>Ideally anything that belonged to the Crimean Khanate,

why stop there? why not the Mongol? they owned both Russia and Ukraine... or Turkey, via the Ottoman and also conquered the Byzantine, that controlled Crimea? Or Italian, as Venetian and Roman also controlled the area ...and the Greek too!! Hey, Kiev Russ owned a good part of western Russia! The Polish also controlled most of Ukraine! In other countries, the French and Spain owned a good chunk of the USA? But the Native where already there! Discussing who owns something by referring to historic events is a huge can of worms that almost no country wins, Those are just excuse to start wars, like this one. Every time nationalism sentiments show in historic places controlled by many people end escalating for no good reason

EVERY time a civilian die it is a bad thing and true that the original responsibility of the war is by those that started it... but everyone that takes the decision to attack something and end kill civilians also have responsibility. War should not be kill everything that moves. No idea in this case who is right, but i know that is way too easy to order attacks and not care about the consequences

Sadly many people follow your logic, "it is not my fault as i'm forced to attack a place with high change of causing many civil dead". One scenario is attacking a military base and some debris ending killing some civilians, other is attacking a known civilian location. Both sides can use that argument, may or not kill military people, but have high change of killing civilians... them both side go to the press complaining that the other side is bad because is targeting civilian locations.

The leaders have the top responsibility, but everyone below also share those responsibilities. WW2 show that the "i'm was just following orders" is not a valid a excuse.

Finally, totally agree, this war should never exist, it is totally stupid and just show that instead of trying to find middle terms and talk, escalating things may make everything worse for both sides. USA/Iran is also a great example. When you gamble and keep gambling, you may end losing hard

>At least for that price. The video card in it is roughly equivalent to a 4060 which is okay but for a thousand bucks that's really pushing it.

i'm thinking in to replace my computer... my last simulation gave me around 2k ...now is even worse!! for 1k having a mostly similar performance would be great for me, while losing capability to add several other disks that i have (will have to use a nas) and not be able to do almost any upgrade in the future

sadly i can't really help you, as i do not own a steamdeck to test... but have you tried to switch to desktop mode, to KDE and see if in that setup you can use the external monitor? if yes, it is the control software in steamdeck... and a good bug report with some pointers to that problem may help valve devs fix the issue...

if it isn't, maybe some issue with the detection. I had a bad hdmi cable that cause me issues in one monitor... and a old monitor that the EDID info comes with errors, where i had to dump a EDID from another similar monitor and force load it in the driver, after that all worked. Maybe the connector broke some pin and some signal is not working

again, due to the risk of a WW3... having some radioactive dust would be just a minor problem vs all world being nuked several times and most of us dying

well, crimea was Russia for many years, they can use that excuse... and it have 2 critical key values for Russia, that can be enough to justify a nuke for some people:

1- the Sevastopol port
Russia have 4 main ports: Sevastopol, Murmansk, Saint Petersburg and Vladivostok. Murmansk is too in the norh, Saint Petersburg is very important, while a little locked in the Baltic sea, Vladivostok is in the other side of the world. Sevastopol is also a little locked in the black sea, but is in the south, so serving a totally different region and can work all year. Military, as this war show, may have been downgraded by missile range and drone range, but it is still important as all ports do suffer from that problem.

2- the ketch strait
The strait that exist between Crimea and Russia control the access to the Azov sea. That in turn control the access to the Don river, Rostov-on-Don and all the rivers and channels that fuel the inner Russia trade. Ukraine being friendly, it would not be a problem, but with the Ukraine target of join NATO, the control over those vital russia blood line would be in danger. Block those and the alternative is Saint Petersburg... that also have NATO countries controlling that access... Vladivostok is on the other side of the world and Murmansk too north and far away to serve as alternative. So even if not in military danger, just the risk of mostly landlock Russia is a concern. That is why Peter the Great wanted the Saint Petersburg port in the north and Crimea and control of the Azov sea for the south port, he could see that only with those sea access Russia could grow, have good ports and good internal transport, most by boat, to the inland cities. Stalingrad, now Volgograd controls the Volga river that feeds a good part of western Russia... that was why the Soviets tried so hard to keep control of it. Don river connects to the Volga by channels. AFAIK, you can reach Saint Petersburg by boat sailing from the Azov sea via all the rivers and channels

3- as a bonus, the all Donbass give land access to Crimea and better protect Azov sea, so while the Bridge that connects Russia to Crimea helped a lot supply Crimea, the land connection via Donbass is still much better (and also supply water to Crimea)

So Crimea is important to Russia... how important is up to the leaders at that time... I would give away Crimea for peace and would try to create a economic USSR (without the communism) like EU... A stable free commerce and border between all those lands, to decreasing border problems and grow... and in a few decades, merge all that or one by one with the EU and create the wide European Asia Union. NATO expansion IS a problem... create a "NATO/Russia protected" treaty, where both agree that certain countries are neutral (Ukraine, Belarus and probably the Baltic states and Finland) and defended by the other side if ever attacked (ie: NATO, but without having either side solders or equipment in those countries... or joint military bases.. whatever is needed so each side check and trust the other)... or also join Russia to NATO, problem solved! :)

> withdrawing all Russians from the territory that Russia has stolen from Ukraine from 1919 onward,

So Crimea, taken by Russia in the 18 century would be Russia by that description, right?! Should we consider the inclusion of Crimea in to the Ukraine state during the USSR as stolen by Ukraine when USSR broke apart and not return Crimea to Russia?

is easy to look to history and select what is important for one point of view and ignoring the other, but the other side can do the exact same.
History is complex, that is why we have Belgium and Swiss, those lands change hands way too many times.

Borders should not really exist, after the EU, most borders problems in member countries are just plain stupid and almost all disappeared

I'm sorry, that is a stupid comment and you probably know that already as you are smart enough!

if USSR didn't breakup, they could probably still be alive
if Hitler was not defeated, they could probably still be alive
If the Czar wasn't killed, they could probably still be alive
if the Mongol didn't existed, they could probably didn't existed at all or in much different regions

In history we can have many "what if", but all that do not matter, what matter is the "what is". My actions are for what we have right now, not for what could have been

This war shouldn't have started, sure, totally agree!! But it is now happening so we all, as humanity should try to end it, not point fingers (let that to history later on)

both side are the same, true !! this is a civil war, but not by the population but by their leaders.

Ukraine can and IS defending itself, very well actually. Russia attacked and they shouldn't...

Giving up is a matter of what is more important, the land or the people... both side as betting in the land sadly, so both side will continue to bleed human lives in yet another stupid war. Both think they will win, both ending losing. China is probably the one that ends winning of all this

> If Ukraine shows they are stronger than Putin and make a serious push for control, then the government and people will support them.

Exactly, i see much of this war as a civil war, but not by the population believes but by the leaders power, mafia and corruption. Both sides have families in the other side of the border. The best hope is a change in leaders (for the best, not even worse leaders, please!!), specially in the Russia side... without it, sadly, it will be either a long war or one side going to collapse (like Germany collapse in WW1, leaders could see that they could only sustain the war for few months, a year max before total collapse of supply chain and army... in ww2 hitler wasn't as smart, continue and lead to a total collapse)

My personal opinion is yes, they will use a nuke IF they are really losing hard and the current leaders are still in power!

Think in Ukraine managing to collapse their army and recovering all their land, possible entering Crimea and invading/bombing Russia with little resistence. If Russia isn't capable of stopping the Ukraine by lack of weapons/men/money they will use their ace as the alternative is total collapse, break up of many russian regions and a total change of leaders. The risk of a WW3 would be a acceptable risk at that time

Again, this is my opinion, people in power should be smart, but many times are stupid and nationalism can push decisions that in the end are MUCH worse for the country. This war even existing is already a great example of that

(fixing typos)

> Ukraine is peeling you guys off of Crimea right now
Just because i try to be neutral, doesn't mean i'm on either side. Sorry that i do not believe in neither side info, both side want to make everyone think that they are winning. Both are losing!

I feel sorry for both side soldiers, dying for their leaders stupidity! Neither side want really to stop the war because they both think they can win... and people die for a few pieces of land

Yes, they did that!
No where i say that they haven't commit war crimes and the people that commit those should pay!!

In any war there are always war crimes, both by isolated soldiers and by orders of someone in command. Russia already have a long list of war crimes! But don't kid yourself, Ukraine have done also war crimes, we just don't get those on the news. The hate goes both sides and the innocents are the civilians.

Go check a video of a russian soldiers without legs after a drone attack, being attack twice more until he stops moving. For sure russia is doing the same on ukraine soldiers. It is still a war crime, no matter the excuses each side say to themselves!

Sure, keep killing each other, i'm very far away... i do only care because i'm human and all that feels stupid... but if you want to kill each other, go for it... This is just like 2 troll groups fighting in the internet, no one wins... but people do die on this one!!
Grow up, this isn't a game (if you all don't die before you learn)

That is why the war continue (this and the other war too), both side are "winning" and do not accept sane proposals because any idea that isn't their side winning are clearly playing for the OTHER side

I feel sorry for all the normal population on both sides for having leaders and brain washed people not caring about them

hey, if they used nukes, they would use then in the west of Ukraine... and they would wait to see if the Western countries would fire any nuke back too... so either one nuke "far away" or many all over the place (ie: www3)