Израиль сам появился на свет в результате отжатия территории и отказа в государственности коренным жителям. Номинально евреи пересмотрели решение римской империи выпезовать их, 2000 лет назад. Раха всего лишь пересматривает решение коммунистов подарить Украине территории которые коренными украинскими никогда не были, а были захвачены у ногайцев и крымских татар. Слобода Украина(Харьковщина), которая жила под суверенитетом Московии 300 лет, тоже оказалась в составе созданной коммунистами украинской нации из революционно-тактических и идеологических соображений, не имевших никакого отношения ни каким формам справедливости (имперско-коммунистическая справедливость не существует)

Вставлю тут мой коммент c другого ресурса: Сommunists and Bolsheviks in particular were driven by their belief in world revolution. In this context demonstrating their "anti-colonial generosity" would be beneficial. Lenin among other things was virulently anti-Russian, calling Russian nationalism "great-power chauvinism", what basically amounted to a belief that everyone should win except for ethnic Russians and "Russified natives" (who are greatest chauvinists of them all). They also believed that the "national phase" is inevitable, while believing in the falsity of its premise, and its capitalist and counterrevolutionary nature, therefore they decided exacerbate it while subverting it. Since national consciousness was false and doesn't matter anyway, they thought that embracing it on the superficial (they thought) level would help with formation of class consciousness, which according to them is the higher form of consciousness that would eventually lead to dissolution of nationalisms, and lead to internationalist socialism. Their wholehearted embrace of nationalisms on the Russia's western border was also partly a tactical ploy, an attempt to influence divided ethnicities across the border, for example in Poland, showing them how good it is (for their identities) to be in the soviet union. It's pretty obvious now that their beliefs on which they based their national policy were as wrong as their world revolution or their economics beliefs.

"what they were indigenizing then?" They were indiginizing and exacerbating all the (they mistakenly thought) superficial and symbolic difference they could find, while being as generous as possible. Because their inane beliefs said that it would lead to communist utopia. Linguistic difference for the rural population being the primary one. During the period 23-33 they went overboard, forcing people who never spoke their supposed native language to learn to speak it, because they were living in an assigned national territory. They could have created Don Cossack nation also (they also pronounce "г" as voiced fricative), but for some reason didn't.

"Why were borders of Ukrainian SSR drawn that way they were?" They were drawn where they are because they weren't buliding a state they were building world revolution. National idetity is false anyway according to them, so allocation of historically Russian lands, that existed under Russian sovereignty for centuries, with Ukrainians willingly coming and settling there to live under Russian sovereignty, like in Sloboda Ukraine or in Novorossia, was a prudent thing to do. As I said that shows socialist generosity with the national issue and inhibits the dreaded "Great Russian Chauvinism" that must be fought with all possible means.

Quotes from Affirmative Action Empire:

'Lenin and Stalin, however, drew the exact opposite conclusion. They reasoned as follows. By granting the forms of nationhood, the Soviet state could split the above-class national alliance for statehood. Class divisions, then, would naturally emerge, which would allow the Soviet government to recruit proletarian and peasant support for their socialist agenda. Lenin argued that Finnish independence had intensified, not reduced, class conflict. 18 National self-determination would have the same consequences within the Soviet Union. Likewise, Stalin insisted it was "necessary to 'take' autonomy away from [the national bourgeoisie], having first cleansed it of its bourgeois filth and transformed it from bourgeois into Soviet autonomy. " A belief gradually emerged, then, that the above-class appeal of nationalism could be disarmed by granting the forms of nationhood. This was the Marxist premise.'

'This conclusion was buttressed by a second premise: national consciousness was an unavoidable historic phase that all peoples must pass through on the way to internationalism. In their prerevolutionary writings, Lenin and Stalin argued that nationality emerged only with the onset of capitalism and was itself a consequence of capitalist production. It was not an essential or permanent attribute of mankind. Piatakov understandably interpreted this as meaning that nationality would be irrelevant under socialism and therefore should be granted no special status. Both Lenin and Stalin insisted, however, that nationality would persist for a long time even under socialism. 21 In fact, national self-awareness would initially increase. Already in 1916, Lenin stated that "mankind can proceed towards the inevitable fusion [ sliianie] of nations only through a transitional period of the complete freedom of all oppressed nations. " 22 Stalin later explicated this paradox as follows: "We are undertaking the maximum development of national culture, so that it will exhaust itself completely and thereby create the base for the organization of international socialist culture."'

'Lenin had stated that "one must wait the development of a given nation, the differentiation of proletariat from bourgeois elements, which is unavoidable ... the path from the medieval to bourgeois democracy, or from bourgeois to proletarian democracy. This is an absolutely unavoidable path."'

'The nationalism of the oppressed, Lenin maintained, had a "democratic content" that must be supported, whereas the nationalism of the oppressor had no redeeming value. He ended with the slogan "Fight against all nationalisms and, first of all, against Great Russian nationalism."'

"Lenin's concern over Great Russian chauvinism led to the establishment of a crucial principle of the Soviet nationalities policy. In December 1922, he reiterated his 1914 attack on Great Russian chauvinism with the added admonition that one must "distinguish between the nationalism of oppressor nations and the nationalism of oppressed nations, the nationalism of large nations and the nationalism of small nations."

"I relation to the second nationalism, in almost all historical practice, we nationals of the large nations are guilty, because of an infinite amount of violence [committed]." Lenin

"Stalin insisted that Georgian nationalism was also characterized by great-power exploitation of their Ossetine and Abkhaz minorities."

"Nationalism is a masking ideology that leads legitimate class interests to be expressed, not in an appropriate class-based socialist movement,but rather in the form of an above-class national movement. National identity is not a primordial quality, but rather an unavoidable by-product of the modern capitalist and early socialist world, which must be passed through before a mature international socialist world can come into being. Since national identity is a real phenomenon in the modern world, the nationalism of the oppressed non-Russian peoples expresses not only masked class protest, but also legitimate national grievances against the oppressive great-power chauvinism of the dominant Russian nationality. Therefore, neither nationalism nor national identity can be unequivocally condemned as reactionary. Some national claims-those confined to the realm of national "form"-are in fact legitimate and must be granted to split the above-class national alliance. Such a policy will speed the emergence of class cleavages and so allow the party to recruit non-Russian proletarian and peasant support for its socialist agenda. Nationalism will be disarmed by granting the forms of nationhood."

"After the 1921 Treaty of Riga included millions of Ukrainians and Belorussians within the borders of Poland, Soviet attention shifted westward. The Soviet Union's western border now cut through the ethnographic territory of Finns, Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Rumanians. It was hoped that an ostentatiously generous treatment of those nationalities within the Soviet Union would attract their ethnic brethren in Poland, Finland, and Romania."

'The 1923 resolutions affirmed that the Soviet state would maximally support those "forms" of nationhood that did not conflict with a unitary central state. This meant a commitment to support the following four national forms: national territories, national languages, national elites, and national cultures.'

"Korenizatsiia is best translated as indigenization. It is not derived directly from the stem koren- ("root"-with the meaning "rooting"), but from its adjectival form korennoi, as used in the phrase korennoi narod ("indigenous people"). The coining of the word korenizatsiia was part of the Bolsheviks' decolonizing rhetoric, which systematically favored the claims of indigenous peoples over "newly arrived elements" (prishlye elementy)."

'Stalin famously defined Soviet national cultures as being "national in form, socialist in content," but did not elaborate on what exactly this meant. The ambiguity was intentional, since Bolshevik plans for the social transformation of the country did not allow for any fundamentally distinctive religious, legal,ideological, or customary features. The translation that best captures the meaning of Stalin's natsionaPnaia kuPtura is not "national culture," but "national identity" or "symbolic ethnicity". "Soviet policy did systematically promote the distinctive national identity and national self-consciousness of its non-Russian populations. It did this not only through the formation of national territories staffed by national elites using their own national languages, but also through the aggressive promotion of symbolic markers of national identity: national folklore, museums, dress, food, costumes, opera, poets, progressive historical events, and classic literary works. The longterm goal was that distinctive national identities would coexist peacefully with an emerging all-union socialist culture that would supersede the preexisting national cultures. National identity would be depoliticized through an ostentatious show of respect for the national identities of the non-Russians.'