Just because the nationalists claim working class aesthetics, it doesnt change anything, this hypothetical educated individual is capable of betraying the working class with nationalist politics, and to say that applying the same brush to different regions is naive is just to provide room for the true naive statement that those “unreported” regions are better suited for nationalism.

Anyone is capable of betraying the working class. Also this isn't a "hypothetical" individual, examples inclide Ho Chi Minh, Sun Yat Sen, Thomas Sankara, etc. In my opinion, nationalism does indeed have a different character in undeveloped, colonized countries than it does in developed, oppressor countries, because there are legitimate aspects of national development that are important to undergo. Once those things have been accomplished, nationalism becomes nothing but chauvanism.

And you assumed my position on ukraine without asking

I, in fact, asked, "does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine?"

In any case they clearly try to maintain seperation if you follow their efforts and if you would analyse the situation outside of a big money news corp line, it is clear that the choice to shoot and bomb the incoming soldiers is sensical, despite their class interest.

Huh. So what you're saying is that it's sensical to lend support to a common cause of repelling foreign occupation, rather than, or at least before, engaging in internal class conflict.

This flies completely in the face of your dismissive and oversimplified approach to the National Question, which is precisely why I brought this question up. It seems then, that in Ireland, it could by the same logic be reasonable for Irish socialists to have focused on repelling English occupation, in India, for Indian socialists to have focused on the same, etc. Of course, this is not necessarily the case in every circumstance, but this demonstrates very clearly that the topic is complex and deserves critical examination.

That then does not make those people nationalists, and people in less stressed theoretical circumstance absolutely should not propose nationalism in their name.

If an Irish socialist lends support to an Irish nationalist movement for the sake of repelling the English, does that make them an Irish nationalist? The distinction seems somewhat semantic. I have no problem saying that one should only "lend support" to national movements (in some situations), rather than "being a nationalist" if you're allowing that distinction.

And I do not like your line of singling out ukraine to this as to slyly construct a racist strawman.

I have literally no idea what on earth you're talking about. What strawman? What racism? This accusation is a complete non sequitor.

Well maybe they could be less attached to their homes and move, or rally elsewhere and return, but it is not silly to be attached to a loved environment.

I don't recall saying that it was. Nor do I recall calling anyone an "idiot" for that matter. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said that isn't really there.