I meant in the sense as: the indigenous americans or the descendants of slaves in the US could be considered nations of peoples within the US. As a marxist, I would centre nations of peoples in class dynamics so for example the above would be in the context of US settler colonialism.

Nations and races are social constructs so deconstructing them can be useful in understanding concrete property relations.

For example, the settler nation of the US allows some people of colour to join and share in its loot actively suppressing both indigenous peoples (some reservation areas have a life expectancy of 40yo) and the plurality of black folks (the world’s largest incarceration system ever is primarily designed to lock up black folks to (1) remove labour competition from the settler nation (2) provide a rural jobs programme in terms of priaon guard labour (3) stifle the revolutionary threat against the capital order.

“种族清洗真的发生过吗？历史上是否存在“生存空间”的先例？北约是否曾有效地延续过这一理念？是什么减缓/阻止了种族清洗的发生？俄罗斯是否像美国和欧洲一样，有着丰富的“颜色革命”和政权更迭历史？如果没有，为何要否定他们的说法？”

俄罗斯当然有颠覆政权的历史，格鲁吉亚、克里米亚、德左。而如果你首先要考虑民族而不是资产阶级性质，那么这就完全是一个站队的问题，取决于你相信谁的说法。

如果站在这些被颠覆政权民族的一边，那么就是他们在“自由”的基于民族意愿加入北约，是俄罗斯在种族清洗；如果站在俄罗斯的一边，就是对北约扩张的防御性攻击、以及保护俄罗斯族的免受这些国家的种族主义迫害。

中国则是另一个很好的对照组，西方对中国新疆的质控完全是基于口供的阴谋论式闭环，一个涉及百万人的事件没有任何图像证据足以证明其指控的荒诞，中国从来没有以“防御性进攻”为理由进攻任何一个国家，哪怕像印尼真的爆发了血腥的种族屠杀

There are those who claim to be pro-palestinian and then say the israeli proleteriat and the gazan proleteriat should get together overthrow their bourgoisie together. They say in doing so they are centring class dynamics over ethnic lines.

The above paradigm is a load of nonsense. In doing the above they are not centring class dynamics but flattening them instead. The israeli proleteriat collaborate with the bourgoisie against palestinians of various classes; the class dynamics and relations of settler colonialism shouldn’t be erased in favour of some idealised form of class. This serves noone except the genocidaires.

Another example of this was noted by Marx and Lenin on how the English proleteriat has been “bourgeoisified”. Remember, class is primarily a relation to property. It is explored further in Lenin’s labour aristocracy and we have a century of marxist science thereafter examining imperialism and nations as classes.

Western proleteriat are effectively a class of labour aristicrats in relation to the global south and it is partly why true international solaridity has been difficult to develop in the west - western proleteriat benefit from a slice of imperialist profit superexploited from the global south.

If one then flattens this difference between Western and Global South proleteriat we then erase the class dynamics of imperialism! Imperialism is not just the relations between elite bourgoisie but all the cogs in the system that make it happen.

When we zoom out we understand the primary global contradiction is imperialism of which the height of capital control sits in the US. Every example you gave has western involvement in destablisation, why would we equalise Russia and US here?

Marxism is not workerism. The proleterian are considered the most revolutionary because they were considered propertyless but as dialectics teaches us a group’s characteristics are not immutable, we have to understand any given group’s relations to property in the concrete form not just an abstract generalised way.

Going back to Russia, the Western bourgoisie want to balkanise and extract superprofits in labour and resources from Russia - it is an extension of Hitler’s Lebensraum, which itself was directly inspired from the US Manifest Destiny. It is in that context the west is funding, arming and giving political cover for Ukrainian Nazis against Russia. When one chastises Russia in this context then one needs to give a concrete alternative on how the ethnic cleansing in East Ukraine was to be stopped. Remember the West broke two Minsk agreements before the war broke out.