Nationalism is not the mere acknowledgement that nations exist. Do I have to explain nationalism too? — Isaac

Why not? Do you have interesting lies to share about it?

To my mind, it's hard to have nations without borders, and hence without getting occasional wars over these borders.

Again, very reminiscent of how mass propaganda was discovered in WWI, turning an isolationist nation to a war crazy society in a short amount of time.

And we still have to say, that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is criminal. Because that's not obvious. If we survive this, be ready for the demonization of China, which has been developing a good deal since Trump and not slowing down with Biden. — Manuel

Yes, it's truly terrifying. What I think is most frightening about it is that there's so much less human involvement in social narratives these days. Algorithms polarise viewpoints then the political classes respond to the newly polarised viewpoints to push their agendas and under pressure, those same companies who run the algorithms then censor content according to the whims of the very veiwpoints their own algorithms created. As Katie Paul at Reuters put it recently "driven as much by business considerations and news cycles as by principle". Meta algorithms make the news cycles, then Meta censoring staff respond to them as if they were naturally occurring features of society.

To my mind, it's hard to have nations without borders, and hence without getting occasional wars over these borders. — Olivier5

If you have anything to say about nationalism then why not join the conversation? Otherwise I'm not sure what your rambling on about the practicality and consequences of having borders has to do with anything being discussed.

So when Russian army has done atrocities, then accuse of those being racists who point these out?

Talking about "Russian endemic cruelty" is wrong as if it was some genetic issue for Russians, however there is no overcoming the fact that Russia hasn't had a democracy as we have in the West and it's a police state, not a justice state. There are plenty of Russians that have moved to the West to show that Russians are quite the same to us. Yet what is typical for the West is that atrocities like My Lai or Abu Ghraib do create an outrage, whereas in Russia those Russians pointing these things out, they are killed and organizations banned, as was with the Memorial -organization (which for some unknown reason @Isaac quoted).



The fact is that the Russian armed forces is a direct descendant of the Soviet Army and hardly has had much actual reform. And Putin's dictatorship has shown it really doesn't care about issues like the laws of war. The only thing that actually will decrease this is the nature of the war being a conventional one with front lines as the whole country isn't the battlefield for the ground forces.

(From the Chechen War)


The fact is that many Russians are totally similar to us and would want Russia to be a democracy and a justice state, however once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails. People are one thing, the system and how the government operates is another. Hence it was quite easy to anticipate that similar actions that happened Chechnya or Syria would also happen in Ukraine.

Hence Isaac's pathetic racism card is one of these attempts to draw the focus away from this war and what Putin is doing in Ukraine and to get to what he is really enthusiastic about: to blame the West.

My point is that, in spite of all your facile rambling about flags and borders, you can come up with no actual alternative on how to govern human affairs.

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

So when Russian army has done atrocities, then accuse of those being racists who point these out? — ssu

Yes.

The claim I disputed was...

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

In support of the claim that...

if Russians mange to annex and see acknowledged the Donbas regions, it's likely that the Russians living there are not going to suffer from alleged genocide and persecutions for generations to come. — neomac

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.

What followed was a load of nationalistic horse shit designed to double-down on a position which should have just been dropped.

The fact is that many Russians are totally similar to us and would want Russia to be a democracy and a justice state, however once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails. People are one thing, the system and how the government operates is another. Hence it was quite easy to anticipate that similar actions that happened Chechnya or Syria would also happen in Ukraine. — ssu

So now explain how simply moving the geographic location of this monstrously awful system in any way makes the world a better place.

you can come up with no actual alternative on how to govern human affairs. — Olivier5

Why would I need to come up with an alternative? I think dividing the world into lines of nations and electoral districts is an excellent way of administering representative democracy.

I think sending thousands of men, women, and children to their bloody deaths over where those lines are is absolute fucking insanity, and cheerleading such reckless inhumanity from the sidelines is morally decrepit.

I think sending thousands of men, women, and children to their bloody deaths over where those lines are is absolute fucking insanity — Isaac

And yet you can understand the UK resistance to Nazi Germany. So what gives?

The fact is that the Russian armed forces is a direct descendant of the Soviet Army and hardly has had much actual reform. — ssu

once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails. — ssu

You do realise both Ukraine and Chechnya were part of that same system, right?

So is it impossible to change, or isn't it? Ought we be suspicious of ex-soviet systems or oughtn't we?

It's all just convenient narrative building. When you want to justify anti-Russian racism you'll claim that systemic institutionalised attitudes are unlikely to change...

So what about Azov?

Oh no, Azov only used to be brutal neo-nazis, they've all changed now. New narrative, new rules. Now it's super easy for a brutal institution to change its ways overnight... Because it's convenient for your preferred narrative.

And yet you can understand the UK resistance to Nazi Germany. So what gives? — Olivier5

We've already talked about that. You embarrassed yourself by claiming that the difference between Nazi Germany and 1930s England was about the same as that between Donbas and Russia. I don't see the point in putting you through that again.

Even with Nazi Germany we attempted a peaceful rearrangement of borders first. As was entirely right. Hindsight bias is a curse.

We've already talked about that. — Isaac

We have, but you haven't. Why was the UK resistance to Nazi Germany not an "absolute fucking insanity"?

Why was the UK resistance to Nazi Germany not an "absolute fucking insanity"? — Olivier5

1. Parts of it were. The bombing of Dresden was a disgrace.
2. We'd tried a peaceful resolution to the border disagreements, it hadn't worked.
3. We'd previously promised to defend Poland (again, in an attempt to avoid war), we then did.
4 England at the time was a fully fledged democracy and had been for decades. Germany was an open dictatorship with openly racist agendas.
5 Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't a stage in a protracted civil war with Pro-Nazi insurgents in Poland.
6 We now know that some of Hitler's intent (and practice) with regards to concentration camps was known to the allies. Concentration camps (and the like) are industrialised killing. One of the few methods of genocide which have a faster kill rate than war. Going to war to prevent genocide, on that scale, may be appropriate simply by necessity.

The details are not important. I might be wrong about 1938. I'm not an historian. The relevant issue is that whether there was an alternative means to achieve the same humanitarian goal determines whether a war is just. The borders are still irrelevant, it's about preventing the people within them suffering harms. If the only way to do that is war, then war is just.

2. We'd tried a peaceful resolution to the border disagreements, it hadn't worked. — Isaac

So have we with the 2 Minsk agreements

3. We'd previously promised to defend Poland (again, in an attempt to avoid war), we then did. — Isaac

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion.

4 England at the time was a fully fledged democracy and had been for decades. Germany was an open dictatorship with openly racist agendas. — Isaac

Funny that you'd call it "England", an ethnic term, rather than the UK. In any case, at the time what was at war with Germany was not a democracy by any measure, but an empire, the British Empire, which had its fair share of concentration camps and racially-based apartheid.

Moreover, Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda.

5 Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't a stage in a protracted civil war with Pro-Nazi insurgents in Poland. — Isaac

So Hitler was less prone than Putin to entice civil wars in neighbouring countries. So what?

6 We now know that some of Hitler's intent (and practice) with regards to concentration camps was known to the allies. Concentration camps (and the like) — Isaac

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war.

It seems that according to you, some nations (the English, the Russians) exist and have a right to self-defense, while some others (the Ukrainians) do not.

You do realise both Ukraine and Chechnya were part of that same system, right? — Isaac

Yes, and both are targets of Russian imperialism. With the case of Chechnya it was trying to free itself from the Russian federation. Yet Chechnya was colonized only in the 19th Century to Russia.

So is it impossible to change, or isn't it? Ought we be suspicious of ex-soviet systems or oughtn't we? — Isaac

As surely as peaceful the Germans are today, Russia and Russia can surely be a democracy that doesn't have imperial ambitions. But Putin's dictatorship has those, which you cannot deny or just brush aside as you try to do.

The Baltic States are also ex-Soviet, and have managed pretty well to create democracies. They aren't ruled by dictators.

It's all just convenient narrative building. — Isaac

No it's not. Your are just making hapless attempts to portray others as racists in a quite futile way.

So what about Azov?

Oh no, Azov only used to be brutal neo-nazis, they've all changed now. New narrative, new rules. — Isaac

Again nonsense. There was a fear just where would Ukraine be going when you had the Right-sector winning in elections prior to the Revolution 2014 and the far right's participation in the Maidan revolution raised concerns (which obviously Russia used for propaganda purposes). Yet the extreme-right suffered a defeat in the elections in 2014 (which the Russian propagandists forget) and afterwards there have been other administrations.

So have we with the 2 Minsk agreements — Olivier5

They're not the same, and they don't relate to the 2022 invasion.

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion. — Olivier5

But we didn't declare that we would in advance as a means of preventing the war.

at the time what was at war with Germany was not a democracy by any measure, but an empire, the British Empire, which had its fair share of concentration camps and racially-based apartheid. — Olivier5

Nonsense. England was a full democracy by any standard that somewhere like Ukraine might be measured, certainly nothing like Germany was at the time - the two were miles apart. As to the British Empire, I agree, but that didn't affect the people living in Europe. The point is purely about how to bring about the best humanitarian ends. Germany was invading Europe, so the question was whether war with Germany was going to bring about better humanitarian ends to the people of Europe than simply agreeing to the change of border. The former would bring way more mass death and destruction than they currently were experiencing, but so would the latter. In the case of Ukraine, it's not so clear. War to move the de facto border back again will bring way more mass death and destruction than they were experiencing, but it's nowhere near so clear that simply moving the border would.

Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda. — Olivier5

No it isn't. It's an authoritarian democracy where the leader is able to manipulate election results. It has no specified racist agenda.

So Hitler was less prone than Putin to entice civil wars in neighbouring countries. So what? — Olivier5

So it makes our intervention much more justified. Virtually 100% of Poland did not want to be ruled by Hitler. This is not so in cases of civil war. We should not intervene on one side or the other of civil war (other than for humanitarian reasons) because by it's very nature the people there are divided.

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war. — Olivier5

You don't know what the motives are and no, the death camps were not know about much after. Hitler was actually being arranged for war crimes by 1944.

Yes, and both are targets of Russian imperialism. With the case of Chechnya it was trying to free itself from the Russian federation. Yet Chechnya was colonized only in the 19th Century to Russia. — ssu

So? Both were soviet systems. You said the system couldn't change. It did.

Russia and Russia can surely be a democracy that doesn't have imperial ambitions. But Putin's dictatorship has those, which you cannot deny or just brush aside as you try to do. — ssu

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.

he extreme-right suffered a defeat in the elections in 2014 (which the Russian propagandists forget) and afterwards there have been other administrations. — ssu

Exactly. You're claiming with Azov that it can (and did) change it's attitudes within the space of a few years, yet you're claiming with the Russian army that the attitudes are systemic and unlikely to change. That's just hypocrisy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30414955

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/09/ukraine-must-stop-ongoing-abuses-and-war-crimes-pro-ukrainian-volunteer-forces/

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.

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).

“Racism”, as I understand it, refers to beliefs (typically unproven) about biological traits (the “race”) which encourage a social discrimination (typically morally questionable). — neomac

Then I suggest you educate yourself on the matter.

In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). It can also mean your ethnic or national origins, which may not be the same as your current nationality. For example, you may have Chinese national origins and be living in Britain with a British passport.

Race also covers ethnic and racial groups. This means a group of people who all share the same protected characteristic of ethnicity or race.

A racial group can be made up of two or more distinct racial groups, for example black Britons, British Asians, British Sikhs, British Jews, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers.

You may be discriminated against because of one or more aspects of your race, for example people born in Britain to Jamaican parents could be discriminated against because they are British citizens, or because of their Jamaican national origins. — https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination

ex-soviet regimes have done so, by joining NATO or EU (in around 15 years) — neomac

Distinguishing correlation and causation is pretty basic stuff. What proof do you have that joining NATO/EU was the cause of the changes and not a consequence of them?

I provided this already.

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

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

They're not the same, and they don't relate to the 2022 invasion. — Isaac

So did any diplomacy preceding WW2.

The rest of your post is similar. Just saying no no no without any argument.

If one war was just, then other wars can be just too. Including this one.

The rest of your post is similar. Just saying no no no without any argument. — Olivier5

What arguments did you provide?

we with the 2 Minsk agreements — Olivier5

...is not an argument.

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion. — Olivier5

...is not an argument.

Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda. — Olivier5

...is not an argument.

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war. — Olivier5

...is not an argument.

Happy to treat like with like.

Very much so. Heck, we even went so far as to ban Russia Today on YouTube and other platforms. Of course, these can still be reached online. But the idea here being that it is insane to consider how the Russian government (Putin and his allies, essentially) views this issue. Obviously a big mistake, for so called defenders of "free speech". That arises in Europe when it comes to Muslims. Not here.

The Minsk agreements are proof that diplomacy was tried. The rest is similarly obvious.

If one war was just, others can be. Including this one. That's an argument.

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

The Minsk agreements are proof that diplomacy was tried. — Olivier5

Excellent argument. I should save that one up for anybody arguing that diplomacy hadn't been tried, they'll be absolutely trounced.

Any opinion on my actual argument that restructuring borders hadn't been tried?

If one war was just, others can be. Including this one. That's an argument. — Olivier5

Another corker. Anyone arguing that this war cannot be just will be absolutely quaking in their boots.

Any thoughts at all on my actual argument that supporting only a military solution is an inefficient and unnecessarily harmful solution to the border dispute?