You're being intentionally obtuse. Good luck with that

I wonder if you'd apply the same standard in reverse. If a Chinese ambassador says something about the US, should I just take them at their word with no further evidence, until someone can prove that their claim is wrong?

You can't know that because you don't read because you prefer to wallow in ignorance.

Looking at the responses in this thread, I'm pretty sure I don't know enough to comment on the situation. Seems like you would have to study this subject semi-exclusively in order to have an informed take.

DNA tests proved this is a lie already

I'm certainly no expert on it and I know that both sides have their arguments but these Zionists are really extreme and are just making excuses to justify the war crimes they're committing. At the same time, Hamas also has their own issues, just not as much as Israel does.

Go look up why DNA tests are banned in Israel

Some people are really no fun

If said Chinese ambassador wrote a book that was also sourced (like this British ambassador's book is in a fair few places), their claims aren't disputed by any factual evidence and is generally corroborated by historians, I'd be inclined to believe them yes.

I wouldn't expect said ambassador to have a scientific study backing up every single sentence in the book. If he's writing about his experiences, that can be a valuable perspective on things. I wouldn't treat it as gospel necessarily but I can still apply critical thinking to ascertain whether or not they're a credible source.

In your fantasy's world it might be. Irl, not at all.

You're not going to find many books to the effect of, "see how hegemonic we aren't", so you mainly need to look at how the ussr treated republics within it, and especially preserved national minorities.

The USSR academy of sciences published works in many languages, same for the state publishing houses.

There are also some longer works on the languages of the USSR, because there was such a diversity of them and the constitution mandated their protection, but I haven't read them.

Compare with the US (wiped out every indigenous language), or the UK (tried to do the same for Irish and Welsh). It's always projection with these anticommunist westerner historians.

You can see the diversity here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Soviet_Union

@dessalines @ChairmanMeow Why won't those ungrateful Ukrainians just surrender to Putin's kindly embrace?

ITT: Terminally online Western .ml users being simperialist white knights again for their own favourite oligarchy.

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

Aaaaand there it is.

The status quo is that Palestinians have no rights (legal, human, you name it), while the Israeli state protects the Israeli citizens. They don't get to vote, they don't get to travel, and they don't even get to keep their homes and lives in the face of the Gaza genocide and state-sponsored settler-colonialism.

Now, there is no reason that liberation for Palestinians must mean some sort of displacement or genocide for Israelis. The very fact that Zionists want you to believe that liberation is a zero-sum game is very telling.

One option would be a secular state that represents both Israelis and Palestinians, with appropriate measures to protect whichever ethnic group may be in the minority.

Another would be a recognized, democratic Palestinian state alongside Israel, in the borders of 1949 (or perhaps 1967), with a robust right to return. The illegal settler occupations erected since then would obviously need to be removed.

There are, of course, other avenues, some more utopic than others (as an anarchist, I favor a no state solution but I am pragmatic enough to recognize that this is wishful thinking for the near-future). But none of them, at least the serious ones, include dispelling all Israelis.

Political power flows from it

Perhaps also read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification then, which is linked on that page. It explains how the Soviets:

• Forced other languages to use cyrillic if they didn't before, aligning the spelling of words with Russian
• Made Russian a mandatory subject in schools
• In mostly urban areas made sure education was primarily provided in Russian
• Made indigenous people learn Russian, but Russian immigrants to those areas did not learn the indigenous language there

These were all policies aimed at "unifying" the various cultures in the Soviet Union and strengthening control.

Early Soviet Union is as you described, promoting various cultures and languages. Lenin saw that as a way to gain favour with the local populations. Later leaders however went down a different path.

What happened to white settlers in South Africa? To this day they still hold most of the good lands and are richer.