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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 only historical revisionist here is you.

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.

I'm not the one who took down the Catherine the Great statue in Odessa.

Yeah, the famous communist hating "Russians" deciding to write in Ukrainian in the 1840s.

Alexander II. banned any publications in Ukrainian. But yeah, totally just fascist Russians lol.

The most sacrilegious act: taking down statues.

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.

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.

Huh, I wasn't expecting a comic critical of Russia's Ukraine invasion in this comm.

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.

The Soviets accelerated this

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.

It should have started “these guys live here now.”