Yes, I assume it's a temporary measure, but we can't pretend it doesn't have any effect (they wouldn't have done it if it had no effect). It means that, for the time being, dissent in Ukraine regarding the government's course of action is not being properly recorded or represented, which is extremely relevant to the kinds of arguments Paine and @Olivier5 were making about legitimacy derived from popular support. Currently, we have no proper measure of that. — Isaac

Even in the absence of normally functioning representative institutions, and in the presence of censorship of domestic anti-government propaganda and fog of info, there is enough input to assess support/consensus for the Ukrainian government. For example, as far as I know:

- No Ukrainian street demonstrations have been organised against Zelensky as in Russia against Putin or his war:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/russia-protests-more-than-1300-arrested-at-anti-war-demonstrations-ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1124939236/russia-protest-putin-mobilization-draft-ukraine-war

- Ukrainian polls are widely pro-Zelensky:
https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-confidence-in-victory-over-russia-overwhelming-approval-for-zelensky-little-desire-for-territorial-concessions-and-a-spike-for-nato-membership/

- Ukrainian social network is widely supportive of Zelensky and against-Russia:
https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/ukraine/publications/personalities-of-public-opinion-the-influencers-dominating-ukraines-wartime-social-media
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/generation-ua-young-ukrainians-are-driving-the-resistance-to-russias-war/
https://www.prweek.com/article/1788344/ukraine-winning-propaganda-war

- Ukrainian expats are widely pro-Zelensky and oppose Russian invasion:
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/volodimir-zelenskij-zakordonni-ukrayinci-ce-myaka-sila-sho-t-72165
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60634736

- No Ukrainian VIPs and artists against Zelensky. Compare to Russia:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/19/russian-pop-star-alla-pugacheva-condemns-putins-war-in-ukraine
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-moves-to-crush-russian-artists-speaking-out-on-ukraine-war
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60814306
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-artists-speak-out-against-the-war-in-ukraine/a-60946690

- Ukrainians returning from abroad to fight Russian invasion (couldn't find evidence of the same reaction from Russian expats):
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-poland-migration-8de0893dfcf7db46e6a6acf9911104a4
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/over-66200-ukrainian-men-have-returned-abroad-fight-says-defence-minister-2022-03-05/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-19/ukrainians-return-home-by-the-millions-even-as-war-rages-on?leadSource=uverify%20wall

- Ukrainian fierce resistance against the Russian oppressor (consistent with the Ukrainian historical aversion against Russian oppression [1]):
https://theconversation.com/unexpected-ukrainian-resistance-continues-to-thwart-russias-initial-plans-for-quick-decisive-victories-189507
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-popular-resistance-is-a-big-problem-for-russia-184956

Not to mention the fact all the international investigators on the ground that could report all they see and hear from Ukrainians that could report about Ukrainian people’s lack of support for Zelensky if there was any (as much as they can report about Ukrainian politicians averse to Zelensky).
Indeed even Russians don't question the Ukrainian support for Zelensky: that's why Russians have moved from the rhetoric of liberating Ukrainians from a nazi regime to a more genocidal approach on the battlefield and national TV propaganda.
Finally, it's plausible to expect greater internal cohesion against external threats when the perceived threat is collective, the leadership is trusted, and convergence on how to deal with the threat is strong enough.

[1]
Polls for joining NATO is showing a trend averse to Russia since Russian annexation of Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Popular_support_to_NATO_integration_of_Ukraine_in_Ukraine

The meaning of terms used to construct premises and deduce conclusions is irrelavent? I don't think I agree. — Benj96

Then you do not understand formal logic.

I already highlighted precisely what I meant by H, A and W — Benj96

In formal logic, what you mean by H, A and W is irrelevant.

If you believe otherwise, good luck.

My point is that if one wants to deduce conclusions from premises based on formal logic, then the meaning of the terms is irrelevant. Indeed if your deduction is something like:
P1: All H are A and all A are H
P2: some A are W
C: some H are W
It looks valid but that doesn't depend on what we know about the terms H, A, W, anyways.
In short, I find your example twice misleading because, it's equivocally formulated ("all humans are animals" in logic is understood as in "all H are A" and not as in "All H are A and all A are H", indeed that's the syllogistic rule of distribution in universal affirmative premises) and even after removing the equivocation the logic of a deduction should be assessed by its form not by the semantics of its terms so it doesn't look appropriate to use it to make a semantic point, if that's your goal.

Your form. P1 All H are A pertains to "All humans are animals." (but not all of them). — Benj96

Because you wrote "all humans are animals" as a premise one and you claimed it was logic to deduce from that premise and a second one a certain conclusion. This is wrong from a standard logic point of view.
"All X is P" in standard logic is never understood as "All X is P and all P is X" as you seem to claim now (indeed "all humans are all animals" sounds pretty weird as a sentence). Formal logic is about propositional forms not about the semantics of the terms occurring insides propositions.

Yes it's clearly not (based on the fact that we have external knowledge pertaining to the set of assumptions (the knowledge that "not all animals are humans".). — Benj96

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a formal fallacy, so it doesn't depend on the semantics of its terms (and related external knowledge).

Your syllogism
P1: all humans are animals
P2: some animals have wings
C: some humans have wings

corresponds to the following form (e.g. W = wing-equipped):
P1: All H are A
P2: some A are W
C: some H are W

This form is fallacious.

It's logical to conclude that if all humans are animals (assumption 1) and some animals have wings (assumption 2) that some humans have wings. — Benj96

it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle.

Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

One event preceding another would help. There being some plausible mechanism by which the former event brings about the latter would be good too. Some documents, speeches, photographs... — Isaac

Here is the problem: temporal correlation doesn't equate to causality (that's your initial objection, correlation is not causality), the concept of "mechanism" presupposes the notion of "causality" (so back to square one), some (how many?) documents, speeches, photographs can be considered causal factors only if one can prove that there is more than correlation between those factors and what ensued. So I'm asking you again: what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history and what would count as evidence of causality in history? Here is an example: NATO enlargement caused the war in Ukraine (you can choose any alternative example of historical causal explanation that you believe correct). Show me the evidence you have that there is causation and not just correlation. Until then for me you have no clue what you are talking about.

In your example, the Baltic States may have developed more open democracies because they joined NATO/EU, or they may have done because of their own internal political movements and joined NATO/EU as a consequence. — Isaac

In both cases they achieved that outside the sphere of Russian influence. Even in this scenario, it doesn't matter to me which is cause and which is consequence, the end status is still the same: those states estimated to benefit from joining the West more than from remaining under Russian influence.

Distinguishing correlation and causation is pretty basic stuff. — Isaac

I didn't talk about causation. But since we are at it, tell me what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history and what would count as evidence of causality in history.

When you're making up your own definition of racism to avoid the charge you should probably stop digging. — Isaac

No I'm not making up my own definition [1]. But the meaning of the word can be stretched depending on context and needs. So if you do not provide your definition (even if I asked), I'll use mine of course. That's why it's matter of intellectual honesty to clarify the terms used when needed.
Besides it doesn't really matter. You didn't prove that I'm racist according to your own definition. You didn't provide any evidence that I support the discrimination of Russians based on their nationality or the possession of the Russian passport.

Congratulations for your epic fail.

[1]
Racism

Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[2][4] There have been attempts to legitimize racist beliefs through scientific means, such as scientific racism, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded. In terms of political systems (e.g. apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. It further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, and dangerous. The convention also declared that there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Again if you do not clarify the way you use words (as I did), despite you have been asked to, that's matter of your personal intellectual honesty. And you proved you have none.
Picking a definition from official source provides evidence of a certain usage, sure, but not a universal usage, and certainly I'm not committed to such usage which I find preposterous. For me racism has to do with race, a biological concept, (hence the word "racism") and has to do with discrimination which is morally if not legally questionable. Period.
If you want to extend it to nationality or ethnicity (as non-biological factors) fine but you have to clarify it, since nationality doesn't necessarily imply a correlation with a specific "race" (American is one nationality but not one race) and can be better rendered with the word "xenophobia".
But that's not all. The other key concept is discrimination. Your own source specifies how this is to be intended [1]. Where did I claim we should discriminate Russians in the sense specified by your own source exactly?
Besides your own source doesn't support the claim that nationality or ethnicity is nothing else than having the passport of a given nationality.


[1]

Different types of race discrimination

There are four main types of race discrimination.
Direct discrimination

This happens when someone treats you worse than another person in a similar situation because of your race. For example:

if a letting agency would not let a flat to you because of your race, this would be direct race discrimination

Indirect discrimination

This happens when an organisation has a particular policy or way of working that puts people of your racial group at a disadvantage. For example:

a hairdresser refuses to employ stylists that cover their own hair, this would put any Muslim women or Sikh men who cover their hair at a disadvantage when applying for a position as a stylist

Sometimes indirect race discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination. This is known as objective justification. For example:

a Somalian asylum seeker tries to open a bank account but the bank states that in order to be eligible you need to have been resident in the UK for 12 months and have a permanent address. The Somalian man is not able to open a bank account. The bank would need to prove that its policy was necessary for business reasons (such as to prevent fraud) and that there was no practical alternative

Harassment

Harassment occurs when someone makes you feel humiliated, offended or degraded. For example:

a young British Asian man at work keeps being called a racist name by colleagues. His colleagues say it is just banter, but the employee is insulted and offended by it

Harassment can never be justified. However, if an organisation or employer can show it did everything it could to prevent people who work for it from behaving like that, you will not be able to make a claim for harassment against it, although you could make a claim against the harasser.
Victimisation

This is when you are treated badly because you have made a complaint of race related discrimination under the Equality Act. It can also occur if you are supporting someone who has made a complaint of race related discrimination. For example:

the young man in the example above wants to make a formal complaint about his treatment. His manager threatens to sack him unless he drops the complaint

I provided this already.

Right, so there's absolutely no justification behind neomac's claim about "generations" of abuse in future. Russian are perfectly capable and likely to change regime-type and approach to war. Other ex-soviet regimes have done so. There's therefore no reason whatsoever to assume that Donbas in Russian hands would yield "generations" of abuse. — Isaac

Capability depends on material and cultural factors that can be geopolitically at stake: ex-soviet regimes have done so, by joining NATO or EU (in around 15 years), not by remaining within the Russian sphere of influence (Russia itself after 30 years has grown more authoritarian and imperialistic).

It's absolutely racist to suggest there's any link whatsoever between past war crimes ("generations" ago) and a current or future propensity to commit war crimes on the basis of shared nationality.

That's exactly the claim that was being made. It's a racist claim. It's nothing whatsoever to do with merely "pointing out" war crimes. It's pointing out past war crimes and additionally saying that because they were committed by Russians they have some bearing on the likelihood of future Russians committing similar crimes. — Isaac

“Racism”, as I understand it, refers to beliefs (typically unproven) about biological traits (the “race”) which encourage a social discrimination (typically morally questionable). Since I never made claims about Russian “race” or presuppose beliefs about Russian “race”, my claims can not be considered racist. My point is that besides biological traits there are also socio-cultural traits/products/patterns that are shared across individuals and generations (e.g. language, habits, ideologies, historical tropes, administrative organizations, military doctrine, economic infrastructures, nuclear arsenals). Acknowledging their existence, studying them (as social scientists, historians and anthropologists do) and form expectations based on them doesn’t equate to, nor implies, nor suggests the belief that cultural traits/products/patterns are pre-determined by or strictly associated with biology or genetics or phenotypic traits, and therefore it has nothing to do with racism. Even acknowledging that not all socio-cultural traits are perceived as compatible (e.g. Russian authoritarianism as I understand it, is not compatible with Western democracy as I understand it) is racist. And even expressing a deep preference for the latter and rejection of the former can be considered “racist”.
So either you are making a preposterous usage of the word “racism” or you are being intellectually dishonest. Tertium non datur.

he doesn't care about human affairs, it's human affairs that ought to care about him !

Lazy racism — Isaac

Define "lazy racism", lazy boy.

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which becomes OK to extend the crimes of some people to all who happen to share a passport, — Isaac

Quote me where I claimed that. What is "extend the crimes" supposed to mean?

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which the oppression of some people who happened at the time to be Ukrainian by some people who happened at the time to be Russian has any justificatory weight whatsoever on decisions made today about the current group of people who happen to be Ukrainian and the current groups of people who happen to be Russian. They are completely different groups of people. — Isaac

People may be different. But culture and national identity may still be the same. You are just repeating your moral claims, not making them more rationally compelling.

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/about-the-project/

The project aims to gather information related to persons of the following categories:

• The “POWER-HOLDERS” of Russia, who seized and unlawfully hold power in the country;
• The “EXECUTORS”, who, as public servants and MPs, directly implement the Kremlin’s policy of felonious retention of power in the country;
• The “TRANSGRESSORS”, from among the judges, prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, law enforcement officers and their agents responsible for the direct implementation of the repression and prosecution of the opposition;
• The “AGGRESSORS”, who are responsible for carrying out the policies of war, occupation and chaos against other countries, in violation of international law, in the political interests of the leadership of the country;
• The “BENEFICIARIES”, foreign partners of the Russian government who contribute to the implementation of its felonious plans to undermine international law and global peace, justice and democracy.
• The “OLIGARCHS AND CORRUPT OFFICIALS”, who are responsible for plundering Russia on a state-wide scale, by direct membership in the Russian government or proximity to it through relatives and other proxies;
• The “PROPAGANDISTS”, who are responsible for creating and disseminating state information, deliberately deceiving people in the interests of the political leadership and creating an atmosphere of widespread hatred and intolerance;
• The “ACCOMPLICES”, who reap personal profit from cooperation with government authorities, to the detriment of the interests of the country and its citizens;

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/personas/

Even if some black people are criminals it's not OK to say "blacks are criminals" — Isaac

Generics can be used to convey or suggest racial stereotypes and incentivize forms of social discrimination, but the claims I (and others) made here about "Russians" (like "Russians oppressed Ukrainians" or "Russians are oppressing Ukrainians") are not meant to convey nor suggest such racial stereotypes, and related forms of social discrimination. Those generics must be understood in the historical, military, cultural and political context I (and others) have specified. If you are intellectually blind to such uses, that's your problem: "you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension" to sound rationally compelling.

Your logical acumen is very poor.

"Russians oppress Chechens" doesn't have the logical form of "Black people are all criminals" or "Roma are all drug addicts" (notice the use of the quantifier "all").
"Russians oppress Chechens" (like “tigers are striped”, “ducks lay eggs”, and “ticks carry Lyme disease”) is a generic proposition which does not carry information about how many members of a given group have the alleged property, therefore it can not be reduced to a quantified (e.g. universal) proposition.

I'm not hand-holding you both through this, you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension. — Isaac

What is there to comprehend? You have no clue what you are talking about.

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." — Isaac

So your claims are like "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." share the property of having Russian passports.

But then you claim also:

The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. — Isaac

The solution is to correct that shitty exegesis, not demand proof of it. Thus isn't an exam, it's a discussion. If my exegesis is incorrect, just correct it. — Isaac

Yes that's how you shift the burden of proof on your interlocutor. It's always your opponent that must catch up to whatever bullshit you claim about them. This is your rhetoric trick. An intellectually miserable one.

A rhetorical device, ironically, that, despite being extremely common, people seem to think is very clever and conclusive. — Isaac

I have enough evidence of that. And don't expect the liar to admit his own lies.

Keep insulting people, dude, that's the best argument you can offer to support your humanitarian goals.

no you wrote "neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of...". I never made such a claim.
A discussion is not my claim, and your exegesis of what I claimed in a discussion is not my claim. Period. And that's important to expressly acknowledge precisely because your exegesis might be pretty shitty. And that's not the first time I (and others) noticed it. You are prone to strawman your interlocutors.

If you dislike people selecting partial quotes to make a point you might want to set a better example. — Isaac

You didn't quote me. Neither selectively nor entirely. Besides what is the partial quote I made of you that you find so problematic wrt what I claim against you? And why?

What? — Isaac

You play dumb and argue in an intellectually uncooperative way. Your position is embarrassingly self-defeating at any level one wants to see it.

There's no such claim — Isaac

Then this claim of yours is a lie: neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of because I never made such a claim, and you knew that.

You have to ask? — Isaac

Should I ask again? I want you to state what you claim to be plausible or implausible, so I can quote you, and not creatively rephrase claims as you do.

You think a dislike of racism is akin to a dislike of seafood? — Isaac

I think that you do not have the conceptual tools to make such distinction rationally compelling for the discussion at hand.

So? I don't give a shit about plausible. I'm talking about racism — Isaac

So is racism plausible or not?

They are utterly irrelevant — Isaac

Is this a factual claim or a prescription?

It's disgusting. — Isaac

I find seafood disgusting others don't. But I don't insult people for that nor object against that. Even if I managed to prove that they indeed like seafood.

I did quote you. That's what the quote function does. People can read the full posts, they're linked to the quote in question for that reason. I'm not re-pasting the entire discussion. — Isaac

Quote the original claim of mine where I stated "there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of...", you liar.

Such was the case with Communist, Fascist and Islamist regimes, but "Putinism" doesn't have this pedigree. — SophistiCat

There might be differences, yet I’m not sure if they are enough to support your claim. The expression “Putinism” would be more insightful if it referred to distinctive/identifiable Putin’s ideological beliefs that he promotes and make a difference with his socio-cultural environment’s, but your claim that Putinism consists in “mining old tropes for ready appeal” doesn’t seem to support that, it simply suggests that Putin’s not an original ideologue. And even if, as you suggest, Putin’s motivations were cynical and not genuine by exploiting the nationalist/imperialist tropes, I wouldn’t qualify a regime “ideological” based on the honesty of its leader (and assumed it's clear what "ideological regime" is as opposed to "non-ideological regime").

And let's not forget that his daughter (presumable killed by the Ukrainian intelligence services trying to kill him) — ssu

But we can't exclude that either:
Russian political analyst Dmitry Babich shed doubt on Dugin being the target, saying that Darya was “more popular than her father” at the time of the incident. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/23/will-darya-duginas-killing-influence-the-russia-ukraine-war

neomac's flase claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred — Isaac

Never made such claim. You need to creatively rephrase my claims to make a point, otherwise you would quote me. I'm responsible for what I write not for what you understand.
Besides my or Olivier's position would still be plausible, even if it were false or racist as you claim.
So for what reason are you insulting me or Olivier? Besides you support humanitarianism, insults are a form a psychological violence, which doesn't sound as supportive of human wellbeing.

then when you'll be three, you'll understand it too, don't worry.

hope these guys get what's coming to them too — Isaac

They did. At least in Belarus and Russia.

Belarus:
Government authorities have repeatedly sought to silence Ales Bialiatski. He was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014. Following large-scale demonstrations against the regime in 2020, he was again arrested. He is still detained without trial. Despite tremendous personal hardship, Mr Bialiatski has not yielded an inch in his fight for human rights and democracy in Belarus.

Russia:
Civil society actors in Russia have been subjected to threats, imprisonment, disappearance and murder for many years. As part of the government’s harassment of Memorial, the organisation was stamped early on as a “foreign agent”. In December 2021, the authorities decided that Memorial was to be forcibly liquidated and the documentation centre was to be closed permanently. The closures became effective in the following months, but the people behind Memorial refuse to be shut down. In a comment on the forced dissolution, chairman Yan Rachinsky stated, “Nobody plans to give up.”

Ukraine:
The Center for Civil Liberties was founded in Kyiv in 2007 for the purpose of advancing human rights and democracy in Ukraine. The center has taken a stand to strengthen Ukrainian civil society and pressure the authorities to make Ukraine a full-fledged democracy. To develop Ukraine into a state governed by rule of law, Center for Civil Liberties has actively advocated that Ukraine become affiliated with the International Criminal Court.
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Center for Civil Liberties has engaged in efforts to identify and document Russian war crimes against the Ukrainian civilian population. In collaboration with international partners, the center is playing a pioneering role with a view to holding the guilty parties accountable for their crimes... and they didn't even report war crimes from Ukrainians?!

Putin's regime is not an ideological one — SophistiCat

Not sure what you mean by "ideological regime", but I might disagree on that one. Putin's speeches are replete of myth-building claims, philosophical references, and civilization clash rhetoric

e.g. Ivan Ilyin is among the philosophers who directly influenced Putin, Solzhenitsyn (often cited by Putin) and Dugin.

Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr President, I would like to return to the words you have just said, that Russia should rely on Russian values. By the way, we were talking about this at a Valdai Club meeting the day before yesterday.
I would like to ask you which Russian thinkers, scholars, anthropologists and writers do you regard as your closest soul-mates, helping you to define for yourself the values that will later become those of all Russians?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I would prefer not to say that this is Ivan Ilyin alone. I read Ilyin, I read him to this day. I have his book lying on my shelf, and I pick it up and read it from time to time. I have mentioned Berdiayev, there are other Russian thinkers. All of them are people who were thinking about Russia and its future. I am fascinated by the train of their thought, but, of course, I make allowances for the time when they were working, writing and formulating their ideas. The well-known idea about the passionarity of nations is a very interesting idea. It could be challenged – arguments around it continue to this day. But if there are debates over the ideas they formulated, these are obviously not idle ideas to say the least.
Let me remind you about nations’ passionarity. According to the author of this idea, peoples, nations, ethnic groups are like a living organism: they are born, reach the peak of their development, and then quietly grow old. Many countries, including those on the American continent, say today’s Western Europe is ageing. This is the term they use. It is hard to say whether this is right or not. But, to my mind, the idea that a nation should have an inner driving mechanism for development, a will for development and self-assertion has a leg to stand on.
We are observing that certain countries are on the rise even though they have a lot of unsolved problems. They resemble erupting volcanoes, like the one on the Spanish island, which is disgorging its lava. But there are also extinguished volcanoes, where fires are long dead and one can only hear birds singing.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975



And I want to close with the words of a true patriot Ivan Ilyin: “If I consider Russia my Motherland, that means that I love as a Russian, contemplate and think, sing and speak as a Russian; that I believe in the spiritual strength of the Russian people. Its spirit is my spirit; its destiny is my destiny; its suffering is my grief; and its prosperity is my joy.”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69465

Yep. Very popular. So's football. What's that got to do with morality? — Isaac

You could ask as ironically what the fact that Mahsa Amini was killed by the morality police for wearing hijab improperly has to do with morality. Your irony has however no analytical value: if you stipulate that morality has to do only with humanitarian goals the way you define them and through the means you find more appropriate, that's an ad hoc move. Humanitarianism wasn't even a big deal among founding fathers of the Western/Christian morality: Aquinas and Sant Agustine didn't see any moral issue with slavery. There was a bloody civil war in the US ideologically around the subject of "slavery" and its morality. So I believe that for many Westerners and avg people nationalism/patriotism can not be qualified as moral now, especially after 2 WWs, yet I wouldn't relate morality to humanitarian goals as you believe it to be.
As I said, nationalism/patriotism is growing everywhere and in many authoritarian regimes is perceived as a moral-imperative.

And in what way does changing a border solve any of this? — Isaac

Fixing border issues is a solution to all problems that could realistically and actually be solved by fixing border issues everywhere in the entire known human history.

The deaths you're referring to here - Ukraine, Chechnya, Crimea - are all the result of disputes over fucking borders and of the kind of racism about so-called ethnic groups that you are so vehemently flag-waiving for. — Isaac

Well I'm fine with the universal declaration of human rights. See Article 15:

• Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

And I find unrealistic to expect people to give up on whatever they value whenever it doesn't seem compatible with the humanitarian goals the way you intend them.

From an analytical and explanatory point of view, you have really nothing challenging to offer.

Putin's expectations aside, I think the West has at least a couple of incentives to avoid to go nuclear in response to Putin's nuclear escalation anyways: containing nuclear escalation and proving that Russia can be beaten with conventional weapons.

One more reason to go back to the nuclear threat. Putin has nothing else left to threat the West with.

It seems clear, however, as Michael Millerman notes, that Putin's speech is fully embracing this Dugan world vision. — boethius

Dugan Dugin's imperialist world vision:
“Through rebirth as an empire, as an Orthodox empire, Russia will set an example for other empires — the Chinese, Turkish, Persian, Arab, Indian, as well as the Latin American, African… and the European. Instead of the dominance of one single globalist “empire” of the Great Reset, the Russian awakening should be the beginning of an era of many empires, reflecting and embodying the richness of human cultures, traditions, religions, and value systems.”
Great Awakening Vs the Great Reset
Dugin, Alexander

If you think nationalism is a moral cause then I can't stop you, but I don't think you'll find many people using the word that way. — Isaac

Well maybe I wouldn’t call it “nationalism” for its political implication (often associated with a negative undertone), but how about “patriotism”?
Patriotism is the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to one's country. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings, language relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism, mostly civic nationalism and sometimes cultural nationalism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism)
Besides those in the West who believe that morality is beyond nationalism/patriotism, are more likely now the minority, given the revival of nationalism, not only in the West (e.g. the patriots in America), but especially in the rest of the World at large including Russia, China, India, Brazil.
Not to mention that the moral universalism (e.g. women’s rights) has been associated with colonialism, and contrasted with moral relativism.

I don't see how. My knowledge of history is not exhaustive, but the longest actually genocidal regime I can think of might be something like the Khmer Rouge or maybe Stalin's regime. Neither lasted for "generations". — Isaac

Others do. Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Chechens lament centuries of oppression and/or persecution from Russia.

I'd be broadly supportive of the idea that mis-governance is responsible for more death overall than war — Isaac

If that’s true, go figure how worse mis-governance plus ethnic persecution/oppression must be.

I can't see how this is remotely complicated. Human welfare isn't an undiscovered planet, or some misunderstood facet of quantum physics. We've been around for millions of years, we know what we need. — Isaac

The complication doesn't come from expressing needs, it comes from satisfying them as freely as possible without others perceiving this abusive/exploitative. Millions of years ago we couldn't satisfy even basic needs (food and health) as consciously as we can do now, go figure needs socially-induced that we couldn't possibly have millions of years ago (e.g. electricity or wearing a hijab).