt

Conservatives losing the battle with liberal Episcopalians (Anglicans)
have been linking up with other Orthodox churches for some time
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

In article <7b287035-a931-4cfb-9371-a50cfea8220cn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:02:56 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>
>> Does significant include cities in the USA that support a Russian
>> Orthodox church?
>
>Probably not. Putin is not _that_ crazy. Bullies pick on those who they
>see as weaker than themselves. Ukraine, not the United States, in the
>case of Putin and Russia.

(Hal Heydt)
I don't know... The Soviet Union used--occasionaly--to insist
that the Czar had no right sell land "owned by the people"
referring specifically to Alaska.