> it's not colonial

What a lazy answer! for sure, it is colonial. During the imperial time, during soviet time and now in the east of Ukraine. In all periods, Russia tried to destroy the local population/settlements and tried to build Cossak/Russian defense lines.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism

the Soviets liberated those colonised under the tsarists

You call this liberated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

because a famine has never occured before in the history of civilisation

>Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by the European Parliament,[4][32] Ukraine[33] alongside 22 countries, as a genocide against the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet regime.[34]

now do the bit about academic debate

Please enlighten us then.

you want me to explain a section of a Wikipedia article to you?

You have to admit, a famine in the region’s foremost exporter of grain, whose main export of that year was grain, takes spectacular mismanagement and neglect. That’s Soviet industrialization for you. I have to admit the genocide part makes no sense to me, though—I’ve seen no evidence that it was in any way targeted at Ukrainians specifically, only that they constituted a huge portion of the agricultural population at the time.

You don’t have to look that hard to find actual displaced peoples—the way the Russian Empire burned down all of Ossetia, the way Stalin ejected most of the population of Chechnya after that, the way Crimean Tatars constituted the bulk of the population in the Crimean peninsula and then suddenly Russians and Ukrainians did for some reason—there’s plenty. (If you really want to get into the history, care to find some speakers of the North Slavic languages for me?) It’s that the example does not seem to be a good one.

it was collectivisation not industrialisation, there were droughts in Ukraine 3 years in a row, there was an epidemic, the kulaks were sabotaging farming

I meant industrialization as a general government direction, not as an official Party policy buzzword: the Soviet state just did not care about the agricultural population except as a potential source of workers for the industry. The droughts and the epidemic still did not stop the grain exports (again, the main source of income for the state before, during, and after the famine, even per the official statistics) or affect the food supply in the cities all that much. The amounts an agricultural worker could legally leave for themselves were below subsistence, for years both before and after the war—steal (“steal”), escape to the city, or die.

The last part is so much bullshit thst it isn’t even really worth considering. (Every sentence in the whole of official Soviet history that includes the word kulak is bullshit.)

do you expect a serious response

did you enjoy the latest marvel movie

as they are liberating Ukraine right now from Nazis.. right.

If by liberated you mean killed 10s of millions and forced erased cultures and languages sure

no i dont

No? Who is doing the killing in Ukraine right now? A lot of them don't look Slav to me at all. Russia has built the definition of an imperial army. Once I see the moscovites dying in droves for more territory (9 time zones is never enough), we can talk more.

exactly, Ukraine now, Ukraine back in the days, Chechnya, you name it.

totally sane reply

The non-Slavs in the army are more likely to be picked up by the media because of racist attitudes, both in Russia and, apparently, in Ukraine. There's even a common slur for them, "бойові буряти"/"боевые буряты", meaning "combat Buryats".

Take a look at Russia's eastward expansion in the 18th and 19th century.

yes and as we know nothing has changed since then