3 ms·

>didn't involve massive conquest or colonialism This is demonstrably false. http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/50/3850-004-87B10401.jpg http://media-2

• Mikeb85 11y ago
  Because the Mongols were indigenous to Siberia, right? And had never attacked Russia at any point in history, right? Maybe you should research the establishment of various western countries, to compare? Or how the various empires the fledgling Russian empire fought against were themselves established... Edit - you keep editing it. Anyhow, as for Crimea, neither the Tatars nor British nor Ottomans were indigenous to Crimea. Your point is what, that history is messy? Look up the histories of the various foes that Russia fought in your links, most of them weren't indigenous to those regions, and themselves were invaders. Unless you think Islam is indigenous to the Caucasus, and southern Russia/Ukraine, and not a result of various Muslim conquests north...
  • vdaniuk 11y ago
    My point is that your statement "[Russia expansion] didn't involve massive conquest or colonialism" is demonstrably false. No amount of whataboutism or moving goalposts will be able to change that.
    • Mikeb85 11y ago
      Again, Slavic peoples are indigenous to Russia. Turks, Mongols, Tatars, Lithuanians, Swedes, Arabs, etc..., aren't.
      • guard-of-terra 11y ago
        One can argue that uralic people (чудь) were rightfully indigenous to Russia.
        • Mikeb85 11y ago
          They're indigenous to a part of modern day Russia. Based on their genetic composition and linguistics (as well as their own distribution) they likely migrated from central Asia northwards, to Siberia, northern Russia, Finland, northern Sweden, etc... The other major Uralic group (Magyars/Hungarians) went south, joined with Khazar groups, and eventually spread to modern day Hungary. No archaeologist or historian doubts that Slavs are indigenous to the territory that is modern western Russia/Belarus/Ukraine...