Nationalists weren't the only one upset. Lots of people wanted Ukraine to head west, because western (as in EU) economic ties seemed to have far brighter perspectives than the russian ones. More over, it still is, as Russia has all the resources needed to surpass EU in every way possible, yet it struggles, thanks to the degree of corruption present, as well as its oligarchic nature. Orientation for EU promised the potential to get Ukraine out of the state it had been in after the 90s.

Secondly, saying slavic peoples share a lot in common is similar to saying Chinese ethnicities have a lot in common.

Except there isn't, as i already stated, unless, once again, as i already stated, if we're talking about cultural minorities, present in particular isolated regions of both countries. Ukrainian region had significant cultural differences, only those lost its relevance when the soviet era came into place, and i've already explained why. The differences between modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are mainly political, and it becomes really apparent as soon as you compare a ukrainian to russian, and then to polish or slovakian.

Until you point out the concrete differences on which basis "ethnic cleansing" could be commensed, your point will sound ridiculous to me, born ukrainian, who happened to be friends with individuals from far west and far east both of Ukraine and Russia, as well i hapen to be aquainted with some belarussians and kazakhs. I also did visit Moscow before the shit stirred, lived in Czechia, and been to Poland after. I think i have some credibility on the topic of modern slavic cultures and their differences, thank you very much.

Your argument about "ethnic cleansing" is not even remotely representative of my observed reality. If it was the case, there would've been family tree investigations on the whole ukrainian territory, concentration camps as all people from investigated regions would've been suspended, and so on. Cities like Kharkiv, Odessa, or Dnipro would've also been "cleansed" just as the Ukrainian far east supposedly was, those regions had voted for Yanukovich in their majority after all, and people there also primarily speak russian.

Nobody seemed to "cleanse" them, until the "valiant Russian military" came and did it first tho. And that was despite Kremlins agenda about the need to defend russian speakers no matter in what part of the world they live. People freely fled the eastern regions since the very start of armed conflicts as well, and the ukrainian government was aiding them at that.

Regarding the nationality, those movements are irrelevant to what i've said. Both imperialism and national liberation should not exist. First is cancerous and exploitative in its nature, second is based on a fictional idea of nationality and leads to nothing more than poverty and infighting after the liberation part is done.

Let me repeat myself, nationalism is a tool of tribalism, and tribalism leads to disasters. See modern Ukraine, modern Russia, modern US, the whole deal with Kosovo or the Nagorno-Korabakh conflict.

And where nationalism isn't a disaster yet, it results in bigotry and prejudice. See eastern-european countries like Czech Republic or Poland.

Liberating countries only seems like a great idea on paper, only, without the proper economic conditions being met, the result is always far from beneficial. Post-soviet countries or Balkans are great examples. "We have nothing to eat, our country has no means of economical growth, but at least we have our fantasy about how we first came to be independent, and it really unites us" ~ uggh, thanks no thanks, keep this shit to yourself. It's degenerative and outright harmful to think in those categories, or instill such thinking onto others, and gives of "divide and conquer" type of narrative. People are people, and should be treated as such first and foremost. If you deceive them "for the greater good", or because sovereignity on some imaginary basis is morally correct in your book, that just makes you a manipulative cunt, treating people as means to an end.

National division ceases to exist only if everyone is emancipated, which is not possible. Unless the state is large enough to have all the resources to not only achieve its emancipation, but also prolong it indefinitely, it is inherently dependent on others, which in turn leads to power imbalance, therefore conflicts on that basis, which in turn, leads to tribalistic behaviour. In modern doctrine that amounts to rises of nationalistic ideologies in such regions.

And once again, you don't sound persuasive, if all you can is to insist for me to read some book, without ability to provide sufficient arguments yourself. A reference without citation is worthless, and cannot be considered a counter-thesis. Such behaviour only makes me think, that you prefer blindly accepting any information presented by authoritative-enough source, to applying critical thinking and analysis of said information yourself.

I, for one, won't ever recommend a book to a rando on the internet, unless directly asked to do so. Especially if we're talking about politics and worldviews. The world is constantly changing,but the books don't. They where written in a certain context, for people that existed inside of that context. They are nothing more than a dead knowledge of the past with not necessarily correct world's perception of the author layered on top, and they should be treated as such. Meaning, while reading a text we should always compare the depicted reality with the observed one. Otherwise you're just falling into dogmatism.

If this wasn't the case for you, you'd be able to provide sufficient reasoning yourself based on pure logic and observed information. Instead, you're spouting the same bs about ethnic cleansing third time in a row, completely ignoring my counter-arguments, as well as defending the need for practicing the ideology that should be history in our modern globalistic society, purely because it serves as a tool of political manipulation, and is suggested as such by some book.