GenZhou

Nope. The Ukrainian language was backed by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Smaller cultures in the USSR had their own republics and were assisted by the central state in building language resources, especially in the early years but fell off in importance for many compounding reasons through and after WW2.

The USSR could have been a serious experiment in cultural revitalization after centuries of Colonial rule, this was cut short unfortunately.

I doubt you're gonna convince libs, since most sources like All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee 01.08.1923 decree are probably not translated and sources citing them were written in USSR and RF, which makes them instantly invalid to libs to begin with (oBvIoUsLy "written but not followed" about the decrees and "propaganda" for the books), but this seems to be an ok overview just for general knowledge.

The only correct solution is regional autonomy, autonomy for such crystallized units as Poland, Lithuania, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc. The advantage of regional autonomy consists, first of all, in the fact that it does not deal with a fiction bereft of territory, but with a definite population inhabiting a definite territory. Next, it does not divide people according to nations, it does not strengthen national barriers; on the contrary, it breaks down these barriers and unites the population in such a manner as to open the way for division of a different kind, division according to classes. Finally; it makes it possible to utilize the natural wealth of the region and to develop its productive forces in the best possible way without awaiting the decisions of a common centre – functions which are not inherent features of cultural-national autonomy. Thus, regional autonomy is an essential element in the solution of the national question. Of course, not one of the regions constitutes a compact, homogeneous nation, for each is interspersed with national minorities. Such are the Jews in Poland, the Letts in Lithuania, the Russians in the Caucasus, the Poles in the Ukraine, and so on. It may be feared, therefore, that the minorities will be oppressed by the national majorities. But there will be grounds for fear only if the old order continues to prevail in the country. Give the country complete democracy and all grounds for fear will vanish. It is proposed to bind the dispersed minorities into a single national union. But what the minorities want is not an artificial union, but real rights in the localities they inhabit. What can such a union give them without complete democratization? On the other hand, what need is there for a national union when there is complete democratization?

What is it that particularly agitates a national minority?

A minority is discontented not because there is no national union but because it does not enjoy the right to use its native language. Permit it to use its native language and the discontent will pass of itself.

A minority is discontented not because there is no artificial union but because it does not possess its own schools. Give it its own schools and all grounds for discontent will disappear.

A minority is discontented not because there is no national union, but because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience (religious liberty), liberty of movement, etc. Give it these liberties and it will cease to be discontented.

Thus, equal rights of nations in all forms (language, schools, etc.) is an essential element in the solution of the national question. Consequently, a state law based on complete democratization of the country is required, prohibiting all national privileges without exception and every kind of disability or restriction on the rights of national minorities.

These come from "Marxism and the National Question" by Stalin. These were the postures on the russian national questions, i am just taking a short section without context but the entire essay is about protecting and promoting the culture of the people of their respective regions.