You ' re not warmed up maybe ? <| sep |> Just siphon your stuff it ' s not that big of a waste , and you can just siphon at 9 until you hit 60 . <| sep |> ignore this , accidentally posted this while struggling with graphical bug edit bug is gone , but now I ' m just not interested in debate anymoreI am saying its claims to most of its territory is illegitimate , and should not be recognized internationally . It ' s a travesty that it is . Ok I should actually stop right here . You seem to believe federations formed from historical conquest should be dissolved which isn ' t very justified here since most republics in Russia could either not sustain themselves if independent or are already mostly populated by russians , and they would be landlocked or even enclaves , and what is the big difference with being autonomous and being independent when the state is completely landlocked by and dependent on Russia . Being an independent nationstate isn ' t very attractive in that position , it ' s not the best solution , cultural rights and autonomy are in this case . If you continue to hold this belief even in light of what I just said then that ' s your opinion . Again I ' m not here to convince you rather to say there was proper justification different from ' imperialism ' or ' Lebensraum '. Chechnya is an obvious exception to this rulestill landlocked though however I have already mentioned the justification behind the war . Russia and the USSR are de facto the same thing . Russia kept every piece of military hardware they had in my country and shipped it out when they left in 1994 . Why would this be different if they let places like Chechnya secede ? You ' re repeating yourself , and again you can ' t leave any room for potential oversight when nukes are involved . Chechnya was and still is an internal republic . the SSRs were not . Russia is a breakaway state that took up the legal and international status of the USSR out of choice . You seem to consider this irrelevant but it isn ' t since differentiating isn ' t just semantics , the USSR was under strong ukrainian influence at one point , so that ' s already a major exception . Russia isn ' t fundamentally a one party state eitheralthough practically at this point and doesn ' t share its ideology with the USSR . Unless you claim it does , since you believe the USSR is just another instance of the Russian empire , which I feel is reductionist and off the mark . PostSoviet states had claims to the nuclear weaponry until the situation was resolved . Because , again , Russia WAS the USSR . Painting this as some sort of altruistic shouldering of a burden they weren ' t solely responsible for is the absurdity . Altruistic ? No . Necessary ? Yes . It was the only solution in the realm of possibilities . Again , Russia was not the USSR just the most dominant state but the USSR was constructed as to use this dominance as a foundation to keep control , it really was the obviously most dominant state , so this isn ' t much of a jump in reasoning for a totalitarian multiethnic state looking to remain in control . Much of the communist pary being russian indeed did help with that , but russians were hardly the only ones . It is also logical that the larger group is more represented . Who in those republics even had a mandate to agree to these treaties ? The representatives of the republics of course and the representatives of Chechnya said no , and there was not a significant difference between Chechnya in this aspect and the other republics , so they could perfectly have said no but they chose not to . Declaring independence is another issue entirely . Khruschev was not a Ukrainian , and even if he was , that doesn ' t mean anything . What matters are his actions , he promoted Ukraine , even transferring Crimea to the Ukraine SSR . He was very fond of Ukrainians , was born in Ukraine and spent much of his carreer in Ukraine , promoting Ukrainian economy , culture and development , and worked extensively with the Ukrainian part of the Communist Party . I missed the mark on him being Ukrainian though . that doesn ' t mean anything . Russian nationalism isn ' t really based on some sort of race theory , but rather cultural hegemony . Yet you claim it ' s ' Russian Supremacy ' while it was a consequence of the overwhelming amount of Russians in the USSR , not only that but Ukrainian culture was for example even promoted by Lenin rather than russified , that nation had suffered a lot from russian administration , nobility etc . It was never about Supremacy , it was about control and resource extraction , the USSR just really couldn ' t give a damn about the local populace since the Communist Party was morally bankrupt and the end justified the means for them . Race theory or the cultural equivalent is pretty implicit if you use the term Russian Supremacy , but now you claim it ' s about ' cultural hegemony ' what is saying ' Russian Supremacy ' as a foundation of the USSR if not demonizing rethoric when it ' s clear this is more about Russian hegemony than supremacy . besides you already made me out for a kremlin propagandist , I don ' t really see the point of defending hyperboles . As to the Nobel prize in question , are you sure you even know what you ' re talking about ? Gorbachev received it in 1990 , for his role in dissolving the Warsaw Pact , it had nothing to do with the technicalities of dissolving the USSR seeing as it hadn ' t happened yet . Why did you reply then ? Sure my mistake but the question on why you ' d want Yeltsin to have it even though you ' re opposed to the Chechen war still stands , you didn ' t change your position you just said it would be the same if any other republic declared independence . it was just a tongue in cheek question tbhNo violence and instability is required if Russia did the right thing and withdrew peacefully . Geographically unfeasible is absolute nonsense for a country that contains Kaliningrad . No problem for Russia sure , I ' m talking from the viewpoint of the landlocked enclave republics that would be completely dependent on Russia anyway , but that ' s besides the point . Kaliningrad is accessible by sea anyway and there are agreements for transit through lithuania . Not quite the same as the Komi Republic or Tannu Tuva . Agreements between whom ? An imperial power and the puppet governments in its internal administrative districts ? The postsoviet states of course . These were agreements made after and at dissolution . Everyone has actual justification . Lebensraum was actual justification . Apartheid was justified by the Afrikaner government . Every tinpot dictator can point to being democratically elected at 99 . 9 % of the vote , with a paper trail and everything . Morally there is absolutely no difference between the Russian Empire and the British Empire , except that the British gave hers up over the past 100 years and Russia has not . Actual justification being protecting internal multilaterally recognized sovereignty that was even recognized after the period of decolonisation , and thus in the light of it not Imperialism or racial supremacy or protecting internal multilaterally recognized sovereignty recognized by other empires just so they themselves could get away with imperialism or so that it wouldn ' t upset the balance of powers like what happened in the age of imperialism . You ' ve still not adressed this and I doubt you will , you seem to want multiethnic federations originally founded on conquest to be dissolved believing nation states are the only proper option , while you consider the agreements because of this to be null . Or you harbor a lot of antiRussia sentiment from your experience of the soviet union in estonia . I ' m going to spare your time arguing with a ' useful idiot ' like me , I really really don ' t like internet arguments and should have not gotten caught up in one . I should just return to lurking . I ' m ending this unconcluded .