Для русских, которые не понимают, что здесь происходит вообще
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 :)
One of the things I love about Esperanto is it's flexibility, like the ability to use almost any word as any part of speech.
So would Google's sentence literally be "The Russian from Russia speaks Russian-ly"? I've come across a few practice sentences that make use of the -e, and it tickles me to bend my English around like that. =]
Using the -e ending can often be a shortcut for an adverbial phrase. "In a/n ––– manner" "like a –––" etc can end up with an -e ending on –––.
Examples: In a Russian way/manner = Ruse. Li parolas ruse. = He's speaking Russian.
Like a rock = ŝtone. Ŝi falis ŝtone. = She fell like a rock.
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.