Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Blue Kumul
« on: April 19, 2022, 02:46:48 am »

"The popular impression I get from Ukrainians is that those who dislike Russians nevertheless tend to be Eurocentrists, but merely exclude Russia from their Eurocentrism (but of course include Ukraine)."

Polish nationalists are exactly the same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Koneczny

BTW is your use of "Turanian" to mean "East Slavic" influenced by Koneczny?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 11, 2022, 02:50:02 am »

"It isn't currently enforced, but it might be in the future. Can you figure out why so many females are eager to flee right now? Can you figure out what this says about their attitude to Ukraine?"

By my statement:

Quote
it will be harder to argue that Ukrainian refugees currently in EU countries also belong to the pro-Russian fraction

I did not mean that those who flee can be expected to be less pro-Russian than who do not. I meant that those who flee into EU countries can be expected to be less pro-Russian than those who flee into Russia. This is why I specified "Ukrainian refugees currently in EU countries".
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 10, 2022, 07:57:12 am »

The popular impression I get from Ukrainians is that those who dislike Russians nevertheless tend to be Eurocentrists, but merely exclude Russia from their Eurocentrism (but of course include Ukraine).

Ukrainian pop culture contradicts your impression to some extent, as it noticeably draws on non-Western influence:

Spoiler (hover to show)

The first video strikes me as significant in particular, as the city against which it is set effectively merges Japanese-style architecture and post-independence Ukrainian architecture. Ukrainians seem to be identifying as non-Westerners at least aesthetically.

Other supposed Eurocentrisms (such as the obsessive flaunting of "European" in Ukrainian politics, see "Euromaidan" etc.) can be chalked up to geopolitics. Integration with EU/NATO is the only way Ukraine can secure protection against Russia's nuclear stockpile after they had themself tricked (partly by the same states they are now forced to ally with!) into giving up their own stockpile.

Historically, Ukraine has looked to the Muslim world for allies:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/hungary-v4/msg5411/?topicseen#msg5411

Quote
«державна політика України — це політика Чорного моря, де Україна перетинається з мусульманством, і іншого шляху немає». Таким чином Україна стає «природним союзником мусульманства [...]».

"The state policy of Ukraine is a Black Sea-centered policy, where Ukraine and the Muslim world meet, a political path to which there are no alternatives." Accordingly, Ukraine will become "a natural ally of the Muslim world [...]"

In the long run, this would have implied that the Ukrainian People's Republic would have eventually also felt compelled to side with at least the Muslim colonies of the non-Russian colonial powers.

Then there is this:

https://ukraineworld.org/articles/ukraine-explained/indigenous-peoples-ukraine-you-may-have-never-heard-about

Quote
The indigenous peoples are Ukrainians (77.8%), Crimean Tatars (0.5%), Karaites (>0.1%), Krymchaks (>0.1%) — the last three originated in the Crimean peninsula, and Gagauzes (0.1%) originated in Odesa Region.

Doesn't it contradict the notion of Ukrainian Eurocentrism that the non-"white", non-western Crimean Tatars are deemed an "indigenous people" of Ukraine, whereas a number of "white", western minorities apart from the Russians, such as Poles, Hungarians, Romanians etc. are not?

but it will be harder to argue that Ukrainian refugees currently in EU countries also belong to the pro-Russian fraction.

They might not be particularly pro-Russian, but what makes you think they feel themselves particularly Ukrainian either? Ukraine technically has the draft for females:

https://thepressunited.com/updates/ukraine-to-draft-more-women/

Quote
Women in a range of professions, up to 60 years old, will have to register for the draft.

Ukraine has dramatically expanded the number of women potentially eligible for military service, adding them to the pool of people who could be called up in the event of war.

The country’s Ministry of Defense announced the news on Wednesday, publishing a list of hundreds of professions whose female members will no longer be exempt from registering for the draft. The list includes a wide range of jobs, such as accountants, librarians, secretaries, journalists, lawyers, pharmacists, and veterinarians.

The new rule will apply to women working in these fields who pass medical qualifications and are between the ages of 18 and 60. Men in Ukraine are already required to register for conscription at 18.

It isn't currently enforced, but it might be in the future. Can you figure out why so many females are eager to flee right now? Can you figure out what this says about their attitude to Ukraine?

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/karenism-(a-k-a-ethnic-profiling-by-civilians)/msg12197/#msg12197

Bernadette Devlin appears to be complaining about similar attitudes among the Irish diaspora in America as well in this image macro recently posted by @Zea_mays:

Spoiler (hover to show)

To be fair, I can't produce a Ukrainian Bernadette Devlin as of yet, so there we go. I can come up with Vasyl Maksymenko though:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/refugees-welcome/?message=12375

That depends. For sure, many Ukrainians are Russian-passing, however, Ukrainians are commonly stereotyped as being visibly darker than the Russians, so other Ukrainians may not be.

Mining that angle a little: I researched some "All-Russian family"-propaganda. This is what I came up with:

Spoiler (hover to show)

The characters meant to represent Ukraine consistently stick out in terms of appearance, even when the characters meant to depict Belarus do not. So Russians definitely at least think they can physically distinguish Russians and Belarusians on the one hand and Ukrainians on the other hand.
Posted by: rp
« on: April 09, 2022, 10:24:56 pm »

"In order for Ukrainianness to be equivalent to Irishness, I would have to see Ukrainians being explicitly hostile to "whiteness" in the same way as the Irish are famous for being. Which is precisely why the recent stories showing contrary tendencies are so discouraging:"

I agree that present day Ukrainians are Eurocentrists, but I think Dazhbog was specifically talking about the "Green Ukraine" founders, whom we cannot accuse of being Eurocentrists for not being hostile to "Whiteness", given that they were not in contact with the original inventors of "Whiteness" (i.e. anglo Saxons), which makes it impossible to say whether they would have identified as "White" given the opportunity.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 09, 2022, 09:59:39 pm »

"By emphasizing Irishness/Scottishness as opposed to Britishness, you are refusing to benefit from British colonialism"

Yes, but only because, as rp pointed out:

Quote
The Irish and Scottish nationalists made it a point to avoid integrating into the "White" identity and instead chose to identify with other victims of "White" colonialism.

"By the same token, by emphasizing Ukrainianness as opposed to Russianness, you are refusing to benefit from Russian colonialism."

In order for Ukrainianness to be equivalent to Irishness, I would have to see Ukrainians being explicitly hostile to "whiteness" in the same way as the Irish are famous for being. Which is precisely why the recent stories showing contrary tendencies are so discouraging:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/rightists-getting-leftism-wrong/msg12439/#msg12439

Quote
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11570/#msg11570

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11608/#msg11608

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11630/#msg11630

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11637/#msg11637

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11656/#msg11656

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11682/#msg11682

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11723/#msg11723

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11749/#msg11749

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11795/#msg11795

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12061/#msg12061

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12116/#msg12116

The popular impression I get from Ukrainians is that those who dislike Russians nevertheless tend to be Eurocentrists, but merely exclude Russia from their Eurocentrism (but of course include Ukraine). In which case, while they can be accurately said to be refusing to benefit from Russian colonialism specifically, they are not refusing to benefit from Western colonialism as a whole. In this way the proposed equivalence between Ukrainians and Irish falls through.

"In this light, even if the Ukrainians voluntarily refused integration with the Russians, this might have actually been an anti-tribalist statement!"

Only if Ukrainians also refuse (as Irish famously do) integration with "whites" in general. But available information suggests that it is integration with "non-whites" which is more widely feared by Ukrainians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Ukraine#Discrimination_against_foreigners

Quote
Foreign students, of which there are some forty thousand, have been among the principal victims of hate crimes. Small populations of citizens and immigrants of African origin are highly visible and particularly vulnerable targets of racism and xenophobia. Although relatively few people of African origin reside in Ukraine, the rate of violence against this group has been extraordinary. African refugees, students, visitors, and the handful of citizens and permanent residents of African origin have lived under constant threat of harassment and violence.[18] During the 2009 flu pandemic in Ukraine in November 2009 the police of Transcarpathia asked the local population to report every instance of meeting or communicating with foreigners, The police explains that the reason for such a request was "the worsening of the epidemiological situation in Transcarpathian Region and the increasing risk of getting ill." The Uzhhorod police removed the request from their website after media drew attention to it.[20]
...
reports and online footage surfaced of African and Indian students who were attempting to escape the conflict being denied entry onto trains and through the Poland border, with white Ukrainian children, women, and men taking their spots. Reports also claimed that internet users in Ukraine provided the students false information so that they mistakingly present themselves as Russian soldiers and risk death.[42][43][44][45][46][47]

It is possible to argue that the perpetrators of all the above belong exclusively to the pro-Russian fraction of Ukrainians:

Quote
Rights groups claim Ukrainian hate groups are inspired by their counterparts in Russia. Russian skinheads help the local groups, they say, sharing tips and video clips on how to attack and torture their victims and how to safely leave the crime scene.[40]

but it will be harder to argue that Ukrainian refugees currently in EU countries also belong to the pro-Russian fraction. Therefore let us observe how they behave over time. Will they feel solidarity with the "non-white" refugees also in EU countries? Will they demand "non-white" refugees receive the same good treatment that they themselves are getting? Or will they, despite being refugees themselves, want "non-white" refugees shut out? Time will tell.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/karenism-(a-k-a-ethnic-profiling-by-civilians)/msg12197/#msg12197
Posted by: guest55
« on: April 09, 2022, 08:41:40 pm »

Italians have not always been accepted as "white" in the U.S. and neither have Jews.

Anti-Italianism
Quote
Anti-Italianism arose among some Americans as an effect of the large-scale immigration of Italians to the United States during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The majority of Italian immigrants to the United States arrived in waves in the early-twentieth century, many of them from agrarian backgrounds. Nearly all the Italian immigrants were Roman Catholic, as opposed to the nation's Protestant majority. Because the immigrants often lacked formal education, and competed with earlier immigrants for lower-paying jobs and housing, significant hostility developed toward them.[1] The established Protestant Americans of Northern European ancestry aggressively displayed and acted upon ethnocentric chauvinism and prejudice against Italian immigrants, especially in the American South, the population there being overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. In reaction to the large-scale immigration from Southern Europe and Eastern Europe, the United States Congress passed legislation (Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924) severely restricting immigration from those regions, but putting comparatively less restrictions on immigration from Northern European countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism

The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They Were Nazi Spies
Quote
In a long tradition of “persecuting the refugee,” the State Department and FDR claimed that Jewish immigrants could threaten national security
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/
Posted by: rp
« on: April 09, 2022, 05:33:52 pm »

You bring up a good point. The Irish and Scottish nationalists made it a point to avoid integrating into the "White" identity and instead chose to identify with other victims of "White" colonialism. In the United States, however, you had groups that were traditionally considered "non-White" (e.g. Italians, Jews) who joined their fellow "Whites" in oppressing other "non-Whties" by identifying themselves with the "Whites".

You could argue that it was because the Italians and Jews were "White" passing that they were eventually able to be accepted as "White", and therefore even "White" passing people enjoy a certain "privilege" over "non-Whites" in this regard. But note that even "non-Whites" who adopt Eurocentric attitudes (e.g. Chinese) are considered "White" by some "White" supremacists (e.g. Arctic alliance advocates who believe Chinese and "Whites" descend from the same ancestors), which at least suggests that being physically distinguishable from other "Whites" does not preclude that group from being accepted as "White".
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 09, 2022, 05:31:39 am »

Are most Russians able to distinguish a Ukrainian from a Russian by physical appearance alone? To put it another way, can Ukrainians who abandon Ukrainian language and use Russian language pass as Russian?

That depends. For sure, many Ukrainians are Russian-passing, however, Ukrainians are commonly stereotyped as being visibly darker than the Russians, so other Ukrainians may not be.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether it's Russians barring Ukrainians who want to integrate from doing so, or Ukrainians emphasizing Ukrainian distinctiveness in order to avoid becoming integrated.

Let's pretend the latter is the case. Does that automatically disqualify them from being victims of colonialism?

For sure, the Irish and to some extent the Scottish are victims of British colonialism, yet they strike me as physically indistinguishable from non-Irish/Scottish Britons. The Catalans are victims of Spanish colonialism, yet they strike me as physically indistinguishable from non-Catalan Spaniards. The Bosnians and the Croats are victims of Serb colonialism, yet they strike me as physically indistinguishable from Serbs.

What I'm getting at is that we shouldn't only be asking whether a person has the choice to integrate, but also whether integration means benefiting from colonialism (or other displays of ignobility). If the latter is the case, not choosing to integrate (thus voluntarily grouping yourself with other victims) might actually be noble.

By emphasizing Irishness/Scottishness as opposed to Britishness, you are refusing to benefit from British colonialism, by emphasizing Catalanness as opposed to Spanishness, you are refusing to benefit from Spanish colonialism and by emphasizing Bosnianness/Croatness as opposed to Serbness, you are refusing to benefit from Serb colonialism. By the same token, by emphasizing Ukrainianness as opposed to Russianness, you are refusing to benefit from Russian colonialism.

Yes, you could argue that they have a choice to benefit or not to benefit, whereas physically distinguishable victims of colonialism do not. However, we will for sure agree that benefiting from colonialism is evil and evil is never a valid choice. If you're not a complete sack of **** of a person, surely you will at least feel as if you have no alternative. Invalidating the **** you get for doing the right thing, may it not quite be the same as for those who never had a choice in the first place, or even implying that you yourself are evil for it (e.g. by calling you an identitarian) isn't fair.

In the Ukrainian case specifically, there is another dimension. "Russian"/"White Russian"/"Little Russian" all imply a certain genealogy, namely descent from the Rus'-people, meaning that people without Rus'-ancestry aren't in principle eligible to become Russians (Belarusians etc.).

"Ukrainian" in turn derives from a geographic term. "Ukraine" goes back to either "Okrayina" (borderland), "Krayina" (region, territory) or, as a more obscure take, "Oriana" (arable land; from the verb "oraty", to plough, till; guess which etymology I prefer 8)). Thus, "Ukrainian" doesn't imply a certain genealogy, but simply means "person from the borderland/that particular territory/arable land".

In this light, even if the Ukrainians voluntarily refused integration with the Russians, this might have actually been an anti-tribalist statement!

If all of this isn't convincing you though, there is still the genetic vector:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/duginism/msg6026/?topicseen#msg6026

The Ukrainians appear to have some "Middle Eastern" and "North African" (colonized language lifted from the quoted table, not my vocabulary), i.e. non-"white" blood (possibly even carrying some Aryan diffusion), which the Russians and the Belarusians seem to be completely lacking (you will have to take my word for the latter, as the full table is no longer on Wikipedia). Thus, the Russians (and Belarusians) could possibly at least sense on a blood memory-level that there is something "off" about the Ukrainians and outgroup them on that basis, using any given number of flimsy excuses to justify their outgrouping on a surface level (say, they might accuse them of speaking with an accent even if they don't etc.).
Posted by: guest55
« on: April 09, 2022, 12:35:36 am »

Wouldn't it be more difficult to know the answer to your question now whilst the war is still hot considering Ukrainians seem determined to resist Russia at all costs? Furthermore, captured Ukrainians are being shipped to "filtration camps" deep in Russia and I don't think integration into Russian society for these captives is part of the plan? I could be mistaken about this obviously....

US calls out 'credible reports' of Putin's forces herding Ukrainians to 'filtration camps,' then into Russia
Quote
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians from Mariupol forced to relocate to Russia, US official says
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-forcing-ukrainians-filtration-camps-relocate-us-ambassador-united-nations

Hundreds of Ukrainians forcibly deported to Russia, say Mariupol women
Quote
Troops ordered women and children on to buses and sent them to ‘filtration camps’, according to witness accounts
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/hundreds-of-ukrainians-forcibly-deported-to-russia-say-mariupol-women

But, I do not see why most Ukrainians could not pass for Russian if they really wanted to?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 08, 2022, 11:49:45 pm »

Are most Russians able to distinguish a Ukrainian from a Russian by physical appearance alone? To put it another way, can Ukrainians who abandon Ukrainian language and use Russian language pass as Russian?

What I'm trying to figure out is whether it's Russians barring Ukrainians who want to integrate from doing so, or Ukrainians emphasizing Ukrainian distinctiveness in order to avoid becoming integrated.
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 08, 2022, 05:19:41 am »

How could Ukrainians be validly considered to have been colonized if, as you yourself claim here, Russians viewed them as just another group of Russians (at least enough to see them as demographic reinforcements rather than demographic threats*)?

I expressed myself awkwardly. Have you ever compared the Ukrainian settlement patterns on the map you provided in your original post with Russian settlement patterns?



The Ukrainians are almost exclusively settled along the border of the Russian-occupied territories with non-Russian-occupied territories, whereas the Russians tend to settle deeper into the heartland.

On the one hand, the Ukrainians are to act as a barrier against possible military threats, buying the Russians time to prepare their defense and minimizing their own losses.

On the other hand, the Ukrainian settlement area to my knowledge corresponds to the most arable soil in the Russian-occupied territories. In other words, the Ukrainians are supposed to feed the Russians while the Russians get to exploit the resources in the heartland.

This is what I meant by "demographic reinforcements". They are not supposed to bolster Russian demographics by settling to reproduce themselves, but by keeping the Russians able to reproduce through their labor etc.

a Russia that would like to integrate them.

If they want to integrate them, why call them "Little Russians" and themselves "Great Russians"? Why aren't they all simply "Russians"? You could argue that this is because the "Great Russians" settle a larger territory and are more numerous than the Ukrainians are. Fair enough, but the Belarusians ("White Russians") are also a part of the "All-Russian family" and they are even less numerous and live on an even smaller territory than the Ukrainians!

Actually, the Belarusians should be referred to as "Little Russians" on these grounds. Instead, they get qualified by geography. 'White' according to old Slavic custom means 'western' (as in the geographic direction), so the Belarusians are technically called "Western Russians" as per the "All-Russian" vocabulary... which doesn't make any **** sense either, as the Ukrainian western border actually lies even farther to the west than the Belarusian western border (compare the map above)!

So why are they called "Little Russians" and not at least "Southern Russians" or something like that? Because they are subordinate to the "Great Russians" (and arguably the "Western Russians" too, whose name may not suggest parity with the "Great Russians", but at least superiority over the "Little Russians" by virtue of not being "little" themselves).

So no, the fact that they are called "Little Russians" does not indicate a will to integrate them, as they aren't actually seen as the same as the "Great Russians" or even the Belarusians.

We covered this here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/diplomatic-decolonization/msg12539/#msg12539

Against the backdrop of what I have written above: recruiting settlers from Ukraine makes sense from a Russian point of view, as they are similar enough to the Russian colonizers (in terms of religion, language group etc.) to be expected to side with them over the "Inorodtsy" as they would have struck the Russians as being fairly unaware of their own colonization at the time (Ukrainian nationalism was still pretty far from mainstream in the 1880s), but expendable enough to be used as a barrier against military threats as well as an exploitable workforce to feed the Russian colonizers.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 07, 2022, 08:57:16 pm »

"What makes you think any supposed planners in Ukraine were specifically planning a Ukrainian state (ethnostate or not) in the first place?"

We covered this here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/diplomatic-decolonization/msg12539/#msg12539

"I read the settlement policy as a Russian attempt to demographically reinforce the Russian and Cossack colonizers that eventually backfired when the supposedly "Little Russian" (the official Russian term for Ukrainians back then) flag bearers of the Russian colonial empire assumed to be docile subjects started to embrace Ukrainianness instead, became aware of their own colonization and turned on the Russians."

Wait. How could Ukrainians be validly considered to have been colonized if, as you yourself claim here, Russians viewed them as just another group of Russians (at least enough to see them as demographic reinforcements rather than demographic threats*)? You seem to actually be describing Ukrainian identitarians in opposition to a Russia that would like to integrate them.
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 07, 2022, 05:46:41 am »

I read it to mean that they were being offered free tickets by Green Ukraine planners in Ukraine to travel to Outer Machuria, rather than being reimbursed after arriving.

What makes you think any supposed planners in Ukraine were specifically planning a Ukrainian state (ethnostate or not) in the first place? I read the settlement policy as a Russian attempt to demographically reinforce the Russian and Cossack colonizers that eventually backfired when the supposedly "Little Russian" (the official Russian term for Ukrainians back then) flag bearers of the Russian colonial empire assumed to be docile subjects started to embrace Ukrainianness instead, became aware of their own colonization and turned on the Russians.

But did the Ukrainians have the intent of returning the territory to it's original owners?

Their leader Yuri Hlushko-Mova might have at least had the intention to give Outer Manchuria to Japan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Hlushko-Mova

Quote
Accused of anti-Soviet activities and "designs to split Far East from Russia and give it to Japan", Hlushko was sentenced in Chita in 1924 to 5 years imprisonment.

Based on his phenotype (except the terrible hairline of course), I am willing to believe the charge:

Spoiler (hover to show)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 07, 2022, 04:48:49 am »

"The settlement policy dates from 1882. According to Wikipedia, "Green Ukraine" didn't try to secede until 1920, so the "Green Ukrainians" couldn't have been the ones enacting this policy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#History

Quote
Individual efforts supported the emigration of groups of Jews to Palestine, pre-Zionist Aliyah, even before 1897, the year considered as the start of practical Zionism.[72]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

Quote
The Israeli Declaration of Independence,[a] formally the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (Hebrew: הכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל), was proclaimed on 14 May 1948

By your logic, Jews couldn't have been the ones funding Aliyah because Aliyah predated the Israeli Declaration of Independence?

"It was thus necessarily a Russian policy"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#Ottoman_Palestine_(1881%E2%80%931914)

Quote
The Jews immigrating arrived in groups that had been assembled, or recruited.

By your logic, it was necessarily the Ottomans doing the assembling and recruiting of Jews?

"there weren't any Ukrainians in Outer Manchuria at all before 1882, who could have theoretically enacted such a policy even with the projected future goal of establishing a "Green Ukrainian" ethnostate."

I read it to mean that they were being offered free tickets by Green Ukraine planners in Ukraine to travel to Outer Machuria, rather than being reimbursed after arriving.

For comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Zionist_Congress

Quote
1   First Zionist Congress[10]   Basel, Switzerland   1897
2   Second Zionist Congress[11][12][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1898
3   Third Zionist Congress[14][12][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1899
4   Fourth Zionist Congress[15][12][13]   London, England   1900
5   Fifth Zionist Congress[16][12][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1901
6   Sixth Zionist Congress[17][12][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1903
7   Seventh Zionist Congress[18][12][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1905
8   Eighth Zionist Congress[19][12][13]   The Hague, Netherlands   1907
9   Ninth Zionist Congress[20][12][13]   Hamburg, Germany   1909
10   Tenth Zionist Congress[21][12][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1911
11   Eleventh Zionist Congress[21][12][13]   Vienna, Austria   1913
12   Twelfth Zionist Congress[22][12][13]   Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary), Czechoslovakia   1921
13   Thirteenth Zionist Congress[23][13][24]   Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary), Czechoslovakia   1923
14   Fourteenth Zionist Congress[25][13][26]   Vienna, Austria   1925
15   Fifteenth Zionist Congress[27][13][28]   Basel, Switzerland   1927
16   Sixteenth Zionist Congress[29][13][30]   Zürich, Switzerland   1929
17   Seventeenth Zionist Congress[31][13]   Basel, Switzerland   1931
18   Eighteenth Zionist Congress[32][13]   Prague, Czechoslovakia   1933
19   Nineteenth Zionist Congress[33][13]   Lucerne, Switzerland   1935
20   Twentieth Zionist Congress[13]   Zürich, Switzerland   1937
21   Twenty-first Zionist Congress[13]   Geneva, Switzerland   1939
22   Twenty-second Zionist Congress[13][34]   Basel, Switzerland   1946
23   Twenty-third Zionist Congress[13]   Jerusalem   1951

Thee guys did not have to be in Palestine themselves for the first 22 congresses to successfully promote Aliyah.
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 07, 2022, 03:50:44 am »

Why only for settlers from Ukraine? If the goal was purely to attract labour to reinforce the new state against potential Russian re-invasion, settlers from Russia's other enemies (especially China and Japan) should be just as welcome? Indeed, if as you claim Green Ukraine did not care about the ethnicity of settlers, doesn't Ukraine seem a rather distant location from which to selectively attract settlers?

The settlement policy dates from 1882. According to Wikipedia, "Green Ukraine" didn't try to secede until 1920, so the "Green Ukrainians" couldn't have been the ones enacting this policy. Heck, if I understood the article in question correctly, there weren't any Ukrainians in Outer Manchuria at all before 1882, who could have theoretically enacted such a policy even with the projected future goal of establishing a "Green Ukrainian" ethnostate. It was thus necessarily a Russian policy, so it clearly can't have been Ukrainian ethnonepotism. Accordingly, you will have to ask the Russians for the true underlying reason.