Communist hypocrisy

Why do communist nations call themselves republics?

Not an argument.
Why do you start a thread when you are not interested in discussion?
But acknowledging those ethnic groups is precisely against Russian imperialism. Russian imperialists don't acknowledge the existence of Belorussians and Ukrainians. They consider them at best slightly flavored Russians.

>What do human rights have to do with Soviets being Russian imperialists?
Ussr says they are one thing,then like about it. That's the connection and pattern.

To larp bc the ussr said they could have independence but invaded the people's that tried to become independent.

You still have to establish how exactly were they Russian imperialists. What Russian imperialist policies did they pursue? Just pointing out they lied and pretended about some stuff doesn't mean they were Russian imperialists. Is lying and pretending only present in Russian imperialism?

Communism isn't a country. Nor is it explicitly Russian.

Attached: 1520649050347.jpg (800x1126, 375K)

starving the ukrainians

interfering in foreign affairs half way across the globe

Yes, they invaded countries and kept people forcefully in line. Doesn't mean they are Russian imperialists. Their stated goals and their ideology had little to do with Russian imperialism.
I pointed out the existence of Ukraine and Belarus as something totally incompatible with Russian nationalism and Russian imperialism.
Not just that, another pillar of Russian identity and Russian nationalism, Orthodox Christianity, was also absent as a part of their ideology during Soviet times, and actively persecuted or kept under strict control.
Some elements and motives from Russian nationalism creeping through over time doesn't mean much. USSR was mostly Russian, majority of communists were Russians, and it was built on the remnants of the Russian Empire. Such things are inevitable, it was mostly a reflection of their cultural background, not intentional mix.
At their core, they weren't Russian imperialists, they were communists.

They literally invaded and annexed three independent republics and attacked Finland so it could take more

me on the right

>starving the ukrainians
That had nothing to do with Ukrainians as a group, nor did just Ukrainians starve. Mortality was higher in Kazakhstan for example.
Deaths from famine weren't intentional and literally nothing from contemporary sources indicates they were. It was a by-product of collectivization. At best, you could qualify it as oblique intent. They understood many will die and they accepted it as a consequence.
It's a criminal act of course, no doubt about that, but I don't understand how is this ''Russian imperialism'', and not just criminal behavior of communist government.
>interfering in foreign affairs half way across the globe
How is that a defining characteristic which makes it RUSSIAN imperialism?
Are Americans also Russian imperialists?
They killed and deported Native Americans.
They interfere in foreign affairs across the globe.
I guess according to your standards they too are Russian imperialists.

But that's just imperialism, depending on your definition of imperialism.
It seems you don't understand me here. My point of contention is that it was RUSSIAN imperialism. It wasn't RUSSIAN imperialism. You could call it communist imperialism, or Soviet imperialism, or Bolshevik imperialism.
But their ideology and policies derived from it had very little to do with Russian nationalism and Russian imperialism.

And their core they weren't communists or imperialists, they were R*ssians

because they like to project themselves as some form of ultimate final form democracy rather than some shitty authoritarian state that they actually are

Another great argument, you really destroyed the points I made. What's next, you're gonna call me vatnik again?
Seriously, what did you hope to achieve with this idiotic thread?
Fuck off to /int/ or /pol/. Not that this board is some pillar of intellectualism, but you have to try harder than this, this is just embarrassing, not even /pol/tards are this bad.

>ethnic cleansing of unwanted groups and colonization of lands with ethnic Russians and pro-Russian groups
>occupation and exploitation of Eastern Europe, not to mention promoting Russian language there
>many non-Russian regions not being made full republics but kept as "autonomous republics" within a continuous Russia, and their Russification
>even Russian being the official language and not Esperanto, Latin or some other more neutral language

The thing is that they had to pander somehow to the most numerous and geographically widespread of the ethnic groups. Making the Soviet Union a truly internationalists entity were Russian were just one of the many nationalities would have been theoretically good but in practice it could have led to rebellion.

Stalin had to tone down the internationalist policies and appeal to Russian patriotism for pragmatic reasons. He wasn't a "Russian nationalist" he just recognized that he needed to control the largest group in the country he ruled and using their emotion might be useful. You could say it was Soviet imperialism trying to copy Russian imperialism or Soviets "larping" as Russians if you prefer modern jargon.

Attached: russia_auton96.jpg (1006x718, 82K)

Stalin was no doubt a Russophile, but that didn't affect his decisions at all. At his heart he was a fanatic communist.