But many do, and did historically, as it was part of Russia prior to the USSR.
But I have a genuine question: suppose that the majority of people living in Donbass genuinely wanted to break off and become part of Russia. Should they be allowed to, and if so, what steps should they have taken to make it happen, in the context that the government banned major opposition parties that were sympathetic towards Russia? What are you supposed to do, exactly, when the country is moving in a direction that you disagree with and shutting the opposition out of the political process, after seizing power through force?
It’s a complicated issue to solve, and I’m not the person to solve it but the Russian state’s approach has basically been in every single way wrong.
The Russian ethnic minority and it’s treatment is a domestic issue. It is not a suitable pretext for Russia to invade a country, bomb schools and hospitals, and force Ukrainians into either a smaller portion of their country or to live under an ethnostate that does not represent them. Putin has naked imperial ambitions not just in Ukraine but also in Georgia.
I’m now gonna block you, as I do everyone with pro-Russia views. Because anyone that can excuse Russia’s actions is not worthy of my attention.
The Russian minority wasn’t being genocided, and at most they could be ethnically cleansed considering Russia has it’s own nuclear-armed ethnostate that’s the largest in the world. Genocide is an international issue, what was not even an ethnic cleansing is a domestic issue.
Historically the acceptable answer if you want to live in a different country would be to, you know, move to that country, instead of trying to move that country to you through war.
Btw, the Donbas is not a historically majority Russian region. It was subject to russification starting under tsarist Russia and intensified under the Soviets. But it was majority Ukrainian, home to the Ukrainian cossacks and major settlements were also deeply intertwined with the Ukrainian economy.
This is completely false. It was seat of Crimean Khanate, vassal of Ottoman Empire, which was also hostile to Poland, Russia AND cossacks. And “deeply intertwined with the Ukrainian economy” was mostly looting, kidnapping, raping and murdering Ruthenian peasants (ancestors of both Ukrainians and local Russians) as part of one of biggest historical slave trades which Russia ended when it conquered that blight of humanity Khanate was.
Your post is deeply ahistorical, disgusting and borders on slavery apologia, and you should be ashamed.
That’s even further back. I’m talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it’s the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.
The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.
Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you’re better than just censoring comments.
The soviets did not expand russification, it was the opposite. They preserved and made official tons of minority languages (yiddish comes to mind), even establishing publishing houses in these languages. In addition to the SSRs that preserved the national identities and cultures of the given republics, the soviets instituted protections for minorities within these ssrs.
Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted “indiginenisation” iirc it’s best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.
They didn’t really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.
Not two comments ago you were saying the soviets accelerated the Tsarist policies of forced russification. Either you know fuck all about Tsarist Russia and it’s pogroms (and thus you’re doing genocide apologia) or you don’t know shit about the Soviet Union. Either way you should stop commenting on it and replying like you’re aware of everything and that’s just the thing you meant.
Tsarist Russia started with the russification process. The Soviets initially under Lenin reversed course, but this later changed under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. They accelerated the process. None of this is contradictory to what I’ve said.
The pogroms in tsarist Russia are horrible acts of genocide, but they were fairly simply anti-Jewish in nature. They were not a part of the russification process and should be considered separate. Hence when I compare the russification between tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, I’m obviously not taking any pogroms into consideration. It’s horrible, but unrelated to the subject at hand.
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim that Russiafication was worse under the Soviets than under the tsar? Because if not, the mods are well within their rights to remove your unsupported claims as misinformation.
The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.
That’s an entire book, about an entirely different topic, written by the British ambassador working in the last few years of the USSR.
Do you at least have a page number where he compares Ukraine during the USSR compared to Tsarist Russia? It is specifically the claim that Donbass was was more heavily suppressed than in Tsarist Russia that I’m disputing.
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’.
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was “more brutal.” What, specifically, does “more brutal” mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued.
This is kind of interesting considering that you’ve claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
The Ruthenians had been a people for centuries at that point, culturally similar but distinct from the Russians. History did not begin with the Soviet Union, nor are people defined by their borders, especially not in an age of empires and often shifting borders.
The claim you made was “Russiafication of the Donbass increased under the Soviets.” The same Soviets who granted the Donbass to Ukraine. Nothing in your comment seems at all relevant to that.
All that says, is that you are this close to admitting that Ukraine has been an occupied territory for centuries. Except you are using that fact as a justification for continued occupation, and not a reason for Russia to stop their colonial objectives.
That’s not what it says. Your refusal to engage with evidence has you pretending you found a gotcha because you assume anything that disagrees with you has to be based on a flawed premise.
You’re literally ignoring the facts he presented (maidan was a coup, Donbas collectively decided to secede in a referendum). The people of the Donbas were resisting an attempted genocide as much as Gazans, you can listen to Poroshenko’s statements about bombing their hospitals, having their women and children hiding in basements, you can see the indiscriminate shelling of civilian centers. Both of them were propped up by your government (the lapdog of the only empire on earth rn), and by you personally, from your stupid refusal to acknowledge actual imperialism and pretending the enemies of the State Department must be the enemies of all of us everywhere.
What I did was state a couple objective historical facts and then ask a question, one that none of the downvoters and none of the people who have replied to me (including you) have anything resembling an answer to.
All y’all do when you get confronted by something you can’t answer is downvote, fall back on lazy talking points, block, and ignore it. This makes your criticism very hard to take seriously, you just parrot the news, with no investigation or critical thought.
Not all of modern Ukraine was part of Russia before the USSR, btw. When I said “it” I was referring specifically to the Donbass. Donbass was given to Ukraine, perhaps in the hope that the Russian population would influence the politics of the Ukrainian SSR in a way that was more cooperative with the rest of the Union. This is simply a fact, and astute readers will note that it’s mostly tangential to my actual question, except in that establishes that many Russians have lived there historically.
But many do, and did historically, as it was part of Russia prior to the USSR.
But I have a genuine question: suppose that the majority of people living in Donbass genuinely wanted to break off and become part of Russia. Should they be allowed to, and if so, what steps should they have taken to make it happen, in the context that the government banned major opposition parties that were sympathetic towards Russia? What are you supposed to do, exactly, when the country is moving in a direction that you disagree with and shutting the opposition out of the political process, after seizing power through force?
A downvote is not an answer, btw.
It’s a complicated issue to solve, and I’m not the person to solve it but the Russian state’s approach has basically been in every single way wrong.
The Russian ethnic minority and it’s treatment is a domestic issue. It is not a suitable pretext for Russia to invade a country, bomb schools and hospitals, and force Ukrainians into either a smaller portion of their country or to live under an ethnostate that does not represent them. Putin has naked imperial ambitions not just in Ukraine but also in Georgia.
I’m now gonna block you, as I do everyone with pro-Russia views. Because anyone that can excuse Russia’s actions is not worthy of my attention.
Hey that’s exactly what Candice Owens said about how Hitler treated the jews
The Russian minority wasn’t being genocided, and at most they could be ethnically cleansed considering Russia has it’s own nuclear-armed ethnostate that’s the largest in the world. Genocide is an international issue, what was not even an ethnic cleansing is a domestic issue.
God you’re fucking shameless. Piece of shit.
Russia is the world’s largest ethnostate because you decided the word sounds bad and if it’s bad people you can just vamp?
But ‘meh’ ethnic cleansing? Leave it to the people doing it?
Eat a fucking knife, nazi.
You absolute baby
Historically the acceptable answer if you want to live in a different country would be to, you know, move to that country, instead of trying to move that country to you through war.
Btw, the Donbas is not a historically majority Russian region. It was subject to russification starting under tsarist Russia and intensified under the Soviets. But it was majority Ukrainian, home to the Ukrainian cossacks and major settlements were also deeply intertwined with the Ukrainian economy.
This is completely false. It was seat of Crimean Khanate, vassal of Ottoman Empire, which was also hostile to Poland, Russia AND cossacks. And “deeply intertwined with the Ukrainian economy” was mostly looting, kidnapping, raping and murdering Ruthenian peasants (ancestors of both Ukrainians and local Russians) as part of one of biggest historical slave trades which Russia ended when it conquered that blight of humanity Khanate was.
Your post is deeply ahistorical, disgusting and borders on slavery apologia, and you should be ashamed.
That’s even further back. I’m talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it’s the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.
The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.
Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you’re better than just censoring comments.
The soviets did not expand russification, it was the opposite. They preserved and made official tons of minority languages (yiddish comes to mind), even establishing publishing houses in these languages. In addition to the SSRs that preserved the national identities and cultures of the given republics, the soviets instituted protections for minorities within these ssrs.
Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted “indiginenisation” iirc it’s best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.
They didn’t really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.
Not two comments ago you were saying the soviets accelerated the Tsarist policies of forced russification. Either you know fuck all about Tsarist Russia and it’s pogroms (and thus you’re doing genocide apologia) or you don’t know shit about the Soviet Union. Either way you should stop commenting on it and replying like you’re aware of everything and that’s just the thing you meant.
Unless, of course, disinfo is the point.
Tsarist Russia started with the russification process. The Soviets initially under Lenin reversed course, but this later changed under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. They accelerated the process. None of this is contradictory to what I’ve said.
The pogroms in tsarist Russia are horrible acts of genocide, but they were fairly simply anti-Jewish in nature. They were not a part of the russification process and should be considered separate. Hence when I compare the russification between tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, I’m obviously not taking any pogroms into consideration. It’s horrible, but unrelated to the subject at hand.
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim that Russiafication was worse under the Soviets than under the tsar? Because if not, the mods are well within their rights to remove your unsupported claims as misinformation.
Sure, here’s a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.
That’s an entire book, about an entirely different topic, written by the British ambassador working in the last few years of the USSR.
Do you at least have a page number where he compares Ukraine during the USSR compared to Tsarist Russia? It is specifically the claim that Donbass was was more heavily suppressed than in Tsarist Russia that I’m disputing.
Page 151 has what you’re looking for:
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was “more brutal.” What, specifically, does “more brutal” mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
This is kind of interesting considering that you’ve claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?
That’s… A claim, not a source. A printed claim is still a claim ffs.
You dont get to post vibes base ahistoric nonsense (like you again did) then cry about mods “censoring” you.
Interesting how “russiafication intensified under the Soviets” when the Soviets are the ones who gave the territory to Ukraine 🤔
The Ruthenians had been a people for centuries at that point, culturally similar but distinct from the Russians. History did not begin with the Soviet Union, nor are people defined by their borders, especially not in an age of empires and often shifting borders.
Non sequitor?
The claim you made was “Russiafication of the Donbass increased under the Soviets.” The same Soviets who granted the Donbass to Ukraine. Nothing in your comment seems at all relevant to that.
All that says, is that you are this close to admitting that Ukraine has been an occupied territory for centuries. Except you are using that fact as a justification for continued occupation, and not a reason for Russia to stop their colonial objectives.
That’s not what it says. Your refusal to engage with evidence has you pretending you found a gotcha because you assume anything that disagrees with you has to be based on a flawed premise.
You’re literally ignoring the facts he presented (maidan was a coup, Donbas collectively decided to secede in a referendum). The people of the Donbas were resisting an attempted genocide as much as Gazans, you can listen to Poroshenko’s statements about bombing their hospitals, having their women and children hiding in basements, you can see the indiscriminate shelling of civilian centers. Both of them were propped up by your government (the lapdog of the only empire on earth rn), and by you personally, from your stupid refusal to acknowledge actual imperialism and pretending the enemies of the State Department must be the enemies of all of us everywhere.
I didn’t say any of that shit.
What I did was state a couple objective historical facts and then ask a question, one that none of the downvoters and none of the people who have replied to me (including you) have anything resembling an answer to.
All y’all do when you get confronted by something you can’t answer is downvote, fall back on lazy talking points, block, and ignore it. This makes your criticism very hard to take seriously, you just parrot the news, with no investigation or critical thought.
Not all of modern Ukraine was part of Russia before the USSR, btw. When I said “it” I was referring specifically to the Donbass. Donbass was given to Ukraine, perhaps in the hope that the Russian population would influence the politics of the Ukrainian SSR in a way that was more cooperative with the rest of the Union. This is simply a fact, and astute readers will note that it’s mostly tangential to my actual question, except in that establishes that many Russians have lived there historically.