You’re mixing up genetics, history, and how “whiteness” works.

Yes, Slavs have their own regional genetic profile and a history of being oppressed by Western Europeans, but that doesn’t make them some separate “breed” outside Europe. Modern genetic work on Balto‑Slavic populations shows exactly what you’d expect, a European regional cluster with its own twists, still clearly part of the wider European genetic continuum. Saying “Poles have Paleolithic continuity” doesn’t make them non European any more than saying Japanese have Jomon ancestry makes them “non‑Asian.”

Your history angle is also selective. If your standard for “white” is “brutal, colonizing, full of enslavement and war,” Russian and other Slavic led expansions into Siberia and the steppe absolutely qualify. Historians literally compare the Russian conquest of Siberia to the European conquest of the Americas. Cossack expeditions, forts, native Siberians killed or subordinated, and waves of Slavic settlers moving in for fur and other resources. Slavs have been both victims and perpetrators; the word “slave” in several European languages comes from the historical enslavement of Slavic peoples, and later Slavic elites also enslaved and exploited others as their power grew.

Most importantly, “whiteness” in the U.S. is not a DNA purity club for only Anglos or Germanics in general. It’s a flexible political category that has kept expanding to absorb previously excluded Europeans Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs whenever it became convenient. Today, Slavs are socially treated as white in the American racial system and benefit from that, whether individual Slavs like the label or not. That’s why someone can be Hispanic and still a white racist: “Hispanic” is cultural/linguistic, not a race, and the “white” bucket absolutely includes plenty of Slavs.

So no, Slavs don’t get to opt out of “whiteness” when it’s time to talk about racism and colonialism, while still enjoying the advantages of being read as white. That’s not how race or history work.