Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[viper37]

Patriotism is loving your country.  Nationalism is loving your nation.  One can be an American Patriot. One can not be a Franco-American patriot, Franco-America is not a country, nor a well defined territory where a majority of these people live.

Nor is it a nation.

I don't see there as being too much difference between being a nationalist for a entity with currently existing well recognised borders vs. being a nationalist for a entity which doesn't hold the borders you claim it should, whether that be the very different in many other ways greater Serbia irredentalists or pro Catalan independence folks.

Part of the problem with defining what "nationalism" is is the changing meaning of the word "nation."  Traditionally, it was a term referring to a people, in the broad sense, usually considered to be bound by language, religion, "common destiny," and the like, regardless of which state they lived in.  Germany was a state, "the Germans" was a nation. 

Patriotism is identifying with your country (state); nationalism was, traditionally, identifying with "your people."  With the rise of the nation-state, nationalism became much like patriotism, for some.  Thus, the Ukrainians feeling nationalism based on their country (thus uniting Russian-speakers and Ukrainian speakers), while white nationalists feel nationalism based on their people (thus excluding those speaking a different language, having different ethnicity, etc). 

We should maybe diverge into a separate thread, but I love Imagined Communities and that theory of nationalism. Although if part of that is the rise of print capitalism, then I slightly wonder whether social media and the internet is going to move us to something else (perhaps we're already seeing it in the US) - disaggregated communities, perhaps.

Yes. I do think we're heading towards a 'Diamond Age' kind of situation.
Also a key factor in all this is the move towards remote working- there's going to need to be big changes in quite how taxation works on such location independent people.

I never like the patriotism/nationalism distinction because I think it's normally just nonsense. But if I had to split them I think patriotism is ambience and vibes, while nationalism is political. Whether that's exclusionary and around "cleansing" your nation, or liberational and freeing the nation from imperial/colonial rule - it's both a form of nationalism. Which is why I think it's nuanced and difficult and depends on the context, rather than simply bad while patriotism is tolerable.

The terms themselves are debatable but I do think there is a clear difference between two types of thing as I described. Big difference between loving your country/people/whatever and wanting the best for it, being upset when it takes a wrong turn, etc.... vs supporting it like a football team no matter what.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state.^[1][2] As a movement, nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),^[3] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland to create a nation state. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity^[4] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.^[3][5] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,^[6][7] and to promote national unity or solidarity.^[3] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture.^[8] There are various definitions of a "nation", which leads to different types of nationalism. The two main divergent forms are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.



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 and mostly civic nationalism.^[1][2][3]
Some manifestations of patriotism emphasize the "land" element in love for one's native land and use the symbolism of agriculture and the soil^[4][5] – compare Blut und Boden.

So, like I said, you can't be a patriot from a non existing country.  Otherwise, it's mostly the same as nationalism.


While we have this here:
Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas,^[2][3] often through employing hard power, especially military force, but also soft power. While related to the concepts of colonialism and empire, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.


That clearly applies to Russia, and most European countries pre-WWII.  Can't deny that what the UK did in India  and Canada was consistent with its vision of how the Empire should exist, with total disregard for local population's feelings.

[The Minsky Moment]

One could have been, for example, a patriot of the Austro-Hungarian empire and not a nationalist of any stripe (kaisertreu).  That was not uncommon back in the day.  Indeed, it was the norm throughout much of pre-nationalist history.

[jimmy olsen]

That's at least a full battalion destroyed there

https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1524413089579511808

#Ukraine: Russian forces sustained remarkable losses from the failed bridging attempt over the Siverskyi Donets River.

We count 6x T-72B-series MBT, 14x BMP-1/2 variants, 7x MT-LB, a tugboat & 5+ other armoured vehicles destroyed/abandoned/damaged. Note precise ID is very hard.

[jimmy olsen]

If I am understanding this correctly, this is in addition to the losses I posted above? 

https://twitter.com/Danspiun/status/1524101694732255232

So the RuAF Bilohorivka crossing was a disaster. As well as yesterday's bridge pics, 6 more here https://t.me/informnapalm/8422. Rough count: 31 AFVs in the 6 new pics + 5 more out of view between here and river that I saw in imagery sent to me yesterday + 2 in the water. h/t
@DefMon3

[Josquius]

Looks like something from an RTS.

[Legbiter]

The Russians seem to have just about taken most of the Luhansk region so far. Major push to clear the Ukrainians out.  

[Josquius]

Interesting piece on something I've often wondered about the crimea bridge.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/05/06/ukraine-threatens-russias-vital-bridge-to-crimea/?sh=51fa57685d77

Looks like they've got a site ready to be a countdown timer.

http://crimeanbridgedown.com.ua/


The article talks of destroying the bridge being very hard which OK fair enough
But surely making the railway unusable and requiring major works would not be as hard as utterly sinking the bridge and useful nonetheless?

[Tamas]

All I can remember is that in Falcon 3.0 bridge-busting was the toughest mission to pull off by far.

[The Larch]

All I can remember is that in Falcon 3.0 bridge-busting was the toughest mission to pull off by far.

Yeah, I've seen experts claiming that destroying a bridge, even such a large one, is no easy task at all, so maybe it's better to keep it there, which also forces Russia to mantain a significant air defence there that is not used anywhere else.

[grumbler]

All I can remember is that in Falcon 3.0 bridge-busting was the toughest mission to pull off by far.

Yeah, I've seen experts claiming that destroying a bridge, even such a large one, is no easy task at all, so maybe it's better to keep it there, which also forces Russia to mantain a significant air defence there that is not used anywhere else.

Better yet would be to damage the bridge and render it unusable but repairable; then the Russian defenses would have to defend the repair crews as well as try to prevent further damage.

[viper37]

One could have been, for example, a patriot of the Austro-Hungarian empire and not a nationalist of any stripe (kaisertreu).  That was not uncommon back in the day.  Indeed, it was the norm throughout much of pre-nationalist history.

Sure, Austria-Hungary was a country, with internationally recognized borders.
There could not have been a Jewish Patriot at this time though as they were not a unified nation with their own territory.  Probably still aren't, even though Israel has taken the mantle of the Jewish nation.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure, Austria-Hungary was a country, with internationally recognized borders.
There could not have been a Jewish Patriot at this time though as they were not a unified nation with their own territory.  Probably still aren't, even though Israel has taken the mantle of the Jewish nation.

Jewish nationalism - Zionism - traces its roots to Jews living in the late 19th century Austro-Hungarian Empire.  But not all A-H Jews were Zionist.  Most were not.  Some were socialists looking forward to a socialist utopia.  But the majority saw themselves as loyal subjects of the empire - indeed, in that late period, of all the many social and ethnic groups, the Jews were among the most loyal to the imperial house.

[CountDeMoney]

Jewish nationalism - Zionism - traces its roots to Jews living in the late 19th century Austro-Hungarian Empire.  But not all A-H Jews were Zionist.  Most were not.  Some were socialists looking forward to a socialist utopia.  But the majority saw themselves as loyal subjects of the empire - indeed, in that late period, of all the many social and ethnic groups, the Jews were among the most loyal to the imperial house.

Avineri's biography on Herzl covers this well.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The multi-national nature of Austria-Hungary tended to work favourably for the Jews, at least compared to the alternatives. An Empire of minorities, with the Jews one of them; but split it apart into nationalist states and they become the minority in the successor states.

Edit : not a given of course. The multi-national Russian empire was very anti-semitic.

[CountDeMoney]

I really wish Sir Hockey was around to explain again how T-72 armor is better than Chobham or anything the West has. 

Then again, I suppose it wasn't designed to protect the crew from the shells they sit on.  Maybe they should put reactive armor on the inside?