Burnwinter wrote:

jones wrote:

Honestly I thought when it comes to racism I've seen a bit but this is some wild shit not that I didn't believe God knows how many whites felt that way but why does everyone all of a sudden feel the urge to compare beautiful Ukrainians to the savage negroes and Musulmans where it's not just common but expected for them to die in wars.

It's sad to me, the intuitive response is surely the other way round, to ask why this support, this humane journalism haven't been offered in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan and more? And the answer is clear: those were either the west's wars or not its problem … but since that answer's too reflective, they will search for a different rationale with terms like "civilisation", or talk about "peoples not used to conflict" … the contradictions of this ideology are repellent, especially considering their human cost.

I don't agree that this is a specific ideology or tension that's particular unique to the EU or Europe or the West as a whole. I've lived in 4 uniquely different countries - Britain, India, Singapore and Malaysia - and this kind of thought process exists at a national level at one form or another in every country.

It's very hard to discuss this without sounding like whataboutism but I think it's more instructive to see a framework for a pathforward where these kind of questions around race are surmounted. Case in point, at the moment 60% of Britain would be in favour of bringing in people from Ukraine in - now replace that with Afghans or Syrians - you'll see that rating drop by 30% easily. Is it because they look the same? Absolutely. But equally there's 60% support in bringing 3m people leaving Hong Kong too. That's happened the past two years with minimal fuss and a fair amount of support. And they're not blonde, blue eyed Europeans.

For the record, there's also stories of Indian students not being allowed to cross the Polish border by Ukrainian guards - partly because of India abstention at the UN

I would agree with you, white supremacism is a historical aberration brought about by uneven development and geography. So is the concept of race as it manifests today for that matter. I'd say the capacity to embark on a centuries long colonial expansion lurks in every people, but it was Europe's mercantilism, internecine warfare and later its capitalism that armed it with the tools and practices to make it happen.

Today the foundations of nationalism (or its supra-national variety in the EU) have more to do with ideological production than complexion … skin colour, modes of dress, extreme claims about religious practices or "incompatible values" are vehicles for the labour of the ideological producers … to back this up, you can just look at the history of what white Europeans have said and continue to say about each other.

So I'd say the reason for that 30–60% gap is firstly that there's far less ideological vilification of East Asians as individuals or "speculative citizens" in recent history, and secondly that Hong Kong is seen as a British property and associated with patriotic nostalgia, and its people the victims of suppression by the Chinese state, which is the new geopolitical bogeyman.

As an example of how this works, you could consider the claims that Ukrainian refugees are "civilised", educated, watch Netflix etc … thing is, in the case of Australia's offshore black sites, the people, predominantly Persian, Afghan or Afghan Hazara, Rohingya or Syrian, who have been held in them are widely tertiary educated, with engineering and medical degrees etc. That's because it was their class position in their countries of origin that allowed them to fund and attempt the difficult transit here as refugees, often sending younger sons ahead of a family that stayed behind.

I am tired of it all, as in my lifetime over here there have been several waves of "enemy-making" nationalism, Japan in the 80s, Islam in the 90s and beyond, China more recently. Each has constructed a new manifestation of racism out of the basic fabric of Australian white supremacism. The case of China is troublesome, as it will become the world's most powerful state and harbours territorial and imperial ambitions, but doesn't do so on the basis of the caricatured politics Australians get from their news outlets.

I deeply fear the advent of a historical era in which I'm drowned in a glut of anti-Chinese sentiment. My Prime Minister and Defence Minister are spouting Sinophobic rhetoric for domestic political gain every day lately.

If this shitty, pointless war were to end in a withdrawal with some concessions for Russia, I hope the EU may over time consider disengagement from the United States on military policy and re-engagement with Russia. Nearing 70 and with Putin's constituency eroding, perhaps there will eventually be a chance to do what they could've done ages ago, and integrate Russia into the European security environment and economic system.

Cries about "Putin's gangsterism" versus the hurdles to implement strong economic sanctions have brought not just the broad spectrum economic entanglement of Russia and Europe into focus, but the complicity of western corporations, regulators and political parties with Russian extractivism and its oligarchic system. We're all already connected, and in my opinion based on a ton of travel, people around the world are much more similar than they are different. We are a peaceful species caught up in artificial scarcity and forced labour. The hope would be that in a better future we'll look back on this era of borders as the abomination akin to slavery that it is.

So I'd say the reason for that 30–60% gap is firstly that there's far less ideological vilification of East Asians as individuals or "speculative citizens" in recent history, and secondly that Hong Kong is seen as a British property and associated with patriotic nostalgia, and its people the victims of suppression by the Chinese state, which is the new geopolitical bogeyman.

I think that misses the point for me. Certainly there's an element of sticking it to China and historical nostalgia (I guess) but by and large it's because those from Hong Kong are politically centre right, urbanised and predominantly consumers. In other words, they slot into a different bracket of society. Like you pointed out, having medical or engineering degrees isn't sufficient to be considered 'middle class' or 'civilised' rather it's what you consume and how. Broadly it's a similar story for British Indians today vs the same Indians who moved to the UK in the 50s/60s.

We're all already connected, and in my opinion based on a ton of travel, people around the world are much more similar than they are different. We are a peaceful species caught up in artificial scarcity and forced labour. The hope would be that in a better future we'll look back on this era of borders as the abomination akin to slavery that it is.

I agree - people are basically the same. But I've generally found that most people like their borders - I don't necessarily mean national ones either. A lot people like their little corner of the city/village/town and will never want that to change. It's weird but I think it's also important to entertain that as a preference and build a world that works despite those conditions.

Mirth wrote:

I think that misses the point for me. Certainly there's an element of sticking it to China and historical nostalgia (I guess) but by and large it's because those from Hong Kong are politically centre right, urbanised and predominantly consumers. In other words, they slot into a different bracket of society. Like you pointed out, having medical or engineering degrees isn't sufficient to be considered 'middle class' or 'civilised' rather it's what you consume and how. Broadly it's a similar story for British Indians today vs the same Indians who moved to the UK in the 50s/60s.

This is a great point, and perhaps a reason why multiculturalism is often valued by white societies in terms of new avenues for consumption—Japanese or Korean cinema, special new kinds of cuisine, etc.

I do agree that class doesn't translate. In Australia migrants with tertiary qualifications don't move smoothly into those echelons of our society. Someone with a Polish medical degree from the Soviet era you'll find working as an admin lady, her husband with a PhD in solar engineering as a systems administrator. The ride-sharing world is notoriously full of South Asian people with technical degrees, etc. Likewise, my guess would be that educated Ukrainians wouldn't walk into professional roles in Germany either. It is a kind of systemic abjection often justified in terms of "paying your dues". The way round in Australia is the system of international students, uniformly middle class, whose families pay large sums for them to get their qualifications here, and then move on to matching careers while seeking pathways to permanent residency.

Mirth wrote:

I agree - people are basically the same. But I've generally found that most people like their borders - I don't necessarily mean national ones either. A lot people like their little corner of the city/village/town and will never want that to change. It's weird but I think it's also important to entertain that as a preference and build a world that works despite those conditions.

A world without borders wouldn't be one in which everyone moved. My experience is the same as yours on that front, people move if they have a strong incentive, only a minority do otherwise. If you take away the spatial partition of labour, housing and access to resources (never mind security and basic freedoms) globally into winners and losers, on which the present world system depends absolutely, you create the conditions under which a homeostasis of populations is actually possible. At the moment, it's not, and exclusionary borders are a refusal of feedback from the violence of that system which gradually mounts and appears in other ways, like war, terrorism or civil unrest.

What do the world now do with Belarus now that the puppet state has joined in to invade Ukraine?

Couple of perspectives from me as a Russian speaking ex-Soviet whose people have been enslaved by the Russians for a long time:

• Turning on Russian TV these days is really shocking, they've gone from bias to full-blown Goebbels style propaganda in the space of a few years. Really a lost cause.
• Russians protesting at home and abroad gives me at least some hope for the future. However you wonder how far regime change in Russia can go since the main opposition is a neo-Nazi like Navalny.
• There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Putin's motives in the West, mainly because people believe his "NATO expansion security threat" bullshit. This is only about the security of the monetary assets belonging to him and his cronies. Putin cannot afford any of the ex-Soviet states to take any positive steps towards democracy and the rule of law, because ultimately the Russian people may start asking themselves questions like "how come we have the most natural resources in the world but 40% of our population lacks money for food and clothing?" It is important to keep in mind that the entire ex-Soviet space is connected and functions like a big organised crime syndicate. Oligarchs and state leaders have (monetary) interests everywhere and ultimately all fall under the umbrella of and answer to the big leader Putin (note that his nickname in the Russian speaking world is "Papa" - i.e. godfather). So Putin is not so much a state leader but more of a mafia boss. Basically read Garry Kasparov on this.
• These things will continue to happen as long as the international order is not based on values but interests. The so-called free world lectures us on values but its actions show that it only cares about interests. As various people have pointed out in this thread Western countries infringe international law as well and invade other countries as well. NATO member Turkey has in the last decade invaded and occupied parts of Libya, Syria and Kharabakh, some with full American agreement. The Saudis are waging a war in Yemen with US support which has cost more than 400,000 lives. Genocide has been committed against the Yezidis in the Middle East and genocide continues against the Uyghurs in China but no serious steps were/are taken to prevent either. So the West can lecture the rest of the world on human rights and international law all it wants, but actions speak louder than words. And dictators like Putin know this use this to tell their public that they are no different from the rest of the world.
• This is very worrying for all ex-Soviet states, whose citizens will be destroyed by the sanctions as well. The tragedy is that many of those citizens wanted to break free from the corrupt Russian yoke, but ultimately got no help from the so-called free world when it mattered. Think Georgia, Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. I hope Ukraine will be the exception.
• It amazes me that there are still Western commentators out there who argue for appeasement, saying that "we will be dragged into a (bigger) war". The bigger war will come anyway if Putin is not stopped. I guess they missed history class when the late 1930ies were discussed.
• It would not surprise me if other dictators use this opportunity to pursue their own aims. If I was Taiwan I would be worried about Xi. Aliev has already started ethnically cleansing additional villages in Kharabakh. Interestingly both these chaps recently met Putin or even concluded a friendship agreement with him.
• Finally, as an Armenian it is incredibly painful to see how much the world cares about Ukraine and how little they cared about us two years ago. Being reminded of the fact that your people's lives are worthless is not a great experience. But I hope Ukraine survives.

https://www.cityam.com/kremlin-blames-liz-truss-for-putins-decision-to-raise-nuclear-alert-level/

This is possibly my favourite 'Thick of It' quote of the conflict:

Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on a “special regime of duty” yesterday, igniting fears of a global nuclear conflict.

Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov today said: “There were unacceptable statements about possible conflict situations and even confrontations and clashes between Nato and Russa. I will not name the authors of these statements, although it was the British foreign secretary.”

Great point on the elite interests driving this Gurgen … but why don't you think NATO's expansion plays a part here?

Russia has opposed it since the USSR ended. For Russia, it increased the urgency of the annexation of Crimea and now this invasion. If Ukraine had been a NATO member, Crimea would've been subject to NATO's security guarantees. Though Russia has no prerogative to carve land off its neighbours, it's never been about what's right, more how has the United States enthusiasm for Ukraine in NATO served Europe's security?

I'm also sorry about what 2020 was like for Armenians. They (we) really do not care. I know where Nagorno-Karabakh is from learning briefly about the 90s conflict in school, but that's about it. The coverage of that renewed conflict was truly minimal anywhere other than Twitter, where it was at least mentioned, but only for a few days.

I suspect many onlookers don't care so much about Ukraine either. The appetite for the spectacle is there but is it directed towards preserving life? Twitter is full of blue ticks fantasising about nuclear war or some other Russian escalation today, and if not then they're fantasising about forced regime change in Russia. Working in a sector that's based on attention, a Pavlovian salivation seems to start at the thought of the bonanza a worsening crisis would bring.

I think it plays a role but in the context of kleptocracy and push for democratisation. NATO membership usually means a step towards democratisation (Turkey is the outlier) and sometimes also EU membership, which in itself is another step towards democratisation. The KGB kleptocrats who run the ex-Soviet world cannot allow this. Although the West is more than happy to launder their money, it is much more difficult to pillage a country's natural resources without consequences once that country is part of the Western sphere of influence. In 2014 there was no serious talk of NATO membership, the Ukrainian people just wanted to be rid of their dictator. There was also no serious talk of NATO membership for Georgia, Armenia and Kazakhstan, others countries Putin has brought back into the fold.

The worst thing about this "we poked the bear" narrative that many right-wing types in the West are propagating is that it completely denies the fact that people in ex-Soviet countries have agency too and may have ideas about the direction their country should move into. NATO did not actively seek to expand. These countries asked to join because they think there is a better future out there.

Gurgen wrote:

The worst thing about this "we poked the bear" narrative that many right-wing types in the West are propagating is that it completely denies the fact that people in ex-Soviet countries have agency too and may have ideas about the direction their country should move into.

Exactly and, more to the point, Eastern European countries have a more positive view and the places more likely to meet the 2% funding threshold than Western Europe.

It's not surprising that you now end up with headlines like this: https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202

Russia may or may not take Ukraine but they'll end up with more NATO troops on their Western border and will likely become extremely dependent on China. All for what?

Ironically Putin is the one poking the bear.

I was reading that the main reason they took Crimea was to regain access to their only real warm water port. Yet getting any ships out of there would require them to navigate through NATO controlled waters... access which Turkey are apparently now going to block as is their right during war time

I mean I'm not going to say he shouldn't be worried or do anything about Russia's vulnerabilities, but I can't help but think the best thing to do if you're surrounded by an enemy that you have no real hope of ridding yourself of, is to make them a buddy, or at least pretend?

That's the nature of diplomacy - 20 years isn't even that long. You keep going. The same Russia has been arguing with Japan over the Kuril Islands for more than half a century but they haven't started carpeting bombing Tokyo. Besides, like Gurgen said, regardless of what NATO or Russia want, it's the people living there that should have the agency to chart their own path and we both know that for a lot of people their issues with Moscow go back nearly a century so spending 20 years trying to make up for that isn't particularly remarkable.

I'm too exhausted to say anything more on this whole inhumane clusterfuck right now, but I do want to say that I really appreciate the insights by all of you here, the thoughtfulness with which all of you are approaching this and the fact that everyone here has remained civil. I've been keeping up with this thread every day and I've genuinely learned quite a bit. I'll also quote Burnwinter's dystopian outlook on the concept of borders if I ever get around to writing a manifesto

I hope that now or later there's a role for the Russian people in halting this conflict, unwinding its consequences and taking back control of the lands on which they live and the industries in which they work.

I'm sure they're aware today that their quality of life is set to be hugely degraded by the immediate outcomes of Putin's desperation to shore up the capacity of a declining Russian state to broker profits to its blocs of capital.

Ukraine represents an existential threat to Russia. Their oil reserves are that significant. Putin had to act.