Page 151 has what you're looking for:

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.

They come here with their nonsnense equalizing a regular war to a genocide going on right now, the comic doesn't even make sense in the situation of Ukraine, it's about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn't do

Edit: this is like coming under a post about the holocaust and talking about "this is just like the white genocide in south africa"

This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.

I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It's well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn't mean the Union stopped promoting russification.

If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.

Ah yes, they are just "confused Russians" who speak a different language because of the ebul West.

I was pretty sure it was the Gaza situation.

Hey let's switch examples and see if your logic stands up. The name Los Angeles is Spanish. Because Spanish speakers have been there longer than English speakers. If the Spanish speakers don't like the president of the United States, does that mean it's perfectly acceptable for the Mexican government to provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries? Or is that fucking weird?

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.

Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist econonmists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.

I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to... how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.

Not just yell 'read theory!' at me and give me an author name.

I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.

If you've read and understood Fanon, you should be able to... you know, make that argument.

Succinctly.

In your own words.

Otherwise you're just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.

it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do

Okay, tap the breaks dude.

I'll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I'll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO "allies" while they're forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I'll even through in a "Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played".

But the idea that Russians aren't above a little expansionism and exploitation is just... my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.

In the Donbas? Half of them speak Russian natively, you dunce. About another fifth are natively bilingual.

Don't you mean zionist

Kinda like the Jewish invaders in middle east

@dessalines And yet they still fight Putin. Go figure.

You're making the claims, you get the source. It's really not that hard.

You don't have a source? It's ok. Don't make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.

No investigation, no right to speak.

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.

Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist econonmists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.

I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to... how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.

Not just yell 'read theory!' at me and give me an author name.

I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.

If you've read and understood Fanon, you should be able to... you know, make that argument.

Succinctly.

In your own words.

Otherwise you're just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.

Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist econonmists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.

I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to... how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.

Not just yell 'read theory!' at me and give me an author name.

I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.

If you've read and understood Fanon, you should be able to... you know, make that argument.

Succinctly.

In your own words.

Otherwise you're just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.

I've already provided a source.

What should happen to the Israelis if palistine takes their land back?

the Russian state’s approach has basically been in every single way wrong.

This is the nut of it and the thing a lot of folks seem to struggle with. The NATO fuckery in Ukraine notwithstanding, Putin thought he could raise the stakes in Ukraine through a full scale invasion. He was absolutely wrong to do so. He fucked things harder than a thousand pogroms in the Donbas could have done.

The Russian ethnic minority and it’s treatment is a domestic issue.

Okay, no. That's not how internationalism works. You don't look across the border at an atrocity, shrug, and say "Not my problem."

The Russian response could have been to open their own borders, build up relief on their end, and give Donbas residents a safe place to run and hide. But "sorry fuckers, should have been a Russian born in Russia" is as meat-headed as the folks who wanted to charge into Ukraine guns blazing.