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
). 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#msg6026The 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.).