Ukraine & The Crimean War: The Parallels

Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon / davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribes... and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstark... to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstar.... Thank you for watching.
Please do not re-upload any David Starkey Talks video without permission.
#Davidstarkey #Davidstarkeytalks #History

[@davidstarkeytalks]

Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.

[@JonathanHerz]

Great to see David Starkey on KZbin! Your monarchy in the UK series is one of the only 3 videos I have ever purchased.

[@kasialeparska2480]

Dr. Starkey, you are simply BRILLIANT!🏆🥇 Thank you for your fantastic lectures; Tudor era, or contemporary history, they’re all excellent. Please don’t stop, you have many fans out here waiting for new posts/discussions. Thank you! ❤😊👍🌹

[@FishMonger849]

Historical parallels!? My favorite! Thank You

[@peneloped.wenman4388]

... my paternal Uncle who was a member of the Canadian Parliament; took my brother's & I to see the premiere matinee movie: Charge of the Light Brigade (1968)... then followed was a Q & A discussion around burgers & root beer ... my Uncle was amazing in stimulating the 'grey matter' of the brain & encouraged discussion in local contemporary & historical conflicts ... which paved the way to critical thinking ... much gratitude to Uncle ... he was/is amazing ... I'm sure he's occupying Heaven somewhere ... 'over the rainbow' ...

[@lorrainegunn4111]

The Russian War against Ukraine is much like the War of 1812, when the Americans invaded Canada; their generals said: "It is only a Matter of Marching" ...for them to take over and assimilate our Country. they assumed that the local farmers and shopkeepers etc. would be against Britain, as their people were; but they were happy to have their homesteads, and were very loyal to their Kings and Queens as they still are today. the Loyalists, settlers, the Indigenous Allies, along with the scattered British Troops, (who were worn out from the long, long war in Europe) managed to repel the Americans, burn the White House, and win their war by pushing back the Americans and retaining Canada's Sovereignty.

[@peneloped.wenman4388]

@@lorrainegunn4111 ... Hello, Lorraine ... thanks so much for the capsule comment; mini-reminder of our own 'American angst', in that we have suffered in the past by our aggressive neighbour ... at times the 'God Bless America' seems to wishful thinking that it should be applied in a neighbourly sort of way; to both the 'America''s' , not to be politically ungovernerable such as huge Russia, or of the US & it's over abundance of 'States'... but, with egoism, & the bullying over borders taking presedence over neighbourliness... I am so grateful that we did not completely capitulate into the inner take over of the political system of the US; by their 'Kings & Bankers' elitist plots that now so grievously continue to oppress the world today ... my maternal lineage is descended from the Loyalists, which I consider to be very worthy, but I do believe that Empire's can become stagnant, insular & redundant in their social significance, as well as horrendously expensive in their greed ... there is tragically far too many that hog the wealth of the world for their own personal benefit, & only give token regard to the needs of the populace of their own nation & the world at large ... so, here it is, Easter Weekend ... & it's a juxtaposed Celebration of the heaviest of Christian experiences; the Crucifixion of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ ... & His Resurrection after only three days of descent into Hell to redeem us thereby; then onward & upward into the glorious ascent & Victory in the Resurrection ... both extremes experienced in only three days ... how wonderful it would be for worldly conflicts to only last that long ... a permanent resolution to the mystery of war, has already been provided for us ... isn't it tragic that our world has not entered into the promise of Peace ... God Bless America; indeed; & the entire World ... have a truly wonderful Easter ...

[@stephenmaclean9914]

Dr Starkey: At present I am following a "self-directed" reading course on international relations, with the Crimean War as one of my case studies. Am very much looking forward to hearing your interpretation of events, to-morrow. ~ sm.

[@zoltanrudolf]

A good essay question might be: “War is the defining feature of international relations. Discuss.”

[@CharCar92yt]

Honestly, really interested! Love the narration style and these videos always bring new information to my life.

[@davidbrear8642]

Leo Tolstoy was one of the defenders of Sevastopol in the Crimean War. He published 'Sevastopol Sketches, ' aka. 'Sebastopol Stories' in 1855. Although Tolstoy's most-celebrated novel is set during the Napoleonic Wars, its first publication came 10 years after the end of the Crimean War; whilst a lot of the narrative in 'War and Peace' is based on 'Sevastopol Sketches.'

[@free_shortvideo]

Leo Tolstoy was one cruel m-fucker who enjoyed watching people kill one another!!! But so I would be much the same if I was born in same surroundings and circumstances.

[@davidbrear8642]

@@free_shortvideo Where you get the the idea that Tolstoy "enjoyed watching people kill one another!!!", is baffling. Tolstoy's view of war was that it is a moral evil and that we would do well to concentrate our efforts on preventing it, rather than on creating rules of military engagement which only serve to make it seem acceptable.

[@free_shortvideo]

@@davidbrear8642 That "moral evil" talk came much later in life, but at Crimean war time he as a noble man (trained Sargeant ) watched fighting from safe distance and much enjoyed it. But it was in times of youth, latter he changed his mind.

[@davidbrear8642]

@@free_shortvideo I think you will find that young Tolstoy only described the strange visual beauty, and excitement, of war when one had the luxury of viewing it from a comfortable distance. That was before Tolstoy got posted to the defence of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and experienced the true horror of combat up-close (piles of rat-infested stinking corpses, mortally-wounded men screaming in pain, etc.) In his journal, young Tolstoy openly admitted how much he enjoyed his life under siege, but as far as I'm aware, he never said anything about enjoying watching people kill each other.

[@free_shortvideo]

@@davidbrear8642 ok

[@axcelblack2808]

Thank you David.

[@stevenporter4845]

Great piece. Very much enjoyed.

[@renshiwu305]

The Crimean political debate in Britain was: "the Ottoman Empire is bad" versus "Russia is bad and an aggressive power." The Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) replicated the same arguments, with Gladstone (Leader of the Opposition) adopting the former and Disraeli (the Prime Minister) adopting the latter.

[@kelvinkersey5058]

But surely most important was denying Russia access to British India?

[@renshiwu305]

@@kelvinkersey5058 Well, Russia was advancing into Central Asia during the latter half of the 19th Century. Only a thin strip of Afghanistan (which was a buffer state) separated Tajikistan (which remained part of the Russian empire until 1991) from the North-West frontier of India. The Suez Canal didn't exist at the time of the Crimean War, but its security was a definite preoccupation of the British Government, leading it to reinforce the Bosporous. Benjamin Disraeli was the prime mover in securing the Bosporous against Russia and also in purchasing a British interest in the Suez Canal.

[@derekmills1080]

After a mundane day shopping and doing other tedious chores, I had been looking forward to your talk. I was not disappointed. Thank you, again, David, for another enthralling analysis of historical events.

[@Matlacha_Painter]

David, so nice to see you back at it.

[@peneloped.wenman4388]

... Hello, David Starkey ... Greeting from the True North Strong & Free ... you have a remarkably wonderful voice & genteel teaching demeanor that is not pretentious, but genuinely engaging ... thank you so much for this very timely talk here ...

[@lisacook8235]

"History is alive and kicking". Good one!

[@davidmorrison2739]

In our dining room we have a sturdy cedar table with six chairs, all having belonged to John Paton who served in the Crimean War and later gained the VC in Lucnow, India. He later migrated to Australia. His only survivors were two maiden twin daughters whom I remember well. We inherited some of their now-antique furniture. Just an interesting antiopedean link for us.

[@kaushikbasu3778]

You drew a picture imbued with wonderful , old world charm. Thank you.

[@febweb17]

You lucky man. I would love to own such an historic piece of furniture.

[@anthonyspinks2640]

Great explanation of Russian and Crrimea History 👍😊

[@ruthcollins2841]

Strange that Lords & Earls wore garments in Crimea that have became regular use in the UK: Lord Raglan wore an overcoat with a sleeve that went to the collar as he lost an arm in the Battle of Waterloo, hence raglan sleeve; he also wore a knitted head covering in the Crimean War to keep out the cold in Balaclava, hence balaclava hats; and Lord Cardigan wore a knitted covering to keep out the cold in Crimea, known as cardigans. Lord Lucan 3rd, was blamed on a dodgy message given to Cardigan, look what happened to the 7th Lucan?🤔,

[@zoltanrudolf]

What a delightful comment that was (especially for a fashionista like me)!

[@tamaradovgan5318]

Thank you very much: from Sankt Petersbourg,Russia

[@janeteholmes]

It illustrates the importance of Crimea, especially to Russia.

[@DieFlabbergast]

Crimea WAS part of Russia, from 1783 (when Russia seized it from the Ottoman Empire) until it was transferred to Ukraine (then a part of the USSR) in 1954. It was never a part of Ukraine.

[@connernickerson5509]

@@DieFlabbergast it was and still is, you just said it yourself you moron, I was transferred to Ukraine in the 50's, that is when it became a part of Ukraine.

[@131alexa]

Yes, annexed by Russia in 1783, home of the Black Sea Fleet, strategically vital to Russian security, mostly ethnic Russian population today. When Russia lost the Crimean War the victors were able to impose a treaty forbidding Russia to maintain a navy in the Black Sea, which held for a few years until the Tsar unilaterally reneged on it in 1870. If the West/NATO gained power over Russia today, the same issue would presumably be in contention.

[@entropy5431]

It's always been important to Russia.

[@bentrinker1937]

Its only important in the sense that it gives Russia a warm water port (they also have multiple ports in Syria due to the backing of Bashar al Assad) and access to the Black Sea and from there an ability to project power into the Mediterranean. It’s only important to Russian nobility and the ruling elite, because they would go down there for holiday. It was a holiday destination in both tsarist and soviet times. There’s also a far more loftier quasi religious goal of seizing Constantinople from the Muhammadan and the reestablishing of the Byzantine empire under Russian protection. If turkey was not under NATO protection, you absolutely would’ve had another Russo Turkish war in the 1950s.

[@adrianlawrence5208]

Constantin Guys worked as a war-artist during the Crimean War for the London Illustrated News. Guys was the subject of Charles Baudelaire's essay The Painter of Modern Life.

[@adrianlawrence5208]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that in Regency England Alexander II was known as the 'Military Dandy'.

[@jeffharmed1616]

Nice bit of work thanks. It brings up another interesting question. Is there a relationship between net zero (or the scramble to be independent of oil and gas) and Russia’s rise as an oil and gas giant? Was net zero a counter to Russian global energy monopoly?

[@jackteare8292]

I would say " no.". Net zero is the global oligarchs way of enslaving humanity. " You will own nothing and be happy," is one of the World Economic Forums slogans. Klaus Schwab's " Great Reset" and " Fourth Industrial Revolution" is underway. For the geopolitics you only have to look at Orwell's 1984, has David has previously alluded to. Have a great day and God bless 🙏

[@zoltanrudolf]

@@jackteare8292 I think “Net Zero” is largely playing into Russia’s hands.

[@jackteare8292]

@@zoltanrudolf the global oligarchs need us to have enemies so we are easier to control. NATO would not let Russia join the club after the fracture of the former Soviet Union in 1991. Since 1996 they have been encroaching on former Soviet Union territories ( against the 1991 agreement.) This is a manufactured conflict that benefits the global oligarchs and leads to the enslavement of humanity. Honestly my friend this is deep. The net zero is a con, one of the psychological tools to enslave us with " virtue .". In the atmosphere 0.04% is CO2, out of that only 3% is caused by human activity. Do you really think net zero carbon can do anything for a perceived notion of climate change ( the climate always changes.) ?? Have a great day and God bless 🙏

[@zoltanrudolf]

@@jackteare8292 There are three kinds of people: the asleep, the woke and the awake. We know who we are. God bless us!

[@entropy5431]

No.

[@louisgiokas2206]

Your point at about 13:00, and your earlier videos, is correct. You make the point forcefully. The whole idea of "international law" is a sham. Any "law" depends on a mechanism of enforcement. The courts are the last step. First one has to apprehend the perpetrator. This requires force. In common situations, this is police. In international situations, this is armies.

[@kelvinkersey5058]

I've read in a couple of (generally reliable) sources that the Crimean War was just after shoes in general became 'handed', you got two identical shoes rather than a left and a right. All the new fangled left boots were stocked on one supply ship, all the right ones on another, and on the way to Crimea one of these supply ships sank. The more I think about it the more unlikely it sounds. Has anyone else heard this tale or know anything relevant?

[@robertaspindale2531]

But then in the 1850s The Times told the truth, unlike now.

[@katherinecollins4685]

Very interesting

[@craigbenz4835]

Your point about all the talk about punishing people for war crimes only being possible through total war and unconditional surrender is the most salient one to our present situation. The biggest failure of WWI was not having an early negotiated peace. Unfortunately the necessities of WWII reinforced the notion that unconditional surrender was a good idea.

[@ianstafford4809]

In the Crimean war neither Britain nor France intended a land war marching to Moscow: no more is this likely today in the current war. The Anglo/French- Russian war was essentially a naval operation. Strategically, the Royal Navy attacked Russian fleets and bases in the Arctic,the Baltic, the far East as well as in Sevastopol. The Russian fleets and their forces were damaged in the Baltic and in Crimea the Russian navy scuttled,. Sevastopol was a land engagement but with the (successful) taking and destroying of the Russian Black Sea fleet's main HQ in Sevastopol. It is a read-across to Ukraine driving the Russian flleet our of the Crimea.

[@seanwalker6460]

I've been thinking of this comparison for some time. At a lower level than David has done! The Russian army all though large was very badly trained and could only bring to the 'front' limited resources. Tolstoy wrote about all the dead horses he passed on his trek to Sevastapol. The horses were of great in size 'fat' and good at parades and could not live on the rations they got in a war situation. The Russians were still armed with old-style muskets and totally outclassed by the new rifles the British and French used. As David mentions the technologies were extreme in differences. None of us has any idea the amount of intel the Allies will be giving to the Urkrainians. I think it will make the Enigma code breakers look like amatures. All seems a bit familiar with what is happening now in Ukraine now with the badly trained and armed Russian forces. The 'trained' Russian army with good coms and support is about 200, 000 strong. The Contracti are the new professionals and the rest have been described as one year 'Berger flippers'.

[@ANobodyatall]

Are we backing the 'wrong side'? Or is there 'no good side'?

[@jeanetteb2347]

You're not always so audible due to big differences in volume between mumbling and loud. That makes it a bit fatiguing to listen at. Maybe your microphone is not up to the task also?

[@Himgonemountain]

Point taken re: the 'who's - who' of the all-in-with-Ukraine, or the not-so-much, and so forth, but abstention is not support for any party let's remember, it is just strategic fence sitting. We all know that nations have no friends, only interests, but that only applies to the politicians and not the people. What may have taken on the apparent shape of a proxy war still has the Ukrainian people alone, bang centre, in the cross hairs, and no one likes a bully. Wherever our governments buy our guns and oil from everyone know who the bully is in this situation.

[@ggravett]

Kicking and screaming history is.

[@physiocrat7143]

Crimean War. Another thing Britain should not have got involved in and picked the wrong side. Result: 3 million died 1915 and 1923 when the Ottoman Empire finally broke up, plus Gallipoli. Add in the Bulgarian massacres of the 1870s.

[@raspberrytreacle]

List is too long

[@physiocrat7143]

@@michaelrclements How does that work? You were obviously not impressed.

[@bentrinker1937]

I feel as though the British were entirely justified with their naval campaign against the Russian navy and the land campaign in the Crimea. The Russians had recently won 2 wars one against the ottomans (Russo Turkish war of 1829) and another against the Persians (Russo Persian war of 1826) both resulting in weakenings of the latter empires and territorial expansion for the Russians in the caucuses. The British feared the Russians were trying to gain greater control over the Black Sea (which has been a dream of the Russian empire since Katherine maybe Peter?), and from the Black Sea, project power into the Mediterranean, having a chokehold/threatening british trade in the region. The British also feared that the Russians would eventually cross the Himalayas and threaten British control of India. The British also had vast ideological differences with the Russian Empire. The British were more lowercase L liberal, had sympathies for the polish who had lost their independence, and had a disdain for the absolute monarchy/autocratic rule that Nicholas represented/was the embodiment of, especially with the way he put down multiple independence movements and revolutions throughout Europe at the time, gaining the title of the gendarme of Europe. This is an eerily similar story to the current ruler of Russia and his reaction to the Arab spring and color revolutions that have spread through out the Eurasian region.

[@louisgiokas2206]

Your comment at about 8:00 ignores history. Russians, and indeed, the Soviets, would not do anything that resulted in the destruction of the motherland. You have to keep this in mind. Nuclear weapons are not offensive. Their first use by a country results in that country being destroyed. That, no Russian, or in previous times Soviet, leader would countenance. i am an old Cold Warrior. My father worked in an Army weapons lab. Once, when I was a child, we received a large format postcard (I mention that, because it was not in an envelope) with a mushroom cloud from a nuclear test. This was sent by my father's colleagues who were at the test to witness their work. It basically said, test went well, we were all knocked down in the blockhouse, but we are alright. This is the world I grew up in. I actually worked on SDI. The plan was audacious, and there was no way to test it. On the other hand, while the US at the time was spending less than 10% of GDP on defense, even with the Vietnam War, the Soviets were already spending 40%. This was actually a major contributing factor to their demise. Some of the weapons being developed, while intended to be defensive, could also be offensive. That was not the intent, but it was the reality.

[@thehound9638]

Nuclear weapons have certainly changed the game though. If there hadn't been nuclear weapons after the second world war I believe we'd have had a third world war by now, and depending on how the map was redrawn a fourth world war might have occurred as well. Before America took over the world was run by Britain and France for the most part and by Britain in particular. Britain engaged all their enemies in shooting wars because they had too. America with their main rivals didn't have to because of nuclear weapons and so the world was spared the catastrophe of another world war.

[@stevenporter4845]

I’m a bit late and having to use catch up.

[@fraserleeglover]

tremendous

[@BraveCounsel]

Baltics next?

[@johnhughes2124]

nope, the Russian army has been comprehensively shredded by a NATO trained and equipped army in a theater where the airspace is contested. The Baltic states would also benefit from Article 5 of the North Atlantic alliance. The problems the RU army faces today are the same as they faced in Crimea; poor logistics, corruption, low morale and a top down command authority. The culture of NATO countries is exactly what enabled the UKR army to adopt tactics that have let them outfight the Russians whose only real advantages is artillery.

[@Marvin-dg8vj]

@@johnhughes2124 the Baltics are too small.We cannot easily supply them by road or rail unlike the Ukraine where we have excellent transport links.They have Russian minorities which can be used for destabilization.They are at risk

[@131alexa]

No, they're in NATO and will be more secure if Finland joins too

[@michaelsalisbury994]

It's very like Vietnam in the early part of the war

[@evolassunglasses4673]

My understanding is the Ukrainian army are surrounded in the East and AZOV is surrounded at the steel mill. KZbin channel THE DURAN

[@robertmyers6488]

Dr. S. I don't agree with your assertation that Russia is in a materially weaker technological position. Take the Russian hypersonic missile that is recognized as a superior technology for example. I think the differences that are being seen and tainted by the double blackout of real information are that most western weapons are built in response to guerilla warfare that has been seen in the Mideast. While Russian appears to be heavy artillery and missile. Different focus.

[@autodidact537]

If what you say is true why is mighty Russia having so much trouble subduing Ukraine?

[@louisgiokas2206]

At about 17:30 you mention Fukuyama. I get very exercised at even the mention of this thesis. For one thing, the term is just plain stupid. For another, the idea that one system will take over everything is just plain stupid.

[@Marvin-dg8vj]

He has been misinterpreted. If you read the actual thesis he does talk about the real danger that nationalist/ dictatorship regimes stop this drift

[@justanothergoogler6436]

Nobody never learns nothin' about war!

[@Thurnmourer]

The parallels? Can't imagine there are many.

[@Marvin-dg8vj]

You are wrong . Britain and France wanted to keep Russia out of the Ottoman Empire because it was looking to dominate the Black Sea and the Balkans.Putin clearly aims to control the southern part of the Ukraine and it's sea trade even talking about Moldova as an part of a new Russia.

[@djanitatiana]

An Iron Curtain will redescend at Russia's border. Great.

[@boggle37]

Correction on one point, Russian technology outclasses the west, e.g. Russia has hypersonic missles that US isn't close to getting.

[@BlutoandCo]

No, russia does not out class anyone in technology, if they did then they wouldn't be bombing hospitals and train stations by accident would they? Oh, they have advanced weapons? So they did it on puŕpose then!

[@connernickerson5509]

Uhhh no, I guarantee you that we found some money in our 750 billion dollar military budget to buy or develop technologies that no one has ever seen in use, never underestimate the tenacity of America's military industrial complex.

[@131alexa]

Some tech like nuclear-powered icebreakers yes; military tech...questionable

[@boggle37]

@Big Bazza dream on

[@boggle37]

@@connernickerson5509 actually not. US arms spenging is a boondoggle. We very little for our money

[@herzkine]

the parallel is: neither UK nor murica have any right to be there

[@hnilsson7964]

.

[@gaildurward7757]

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." Isaiah 55:6 KJV

[@Bosby7]

Amen

[@JP-ve7pp]

US/UK asking for a regime change in Russia for 'war crimes' shows how desperate is the West to keep the war, triggered by US/NATO/EU. going. War crimes have been committed in Ukraine for the last 8 years, ant still are, by Ukraine troops and militia without the West lifting a little finger.

[@dufushead]

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past"....."it really seems as though old Hegel, in the guise of the World Spirit, were directing history from the grave and, with the greatest conscientiousness, causing everything to be re-enacted twice over, once as grand tragedy and the second time as rotten farce....."

[@JP-ve7pp]

Crimea had been part of Russia for 200 years until 1954, when it was gifted to the Soviet Republic of the Ukraine by the then Russian Premier, Nikita Khrushchev. Ukraine is not part of the Russia Federation, so no reason for the Crimean people not to choose which country they want to belong too.

[@renshiwu305]

54% of Crimea voted for Ukrainian independence during the 1991 referendum. 83% of Luhansk Oblast and 74% of Donetsk Oblast (the Ukrainian provinces that have been occupied since 2014) did as well.

[@BlutoandCo]

It was only part of russia because they attacked it. It was part of Turkey before that, for longer than it was russian. So no-one but Ukrainian "owns" it. It wasn't guven as a "gift"

[@nikkyalla3669]

Prof Starkey: I have no respect for Biden yet I refer to him as President Biden, as you did in this video. Whether or not you respect President Poutine, you should not refer to him simply as "Poutine/Putin", out of respect for the institution and for the large majority of Russians who voted for him - unlike the small minority who voted for President Biden. I have a feeling you're now trying to go with the flow and ingratiate yourself with the msm overlords who recently gave you such a hard time for your outspokenness. Also, what a waste of time comparing Crimean war to current situation. A bit like a recent video you did comparing President Putin to Ivan the Terrible.

[@simongardiner949]

The primary error in this thesis is to conflate Putin with the old Tsars and Stalin. From Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Nicholas I to Stalin, Russia's objective was to create a defendable border between Russia and Europe. This was the cause of the Crimea War 1853-56. These Russian rulers sought first to consolidate their own authority over a huge land of disparate tribes, and then to defend their Empire against the non Russian tribes that surrounded it. But, has not Putin first 'united' the post Soviet Russia by consolidating his premiership, and is now busy defending the old borders of his 'new' Russia against the non Russian Georgians and European Ukraine? Here Starkey's analogy breaks down. While the above listed rulers (including Stalin) of Russia could claim legitimate authority because they ruled IN THE NAME OF RUSSIA, Putin rules ONLY in his own name. Putin is an 'oligarch'. His rule is based not on legitimate authority, but on his OWNERSHIP of a huge mass of the State's resources - just like those other oligarchs (his allies) who rule over the former Soviet Republics. Putin is, like so many rulers in other Continents, a KLEPTOCRAT, that is not legitimacy, that is pure corruption and nothing else. This is evidenced by the lack of faith and fighting quality of much of the Russian forces in this Ukrainian war as distinct from say those Soviet soldiers in WWII. The initial advance by Russian forces into Ukraine was hampered by lack of functioning equipment, because of corruption by the leading generals! Mr. Starkey, we are not dealing with an Ivan the terrible or even a Stalin, we have in Putin nothing but a common thief.

[@drinkrealale]

What a crank time index 14:20 "Russian none interference policy" How many dead now?..........

[@Choofalong]

You would think someone who is so precise with his wording and a passion for history would be able to figure out why it the not called "THE" Ukraine, but just Ukraine. I really enjoy Davids thoughts but i physically cringe when he attempts to sound knowledgeable about a subject when he can get such BASIC FUNDAMENTALS as wrong as this, when it is so easily avoided by educating yourself. And this is not the only example of this behavior

[@entropy5431]

In English it is The Ukraine. Much like it is The UK or The USA when spoken. To say just Ukraine sounds sloppy in the English spoken word although I accept the political difference, especially in these sensitive times.

[@Choofalong]

@@entropy5431 according to Wikipedia: The use of "the Ukraine" is officially deprecated by the Ukrainian government and many English language media publications. I don’t care how it “sounds” to you. If it is offensive to the people of that country, try having a little respect for someone other than yourself EDIT: Your example is wrong. Your are basically saying “The the Ukraine”. Which “sounds sloppy”. And offensive. Almost as if you are too LAZY to learn but want to act as if you know what you are talking about.

[@entropy5431]

@@Choofalong It is the same as people virtue signalling by changing Kiev to Kyiv. In English we often have different name to places than the local people. Munich and Munchen to name one example. It is not about being offensive it is just how the English refer to those places.

[@Choofalong]

@@entropy5431 Sorry, not sorry. You are just wrong and arrogant and offensive. The Official Government says it is wrong. YOU ARE WRONG. It’s as if someone invaded London, insisting on calling it Gaulcap (made up name that “sounds good”) after conquering and exploiting the local population, then wondering why people are upset when ignorant know-it-alls INSIST they are “right” when they call it Gaulcap! What if, for instance, I wanted to refer to Great Britons (the people) as Tyrants. Technically, is true. With the “Empire” on whom, the sun never sets, tyranny was a valid, if not standard strategy. We would not care what they called themselves because the rest of “civilised” peoples ONLY refer to you as such. Do some research. I get what you are TRYING to say but in this instance, you ARE JUST WRONG.

[@entropy5431]

@@Choofalong I think you are looking for offense were none is intended. That's up to you but life is too short for this kind of thing. While I wish the Ukrainians well in their war I'll still enjoy my chicken Kiev.