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.

That's a weird looking pen.

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.

Sure, here’s a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai

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.

Original: https://x.com/tinysnekcomics/status/1392518674322448386

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.

Fascists are murdering both ukrainians and palestinians. Grow up, lib.

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.

Well wasn't the excuse that the Jews had that land originally then over the history of time there were land disputes. I forget the whole history of it but that's a bit I remember.

Fascists are murdering both ukrainians and palestinians. Grow up, lib.

You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?

That was like 2500 years ago. There are Palestinians today who still carry the keys of the houses they were forced out of.

Should I have the right to go to Africa and kick people out of their houses, on the basis that all humans are believed to have originally come from Africa? There's a statute of limitations at some point, surely.

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?

Hey so this is my grandma house

Where's she from?

Right over there

Yes. I wish they would.

Especially if the government said that those people were not allowed to participate in the political process, but given that the US political process is a joke and a sham, I don't have any sort of belief in "upholding its territorial integrity" or anything like that.

Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, does it not?

See how I was able to immediately provide a very clear answer to your question? Now do mine.

Yes. I wish they would.

Now why do you wish the Mexican government would provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries, exactly?

So, do you remember how British colonists Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin went to France to negotiate for French military aid against the British, and how Lafayette arriving with that aid was vital to the success of the American Revolution? Well, I happen to be of the opinion that when people say that Trump is a fascist or is acting like a king, and that "in America, we don't do kings," that those words actually have meaning and aren't just empty slogans.

The real question is, why do y'all think it would be bad for people resisting fascism to have access to artillery systems and missile batteries?

Btw, still no answer to my original question.

I'm not OP, I'm just pointing out your not answering questions either, as you're so keen on pointing out. (Didn't read the rest of your vomit, because braaaaaaaa)