These are exceptional circumstances calling for extreme measures. Ukraine is still supposed to be a democracy and hence is supposed to lift those measures in peace time. — Olivier5

I didn't say they weren't a democracy without reason, but the fact that they currently aren't simply renders you statement untrue. Ukrainians are not currently determining the course Ukraine takes. The government of Ukraine are, unilaterally.

US citizens have currently limited say on anything their federal government does, least of all in foreign policy. — Olivier5

And yet you say of Ukraine...

pollsters poll people. Supporters are people and so are funders. You are saying that the government needs the support of the people,and all that is true. — Olivier5

...and when I ask how the Ukrainians are going to get a say absent any democratic process, you answered...

Via polls, via their financial support, their discipline or lack thereof, and their physical engagement as soldiers. — Olivier5

Minus the physical engagement as soldiers, how are any of those factors any different in the US?

How is the UK fairing there, BTW? Would you qualify your current governance system as 'optimal'? — Olivier5

Far from it. Our government, as most others, is dictated to by lobbyists and takes shockingly little notice of any other advice. The point is, that compared to Ukraine, I'd wager it cares slightly more about the opinion of the people (if only in a self-serving re-election bid) than the Ukrainian government does, divested, as they currently are, of either the need for re-election, nor the need to counter opposition groups and media.

You've given no mechanisms for citizen involvement present in Ukraine, yet absent in the US/UK. But the US/UK have at least a veneer of democracy (needing re-election), so in any comparison their citizens would have (if measurable at all) a marginally higher chance of influencing events than the citizens of Ukraine do.

Add to this the fact that, if a citizen of the US/UK did manage to influence their government even to the tiniest degree, that government then has the power to multiply that influence on world affairs because they are a very powerful government. Ukraine is not.

I think the only exceptions here are the actual army which, by virtue of being the tools used for the jobs currently, have an enormous influence on the course of events, particularly the generals etc.

But the Ukrainian army might just about reach 300,000, maybe 1,200,000 including reservists. Their population is 40 million. A good sample size, but hardly representative.

I don't see any justification here for the claim that Ukrainians are dictating the course of events in Ukraine. The main actors are clearly the Ukrainian Government, The Russian Government, the armies of both nations, and the funders like the US, UK and EU. Next down would be the major influencers like the big media organisations and the main lobbying groups. I really don't see actual Ukrainians getting into the top ten even.

Matters that have moral weight tend to relate to issues of "humanitarian" needs or virtues. Either the behaviour in question can be shown to lead to some material harm to human welfare, or it is non-virtuous in some way. Moving a border (in general) is neither. — Isaac

How do you know that “in general” is neither? One could argue that humanitarian needs are best handled within established administrative units. Indeed, in the specific case of Ukrainian and Russian border, your generalisation doesn’t seem to hold, Russians could argue that moving the border is meant to protect Russian minorities in Ukraine from persecutions. Ukrainians could argue that preserving the border is meant to preserve all the material resources in that Ukrainian region which are relevant for the wellbeing of Ukrainians.

'Moral' is a word in the English language, I don't have a private definition of it. — Isaac

The weird thing is that prominent dictionaries like marriam-webster, oxford and cambridge do not mention the word humanitarian in their definition of moral nor vice versa.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanitarian
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/moral_1?q=moral
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/humanitarian_1?q=humanitarian
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moral
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/humanitarian

in the specific case of Ukrainian and Russian border, your generalisation doesn’t seem to hold, Russians could argue that moving the border is meant to protect Russian minorities in Ukraine from persecutions. Ukrainians could argue that preserving the border is meant to preserve all the material resources in that Ukrainian region which are relevant for the wellbeing of Ukrainians. — neomac

Yes. Hence the need for such arguments, as opposed to the unsupported generality that there's some moral weight to national identity alone. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

In the cases you describe, the moral weight is given to the objective (protecting minorities, or welfare needs). The actual method has no moral weight beyond an assessment of whether it actually works.

Moving a border at tremendous cost of human life is not an efficient, or conscionable method of either protecting minorities or securing resources. War has catastrophically failed to do either, in virtually all cases.

The weird thing this is that prominent dictionaries like marriam-webster, oxford and cambridge do not mention the word humanitarian in their definition of moral nor vice versa. — neomac

Yes, they all take the much more parsimonious route of simply referring to 'right and wrong'. I thought that would be an unnecessarily cumbersome intermediate step.

If you prefer, consider my use of broadly humanitarian or virtuous actions as being those that are considered 'right' and their opposites 'wrong'.

the unsupported generality that there's some moral weight to national identity alone. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. — Isaac

Not sure if your distinction between ends and means wrt national identity is morally relevant.
For example I see no mention of such distinction here:
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.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Moving a border at tremendous cost of human life is not an efficient, or conscionable method of either protecting minorities or securing resources. War has catastrophically failed to do either, in virtually all cases. — Isaac

I find your generalisation objectionable again: 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.
Besides I still fail to understand how you calculate efficiency: what's the formula you are using?

Yes, they all take the much more parsimonious route of simply referring to 'right and wrong'. I thought that would be an unnecessarily cumbersome intermediate step. — Isaac

Parsimonious? Maybe but "humanitarian" is not mentioned even once either here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/

If you prefer, consider my use of broadly humanitarian or virtuous actions as being those that are considered 'right' and their opposites 'wrong'. — Isaac

OK what do you mean by "broadly humanitarian"? do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights ? Or do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights and pacifism (or rejection of war)? Or yet something else?

The government of Ukraine are, unilaterally — Isaac

Well, you argued otherwise upthread, saying that the soldiers were the primary actors, the governments only second to them, because soldiers can disobey, run away or surrender. And then we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear, otherwise it will crumble sooner or later. Note that the people does the fighting too.

Most of Putin's Valdai speech was devoted to airing his grievances against the West. None of it was new.

• The West wants to rule the world unchecked. They want to impose their rules, their culture, their values upon everyone.
• They have no respect for cultural sovereignty.
• Cancel culture.
• Globalism.
• Liberal world order.
• How come the West can do whatever they like on the world stage, but not anyone else? There should be a "democracy" in international relations.
• Every civilization has the right to choose its own path. No one can tell us how we should live.
• Traditional values.
• Multipolarity.
• Two Wests: traditional, conservative West (good) and liberal, cosmopolitan, neocolonialist West (bad).
• The West was trying to undermine Russia (e.g., by supporting Chechen separatists), but we came out on top.
• We extended the hand of friendship to the West but were rebuffed and slapped with sanctions instead.
• The West is constantly creating sources of tension on our borders with the aim of making Russia more vulnerable and turning it into the instrument of its geopolitical ambitions. (This vague passage is as far as Putin went in articulating his threat perception - aside from all the culture wars stuff.)

In the end he aspirationally talked up autonomy, the end of Western hegemony and reorientation to the East (Belt and Road, etc.)

Ukraine was barely mentioned in the main speech, but it came up in the subsequent Q&A. This is what he said about Ukraine:

• A "coup" in 2014 ultimately led to the "special military operation." (Putin still eschews the W-word, although other high-ranking officials and propagandists have broken the taboo on multiple occasions.) He claimed that a "bloody coup" was staged already after President Yanukovich effectively ceded power by agreeing to early elections, which, Putin candidly admitted, he had no chance of winning. (In actual fact, Yanukovich, together with his siloviks, secretly fled to Russia the day after he signed an accord with Euromaidan representatives, leaving the state legislature to fill the power vacuum.)
• The primary aim of the invasion was to secure Donbass. Also: NATO. But mainly, it's about Donbass.
• We had to attack when we did because Ukraine, with NATO help, was fortifying its defenses, and it would only get more difficult for us if we waited longer.
• Ukraine was originally that part of Russia which fell under foreign domination. People there wanted to reunite with Russia, which eventually happened when Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian Empire. In the 19th century Western powers encouraged Ukrainian nationalism as a divide and conquer strategy against Russia. This led to all sorts of bad things, such as Nazi collaboration. (That Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian language were originally a malicious Western project is a popular thesis among Russian nationalists, to Putin has appealed before.)
• Russians and Ukrainians are one people. And yes, the present war is basically a civil war.
• Modern Ukraine is an artificial state that was created by Soviet Russia.
• Only Russia can guarantee true sovereignty for Ukraine (as part of Russia?)

Thanks for the concise write up of the speech as well as Q&A.

To add some philosophical context, here is an interesting interview with Michael Millerman, a sort of Western expert on Dugan (the philosophy Putin allegedly represents, directly or indirectly).



I find it interesting that Dugan derives the culture wars ultimately from the universals debate in the middle ages.

I profoundly disagree with the argument, however.

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

Not sure if your distinction between ends and means wrt national identity is morally relevant.
For example I see no mention of such distinction here:
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. — neomac

There's lots in the UDHR that is not about morality.

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.

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

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". I'd be broadly supportive of the idea that mis-governance is responsible for more death overall than war, but I can't see any evidence that the difference in treatment between any two governments is, in general, even in the same ball park.

I still fail to understand how you calculate efficiency: what's the formula you are using? — neomac

It's not that complicated. Mostly deaths, but a pretty standard notion of basic welfare - water, housing, security, freedom from abuse - basic stuff. 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.

what do you mean by "broadly humanitarian"? do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights ? Or do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights and pacifism (or rejection of war)? Or yet something else? — neomac

As I said, human rights are meant as a basis for law, they're not the same thing as humanitarian goals (though there's much overlap). I mean, just as above, the basic aspects of human welfare.

Well, you argued otherwise upthread, saying that the soldiers were the primary actors — Olivier5

The primary actors and the primary decision makers are not the same thing. The soldiers could refuse to carry out orders, but they have no mechanism to devise and disseminate contrary orders. Decisions are made unilaterally by the Ukrainian government.

we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear — Olivier5

We agreed no such thing. You argued that the US populace had no influence on government policy, then argued the exact opposite for the Ukrainian populace. I just pointed out the incoherence.

Note that the people does the fighting too. — Olivier5

What all 40 million of them? That's excellent news, Russia will be swamped within days.

Putin's speech does reflect Dugan's vision. As a challenge to world order, it is difficult to imagine how the clash of civilizations is supposed to work when Putin and his gang of oligarchs gain and maintain their wealth through participation in the despised 'unipolar' system. The Russian economy will collapse if separated from globalized markets and resources.

Efforts that recognize the difficulty of preserving traditional forms of life in the face of 'unipolar' economy call for the opposite of imperial schemes. They wish to establish 'communities of communities' to increase the agency of people to shape the world around them. The relative independence of communities is not something one will find in the Cheka playbook that Putin absorbed in his youth.

As for the argument that the 'loss of universals' is what is destroying the idea of human nature, it is funny to have Heidegger be the champion for that cause. As Strauss pointed out in Natural Rights and History, deconstruction through historicism is what undermined the view of humans as having their own nature. And whatever else Heidegger may have been, he was an historicist of philosophy itself.

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).

, so that's what Putin meant by ...

And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

And in the end, if nothing at all can be done, the aim is the same: to destroy them, to wipe them off the political map.
[...]
Russia is simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely. — Putin · Oct 27, 2022

↑ a couple of dire statements from this year not using «The term "existential threat"» verbatim, instilling that sense of urgency ("hyperbolic" or perhaps "fear-mongering" better than "dire"?)

Novorossiysk (Black Sea) and Rostov-on-Don (Sea of Azov) are more or less on a stretch of Russian coastal real estate from Veselo-Voznesenka to Adler (close to the Sochi Olympic Park). Rumors will have it that Putin spent a bit to develop Taman (just east of Kerch) since 2008, also on that stretch.

Maybe Putin should have used resources to further develop Novorossiysk and Taman for example, instead of spending them on (starting) a costly war ... bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating. :up: But when you're the top dog Russian autocrat that's not enough apparently, and so an old-fashioned land grab it is. :down: There'd instead be less destructive jobs, perhaps praise instead of people fleeing, lost tanks, bodies, a Ukraine with increasing Russo-haters, heavy international sanctions, real threats.

As long as Turkey is a NATO member (has been since 1952, supports Ukrainian territorial integrity), Russia's further southbound sea access remains «at the mercy of NATO», if that means much here, it's any supposed NATO threat that's to be assessed here in the first place. NATO would instead limit Kremlin's free military actions; maybe that's what he meant by "develop freely".

we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear
— Olivier5

We agreed no such thing. You argued that the US populace had no influence on government policy, then argued the exact opposite for the Ukrainian populace. I just pointed out the incoherence. — Isaac

This is going nowhere, as usual with you.

A country at war cannot go on long without popular support for the war. That is true of democracies such as Ukraine, and valid for dictatorships too. If the Russian populace turns anti-war in its majority, Putin will jave to vie for peace.

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

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

Alexandr Dugin is really a "Putin whisperer" in the way he has promoted this semi-fictional historical view of Russia and it's role in the World. That Putin's speeches are many times long historical presentations just reek of Dugin's attitude. It might be confusing for a Westerner to follow some Putin's speech that start's from talking about the Rus and the Middle Ages, then goes on to the Russian Revolution and the Great Patriotic War. We in the West might skip that as just "nonsensical jargon", but it truly reveals the imperialist heart of Russia that both Putin and Dugin admire. This is an ideology of an Empire and thus genuine imperialism. Talk about a man on a mission. The references to culture wars, to Russia being very Christian and so on are just to try to lure the far right in the West.

Come to Russia...

Winter is indeed coming. But perhaps it's not going to be as bad as they say (and Putin desperately hopes):

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

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

Which then begs the question: how credible is the West in it's promise to attack conventionally Russia? Is that believable enough to Russia and Putin?

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.

Novorossiysk (Black Sea) and Rostov-on-Don (Sea of Azov) are more or less on a stretch of Russian coastal real estate from Veselo-Voznesenka to Adler (close to the Sochi Olympic Park). Rumors will have it that Putin spent a bit to develop Taman (just east of Kerch) since 2008, also on that stretch.

Maybe Putin should have used resources to further develop Novorossiysk and Taman for example, instead of spending them on (starting) a costly war ... bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating. :up: But when you're the top dog Russian autocrat that's not enough apparently, and so an old-fashioned land grab it is. :down: There'd instead be less destructive jobs, perhaps praise instead of people fleeing, lost tanks, bodies, a Ukraine with increasing Russo-haters, heavy international sanctions, real threats. — jorndoe

It isn't only about access, but also about control of the Black Sea (just like access isn't an issue when it comes to the Baltic or the White Seas - at least not during peace time). There is no real alternative to Crimea for any nation seeking that control. Consider for example also how weapon installations in Sevastopol can reach the Bosporus due to their central position in the Black Sea.

However, Russia wasn't just going to lose control over the Black Sea, but also to see it fall into NATO (read: 'enemy') hands.

You'd be a fool to think they were going to let that happen, yet that's exactly what the United States did, and Ukraine is paying the price.

It seems you are stuck in a feedback loop containing all the things Russia "should have done", how bad Russia and Putin are, etc. while all of those things should have made it exceedingly clear what the consequences would be of trying to change Ukraine's neutral status.

You and many others are stuck yelling 'Boooo!' on the sideline, without really understanding why things are happening and why they are unfolding the way they are.

, that's a bit ironic, because the question here was ...

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia.
A fair assessment can (ought to) take place without going by any one particular person's story (Putin, Biden, Mearsheimer, Stoltenberg, Zelenskyy, and Winnie-the-Pooh came to mind while typing). — jorndoe

But you just keep repeating your story instead. :brow:

By the way, I already mentioned the Uyghur situation and the old Canadian Indian residential school system because of the uncanny parallels with the annexations — re-culturation. You might notice some of Putin's statements about "The West", NATO, whatever, bear resemblance to extremist manifestos (going as far as rambling against democracy). We've seen the type of rhetoric before. But that's not an argument, just an observation.

the question here was ... — jorndoe

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia. — jorndoe

And I took the time to explain it to you in detail. If you're not interested in what I have to say, don't ask me to explain things to you next time.

You're not interested in hearing anything that doesn't confirm whatever media propaganda you've been binging on, and that's a problem I cannot help you with.

I agree with your account that Dugin is providing the back story for Putin's oft repeated theme of historical destiny. I would like to qualify this observation, however:

The references to culture wars, to Russia being very Christian and so on are just to try to lure the far right in the West. — ssu

It is true that Russia is not undergoing the culture wars in which ultranationalists of other nations participate. Putin has been adept at telling them what they want to hear. But getting the thumbs up from the Russian Orthodox Church that his is a just war is important. Things would be different if they even declined to comment. But they continue to bring balloons and pom-poms to the funeral.

But you didn't, . It's a broader assessment. Take another look, here (quotes, here).

Similarly ...

Are we deploying missiles near the US border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home? — Putin · Dec 23, 2021

By the way, it seems clear enough that various parties were naïve or not paying attention. Putin's gunmen waltzed right in and grabbed Crimea. :smile: Something, according to your story, Putin apparently would do with or without Ukrainian NATO membership, for control. Back to the threat assessment.

Drones are all over the place these days.

Russian navy ‘repels’ drone attack on Crimea’s Sevastopol (Oct 29, 2022)

Ukraine war: 'Massive' Crimea drone attack, Russia suspends grain export deal, clocks controversy (Oct 29, 2022)

(Made me think of Star Wars for a moment.)

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. — neomac

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

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

There have been considerable tensions in these regions for centuries, yes. Largely because of the same racist shit that you and others here are peddling - that it's 'The Russians' who have been oppressing 'The Chechens' or 'The Tartars' or 'The Ukrainians'' all this time, as if there existed one contiguous entity which all born there become that must be expelled or blamed for all it's past expulsions. It's all bullshit. There's just people. Some of them are monstrous cruel, others saints. Most somewhere in between. 'The Chechens' haven't suffered centuries of persecution by 'The Russians' because there's no such thing as 'The Chechens' or 'The Russians' there's just people.

And in what way does changing a border solve any of this? Confining the genetically evil 'Russians' to a smaller unit? Better just to erect a massive fence to keep the bloodthirsty Orcs Russians in their place.

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.

Better just to erect a massive fence to keep the bloodthirsty Orcs Russians in their place. — Isaac

Humble them, scare them into a more respectful attitude. Impress on them the idea that others matter and can fight back when attacked. If they fail to understand the message, kill some more Russian until the message is understood. Like done with Germany and Japan.

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.

I knew you were a dick, but...

"

kill some more Russian — Olivier5

Fuck off.

You thought we were talking of a garden party, perhaps?