The RSFSR Bolshevik forces invaded the Ukraine around 1919, and mopped up the local anarchist, Communist, and other factions.

It was detached as per the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1917, and was a separate territory from Russia until it's invasion and annexation into the USSR by the Bolsheviks and Red Army.

Intentional because Stalin saw the Ukrainians as "kulaks" and a bump to the road of collectivization of Soviet agriculture. He despised them, and wanted to purge the region of any anti-collectivist personas before opening it up for true Communism.

There was famine in other regions, what's your point? The Holodomor was the worse by far (2-12 million killed) in terms of human losses. Those famines, however, were smaller and had more to do with the inefficiency of the Soviet system as a whole and were never as systematic as the Holodomor.

Here's a great quote:

"They see the leadership under Stalin as making significant errors in planning for the industrialisation of agriculture. Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that, in addition to deportations, internment in the Gulag camps and shootings, there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry. He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 that many of those starving to death were "counter-revolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate. Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to prove genocide as defined by the UN convention (with the notable exception of the case of Kuban Ukrainians). Ellman further concluded that if the relaxed definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin's authorities do fit such a definition of genocide. However, this more relaxed definition of genocide makes the latter a common historical event,[clarification needed] according to Ellman. Regarding the aforementioned actions taken by Stalin in the early 1930s, Ellman unambiguously states that, from the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, Stalin is "clearly guilty" of "a series of crimes against humanity" and that, from the standpoint of national criminal law, the only way to defend Stalin from a charge of mass murder is "to argue he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions". He also rebukes Davies and Wheatcroft for, among other things, their "very narrow understanding" of intent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Of course considering the Soviet government was pretty active in downplaying the whole ordeal, and how apparently some Westerners also took to downplaying it, a lot of people continue to deny it as genocide. I mean honestly, I could buy the argument if Stalin and the Soviet government hadn't A) prohibited people from leaving the famine inflicted areas B) continued to export grain C) confiscate home food storages D) Create an active campaign to demonize the peasantry as counterrevolutionary towards socialism and E) prohibit any sort of foreign aid from coming in. Either Stalin was woefully ignorant and blind, or he had purposefully carried out the starvations as part of a bigger scheme. Considering his track record and personality of paranoia and craziness, I'd vote the later.