True Left

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555 etc. [Evacuation of non-"whites" from Ukraine - Dazhbog]

The relevant question when deciding whether a particular policy is racist is whether it benefits the in-group, in this case "whites". Therefore, the policies in question must have been aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" in one way or another.

You could argue that the underlying intention was to get the "white" refugees to safety as regards the dangers posed by the Russian invasion at the expense of the non-"white" refugees, however, being safe from the dangers posed by the Russian invasion specifically is in the long run not actually decisive in and of itself when it comes to demographics.

As we have seen, upon evacuating Ukraine, a lot of the non-"white" refugees actually repatriated to their (already majority non-"white") countries of origin (group 1), meaning that for the time being, they aren't contributing to the de-whitening of majority "white" countries. Sure, you could argue that at least they are still alive and might thus be able to once more migrate to a majority "white" country. This however exposes them to increasingly racist migration policies, so it's anyone's guess whether they ever make it to a majority "white" country again. Add to that the fact that even in relatively stable and prosperous states, they are still disproportionally endangered by the effects of climate change, which tend to hit majority non-"white" countries more severly than majority "white" ones, so it's actually anyone's guess whether they even survive long enough to migrate at all! In other words, evacuating this group of non-"white" refugees has effectively neutralized them from a demographic point of view.

Another number went for other EU-countries (group 2). They might end up considerably safer than group 1 as far as war and climate change are concerned, however, their perspective of staying there in the long term is anyone's guess, so there is still a decent likelihood they will end up like group 1 anyway. Add to that that they might still be subject to racial profiling, racist violence and detention, particularly in racist Poland, which they have to cross to go anywhere within the EU. Add to that that gun laws in the EU are rather restrictive, meaning they likely won't have the chance to even defend themselves (and diminish the "white" demographic in the process). All in all, their perspective of negatively impacting "white" demographics upon evacuating Ukraine still isn't particularly good.

Last but not least, a number of non-"white" refugees were citizens of majority "white" countries and Ukraine (group 3). They likely don't face the threat of deportation that group 2 faces, however, all the other problems remain. Their chances of negatively impacting "white" demographics are better than those of the other two groups but still not exactly great.

Had they simply stayed in Ukraine, they would of course have been exposed to the full force of the Russian invasion with a considerable risk of dying. On the other hand, they would have had a rather easy time obtaining weapons and training, enabling them to kill "whites", which already would have enabled them to directly diminish "white" demographics. Add to that that the Ukrainian evacuation policy disproportionally favors "white" females, meaning that the remaining "white" population, which would be dying at a similar rate as the non-"white" population, has a harder time replacing their losses through reproduction, whereas no such gender-based favoritism is evident regarding the non-"white" refugees, meaning they have an easier time replacing their losses through reproduction, which in turn means their population will grow at a faster rate than the "white" population, meaning that at least Ukraine can be successfully de-whitened to some extent.

You could argue then that Ukraine being de-whitened is by far not as important as de-whitening safer, more prosperous and nuclear-armed countries such as France or Britain. Alright, but as the Turkish example demonstrates, having a non-white country immediately adjacent to the EU as a transit point for migrants and refugees already has a huge value in and of itself. Besides, not evacuating immediately, taking up weapons, getting training and combat experience and storming the border by force of arms in the aftermath (ideally killing more "whites" in the process) is still a more promising path towards that end than evacuating immediately.

(It should be noted however that while this eliminates the risks for refugee groups 2 and 3 on their passage to some other country, it won't necessarily prevent group 1 from voluntarily repatriating and becoming demographically useless in the process, so depending on which refugee group is the largest, precautions should be taken to at least discourage them from doing so.)

As should be evident by now, if anything, Ukraine shouldn't be criticized for making it more difficult for non-"whites" to evacuate, but for not outright banning them from evacuating. However, the latter would have made for even worse PR and diplomatic scandals than the path ultimately chosen and would have almost certainly cost Ukraine a huge chunk of the support they desperately need. Ultimately, discouraging Ukrainian non-"whites" from leaving in a subtle manner by making evacuation as difficult and dangerous for them as possible was the sensible way to go, even if it didn't work out in the end.

Regardless of the lackluster result, the policies in question weren't aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" and consequently weren't racist.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901 [Racism in Soviet Ukraine - Dazhbog]

The same Soviet officials who enforced racist policies and condoned the lynch mob mentioned in the article quoted also mercilessly **** down on any display of Ukrainianness around the same time. Today, Ukrainianness is in many regards openly celebrated and Soviet sympathies **** down upon, meaning a dramatic shift in attitudes took place, which also implies certain demographic changes. In other words, post-Soviet Ukrainians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Ukrainians.

The demographics of the city of Kherson in particular (where the massacre in question took place) changed as well (the share of the Russian and the Jewish population declined, whereas the share of the Ukrainian population increased). In other words, the bloodlines responsible for the massacre aren't necessarily as present today as they were back in 1964. Again, post-Soviet Khersonians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Khersonians.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936 [Ukrainian politician Vadym Prystaiko stereotypes non-"whites" as "foreigners" that "stick out in a crowd" and wants to "put them in some other place" - Dazhbog]

Prystaiko is ethnically stereotyping for sure, "putting them in some other place" however is at least open to the interpretation that he would endorse banning non-"whites" from evacuating, which, as argued above, might very well de-whiten Ukraine, making them no longer "foreigners" by his own definition. So there is no reason to assume that he is trying to enforce whiteness, subhuman phenotype notwithstanding.

Let me know in case I forgot the odd point from your list.