I’m finding it difficult to continue because you’ve abandoned political analysis for moral truisms. We began by discussing the objective sources of legitimacy and statehood, but you’ve retreated into a ‘Gish Gallop’ of emotional appeals.

Whether or not you like a regime’s methods doesn’t change the reality of its statehood or its control over a territory. Since you’re no longer engaging with the central argument of how states actually function in reality, there’s nowhere left for this conversation to go.