Well, I'm not an expert, but not really, I think. Individual republics of the Russian Federation have major russian population and were not under any major russification. At least not in a sense of the russification of Poland in the times of annexation of 63% of the country or the sovietisation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
I'm not an expert either, but my friends from Uzbekistan occasionally gripe about the number of ethnic Russians who were moved there during the Soviet years. They don't blame the Russians themselves, for the most part, most of them would have rather have been moved to  Ukraine [/edit], if they had to move anywhere.
But there also, apparently, was a fairly systematic effort to move ethnic Uzbeks to other parts of the Soviet Union. my friends also indicate that any Uzbeks in the Soviet army were virtually guaranteed to never serve in any area with a large Uzbek population.
I know, but Uzbekistan was also a Soviet republic so I thought that since I had some fairly reliable info on it, that it may shed a light on what Moscow did in other places.
I know a couple of Ukrainians who bite their finger at Russia, but they won't discuss anything relating to any possible "russianification" of their homeland. The only person I've ever known well enough from any of the Baltic states is no longer with us. All of the rest of my information on the topic comes from the (mostly, not entirely) Americanized media.
So accept that I put in what little I actually know & am willing to shut up about anything else.
Sure, sure. But we're not talking about the soviatisation of Uzbekistan, Kazachstan, Ukraine &c., nor mentioned by me Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The statement concerned the republics, which are today parts of the Russian Federation (as Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District, Sacha Republic or Chabarovsk Country) and I didn't really hear about the russification of these.
Just one small remark: it is called "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". Please :)
Since it's talking about "Russian" as a noun, shouldn't it be "la ruson"? If it said they were speaking the russian language ("la lingvon rusan"), or they were speaking "russian-ly" (ruse), I would understand, but it seems instead of an adjective ending in -an, or a adverb ending in -e, it should be a noun ending in -on, right?
It is a grammatically correct statement which feels, to me, a bit more judgmental than the one we were given. It's a bit as if one were to say "This is lando, the proper thing to do is speak land-lingvo." Most Esperantists (and many expats) of my acquaintance have experienced this to some degree.
We have a word root rus- and by adding the noun ending -o we have a noun rus·o, which means “a Russian, an ethnic Russian”. You can also add the adjective ending -a and so we have rus·a, which means “Russian, pertaining to Russia”.
Languages, which are related to an ethnic group, have their names created using an adjective so “the Russian language” is in Esperanto la rus·a lingv·o. One often omits the lingv·o part, but the article la is always used.
There are few languages, which names don't refer to any nationality and therefore their names are the basic meaning of the root. So for example latin·o means “the Latin language” and sanskrit·o is “Sanskrit (language)”, but you can also use them as adjectives and say la latin·a or la sanskrit·a.
Because in Esperanto there is no reason to split the complement of location from the rest of the sentence. ;)
In English the fixed word order requires the complement of location to be after the direct object of the verb, so the comma is used to delineate that it has been moved to the front of the utterance. In Esperanto the word order is flexible, so there is no need for the comma. It may be used — since there is no rule forbidding it — but it’s not needed and normally wouldn’t be used.
Without la the adjective rusa could refer to anything which is Russian: rusaj dancoj (Russian dances), rusa komponisto (Russian composer), rusa okupado (Russian occupation) etc.
In Esperanto when one's referring to a language, which has it's name based on a name of a nation (a people), then the adjective has to be used with la and can be used with the noun lingvo (but doesn't have to): e.g. la rusa (lingvo), la angla (lingvo) or la ĉeĥa (lingvo).
Technically that's not 100% correct. There are over 100 other languages there, apart from Russian. Udmurts, Chechens, Chuvashs, Tatars, Burjats, etc - they all have their own languages that they speak apart from Russian, and these languages are very very district from Russian language.