Suddenly seeing more hexbear posts. Did we re-federate with them?

You act as if a peace deal isn't literally someone calling for peace.
Lmao what with the "infiltrators" that cannot be proven? The two oblasts have a large population that is ethnically russian. When a government that had spoken of cleansing russian influence comes into power, it is pretty understandable that that would foment separatism. At best we can prove Russia provided financial aid to separatists, and then later stepped in and negotiate Minsk I and II, which were both broken by Ukraine

You think the country that has a national holiday to celebrate their Nazi era leader is the Union in this analogy?

Nice false equivalent. Keep trying.

If you think it's this important, why aren't you volunteering?

You're linking me to the Woodrow Wilson institute? Lmao get the fuck out of here. Whats next, radio free Russia? If you want a serious answer to what Russia claims just look at what demands they have made - these are the demands negotiations revolve around

There were pogroms and mass murders at the ground level and there were laws targeting Russian speakers from the governmental level. The weapons Trump was impeached for tying political favors to were being used against resistance militias. They were being used to bomb facilities built in the soviet era that pump hot water into people's homes as the local method of heating during the winter. They locked over a hundred people in a building and burned them alive in it. They broke multiple treaties with Russia in order to do all of this. This was the lead up to the war.

What ethnic cleansing?

Whoop, there it is! I'm quoting that for posterity before you delete this comment.

You're literally denying an attempted genocide right now, y'know that?

What I think is that it doesn't matter in the context of an aggressive war against a country that was not threatening Russia.

Lol well that's just a fucking lie. Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion. Do you have a selective memory or are you just fucking ignorant of the entire history of this conflict and should therefore shut the fuck up?

Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory.

They didn't invade; they were already there. The legitimate government of Ukraine leased the naval base to them in Crimea and when the western backed coup government wanted to revoke the lease they simply stayed. Accuse them of squatting.

The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.

Well that's just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don't count if they came after a war?

Sorry you just lost my attention with that one

Russia and Ukraine are basically the same politically, except for there are more Nazis in power in Ukraine. Prior to the invasion Ukraine was categorically ranked as the most corrupt country in Europe, Zelensky himself is in the Panama papers, they absolutely are not good on gay rights either, they overthrew their democratically elected president in 2014 in a CIA backed coup to put in a government handpicked by the U.S. (we can listen to Nuland picking the government on leaked phone calls), they’ve banned political opposition and all leftist parties (not pro-Russia, just all leftists. Being leftist generally means having semi sane takes like not wanting everybody in the country to die, so they had to be banned by the Nazi regime).

Also I didn’t say Russia is a free country, but Ukraine is easily just as bad if not worse, it’s a total farce to make this about freedom or democracy or any of that shit. Hell if democracy in Ukraine was real the war wouldn’t be happening, Zelensky was elected to end the conflict in the Donbass, he went to the front lines and told the Nazis to lay down arms and they told him to fuck off lol. You can watch the video of that happening.

The sources cited are in large part Adrian Zenz and articles citing zenz. Radio free Asia shows up as well. How are these good sources?
Not to mention that Wikipedia is known to have a huge right wing bias and a well-known Nazi problem

I don't trust Chinese or Russian media either, I employ a healthy level of scepticism towards any media.

Birth rates were already much lower in the rest of China, did the Han do a genocide on themselves first lol or is declining birth rate the norm in a country with massively improved economic conditions and development, and has that begun to affect the more rural regions of China?

Did you even look at the carrd? If you're not gonna engage with the sources, then it's pretty clear you're not arguing in goog faith and there's no reason for this discussion to continue

Why would the CPC, in the same breath, exempt the Uyghurs from the One Child Policy but also force sterilization?

No sure, I get where you're coming from, but for the purposes of the other poster I think it was best to adjust my language.

At the time time, it's also best for the purposes of the other poster to reply with your perspective as well haha

I can't tell how serious you're being but I read a really good book on this subject- The History of White People

The TL;DR on that is that whiteness is a social category, not an objective observation of human beings and their differences. For most of American history, as an example, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch/Low Germans and Scandinavians were considered a superior race to the 'alpine' and 'mediterranean' races of High Germans, Spaniards, and Italians. Irish weren't Anglo-Saxon, they were Celtic and were thus considered inferior. The racism people observe when they see 'Irish need not apply' signs or slurs directed at Italians in the 1800s were because those people were not considered 'white' at the time. It's an over-simplification, but these groups needed to be incorporated into the dominant group before they would be given the treatment we generally think is normal for white people.

Which is very jarring to us, since obviously Irish and Italians and Bavarian Germans are 'white'. But it literally does vary, and the entire purpose of the category is to render people inside of it superior by virtue of belonging to it, it's a category that exists to express supremacy.

"white" is a concept made up to justify slavery and white supremacy. you are actually hitting on something really important, the definition of being white HAS varied widely in history. when the concept of whiteness was first being developed, it was in order to justify categorizing people as white or non-white, and then the eugenics movement ran away with that concept to promote racial supremacy- not racial identity, but racial supremacy. so "white" as a category did indeed refer to specifically condoned peoples with supposed genetic, moral, intellectual superiority. and the definition of "white" did indeed vary then as well as now. irish, italian, slav, spanish, jews were all once distinctly non-white by the definition of "whites" at one point. the definition has changed since then because it has always been a non-scientific concept designed to identify "us" from "them" and justify the subjugation of whoever was considered non-white at the time.

Oh so the definition of being white varies now? People are dermofluid or something? "I'm white skinned but I'm not white."

The definition of being white, like all definitions, can indeed vary based on time and place, yes. Whether someone is white "enough" to be included in the category of "white people" is not an objective fact and will change from culture to culture, from time to time, and even from one individual perspective to the next.

Racial categories in Europe were more complex than they generally are today, especially in America. It's difficult to maintain distinctions in race between different European nationalities when everyone's immigrating to the same place and having kids together, so over time these subtle distinctions have dropped off somewhat in favor of the simpler categories of "white" and "non-white." But some of these distinctions still remain, for instance, many people who identify as "white nationalists" or even "white supremacists" also hate Jews, including Jewish people with white skin. Hitler's infamous 14 words declare that a future must be secured "for our white children," yet clearly he did not consider white-skinned Jewish people to be included in that definition.

As absurd as it may be to say that someone can have white skin but not be considered white, it can happen. The reason it doesn't make sense is because race is, to a large degree, something that is socially constructed and nonsensical.

Imagine considering Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes to be racist, while simultaneously arguing that you can't be racist against white people.

And for good measure, considering the use of the word "crazy" to be an offensive term against the mentally ill.

Those things are crossing the line. But overt racism is fine as long as it's self-deprecating.

I would say it would depend on the structural conditions and who holds power over whom