[late]

More gas-lighting...

[Szabo]

...while the Ukrainians are not separate from the Russians, they are Russians that have been Ukrainified both by the Soviets and modernity.

This is the same type of rhetoric that russia uses to justify their fascism in Ukraine. You sound like someone who would have justified Germany's anschluss of Austria.

Ukraine's struggle for national liberation goes back many centuries, starting with the Ukrainian Cossack State, under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky with Kiev as the capital in the XVII century, and whereby the official language was the Ukrainian vernacular, which was being spoken by the residents of the area for centuries. Then there's the Ukrainian People's Republic which lasted for several years, and I'm not even going to include the countless other wars which in Ukraine fought against both the Russians in the east and Poles in the west for independence.

I really don't know what's your goal in trying to push the point that Ukrainians aren't a real people, but this kind of talk only emboldens Ukrainians to fight all the harder, because no one likes to be told that they're not a real person.

Russia is also only fucking themselves with this type of rhetoric because it only distances all the former soviet republics more and more. Then some people are surprised why russophobia exists. Unbelievable.

The overwhelming majority of the world recognises Ukraine's sovereignty and Ukrainians as a people, and that's what matters most because that's the only thing within any real practical manifestations on the ground.

Russia's dreams of a Russian empire is just that, a pipe dream.

Here's the idiot putin 'proving' that Ukraine never existed with an old map that clearly shows where Ukraine is in a large inscription "Vkraine ou Pays des Cosaques" (Ukraine, the country of the Cossacks). Dumb ass mother fucker can't even read:






@late

gas-lighting...

[noemon]

This is the same type of rhetoric that russia uses to justify their fascism in Ukraine. You sound like someone who would have justified Germany's anschluss of Austria.

The Austrians themselves did justify it, so who am I to tell them otherwise? And you sound like a North-Macedonian, unhappy with their true identity due to serial Russian mismanagement, they invented another. When you are something, you embrace the totality of your identity and not just the parts that suit you, only then can you actually be happy and content with yourself.

Ukraine's struggle for national liberation goes back many centuries, starting with the Ukrainian Cossack State, under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky with Kiev as the capital in the XVII century, and whereby the official language was the Ukrainian vernacular, which was being spoken by the residents of the area for centuries. Then there's the Ukrainian People's Republic which lasted for several years, and I'm not even going to include the countless other wars which Ukraine fought against both the Russians in the east and Poles in the west for independence.

I really don't know what's your goal in trying to push the point that Ukrainians aren't a real people, but this kind of talk only emboldens Ukrainians to fight all the harder, because no one likes to be told that they're not a real person.

Russia is also only fucking themselves with this type of rhetoric because it only distances all the former soviet republics more and more. Then ya'll are surprised why russophobia exists. Unbelievable.

It's Ukranian nationalism itself that posits that the Ukranians are the true people of the Rus'. Not me. This kind of schizophrenia is a disease, being part or wholly Russian, is not being nothing nor does it mean that someone is not a "real person".

It's a fact of history that Ukraine despite the fierce independence movement of the Cossacks never posed such a threat. There is a real actual reason for that you know.

Here's the idiot putin 'proving' that Ukraine never existed with an old map that clearly shows where Ukraine is in a large inscription "Vkraine ou Pays des Cosaques" (Ukraine, the country of the Cossacks). Dumb ass mother fucker can't even read:

Ukraine never did exist as an independent polity, historically. It was created in the Soviet era by re-organising a Russian province along with many other similar social experiments.

[Rich]

You sound like someone who would have justified Germany's anschluss of Austria.

And what in God's name is wrong with arguing that there was a significant case for the Anschluss. Hitler was a dictator and a bully, but that doesn't mean he never had democratic arguments on his side. In that case that there couldn't be a free and fair referendum on Austria's future under Schusschnigg.

[late]

Ukraine never did exist as an independent polity, historically.

It does now.

[ingliz]

Hitler was a dictator and a bully

Hitler was an Austrian immigrant.

[Potemkin]

If the Ukranian people had actually chosen Taras and not just retrospectively, there would be another 200-500 Taras' to speak of between then and now, but there are not. There is only Taras and even Taras never spoke of Ukranians as not being Russians. There is no perseverance whatsoever there, just a whiff due to poverty.

Taras Shevchenko was not an ‘outlier’, any more than Robert Burns was an ‘outlier’. Nations do not choose outliers as their national poets, @noemon.

The Cossacks are the only non-Russians in Ukraine and some Poles, the Muslim Turks of Crimea have long gone. And then there are the Greeks and Jews.

As I said, not all nationalism is based on ethnicity. It can be based on material conditions, on geography, on history, or on culture.

Nationalism is not romantic nonsense but a world-changing force of nature that unashamedly says "we rule ourselves and no foreign bitch will ever tell us what to do".

How is this not what is happening in Ukraine right now?

Ukranians never had issue with being Russians and a lot of them still don't. You also do not understand Russians that very much Potemkin, it seems. Russians in Ukraine have been fighting against Russia because they have felt betrayed by Putin, it takes a single second for them to switch over and the west already makes it very easy for them as even the British and Americans are lukewarm. As things move on, a lot of things change. Nationalism is by definition a double-edged sword and Russians are far closer brothers to Ukranians than Americans.

When the Americans broke away from the UK, they allied themselves with the French to do it. Yet the British were far closer brothers to Americans than the French ever were. Do you see how irrelevant your argument is, @noemon?

Sure.

Where is the capital of Scotland on that map, @noemon?

[Szabo]

...unhappy with their true identity due to serial Russian mismanagement, they invented another. When you are something, you embrace the totality of your identity and not just the parts that suit you, only then can you actually be happy and content with yourself.

I don't know anything about North Macedonia. On the topic of identity though, labels never meant much to me. To me, brooding over one's identity is a symptom of one's own insecurity in the world, but that's just me and I know identity is important to others, and I respect that.

It's Ukranian nationalism itself that posits that the Ukranians are the true people of the Rus'. Not me. This kind of schizophrenia is a disease...

Nationalism to me is a simple-minded ideology, selfish, ridiculous and in many cases suicidal.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it: Nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.

But your distaste for Ukrainian nationalism should instead be aimed at russian nationalism. They're the insecure ones who want to project power and dominance over others who have chosen not to live like them, and they are the ones who are using great russian chauvinist nationalism/fascism to commit unspeakable crimes in Ukraine.

Ukrainians are overwhelmingly not nationalist. No right wing ultra nationalist party has ever been able to win more than 3% in parliament. Ukrainians want to be part of the European Union, a supra-national union, thereby surrendering part of its sovereignty to this union. That isn't nationalist to me.

Ukraine never did exist as an independent polity, historically.

So what? It does now. Once upon a time humans didn't exist either.

And what in God's name is wrong with arguing that there was a significant case for the Anschluss. Hitler was a dictator and a bully, but that doesn't mean he never had democratic arguments on his side. In that case that there couldn't be a free and fair referendum on Austria's future under Schusschnigg.

Uhm, I'm not an expert on the Anschluss, but my 95 year old grandmother still cries whenever she remembers what hitler's thugs did to her home town, and the stories she tells me are horrible.

Also, how you could use the word democratic to ascribe it one of history's most maniacal dictators is beyond me.

[ingliz]

Scotland – The oldest monarchy in Europe, the second oldest country in Europe, and the fifth oldest country in the world, preceding France, England, and Denmark.

[ingliz]

democratic

Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in 1933 following a series of electoral victories by the Nazi Party.

[Szabo]

Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in 1933 following a series of electoral victories by the Nazi Party.

Yeah, too bad he wasn't as democratic with Jews and all the other people he exterminated.

And you know what, Putin was elected too. Poof. Democracy!

Nationalism is not romantic nonsense but a world-changing force of nature that unashamedly says "we rule ourselves and no foreign bitch will ever tell us what to do".

Just to clarify my general distaste for nationalism, national liberation movements are of course genuinely valid and just causes, because nobody should be forced to live as a second rate citizen or as a slave, but what some people call national liberation, I simply call dignity.

I fight putin not because I'm a Ukrainian nationalist, but because I choose not to live as his slave.

[ingliz]

Poof. Democracy!

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

— W.S. Churchill, House of Commons, 11 November 1947

[noemon]

Taras Shevchenko was not an ‘outlier’, any more than Robert Burns was an ‘outlier’. Nations do not choose outliers as their national poets, @noemon.

They do, especially communist-established nations. Communist historiography specialises in finding outliers to worship. If the Ukranians actually did embrace Taras in sufficient degree, they would have created a sustained movement right there and then, but they didn't because in reality they did not care enough to do so.

And as I already said, Taras never claimed to be a non-Russian.

How is this not what is happening in Ukraine right now?

It is.

When the Americans broke away from the UK, they allied themselves with the French to do it. Yet the British were far closer brothers to Americans than the French ever were. Do you see how irrelevant your argument is, @noemon?

No, I don't. The Americans are not taking pride in the historical exploits of the British empire as their own. More to the point, the Americans have already pre-emptied Ukraine on Nord Stream and have left them out high & dry, and as I said it only takes a single moment to remind people who is playing them.

Where is the capital of Scotland on that map, @noemon?

Dude, seriously. You are not convincing anybody when you claim that the Scots are the same people as the English. The Scots are Gaelic, the English, Anglo-Saxons. The Northumbrians were an Anglo-Saxon people that got integrated into the Scottish kingdom and they along with GB are the reason why the Scots have been Anglicised, precisely as I described.

[Szabo]

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

— W.S. Churchill, House of Commons, 11 November 1947

Okay ingliz, I'll play ball, if you want to be that semantic about it.

@Rich, I just opened a wiki page on the Anschluss and this is what I found:

A referendum on the Anschluss with Germany was held in German-occupied Austria on 10 April 1938, alongside one in Germany. German troops had already occupied Austria one month earlier, on 12 March 1938. The official result was reported as 99.73% in favour, with a 99.71% turnout.

The Austrian government had planned a referendum to assert its sovereignty for 13 March 1938, but Germany invaded Austria the day before in order to prevent the vote taking place.

Political enemies (communists, socialists, etc.) and Austrian citizens of Roma or Jewish origin—roughly 360,000 people or 8% of the Austrian population—were not allowed to vote in the plebiscite.

What in the world is democratic about being invaded and then having a referendum at gun point?

I'm really interested to know your argument in justification for the Anschluss. Although I bet it'd be as poor as the one about Crimea.

[JohnRawls]

Nobody and I mean nobody expected Switzerland to go to war with Germany and she never did, despite getting occupied by Germany. Yet you do have the expectation for Ukraine to go to war with Russia even though Ukrainians and Russians are even closer than Swiss Germans and Germans.

How do you square this circle?



Is Polish-Lithuanian nationalism, the arch-enemy of the Ukrainian people in their national consciousness somewhat relevant here?



As I said your wishful thinking is not really relevant here.



You are well steeped into propaganda. Let's make it clear for you. Russia at its lowest currently occupies over 20% of Ukraine. All of Ukranian strategic objectives to dislodge Russia have failed. The entire country is destroyed while Russia is untouched and that even in the lowest point Russia has ever been. Foreign support for Ukraine has always been lukewarm and becoming even colder as time goes by.



It has a lot of lives to gain from this while with continuing the war it has absolutely nothing to gain. It will never make more than what it already has, it will simply lose more people & more territory which is utterly ridiculous indeed.



Dude, while this nonsense is cute, we both know that it is not true at all. Ukranians and Russians are indistinguishable and are totally intelligible when communicating with each other, more than the language, the entire national consciousness is identical.

I support Ukraine with deeds and words and because I support you, I am advising you to end this now you have somewhat of a middle hand. You will never find Russia in a worse position to negotiate, you will never find the west more unified on this and after September western support is going to fizzle out if a huge breakthrough has not materialised.

You know as well as I, that Ukraine defeating Russia and forcing it to accept surrender is never going to happen, you also know as well as I, that Putin is also totally irrelevant to all this. It makes no difference if its Putin or somebody else.

So, instead of talking about taking back Crimea, get back to Planet Earth before they turn you into another Palestine.

The War will not end, this is already outside of logical domain and both sides will fight till the end or at least till the point they can fight because:
1) Ukranian leadership and Zelensky have no choice since hatred for Russia and love of Ukranian independence in the hearts and minds of average joes inside Ukraine itself is over the top. Bloodshed, Russian intentions and patriotic propaganda did their job.
2) Putin can't stop because his regime legitimacy depends on it. He has an election in 2023 to win and signing a defeatist peace to get his 5th, 6th term or whatever is not on his agenda. Nor on the agenda for the survival of his regime and his personal life-long rule till his death.

So you see, from a leadership/country elite standpoint the resolution is not possible. Now some material or reality conditions might make it possible:

If we go for Ukraine:
1) They take back all the land, which right now seems hard to believe but you never know in a longer perspective with the Russian war machine being grinded down little by little, day by day without being able to replenish its MATERIAL losses. Man power losses are nothing to scoff at since they produce internal instability.
2) Economic collapse of Russia. This is related to the first point sort off. All know by now that Russia is on a clock right now and at some point they will fully run out of money. Probably by end of year the shortage will become critical. So they will have to choose what to cut on, pensions, military, secret services, repressive aparatus. There is no good choice here for Putin regime so it will all lead to instability within Russia which Ukraine will use in one form or the other.

If we go for Russia:
1) They can ramp up the campaign of destruction by normal means. There are things that Russia could do to kill a lot more Ukranians than it does right now. And by a lot more I mean creating man-made disasters with civilians casualties in the 100s of thousands like blowing up the Dam that is near Kiev for example and other places. Attacking nuclear power plants and so on.
2) Use of tactical nukes, just a hardcore version of the first point.

As you notice, although Russia can't stop the war on strategic level, there is no real solution for them to end the war on a smaller level besides commiting EXTREME atrocities through different means. Those extreme attrocities have a price way beyond anything they could realistically take. Russia would be a pariah state on the level of North Korea because of them and then much, much harsher sanctions will be implemented along with NATO probably intervening directly in Ukraine. So Russian options are not really good or so usable compared to Ukranians who can fight and wait both of which they are doing and would be doing anyways.

Long story short: Russia has no easy way to break Ukranian morale to sign a peace treaty. Ukraine has 2 realistic options how to break Russia in Ukraine. Even with less support from the West, both options for Ukraine are much more feasable since they require holding ground and waiting at the very minimum. While for Russia the minimum is extreme attrocities with a lot of uncertain outcomes.

[noemon]

The War will not end, this is already outside of logical domain and both sides will fight till the end or at least till the point they can fight because:
1) Ukranian leadership and Zelensky have no choice since hatred for Russia and love of Ukranian independence in the hearts and minds of average joes inside Ukraine itself is over the top. Bloodshed, Russian intentions and patriotic propaganda did their job.
2) Putin can't stop because his regime legitimacy depends on it. He has an election in 2023 to win and signing a defeatist peace to get his 5th, 6th term or whatever is not on his agenda. Nor on the agenda for the survival of his regime and his personal life-long rule till his death.

Putin can easily sell 20% of Ukraine annexed as a victory especially with NATO fighting Russia.

So you see, from a leadership/country elite standpoint the resolution is not possible. Now some material or reality conditions might make it possible:

You see how easy your assumption falls apart?

If we go for Ukraine:
1) They take back all the land, which right now seems hard to believe but you never know in a longer perspective with the Russian war machine being grinded down little by little, day by day without being able to replenish its MATERIAL losses. Man power losses are nothing to scoff at since they produce internal instability.
2) Economic collapse of Russia. This is related to the first point sort off. All know by now that Russia is on a clock right now and at some point they will fully run out of money. Probably by end of year the shortage will become critical. So they will have to choose what to cut on, pensions, military, secret services, repressive aparatus. There is no good choice here for Putin regime so it will all lead to instability within Russia which Ukraine will use in one form or the other.

If we go for Russia:
1) They can ramp up the campaign of destruction by normal means. There are things that Russia could do to kill a lot more Ukranians than it does right now. And by a lot more I mean creating man-made disasters with civilians casualties in the 100s of thousands like blowing up the Dam that is near Kiev for example and other places. Attacking nuclear power plants and so on.
2) Use of tactical nukes, just a hardcore version of the first point.

Russia can also do what it is currently doing, keeping what it already possesses while at the same time strengthening its economy as it is also already doing. Ukraine on other hand cannot rely on permanent US transfers especially when even today they half-baked anyway.

Long story short: Russia has no easy way to break Ukranian morale to sign a peace treaty. Ukraine has 2 realistic options how to break Russia in Ukraine. Even with less support from the West, both options for Ukraine are much more feasable since they require holding ground and waiting at the very minimum. While for Russia the minimum is extreme attrocities with a lot of uncertain outcomes.

I don't know what the media are feeding you in Estonia but the fact that you believe that Ukraine can break Russia easier than Russia breaking Ukraine is not just delusional imaginatively but also requires ignoring the ground reality. The reality that the Russians are the ones holding territory and also the ones taking Bakhtum where Ukraine has spent its entire forces and has now gone back there again.

[JohnRawls]

Putin can easily sell 20% of Ukraine annexed as a victory especially with NATO fighting Russia.



You see how easy your assumption falls apart?



Russia can also do what it is currently doing, keeping what it already possesses while at the same time strengthening its economy as it is also already doing. Ukraine on other hand cannot rely on permanent US transfers especially when even today they half-baked anyway.



I don't know what the media are feeding you in Estonia but the fact that you believe that Ukraine can break Russia easier than Russia breaking Ukraine is not just delusional imaginatively but also requires ignoring the ground reality. The reality that the Russians are the ones holding territory and also the ones taking Bakhtum where Ukraine has spent its entire forces and has now gone back there again.

He can try to sell it but, his main electorate is not the people. His main electorate is the elite who ogresses the people for him and falsifies election. For the elite, this war is sanctions which are not going away anywhere anytime soon. The fact that he can falsify the election and suppress the people is a given while he has the money.

As for doing what Russia is doing then I will disagree. They have a black hole the size of an elephant in their budget. Yes, the sanctions weren't as good as we would want them to be but they did work. 50% decrease of income to the budget from oil/gas sales since logistics is pricier, selling price is way less and not all gas could be sold. Even if they sell the same amount, their income is much, much smaller. In some cases they can't like for gas since you can't take gas from Europe and move it to China. There is not enough pipes, Russia doesn't really have the tech for liquid gas since we built the factories that they have.

Also the general non-war related economic activity is also down 5-10% overall. Sure the general GdP says growth but increasing your military budget 3 fold is not really an economic solution to a downturn. On paper all looks good, in reality this is only sustainable until the wealth fund runs out.

[noemon]

He can try to sell it but, his main electorate is not the people. His main electorate is the elite who ogresses the people for him and falsifies election. For the elite, this war is sanctions which are not going away anywhere anytime soon. The fact that he can falsify the election and suppress the people is a given while he has the money.

As for doing what Russia is doing then I will disagree. They have a black hole the size of an elephant in their budget. Yes, the sanctions weren't as good as we would want them to be but they did work. 50% decrease of income to the budget from oil/gas sales since logistics is pricier, selling price is way less and not all gas could be sold. Even if they sell the same amount, their income is much, much smaller. In some cases they can't like for gas since you can't take gas from Europe and move it to China. There is not enough pipes, Russia doesn't really have the tech for liquid gas since we built the factories that they have.

Also the general non-war related economic activity is also down 5-10% overall. Sure the general GdP says growth but increasing your military budget 3 fold is not really an economic solution to a downturn. On paper all looks good, in reality this is only sustainable until the wealth fund runs out.

Yo, you forgot you are describing the scenario of peace with Ukraine letting go of what it has already lost. Or do you think that Russia will agree to peace with the sanctions still on?

The wealth fund has already run out in Ukraine not in Russia.

And the oligarchs would have already made such a move, another summer night dream.

Unless Ukraine makes a huge breakthrough by September, which means by the end of this month of June 2023 at the latest(giving them the bare minimum of 2 months to advance), the whole thing is done. The whole thing ended when Bakhtum fell a few weeks ago but this has not yet trickled down to the grunts. Time to pack up and talk to Russia. Anything else is pure warmongering and using Ukranians as cannon-fodder.

As for the sanctions, not only they have not worked at all but have spectacularly backfired on the west and just like Putin's army has been shown to be weaker than we thought, the west has also been totally stripped of its economic credentials and the emperor is naked. This marks a turning point in world history of the west being factually unable to impose economic sanctions.

[noemon]

Zelenskyy denies Ukraine involvement in Nord Stream pipeline blasts
The Ukrainian president said there is no evidence Kyiv was behind the explosions crippling the pipelines.

Paul Ronzheimer is the deputy editor-in-chief of BILD and a senior journalist reporting for Axel Springer, the parent company of POLITICO

KYIV — Ukraine was not behind a series of underwater explosions that crippled the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September, the country's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

“I am president and I give orders accordingly,” Zelenskyy told Axel Springer, POLITICO's parent company, in an interview in Kyiv. “Nothing of the sort has been done by Ukraine. I would never act that way.”

The denial comes after claims that Western intelligence agencies knew of a Ukrainian-backed plan to take out Nord Stream 1 and 2, which linked Europe's energy infrastructure to Russia's vast gas fields via pipelines running for more than 1,200 kilometers under the Baltic Sea. The motive would have been to prevent Russia from resuming its lucrative gas exports to the EU.

“I didn’t know anything, 100 percent,” Zelenskyy insisted. “I said, 'Show us proof. If our military is supposed to have done this, show us proof.'”

According to leaked documents posted online, the U.S. had secret information that Ukraine was planning to attack the Baltic Sea gas links three months before they were severely damaged by underwater blasts on September 26, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The alleged plan is said to have been identified by the security service of one of Washington's European allies and was shared with the CIA last June. That communication was reportedly part of the tranche of classified intelligence shared on social media platform Discord by Jack Teixeira, a member of the U.S. Air National Guard who is now facing espionage charges.

The plotters were to report to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the report said.

The intelligence report found the plan was put on hold and there is no proof the attack was carried out by Ukraine.

Asked about the Washington Post report on Tuesday, White House National Security Coordinator John Kirby said that investigations were ongoing and that “the last thing that we're going to want to do from this podium is get ahead of those investigations.”

Earlier media reports talked of a plan that resembles the alleged Ukrainian one, with a group of six people with forged passports renting a sailing boat that departed from a German port around the time of the blasts. The group reportedly had ties to a shell company created by Ukrainians; German investigators said the attack would have required aid from state security services.

Germany’s federal prosecutor confirmed a ship suspected of transporting explosives had been searched in January. Ukraine previously denied any involvement, dismissing the claims as “conspiracy theories.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks with Axel Springer's Paul Ronzheimer for an exclusive interview in Kyiv | Photo by Giorgos Moutafis
Last month, a documentary by Nordic public broadcasters reported that Russian ships able to undertake subsea operations were also present near the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines before the act of sabotage.

Nord Stream AG, the subsidiary of Russian state energy giant Gazprom that operates the pipelines, reported they had suffered “unprecedented” damage and leaked large volumes of gas.

The Nord Stream pipelines were designed to carry as much as 110 billion cubic meters of gas a year from Russia to Germany. The explosions disabled both strands of Nord Stream 1 and one strand of Nord Stream 2 — a project completed in September 2021 but which never pumped gas to Europe. It was shelved when Russia invaded Ukraine just five months later.

The bigger issue is not whether the Ukranians did it, if they did, they did it with the full blessings and support of the US.

But why are the Americans throwing Zelensky and Ukraine under the bus and instigating a new front for Ukraine to battle with, the cohesion of Western support?

Are the Americans possibly looking for an out?

[Potemkin]

They do, especially communist-established nations. Communist historiography specialises in finding outliers to worship. If the Ukranians actually did embrace Taras in sufficient degree, they would have created a sustained movement right there and then, but they didn't because in reality they did not care enough to do so.

And as I already said, Taras never claimed to be a non-Russian.

He was arrested specifically because he wanted independence for Ukraine. And he was the national poet for Ukrainians long before the Bolsheviks came along.

Dude, seriously. You are not convincing anybody when you claim that the Scots are the same people as the English.

I did not claim that the Scots are the same people as the English. I merely jointed out that the (majority of) Scots and the (majority of) English share a common ethnic and cultural ancestor. Which is why we both speak English.

The Scots are Gaelic, the English, Anglo-Saxons.

My point is that it’s not as simple as that. History seldom is. A tiny minority of Scots speak Gaelic as their first language, a language which the vast majority of Scots can’t understand a word of. And not even their ancestors 1500 years ago would have understood a word of it. The Scots from the Highlands and Islands are Gaelic, but the Scots from the Lowlands are essentially Angles and Saxons, who speak English as their native language and have always spoken English as their native language. They were never ‘Anglicised’ - they started out that way. And all this happened long before England became a unified nation-state, so we can’t blame them for it. Lol.

The Northumbrians were an Anglo-Saxon people that got integrated into the Scottish kingdom and they along with GB are the reason why the Scots have been Anglicised, precisely as I described.

They weren’t Anglicised, because they already spoke English. Nobody forced them to speak it or even ‘influenced’ them to speak it. And they were and are just as Scottish as the Gaelic speakers from the Highlands and Islands.