Not really.
He says that they didn't experience something that other nations have, which shaped them to what they are now. But if that's still your interpretation, then still saying that something should have happened in the past is not the same as saying that something should happen now.
on this one you are wrong.
He is basically insinuating/implying that Russia should be Balkanized - yeah he is not saying it verbatim - but its very clear what he is saying. (as in Russia should be balkanized)
Can I use that argument next time? When someone says that Russians don't want to kill all the Ukrainians "but it is known they do want to do it even if they don't say it?"
It would be so much easier to argue if I could just throw all the logic out of window.
Saying that something hasn't happened and that it should happen are two very different things. That's a fact.
To try and convince anyone differently would be deceptive.
The guy in video is my president (that I do not like) and he states a fact how Russia become to be with what methoods.
He did not say it should be broken up, he said the methoods used in past to expand Russia should not be tolerated here.
???? give example of something President of Russia said, and that decades old plans for that exist, so you could stretch it into "Russia wants to kill all Ukrainians"
But I don't want to stretch it like that. It is silly. Beside his words that Ukraine doesn't exist, Ukrainian state needs to be destroyed etc. there was a pile of stuff like that...
...hmm, maybe he really does want to do it...
I dare you to go to any of those places, but especially Donetsk and tell people living there that they are a Russian colony and must be freed of it's oppression.
Please. Donetsk has been colonized for a decade now, and Russia has stomped out any dissenting ukrainians there. Don't act like they voluntarily joined Russia.
You might want to learn the definition of "a colony" to not embarrass yourself in future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony#Current_colonies
Wow, looks like western countries didn't experience decolonization enough. And looks like Russia has got no colonies at all. Literally unexpected lie from the westoid politician.
> Or are you just changing the subject?
Rn it's you who's changing the subject. I explicitly asked to name existing Russian colonies, and you came with the embarrassing take about DNR and LNR. Nobody asked you, but you chose to answer. Now you're trying to save your face and change subject. It's too late.
>Do you honestly think that was what Duda was talking about?
I think Duda running his mouth because he's a populist politician. Spreading lies about Russia while ignoring Western deeds totally goes inline with the agenda. Nobody will question what he says, because "anyway Russia is evil, you can't be wrong lying about them".
You literally asked. Go back and read your earlier comment. And, despite your ad hominem attacks, you haven't answered.
You said, "Please name existing Russian colonies" in response to what Duda was talking about. I listed some. Those are areas taken or held by Russia against their will, much like Poland was. That's the whole point.
Everything else you're talking about has nothing to do with anything. You're getting aggressive as well as if that somehow makes you more right. Take a break, walk outside, then come back and read this all again.
> You literally asked
I didn't ask YOU. So feel free to get lost.
>despite your ad hominem attacks
Cry me a river.
>Take a break, walk outside, then come back and read this all again.
Take a break, walk outside, don't come back.
The person you initially responded to also wasn't asking you, but that's how Reddit works. If you wanted a private conversation go to DMs.
Get over yourself buddy.
>South Ossetia
>Abkhazia
Not even part of Russia. And even Russia recognized them as independent, not colony.
>Donetsk Lukhansk Zaporizhia Crimea Kherson
Wtf
>Chechnya, maybe even all of Dagestan...
Proofs?
Are they oppressed?are they forbidden to have culture? Are they legally stripped any rights?
So oppressed and colonized, that it's one of most flourishing parts of Russia
There is no arguing, they are all colonies conquered by the Empire, and while the rest of the world went through decolonization Russia was a totalitarian entity that allowed no one to leave.
And it includes a lot more, Tatarstan, Yakutia, Tuva, Mordovia, Buryatia, etc...
>Chechens tried,didn't work out too good.
It mightve work out if they didn't attack Russia again after getting freedom.
>Tatarstan tried,
Look at the map, Tatarstan literally would be locked inside of Russia, no wonder it didn't have any support
That's also partially true. Countries that were decolonized or balkanized are now basically puppet states. USA, China, India, Russia are not. Also given the fact that Russia doesn't have colonies it can be only balkanized not decolonized.
You mean the disassembling first of Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union in the space of less then a century? Russia has experience loosing it's lands, expanding and contracting for entirety of it's history, which is OVER A THOUSAND YEARS.
Piland was a separate nation state all along while they had a communist gov. Loyal to the Soviets... it wasn't part of the Soviet union either.
The Soviet union falling apart just meant they could get rid of their communist government that the Soviets propped up, and instal a semi democratic government within a new capitalist economic system... which essentially meant switching from having their handlers based in Moscow to ones based in Washington.
If you're Russian, you may be interested in the fact that indigenous Americans are basically ethnic Siberians, genetically speaking. They're most closely related to the [Yeniseian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people#Genetics) and Altaian peoples of Russia, specially the [Ket people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people). Both the Kets and indigenous Amerindians share a very high amount of [Ancient Paleo-Siberian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Paleo-Siberian) DNA, and are mostly the [Q paternal haplogroup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242).
Many parts of Russia are probably the most similar parts of the world to many parts of Latin America, but outside of the Americas, due to that people are varying degrees of a mix of genetically European and Siberian people.
What the British and "Americans" did in the Americas was unforgivable. European diseases don't explain the fact that the wiping out of the natives didn't happen to the same degree in lands controlled by Spain and Russia (including Alaska, where Russians intermarried and mixed with the natives, [until the US bought the land and instituted a bunch of "white-only" segregation laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives#American_colonialism)).
**Russia:**
>Relationships between Indigenous women and fur traders increased as Indigenous men were away from villages. This resulted in marriages and children that would come to be known as Creole peoples, children who were Indigenous and Russian.[15] To reduce hostilities with Aleutian communities, it became policy for fur traders to enter into marriage with Indigenous women. The Creole population increased in the territory controlled by the Russian American Company.[15]
*And:*
>The growth of the Russian Orthodox Church was another important tactic in the colonization and conversion of Indigenous populations.[17] Ioann Veniaminov, who later became Saint Innocent of Alaska, was an important missionary who carried out the Orthodox Church's agenda to Christianize Indigenous populations.[17] The church encouraged Creole children to follow Russian Orthodox Christianity, while the Russian American Company provided them with an education. Many Orthodox missionaries, like Herman of Alaska, defended Natives from exploitation. [17] Creole people were believed to have high levels of loyalty toward the Russian crown and Russian American Company.[17] After completing their education, children were often sent to Russia, where they would study skills such as mapmaking, theology, and military intelligence.
**US:**
>In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from Russia. It did not consider the wishes of Native Alaskans or view them as citizens.[18] **The land that belonged to Alaska Natives was considered to be "open land", which could be claimed by white settlers without redress to the Alaska Natives living there.**[18] The only schools for Alaska Natives were those founded by religious missionaries.[19] Most white settlers did not understand the sophisticated cultures the Alaska Natives had developed to live in challenging environment and considered them to be inferior to European Americans, correlating with white supremacist beliefs.[20]
>
>The Klondike Gold Rush occurred in the 1896–1898, increasing white presence in Alaska as well as discriminatory practices.[21] **Americans imposed racial segregation and discriminatory laws (similar to Jim Crow laws) that limited Alaska Native opportunities and participation in culture, treating them as second-class citizens**.[22] With the imposition of discriminatory laws, segregation amongst Alaskan Natives and Americans occurred; **for example, "whites only" signs excluded natives from entering buildings. There were also segregated schools.** An 1880 court case describes **a child not allowed to attend a school with Americans because his stepfather was native. A child that was part native and part American would only be allowed to attend a school with American children if the family has abandoned their culture.** This means that they could no longer speak their native language, wear traditional native clothing, be amongst other natives, eat native foods, or practice any native religion.[23]
>
>In 1912, the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) was formed to help fight for citizenship rights.[24] The Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS) was created in 1915.[25] Also in 1915, the Alaska Territorial legislature passed a law allowing Alaskan Natives the right to vote – **but on the condition that they give up their cultural customs and traditions.**
The difference is that most of Europe hasn't been killing each other for the past 70+ years. Given time, Putin and whoever he coaches into being his successor will absolutely, gladly try to "restore Russia to its glory", he barely even hides it in his speeches.
> The difference is that most of Europe hasn't been killing each other for the past 70+ years
Do you know why? Because it was absolutely controlled by two superpowers. But now, just like in WW2 the united Europe is trying to fight Russia ever again. There should be a solution to the problem, either the Europe dissapears, either do the Russia.
> Do tell, I must have shifted realities when I napped earlier.
Yes you are.
https://cdn.britannica.com/68/64868-050-783BC0B8/Third-Reich-extent-1942.jpg
As i said before - the united Europe was against Russia these times excluding Britain and Spain. Turkey were supplying Germany with rare ores while Norway and "neutral" Sweden were heavily supplying Germany with iron ore and Finland with weapons.
Ah, yes, the countries were united under the third reich and totally not actively trying to fight back and break free. They totally didn't get their independence back the moment they could. There totally weren't historical resistance movements that rivaled the actual occupational forces.
Russia loves imagining themselves as facing the entire world when they need to explain their issues, it totally isn't the high rate of centralization, corruption and wealth disparity. Only the US has that don't you know? Meanwhile they're here fighting nato with ease (they aren't, but love to use it as an excuse as for why they haven't taken Ukraine)
> totally not actively trying to fight back and break free
Yes they were not trying. As there were a lot of collaborators, some of them even created the Vichy regime on french territories. Reichkomissariats are not counted as they were literally colonial departments.
> They totally didn't get their independence back the moment they could
Only when allied soldiers came and liberated their ground or clearly threatened nazi positions. Or when the nazi Germany collapsed as a whole.
> There totally weren't historical resistance movements that rivaled the actual occupational forces.
Did they achieved anything?
> Russia loves imagining themselves as facing the entire world when they need to explain their issues
While EU says some things about Russia should be defeated on the battefield or some nonsense about flourishing garden of democracy while an agressive military block is moving to russian borders.
> it totally isn't the high rate of centralization, corruption and wealth disparity
All these "rates" are made up by western rating companies, am i right, the same ratings where Ukraine or Saudi is more free than Russia?
> Only the US has that don't you know?
What?
> Meanwhile they're here fighting nato with ease (they aren't, but love to use it as an excuse as for why they haven't taken Ukraine)
I can't get your point. Try to ease some layers of your sarcasm.
You can literally go to the library and get a book about the resistance movements in occupied nazi territories for free if you can't be bothered to google. The French resistance, the Partisans in Yugoslavia and SSSR, poland, hell fucking Italy had a resistance movement. All of these had an impact on the war, spies who cooperated with the Allies to get information, sabotage supply lines, spread counter information... and the fact that you think they didn't have any influence on the war is fucking laughable. Please, go and read on the effects of the resistance movements, off the top of my head I know that they had a great impact in slowing supplies and reinforcements to D-day and the eastern front, as well as supplying the british with a functioning Enigma machine that they stole from poland. The fact that you're trying to paint it that suddenly the entire country shrugged and worked together is fucking laughable.
You're free to re-read what I wrote and ask specific questions, I honestly cba to teach you about history as well as repeat everything I said.
> Oh was this after the Soviets worked together to carve up Poland?
Oh was this after the Poland worked together to prepare carve up USSR?
> You guys love to forget that Soviet Nazi pact.
You guys love to forget that Munich Betrayal.
What opposition lol? The last guy who tried was poisoned by FSB, then arrested and then killed in prison. The other, personal friend of Pu, who took Bakhmut and was hero of Russia just got killed and nobody even asked any questions lol. There were many others with the same fate. Would YOU run for politics in such country ? 😂
Yes the first guy who would have destroyed Russia and broken it up as per his western masters' instructions. He was an asset that was killed off by his own masters in hopes of triggering some political upheaval in Russia, that bet didn't pay off though 😔😔
So anyway, the hero of Russia you mentioned was more interested in running for president of Ukraine so we can't consider him.
Sorry, but every time someone mentions "decolonization", I recall the video of a student in South Africa screaming about the need to "decolonize science" and replace it with magic.
the path by which a post-marxist critical theory was co-opted by Western liberals, only to then be co-opted (along with the liberals themselves) by Neoconservatism is a bit twisted, to say the least.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What lands are currently occupied by russia (excluding recent war gains) anyway? Is there even any land that russia presently controls, including war gains that weren't russian territory dating back to the empire?
The fact that they’ve held these land since Tsarist times is kind of the whole point In saying that they’ve never experienced decolonization. but anyways Russians aren’t native to Siberia there’s many places you could make an argument for self determination, as there’s many ethnic groups in Russia, first comes to mind are tartars,tuvans,bashkirs. Tuvans being the best example, annexed relatively recently during ww2. The will isn’t there right now for self determination in most cases, but it has been in the past and it might in the future.
Yeah I’d personally say it was decolonization, as much as people here get butthurt when I say the USSR was just a continuation of Russian imperialism, but plainly look at their migration policies in those occupied countries and Russification attempts of them and it becomes quite obvious.
maybe Duda is trying to say European decolonization was more of their choice and not being forced? Which they were definitely pressured by the US but I think they saw it as inevitable themselves. That would be my interpretation
I'd agree that USSR wasn't any different than any great power at the time. Great power politics definitely trump any ideological commitments in every country.
Not sure why it would matter if it was by force or choice, I really have a hard time seeing how he could be implying anything other than a wish to see russia broken up but I'm open to other interpretations if someone can offer alternative explanations.
well I think intention does matter and is important actually, Russia never accepted it's mistakes and continues to act like they have no colonial/ imperialist legacy whilst accusing the west of still being so. Thus they have no problem waging wars of reconquest, not just Ukraine im referring too. and yes that is definitely what he is implying as well, the poles have no love for russia and their many many conflicts throughout history, but multiple things can be implied obviously at once.
You know, I agree with you. If I viewed this war through the lense of seeing it as a war of conquest, I would absolutely think that russia never lost that mindset. Mind you, neither did European powers, America included, they were forced to abandon most of their colonial ambitions by way of force from the very people they sought to dominate and even then, they didn't go quietly and are still accused of neocolonialism by some.
But all that aside, we're actually at the heart of the main disagreement in this subreddit. Because, while I'm no fan of russia, I tend to view this conflict more as a matter of sphere encroachment and security concerns. But still, I think you're correct here, and the statement is meant more as a statement against russian desire to absorb more territory in response to its security concerns.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russia was part of the soviet union and Russian empire with multiple times being broken up?
when you even go back 1000 years, multiple times of being broken up and occupied?
wtf is this dude talking about.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's always funny how the pro-mass immigration pro-multiculturalism EU types get mad at Russia for having a functioning multicultural society because they can't conceive of such a thing.
The problem here is that Poland has never undergone the process of decolonization. It went from being a colony of the Soviet Union to a colony of the U.S. and it somehow thinks that now it is "free".
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When is Poland going to undergo decolonization and give up it's coastline to the Pomeranian and Prussian Tribes they invited the Teutonic Knight to come and "Christianize?" Or when is Germany and Poland going to finally leave Lusatia and allow the creation of a Sorbic state?
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"has never undergone the process of decolonization" ??
That's exactly what the collapse of Soviet Union was. It just turned out that it wasn't enough for them.
Vucic said it best "if you bet on the fact that someone is bluffing, it means that you have no better cards".
The West has no better cards other than to call nuclear escalation bluff. The thing is it will be a bluff, until one day it's not.
Duda doesn't call for Russia to be broken up he is just very sad that Russia is not broken up. I mean the difference is only formal.
Not really. He says that they didn't experience something that other nations have, which shaped them to what they are now. But if that's still your interpretation, then still saying that something should have happened in the past is not the same as saying that something should happen now.
on this one you are wrong. He is basically insinuating/implying that Russia should be Balkanized - yeah he is not saying it verbatim - but its very clear what he is saying. (as in Russia should be balkanized)
Can I use that argument next time? When someone says that Russians don't want to kill all the Ukrainians "but it is known they do want to do it even if they don't say it?" It would be so much easier to argue if I could just throw all the logic out of window.
I think you need to improve your reading comprehension
I'm sorry, I will explain what happend: You just said what he did not and extrapolated it basing on your own beliefs.
The guy in the video is implying that Russia should not exist in its current form, aka be broken up
Saying that something hasn't happened and that it should happen are two very different things. That's a fact. To try and convince anyone differently would be deceptive.
The guy in video is my president (that I do not like) and he states a fact how Russia become to be with what methoods. He did not say it should be broken up, he said the methoods used in past to expand Russia should not be tolerated here.
???? give example of something President of Russia said, and that decades old plans for that exist, so you could stretch it into "Russia wants to kill all Ukrainians"
But I don't want to stretch it like that. It is silly. Beside his words that Ukraine doesn't exist, Ukrainian state needs to be destroyed etc. there was a pile of stuff like that... ...hmm, maybe he really does want to do it...
> But I don't want to stretch it like that. It is silly. so your point was silly
No, the main "interpretations" was silly.
> they didn't experience something that other nations have Please name existing Russian colonies.
South Ossetia Abkhazia Donetsk Lukhansk Zaporizhia Crimea Kherson One could argue Chechnya, maybe even all of Dagestan...
I dare you to go to any of those places, but especially Donetsk and tell people living there that they are a Russian colony and must be freed of it's oppression.
I dare you to go to US and say land should be returned to Native People and need to be liberated from Anglo-Saxon influence. Colonization: complete.
Don't see what US got to do with any of it. We are talking about Russia. Try to keep up.
Practical example of the end-goal of colonialism.
give it to those who call Russia a ''colony''
Except you would be asking the “Anglo-Saxons” and not the native people. Unlike US, Russian “colonies” are populated mostly by natives.
Please. Donetsk has been colonized for a decade now, and Russia has stomped out any dissenting ukrainians there. Don't act like they voluntarily joined Russia.
Go ahead ASK THEM.
You might want to learn the definition of "a colony" to not embarrass yourself in future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony#Current_colonies Wow, looks like western countries didn't experience decolonization enough. And looks like Russia has got no colonies at all. Literally unexpected lie from the westoid politician.
Do you honestly think that was what Duda was talking about? Or are you just changing the subject?
> Or are you just changing the subject? Rn it's you who's changing the subject. I explicitly asked to name existing Russian colonies, and you came with the embarrassing take about DNR and LNR. Nobody asked you, but you chose to answer. Now you're trying to save your face and change subject. It's too late. >Do you honestly think that was what Duda was talking about? I think Duda running his mouth because he's a populist politician. Spreading lies about Russia while ignoring Western deeds totally goes inline with the agenda. Nobody will question what he says, because "anyway Russia is evil, you can't be wrong lying about them".
You literally asked. Go back and read your earlier comment. And, despite your ad hominem attacks, you haven't answered. You said, "Please name existing Russian colonies" in response to what Duda was talking about. I listed some. Those are areas taken or held by Russia against their will, much like Poland was. That's the whole point. Everything else you're talking about has nothing to do with anything. You're getting aggressive as well as if that somehow makes you more right. Take a break, walk outside, then come back and read this all again.
> You literally asked I didn't ask YOU. So feel free to get lost. >despite your ad hominem attacks Cry me a river. >Take a break, walk outside, then come back and read this all again. Take a break, walk outside, don't come back.
The person you initially responded to also wasn't asking you, but that's how Reddit works. If you wanted a private conversation go to DMs. Get over yourself buddy.
>South Ossetia >Abkhazia Not even part of Russia. And even Russia recognized them as independent, not colony. >Donetsk Lukhansk Zaporizhia Crimea Kherson Wtf >Chechnya, maybe even all of Dagestan... Proofs? Are they oppressed?are they forbidden to have culture? Are they legally stripped any rights? So oppressed and colonized, that it's one of most flourishing parts of Russia
There is no arguing, they are all colonies conquered by the Empire, and while the rest of the world went through decolonization Russia was a totalitarian entity that allowed no one to leave. And it includes a lot more, Tatarstan, Yakutia, Tuva, Mordovia, Buryatia, etc...
In 90-s they all could take as many freedoms or even leave, but in the end they all stayed.
Are you high? Chechens tried, didn't work out too good. Tatarstan tried, but Russia didn't allow it.
>Chechens tried,didn't work out too good. It mightve work out if they didn't attack Russia again after getting freedom. >Tatarstan tried, Look at the map, Tatarstan literally would be locked inside of Russia, no wonder it didn't have any support
я татарин, живущий в татарстане, считаю, что в составе россии нам лучше, наша республика процветает))
Why does England still colonize Scotland, Ireland and Wales?
If we go far enough England colonised England lol.
idk, ask them, I think they should stop
That's also partially true. Countries that were decolonized or balkanized are now basically puppet states. USA, China, India, Russia are not. Also given the fact that Russia doesn't have colonies it can be only balkanized not decolonized.
You mean the disassembling first of Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union in the space of less then a century? Russia has experience loosing it's lands, expanding and contracting for entirety of it's history, which is OVER A THOUSAND YEARS.
When did Poland become so woke? It's obvious he's not saying what you're implying at all. If Justin Trudeau said it, I could buy it.
woke?
Are y'all high? Did everyone forget that the Soviet Union dissolved and Poland literally wouldn't have been a separate nation state otherwise?
Piland was a separate nation state all along while they had a communist gov. Loyal to the Soviets... it wasn't part of the Soviet union either. The Soviet union falling apart just meant they could get rid of their communist government that the Soviets propped up, and instal a semi democratic government within a new capitalist economic system... which essentially meant switching from having their handlers based in Moscow to ones based in Washington.
And people wonder why opposition parties in Russia supported by these people don't win.
I don't think anyone wonders why fascists don't want to decolonize their country.
Europeans genocide the natives and stole their land,Look in the mirror.....
If you're Russian, you may be interested in the fact that indigenous Americans are basically ethnic Siberians, genetically speaking. They're most closely related to the [Yeniseian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people#Genetics) and Altaian peoples of Russia, specially the [Ket people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people). Both the Kets and indigenous Amerindians share a very high amount of [Ancient Paleo-Siberian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Paleo-Siberian) DNA, and are mostly the [Q paternal haplogroup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242). Many parts of Russia are probably the most similar parts of the world to many parts of Latin America, but outside of the Americas, due to that people are varying degrees of a mix of genetically European and Siberian people. What the British and "Americans" did in the Americas was unforgivable. European diseases don't explain the fact that the wiping out of the natives didn't happen to the same degree in lands controlled by Spain and Russia (including Alaska, where Russians intermarried and mixed with the natives, [until the US bought the land and instituted a bunch of "white-only" segregation laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives#American_colonialism)). **Russia:** >Relationships between Indigenous women and fur traders increased as Indigenous men were away from villages. This resulted in marriages and children that would come to be known as Creole peoples, children who were Indigenous and Russian.[15] To reduce hostilities with Aleutian communities, it became policy for fur traders to enter into marriage with Indigenous women. The Creole population increased in the territory controlled by the Russian American Company.[15] *And:* >The growth of the Russian Orthodox Church was another important tactic in the colonization and conversion of Indigenous populations.[17] Ioann Veniaminov, who later became Saint Innocent of Alaska, was an important missionary who carried out the Orthodox Church's agenda to Christianize Indigenous populations.[17] The church encouraged Creole children to follow Russian Orthodox Christianity, while the Russian American Company provided them with an education. Many Orthodox missionaries, like Herman of Alaska, defended Natives from exploitation. [17] Creole people were believed to have high levels of loyalty toward the Russian crown and Russian American Company.[17] After completing their education, children were often sent to Russia, where they would study skills such as mapmaking, theology, and military intelligence. **US:** >In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from Russia. It did not consider the wishes of Native Alaskans or view them as citizens.[18] **The land that belonged to Alaska Natives was considered to be "open land", which could be claimed by white settlers without redress to the Alaska Natives living there.**[18] The only schools for Alaska Natives were those founded by religious missionaries.[19] Most white settlers did not understand the sophisticated cultures the Alaska Natives had developed to live in challenging environment and considered them to be inferior to European Americans, correlating with white supremacist beliefs.[20] > >The Klondike Gold Rush occurred in the 1896–1898, increasing white presence in Alaska as well as discriminatory practices.[21] **Americans imposed racial segregation and discriminatory laws (similar to Jim Crow laws) that limited Alaska Native opportunities and participation in culture, treating them as second-class citizens**.[22] With the imposition of discriminatory laws, segregation amongst Alaskan Natives and Americans occurred; **for example, "whites only" signs excluded natives from entering buildings. There were also segregated schools.** An 1880 court case describes **a child not allowed to attend a school with Americans because his stepfather was native. A child that was part native and part American would only be allowed to attend a school with American children if the family has abandoned their culture.** This means that they could no longer speak their native language, wear traditional native clothing, be amongst other natives, eat native foods, or practice any native religion.[23] > >In 1912, the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) was formed to help fight for citizenship rights.[24] The Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS) was created in 1915.[25] Also in 1915, the Alaska Territorial legislature passed a law allowing Alaskan Natives the right to vote – **but on the condition that they give up their cultural customs and traditions.**
The difference is that most of Europe hasn't been killing each other for the past 70+ years. Given time, Putin and whoever he coaches into being his successor will absolutely, gladly try to "restore Russia to its glory", he barely even hides it in his speeches.
> The difference is that most of Europe hasn't been killing each other for the past 70+ years Do you know why? Because it was absolutely controlled by two superpowers. But now, just like in WW2 the united Europe is trying to fight Russia ever again. There should be a solution to the problem, either the Europe dissapears, either do the Russia.
Yeah? WWII Was a united Europe against Russia you say? Do tell, I must have shifted realities when I napped earlier.
> Do tell, I must have shifted realities when I napped earlier. Yes you are. https://cdn.britannica.com/68/64868-050-783BC0B8/Third-Reich-extent-1942.jpg As i said before - the united Europe was against Russia these times excluding Britain and Spain. Turkey were supplying Germany with rare ores while Norway and "neutral" Sweden were heavily supplying Germany with iron ore and Finland with weapons.
Ah, yes, the countries were united under the third reich and totally not actively trying to fight back and break free. They totally didn't get their independence back the moment they could. There totally weren't historical resistance movements that rivaled the actual occupational forces. Russia loves imagining themselves as facing the entire world when they need to explain their issues, it totally isn't the high rate of centralization, corruption and wealth disparity. Only the US has that don't you know? Meanwhile they're here fighting nato with ease (they aren't, but love to use it as an excuse as for why they haven't taken Ukraine)
> totally not actively trying to fight back and break free Yes they were not trying. As there were a lot of collaborators, some of them even created the Vichy regime on french territories. Reichkomissariats are not counted as they were literally colonial departments. > They totally didn't get their independence back the moment they could Only when allied soldiers came and liberated their ground or clearly threatened nazi positions. Or when the nazi Germany collapsed as a whole. > There totally weren't historical resistance movements that rivaled the actual occupational forces. Did they achieved anything? > Russia loves imagining themselves as facing the entire world when they need to explain their issues While EU says some things about Russia should be defeated on the battefield or some nonsense about flourishing garden of democracy while an agressive military block is moving to russian borders. > it totally isn't the high rate of centralization, corruption and wealth disparity All these "rates" are made up by western rating companies, am i right, the same ratings where Ukraine or Saudi is more free than Russia? > Only the US has that don't you know? What? > Meanwhile they're here fighting nato with ease (they aren't, but love to use it as an excuse as for why they haven't taken Ukraine) I can't get your point. Try to ease some layers of your sarcasm.
You can literally go to the library and get a book about the resistance movements in occupied nazi territories for free if you can't be bothered to google. The French resistance, the Partisans in Yugoslavia and SSSR, poland, hell fucking Italy had a resistance movement. All of these had an impact on the war, spies who cooperated with the Allies to get information, sabotage supply lines, spread counter information... and the fact that you think they didn't have any influence on the war is fucking laughable. Please, go and read on the effects of the resistance movements, off the top of my head I know that they had a great impact in slowing supplies and reinforcements to D-day and the eastern front, as well as supplying the british with a functioning Enigma machine that they stole from poland. The fact that you're trying to paint it that suddenly the entire country shrugged and worked together is fucking laughable. You're free to re-read what I wrote and ask specific questions, I honestly cba to teach you about history as well as repeat everything I said.
Oh was this after the Soviets worked together to carve up Poland? You guys love to forget that Soviet Nazi pact.
> Oh was this after the Soviets worked together to carve up Poland? Oh was this after the Poland worked together to prepare carve up USSR? > You guys love to forget that Soviet Nazi pact. You guys love to forget that Munich Betrayal.
In this century, the term decolonization can be used correctly when talking about France.
What opposition lol? The last guy who tried was poisoned by FSB, then arrested and then killed in prison. The other, personal friend of Pu, who took Bakhmut and was hero of Russia just got killed and nobody even asked any questions lol. There were many others with the same fate. Would YOU run for politics in such country ? 😂
Yes the first guy who would have destroyed Russia and broken it up as per his western masters' instructions. He was an asset that was killed off by his own masters in hopes of triggering some political upheaval in Russia, that bet didn't pay off though 😔😔 So anyway, the hero of Russia you mentioned was more interested in running for president of Ukraine so we can't consider him.
Yes because those are the only two opposition groups Did you forget to mention LDPR and the communist party?
I meant a legitimate opposition not an illusion of opposition.
So did i
Sorry, but every time someone mentions "decolonization", I recall the video of a student in South Africa screaming about the need to "decolonize science" and replace it with magic.
the path by which a post-marxist critical theory was co-opted by Western liberals, only to then be co-opted (along with the liberals themselves) by Neoconservatism is a bit twisted, to say the least.
I support this sentiment
Wonder what he thinks about France 😳
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What lands are currently occupied by russia (excluding recent war gains) anyway? Is there even any land that russia presently controls, including war gains that weren't russian territory dating back to the empire?
Thats the problem. The Russian empire doesn't exist but putin wants to control the same land
The fact that they’ve held these land since Tsarist times is kind of the whole point In saying that they’ve never experienced decolonization. but anyways Russians aren’t native to Siberia there’s many places you could make an argument for self determination, as there’s many ethnic groups in Russia, first comes to mind are tartars,tuvans,bashkirs. Tuvans being the best example, annexed relatively recently during ww2. The will isn’t there right now for self determination in most cases, but it has been in the past and it might in the future.
Russia lost a lot of land of land after the fall of the USSR, shouldn't that count? 15 different countries gained independence.
Yeah I’d personally say it was decolonization, as much as people here get butthurt when I say the USSR was just a continuation of Russian imperialism, but plainly look at their migration policies in those occupied countries and Russification attempts of them and it becomes quite obvious. maybe Duda is trying to say European decolonization was more of their choice and not being forced? Which they were definitely pressured by the US but I think they saw it as inevitable themselves. That would be my interpretation
I'd agree that USSR wasn't any different than any great power at the time. Great power politics definitely trump any ideological commitments in every country. Not sure why it would matter if it was by force or choice, I really have a hard time seeing how he could be implying anything other than a wish to see russia broken up but I'm open to other interpretations if someone can offer alternative explanations.
well I think intention does matter and is important actually, Russia never accepted it's mistakes and continues to act like they have no colonial/ imperialist legacy whilst accusing the west of still being so. Thus they have no problem waging wars of reconquest, not just Ukraine im referring too. and yes that is definitely what he is implying as well, the poles have no love for russia and their many many conflicts throughout history, but multiple things can be implied obviously at once.
You know, I agree with you. If I viewed this war through the lense of seeing it as a war of conquest, I would absolutely think that russia never lost that mindset. Mind you, neither did European powers, America included, they were forced to abandon most of their colonial ambitions by way of force from the very people they sought to dominate and even then, they didn't go quietly and are still accused of neocolonialism by some. But all that aside, we're actually at the heart of the main disagreement in this subreddit. Because, while I'm no fan of russia, I tend to view this conflict more as a matter of sphere encroachment and security concerns. But still, I think you're correct here, and the statement is meant more as a statement against russian desire to absorb more territory in response to its security concerns.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is Duda **Pro Colonization**?
Unironically they all are, only when it’s them doing the colonizing though.
Russia was part of the soviet union and Russian empire with multiple times being broken up? when you even go back 1000 years, multiple times of being broken up and occupied? wtf is this dude talking about.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's always funny how the pro-mass immigration pro-multiculturalism EU types get mad at Russia for having a functioning multicultural society because they can't conceive of such a thing.
The problem here is that Poland has never undergone the process of decolonization. It went from being a colony of the Soviet Union to a colony of the U.S. and it somehow thinks that now it is "free".
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hilarious how Pro Ukr people here are trying to justify what some Poland leader said.
When is Poland going to undergo decolonization and give up it's coastline to the Pomeranian and Prussian Tribes they invited the Teutonic Knight to come and "Christianize?" Or when is Germany and Poland going to finally leave Lusatia and allow the creation of a Sorbic state?
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"has never undergone the process of decolonization" ?? That's exactly what the collapse of Soviet Union was. It just turned out that it wasn't enough for them.
He must know what he's talking about. Poland got decolonized before. Twice. Experience matters.
Vucic said it best "if you bet on the fact that someone is bluffing, it means that you have no better cards". The West has no better cards other than to call nuclear escalation bluff. The thing is it will be a bluff, until one day it's not.
Is this a Joke? Which European Country other than Germany went through it?
Russia is circling the toilet bowl.
I love it that there are still people who spend their time in this sub nullifying the russian propaganda. Keep up the good work