>>820
russian here.
I'm afraid that you have been misled into using a pro-russian propaganda piece as unbiased evidence against the intentionality of "holodomor"
In fact, one needs only to look at what sort of articles sputniknews.com hosts at the moment to get a sense of what sort of circlejerk it is.
As far as my understanding of that event goes, the famine was a result of a campaign against cossacs as a social class.
They were highly independent, relatively wealthy landowners who employed unlanded farmhands to work their fields.
This was a big no-no for the party at the time, as it was considered to be exploitation of labor.
These wealthy landowners, not only in Ukraine but in Belorussia and Russia as well, got hit especially hard with the redistribution, quotas and other means of alleviating the famine that was ravaging the region at the time.
This was neither an unprovoked ethnic cleansing of noble christian ukrainians by horrible jewish communists/russian moskals (as pol and ukie nationalists make it out to be, respectively), nor was it a direct result of a natural disaster, as you are trying to present it.
It was par the course, and part of the plan the party had for the agricultural sector in the soviet union.
As for the current war in Ukraine:
All of eastern europe is essentially ruled over by oligarchs. In days of yore, these oligarchs were party functionairies, nowadays they are just rich people who tow the party line.
Ukraine was controlled by oligarchs who stole national wealth and sucked russia off.
There were also oligarchs who sucked off the west, and wanted to steal national wealth but couldn't due to pro-russian oligarchs crowding them out.
Ukies got roused, as they usually are, and threw the pro-russian oligarchs out.
The pro-western oligarchs got in power and started to steal national wealth.
Now, an important part of russian foreign politics, economic backing and defence relies on having a shitton of buffer states.
It's been this way since time immemorial, and the more buffer states there is, the better it is for russia.
Putin got spoopt of losing one of the key buffer states to the West, and moved in.
Obviously he took Crimea.
Crimea is primarily populated by russians, was part of russia until 50 yrs ago, and houses some important naval shit.
It is a region of strategic importance.
It has no industry or agriculture of note, and is really a burden on whatever state it is a part of.
Most of the people there essentially live on governmental handouts.
The Donbass rebels are rebelling not because of some nationalistic streak, but because they are coal miners.
Donbass coal mining has not been profitable since the 70s, and the miners lived on subsidies from soviet gov.
When ukies got independence, the subsidies dried up.
Donbass is full of russian-speaking uneducated izhdivends who want mo money fo dem programs, and they saw that Crimea, the welfare queen region, got taken in by russia.
Lo and behold, they split off.
You can see the intense lust for the sweet sweet handouts if you take a look at what constitutional bases Donetsk and Luhansk wrote up for their states – it's basically commie shit and let someone else pay for us.
Ukie military was actually coincidentally, and not via some sort of conspiracy, fucked pretty hard in the recent years, so it was completely inadequate for anything.
Russia, for reasons stated above, sent the rebels arms, supplies, and a shitton of volunteers. Some of them nazis. Imagine that.
Ukie army got tied down with the rebels, and here we are today.
As for the actual topic of this thread, no thanks.
There should not be any sort of political slant to this board.
It is not directly related to what the board is about, and it invites shitposting and holywars.