Well, if you are the native population, what do you have to say about USA's actions since its founding until now, towards your people? It is a fair bit worse than "occupation" or "annexation", it would seem to me.

I forgot to answer this part:
> "Allowed to secede", you say? Fuck you. People fought for their freedom and won, it wasn't handed to them.

I am all for freedom and decentralization. In fact I have spent over a decade of hard work with my team in Ukraine and Russia, Armenia and other countries, building a system to help make that happen: https://qbix.com

However, I do not believe that in people killing and getting killed for a flag. If people want to have more autonomy and freedom, they should do it within the system, because many other people don't want to be caught in the crossfire. The vast majority just want to go to work and they don't particularly care about this, despite any "fuck yous" you may throw their way. I don't want PKK to endanger Kurds, PLO to endanger Palestinians, Tibetan activists to endanger Tibetans, etc. What I want is international courts to be set up and cases brought there. I care about the health and safety of the vast majority of regular people more than I care about the national aspiration of separatists and nationalists. I want the people to rise up democratically and demand that negotiations take place on video, so we can all see what happened. Sorry if that offends you.

In fact, the secret Molotov-Ribentrop pact would not have been possible in a world where governments provide transparency to their people, and the Baltic states would never have been occupied by the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania and others throughout their history were often occupied.

> "can't secede from something you never joined"

When it came to the USSR, they did in fact become a member: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Soviet_Socialist_Repub...

As far as "allowed", I quote In 1989, the USSR also condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and herself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries, including Latvia. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Latvia_in...)

I believe in non-violent resistance and bringing cases within the democratic system. Women's suffrage got male politicians on board, and that's how they got it done ultimately. Martin Luther King's approach got the US to pass the Civil Rights Act. Gandhi's revolution got the British to leave, and again that didn't kill a lot of Indians.

Of course, when an actual genocide or famine is going on, that's different. Some people you may respect (like Winston Churchill, who was instrumental in fighting the Nazis) also was responsible for exacerbating major famines (in Bengal for instance). British also exacerbated the Great Potato Famine in neighboring Ireland. This was actually a lot more motivated by nationalism and racism, than the famines cited in socialist countries. For example, Stalin's government exacerbated a famine throughout Ukraine but also Volga region and Kazakhstan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...). China under Mao had a "Great famine" as well. If I had to rank which ones were more motivated by nationalism / racism, it would be in the less socialist countries (because socialists often considered that they were uniting "proletariat of all countries").

As far as "proxy war" see the sibling thread