You must log in or register to comment.

eric5014 t1_j5h1985 wrote

TIL there is Republic of Tuva in Russia bordering Mongolia, with ethnic Tuvans making up most of that state's population.

I had heard of the ethnic groups in the SW parts of Russia, which border other former USSR countries.


theincrediblenick t1_j5itpub wrote

Try listening to the Tuvan anthem


eric5014 t1_j5j9oyx wrote

Мен – тыва мен!

It's great - I don't think I've heard another national anthem like it.


Dom_Shady t1_j5j10u9 wrote

A great documentary about Tuva is Genghis Blues. It's about a blind American blues singer who teaches himself throat singing and some Tuvan. He then goes there to compete in a throatsinging championship and discover the culture.

A feel-good documentary.


chiefcrunch t1_j5hok1i wrote

I feel like we learn so little about Russia. It's so interesting looking up all these different people that live in such a gigantic country. Such a wide variety of ethnicities.

The angle is throwing me off a bit when trying to match up with a map. In this picture, up isn't north, it's a bit northeast.


pocketbookashtray t1_j5jj3p5 wrote

It’s fascinating that on Mercator projections Russia is concave down, when in reality it is concave up.


PuzzleheadedSnake t1_j5nd9ta wrote

That's the default angle most Russians are used to, used in most school books and official maps.


Siggi_pop t1_j5h23h3 wrote

Can't find Crimea on the map /s


madrid987 t1_j5iblit wrote

In fact, the Crimean Peninsula is dominated by ethnic Russians.

Stalin banished Crimean Tatar and filled the place with 'great Russians'.


trisul-108 t1_j5ioqdj wrote

When you say "dominated" you really mean "majority". It is the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians had a majority in the last last census before Russia invaded.


mdog73 t1_j5ivxow wrote

Aren't Ukrainians and Russians essentially the same people?


Hakoi t1_j5iwi49 wrote

No. Different language, different culture, different history. For example, west Ukrainians became part of Russia only at the end of WW2.


trisul-108 t1_j5izecf wrote

No, not at all. Ukrainians don't feel this way, they have their own culture, language, outlooks and customs that differ. If Russians really considered them to be one people, they would never be targeting Ukrainian civilians as they are ... and the Russian public would be more upset about it than they are.

This is just a propaganda statement by Russia. It's like "we're brothers, so your house is my house, right?".


madrid987 t1_j5m1e1y wrote

It was until the days of the Russian Empire. The empire regarded the Ukrainians as a kind of Russian.


kyralfie t1_j5jgxzp wrote

While you are at it also don't forget to mention that Stalin banished Poles from Western Ukraine and filled it with 'great Ukrainians'.

EDIT: typo


OccamsPlasticSpork t1_j5knivs wrote

I think the demographics will work against Ukraine taking the peninsula back.


feorh t1_j5iw9jm wrote

Funny thing about that banishment. Everybody mentions that but nobody remember the reasons. The "deportation" is the most humane punishment they deserved.

If you don't learn the history you're doomed to repear it.


leela_martell t1_j5iy567 wrote

Punishment, for what? For existing? Why does anyone let alone an entire group of people “deserve” to be punished for that?


Kimchi-slap t1_j5j0nzm wrote

Hard to google eh?

It was collective punishment for collaboration with nazi Germany during ww2. You will have to google for more info


leela_martell t1_j5j1md5 wrote

Okay, so after the Russian invasion of Ukraine is over we can deport the entirety of Moscow and St. Petersburg’s populations to the Antarctica as collective punishment and even Russians will think that’s “humane”? Or is collective responsibility something that applies to everyone but Russians?

Of course the ethnic cleansings (speaking more broadly than just Crimean Tatars) started years before WWII. You can Google “great purge” for more information. Many of the deported were kulaks then but “enemy ethnicities” especially Poles but also other people from countries surrounding the USSR both in Europe and Asia, were targeted as well.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5j2fsb wrote

Oh for love of fucking god, I am not here to debate politics or moral standards. You asked why and I answered. Form your own opinion on history and do whatever you wish. Maybe even learn from it.


leela_martell t1_j5j32ap wrote

If you’re not here for “moral standards” then you’re answering to the wrong person. The poster I replied to and was questioning used terms “humane” and “deserved”, those are inherently terms that comment on the morality of the action, not what its “legal” or otherwise claimed “justification” was.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5j43fp wrote

I don't even know why you bother with Crimean tatars at the first place. Bet you didn't even know they existed before Crimean annexation in 2014.


leela_martell t1_j5j4y23 wrote

You'd like to believe that everyone is that ignorant, I'm sure.

But yeah let's you and I stop bothering with this discussion here.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5j6kav wrote

Of course I believe that. Because it's true. Most Russians don't even know that crimean tatars are not the same as tatars from Tatarstan. What can one expect from westerners? I know about them because I am citizen of Uzbekistan and had a friend who is descended of those said tatars in school. Otherwise I would have been just as ignorant as most.

Wanna stop this discussion, fine by me. I am too biased for that anyway.


leela_martell t1_j5j8csk wrote

I'm not Russian. There are a sizable Tatar minority in my country (Finland) but you're right, many people don't know the difference between Crimean Tatars and other tatars.

My grandmother is Ingrian, her people too were targeted by Stalin's forced deportations so I have done some personal research on this issue. Not to victimise myself cause for Russia's neighbors Finns have had it better than many on the past century or to say I'm some expert but I'm not completely ignorant. But as I said I wasn't arguing about what the reason Kremlin gave for the deportations was.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5jbmmi wrote

Well here I am on the receiving end of my own stick. Had to google about Ingrians. Realised that I heard about them but didn't know how they are called in English. We call them Ижорцы, but beside that my knowledge was limited. Haven't realised that population was that small though or that they were victims of repressions, not that I am surprised though.

I am myself is kore-saram (Soviet Korean), my people had some history with USSR "relocation" history. And just like crimean tatars we happened to be in Uzbekistan. That's why I am kinda biased at this topic. I just thought you are another white knight who heard about injustice, quickly googled it and went on moral spree to defend the downthrodden. I apologize for misjudging you and for my indecent behaviour towards your person.


leela_martell t1_j5jjodv wrote

Sometimes it's easy to assume people on places like Reddit are Americans or Brits or something like that, just going by probability haha. No offense taken on my part, sorry for being snappy as well.

But thank you for telling me, I in turn don't know much about Korean people in the USSR, besides having seen mentioned that they existed. I'll definitely look more into their history! Izhorians and Ingrians are slightly different people, though Izhorians also lived in Ingria (Leningrad oblast now) even before Ingrian Finns migrated there.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5jqbvg wrote

Well I for one glad that we could broaden each other's views a bit more. Any opportunity to learn a new thing is a blessing of some sort.

It's a bit hard to find sources on Ingrians, google always drops me either to finnish Ingrians if I search in English or to Izhorians if I search in Russian. If you have any credible sources, I would love to read them.

Info on Soviet koreans are obtainable quite easy, although it varies as well from source to source. Much of it is biased of course but mostly accurate. It also varies which Soviet koreans they are. There are migrants (voluntary) in Far East who had their own diaspora and those who were forcefully moved like crimean tatars with same "benefits" of being untrustworthy people during Stalin reign to Central Asia, Uzbekistan becoming our new home for 4 generations. Must also mention the generosity and hospitality of uzbek people which became legendary in USSR and officially recognized by crimean tatars and my people.


leela_martell t1_j5nkmle wrote


As for sources about things on Ingrians, it’s a bit difficult. I don’t know anything in English, all I know is based on Finnish articles, books, one TV documentary and some stuff my grandma told me. Maybe there is something in Russian but I don’t speak it so I wouldn’t know where to start looking.

I’ve never been to Uzbekistan, but it sounds lovely. I just read a book last week that took place partly in Tashkent (is Tashkent or Toshkent the right name? In Finnish it’s Taškent but don’t know if that comes through Russian.) Incidentally it’s about this same subject as the writer is a Russian-Finnish author (Anna Soudakova) whose grandfather was displaced to Uzbekistan from the Leningrad region in the 1930s when his parents were executed as “enemies of the people” and she wrote the book based on his life. I don’t think the grandfather was Ingrian though, as far as I’ve understood one of his parents was a Finnish migrant to Canada, from where they moved to the USSR.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5numg2 wrote

Ah, that's a shame. But I will keep an eye out from now on. If my trip to Karelia this spring will be possible, it will be a great opportunity to check out local culture besides gorgeous views.

Uzbekistan is a lovely country. Quite harsh climate though. Insanely hot summer (+45°C easily) and quite cold winters (-15°C this winter, which may not sound too much for Finland, but thats feels like -30 in Siberia). Tashkent or Toshkent depends on which language you speak, uzbeks say Toshkent (Tosh - stone, Kent - city), but again those who speak Russian do call it Tashkent so both ways are appropriate. It's the capital and very beautiful at that with more then 2000 years of history. But the real troves of history are big old cities like Bukhara Khiva and Samarkand. They are even older with carefully preserved historic buildings going way back to glorious days of Amir Temur. The most impressive display is the paint which still hold its original colour. It's quite amazing to see contrast of nearby desert and cloudless sky with buildings that sport blue and green colours. The secret of that paint sadly is lost but most popular theory is that valuable gems were grinded to dust and used for that purpose, which I believe myself to be true, as that was created at peak of Timurid Empire and it had resources for that kind of showoff. Tashkent hovewer have much less of those historic building left as it was devastated by earthquake which leveled most of the city in 1966. It's quite a historic event and one of the reason why many uzbeks remember USSR fondly, as the call was made to rebuild Tashkent and it was answered. In 3 years city was complely rebuilt and modernized, many of those who helped later stayed as well and formed new local intelligence which is never bad to have young blood with knowledge.

The book you mentioned is from memories of much darker times. Uzbeks themselves don't really like to remember those. Even history books in schools were quite short on that subject.


leela_martell t1_j5nyav3 wrote

Oh cool, where in Karelia are you planning to go? My grandma is from Petrozavodsk and my grandpa is from Koivisto (Primorsk) (they evacuated during WWII). I always wanted to visit there, unfortunately I never got around to it and now travelling to Russia is out of the question. Koivisto especially sounds so pretty to me and there are these big islands on its shore, I’m from a coastal town myself (Turku, which lost its own oldest buildings in a massive fire in the 1800s so my sympathies for Toshkent for the earthquake) so archipelagos always call to me.

I googled and Samarkand looks absolutely stunning, wow! Thanks for the description, those blue buildings especially are so beautiful. There’s no architecture like that here in Finland.

And yes, the book was definitely from dark times.


Kimchi-slap t1_j5o95dz wrote

Oh yeah, Putin sure did wonders to international tourism, although Russia didnt really banned any countries from visiting, it's unadvisable to do so while war is waging. Whether I travel myself is highly debatable, as I plan to do so with my best friends on their car and they always laugh how I am such a city boy and will not survive the trip. Primorsk is surely to be one of the destinations as I do like idea of having an access to big water. Also fish... I am a sucker for a fresh fish.

That earthquake was indeed horrible, but it also shaped Tashkent to its current state of modern city. You have my sympathy for that fire as well. It's always a great shame to lose historic buildings.

You should definitely try visiting Uzbekistan as tourist. Well maybe not now as prices went up thanks to all the Russians who hide from mobilization there, but it is a great experience nevertheless. Well unless you are vegetarian or vegan. Local food is unfriendly to vegetarians and completely incompatible to vegans. Although there are adaptations but they are not the same obviously. One good demonstration of uzbek food are easily found on YouTube as our tourism ministry finally realised that power of food bloggers is considerable one and invited every big shot like Mark Wiens and Sonny from Best Ever Food review show. They filmed excellent high quality production videos, interest to Uzbekistan finally plummeted and BAAAM. CORONOVIRUS In all its glory. Timing was so bad that I literally cried.


LandirL t1_j5ij0h8 wrote

Which is interesting, because they annexed it in 2014 and this census is from 2021


BubblyForce8229 t1_j5iwxbo wrote

>c groups in the SW parts of Russia, which border other former USSR countries.

That's A Crimea in Russia


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5icy4r wrote

It would be green. Do you not support democracy?


RedditUser91805 t1_j5igly8 wrote

Why are you presuming ethnic Russians want to be part of the Russian state? What type of blood and soil fascist apologia is this? This is the type of rhetoric and framing that gets immigrants all across the world attacked over accusations of dual loyalty.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5j9guy wrote

Just based on referendums. They want independence because they want to be allowed to speak their own language and not be shelled by the actual blood and soil fascists from Western Ukraine. The ones that declared Bandera a national hero in 2010 and still honor his statue. Maybe look in to who that was.


BrotherM t1_j5iguf6 wrote

I went to the Crimea when it was occupied by the Ukraine...the people there, by and large, from all the conversations I had, definitely wanted to be part of the Russian State (that's why people in the Crimea voted to join the RF when the Soviet Union collapsed...they were only kept in the Ukraine by threats of force by Kiev).


madrid987 t1_j5ipbeo wrote

Frankly, it was true that the Russians in Crimea were quite anti-Ukraine. The same is true of Donbas's Russians. In fact, Donbas has more ethnic ukrainians, but the Russians tried to incite them into pro-Russia. There are numerous Russian diasporas in the world, but Russians in Ukraine are particularly severe.

The Russians in Kazakhstan don't have that inclination.


BrotherM t1_j5kuos2 wrote

There isn't really any ethnic difference between Russians and Ukrainians, just cultural.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5lby4u wrote

Explain that to the people in Western Ukraine. The ones that honor Nazi-leader Bandera still.


BrotherM t1_j5lgekq wrote

Oh I would :-)

Those Jew-murdering-Nazi worshipping fucks.

Ain't a damn thing good about Banderites.


RedditUser91805 t1_j5ih6du wrote

That's an interesting bending of history. Please remind me, is the current year 1994?


BrotherM t1_j5kv63o wrote

No, and people in the Crimea still prefer to be part of Russia. They always have! They were just stuck in the Ukraine because when they tried to separate, peacefully, from the Soviet Union (as did the Ukraine itself), then join Russia, the Ukraine threatened to roll in tanks.


kertnik t1_j5io1zv wrote

Your words aren't supported by any electoral or statustical data


canttouchmypingas t1_j5izdf8 wrote

They are, people just don't agree with the data as they believe it's manipulated


kertnik t1_j5j29r1 wrote

Well, Ukraine wasn't ever as repressive as Russia, and in no elections those parties that supported uniting with Russia (note that this is not the same as pro-Russian parties) never had more than 7% of votes.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5j2mi2 wrote

You replied to someone talking about Crimea, there was a referendum and most of the west doesn't accept it. This is the evidence to my counterclaim that his words are indeed supported by data, people just don't agree with it as they believe it's manipulated:


kertnik t1_j5j3ao2 wrote

Well, this 'referendum' can't in any way be more evidential than Ukrainian elections, just because it was contucted with military in polling places, under occupation (albeit peaceful), with no equal treatment of the opposing side (no pro-Ukraine narrative was allowed). And moreover, there are lots of discrepancies that implies those numbers were just written without even counting the ballots


canttouchmypingas t1_j5j5zgp wrote

You seem to be debating the data and are elaborating on why you think it's manipulative, that's not the point. You made a claim that there's no statistical data to back it up. I said there was, it was just contested, and provided a link. The only point is that there is data, contrary to your initial claim


kertnik t1_j5j7n2e wrote

It isn't data, I can myself create same thing that '96% Canadians are in favour of joining to the UK'.

Data becomes data when it is real, not just made up.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5jazik wrote

Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it real, you're getting a bit ahead of the point on why you disagree with it. I noted as such in my initial counterpoint where I said that data exists, people just believe it's manipulated. You believe it's manipulated and thus won't accept it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. You claimed that there was no data, I showed you the data. You cannot write it off either as its being used as one of the main claims by Russia. To them its very real and not manipulated. We cannot pretend it doesn't exist because we don't like it. That is the only point I have to make, that your original claim of no data existing is inaccurate. It does exist, it's simply not accepted by the west. There is a difference between nonexistence and nonacceptance.


trisul-108 t1_j5iov56 wrote

There is no democracy in Crimea and Russia had no right whatsoever to annex Crimea as they signed an international declaration promising never to do so and filed it with the UN.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5izb1t wrote

Many nations involved have broken international agreements signed in the 90s


trisul-108 t1_j5j4wbv wrote

We can discuss each example on its own merit. This is Russia doing it and it makes the annexation completely illegal.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5j980o wrote

Like NATO not expanding one inch beyond Germany? Like the Minsk accords Porochenko, Merkel and Hollande admitted were a farce to buy time?


trisul-108 t1_j5jaq29 wrote

>Like NATO not expanding one inch beyond Germany?

I've read all the documents, there is no mention anywhere in the agreements NATO promising not to expand. It was a request that did not make it into the final documents that where signed by Russia. And Russia knew all about this when they signed promising never to attack Ukraine.

There is nothing that can justify Russia breaking the terms of the UN Charter. Nothing.

Edit: The timeline goes like this:

  1. Russian signs the German Unification agreement which contains nothing about NATO expansion.
  2. Russian signs promising never to attack Ukraine.
  3. Russia attacks Ukraine.
  4. Minsk Accords try to stop the bloodshed.

So, now you invent that in 1. there was something about NATO not expanding, which is untrue. And then you claim not honouring 4. is as bad or worse than actually invading a country Russia promised never to invade.

And then you talk about double standards, while applying a double standard that screams to the skies.

Come on!


canttouchmypingas t1_j5jgbpf wrote

Please don't mislead the public with disinformation:

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”


This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25).


The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurance


According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO


NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.

trisul-108 t1_j5jo46d wrote

There is nothing about it in the signed documents. These documents are public, I have read them. Please show me a signed document that promises Russia not to spread.

What happened is that Russia requested that NATO not spread to Eastern Germany and when Germany consulted with NATO, they found out that this cannot be guaranteed. Germany went back to Russia and Russia said OK and signed the document without this clause.

Now, if someone promised something to Russia while drinking whiskey or coffee, that is not an agreement. The agreement is what was signed.

Again, Russia signed its promise not to invade Ukraine a long time after NATO expanded. This is just a ridiculous KGB excuse for the invasion of a sovereign nation. This invasion is entirely illegal and nothing can justify it.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5kpp37 wrote

Your claim:

So, now you invent that in 1. there was something about NATO not expanding, which is untrue.

Is 100% false.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5t6nfr wrote

Merkel, Hollande and Porochenko admitted that they signed the Minsk accords only to keep the Russians at bay and build up the Ukrainian army and build fortifications in the East. The shelling of civilians continued. They never meant to live up to it. Putin was naive. They had them encircled and could have beaten them in days. Now after 8 years and billions of dollars in equipment and training (all out of altruism and for democracy if course), it’s going to take years and hundreds of thousands of lives. All to prevent a region from getting the independence the majority of people want. I guess the democracy argument only holds for enemies of the empire like Kosovo with Serbia.


trisul-108 t1_j5tgp86 wrote

But that was after Russia broke its commitments and annexed part of a country it promised never to attack. Ukraine could not defend itself and negotiations provided it with a needed breather. The Minsk accords were already in contradiction of the the UN Charter and the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

You can blow smoke all you like, but you cannot get around the fact that Russia had no right to the Donbas, had no right Crimea, all of it was illegal, done in bad faith in contravention of the UN Charter.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5tji8r wrote

Crimea has been Russian for centuries. The vast majority of people there want to be part of Russia, which explains why your brave Ukrainians didn’t fight back during the annexation and there hasn’t been a militia like in Donetsk and Lugansk to fight ‘the oppressor’. Maybe they didn’t want to be burned alive by Nazi’s, like what happened in Odessa.


trisul-108 t1_j5tz6bt wrote

This is completely irrelevant. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, member of the UN, recognised as such by Russia and entitled to its territorial integrity. Russia has also signed a formal agreement never to move militarily against Ukraine and filed it with the UN.

The annexations and invasions are all illegal. There is no way around this.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5uhg9a wrote

So was the Soviet Union, so was Yugoslavia, Sudan, etc. Good to hear that at least you consider Taiwan part of China, so no need to get involved there, right?


trisul-108 t1_j5ulrff wrote

Who annexed the Soviet Union, who annexed Yugoslavia, who annexed Sudan? There is no comparison.

As to Taiwan, it is a very complicated issue as both China and Taiwan claim to be the rightful ruler of all China. When you show the intellectual ability and honesty to grasp simple cases like Crimea, we can proceed to an analysis of complicated issues like Taiwan. Before that, judging on what you have said, I feel it is way above your head.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5ur8z2 wrote

Isn’t it interesting how things are always ‘complicated’ when it involves enemies of the empire but never when it involves nato-countries. The democracy argument only works when it suits you. So Catalunya can not be independent but Tibet can. Crimea can not be independent (outcome if the first of many referenda, where the overwhelming majority voted to break away from Ukraine, none of which you’ll accept because it doesn’t feed into your corporate media narrative) but Kosovo can. Just admit you don’t allow Russia and China a seat at the table because they pose a threat to your coveted Western mono-polar hegemony. That’s what this is all about, silly. You want another Jeltsin in the Kremlin but it ain’t happening. Cry about it, empire fanboi/girl/both/neither/back and forth.


trisul-108 t1_j5v3h5a wrote

>Isn’t it interesting how things are always ‘complicated’ when it involves enemies of the empire but never when it involves nato-countries.

All of these stories are complicated, because they involve two competing rights, the right of peoples to self-determination competing against the right to territorial integrity. Ideally, both would be satisfied. The details matter and they vary.

You mention Catalonia. The Catalan and Spanish parliaments negotiated how to align these two rights and reached an agreement satisfactory to both parliaments, an agreement the involved a higher level of autonomy for Catalonia. The Constitutional Court of Spain found this to be counter to the constitution. Instead of amending the Constitution, the right-wing government of the time pushed for conflict. If not for the right-wingers, this would have been solved. I have never said this was OK. What would be right would be to honour the agreement between the parliaments.

With Tibet, it was just a land grab by China with elements of genocide. Just as they are doing genocide on the Uyghurs.

Crimea was also a land grab, there was no serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, the referendums were complete sham and unrecognised by observers. In fact, Russia used its power in the Security Council to veto any attempt by the international community to protect minorities or mediate an agreement because Russia always wanted to grab that land.

With Kosovo, instead of negotiating as Spain and Catalonia initially did and granting more autonomy, Serbia took away the autonomy Kosovo already had. Furthermore, other peoples in Yugoslavia used their right to self-determination, but Serbia denied that right to Kosovars. Serb leaders publicly proclaimed that Serbia wins in war and loses in negotiations and decided to use force, sure in the power of the Yugoslav army. They miscalculated, just as Putin has miscalculated. By deciding to use force instead of negotiation, they caused the right to self-determination to trump the right to territorial integrity.

Civilised nations, such as Czechs and Slovaks did it all peacefully, joined the EU and no harm done to anyone. Life proceeds normally between Czechs and Slovaks. Serbia, China and Russia are violent and insist on resolving these matters using force. That is the key difference. These countries think themselves powerful and that they can have attached slave-nations. Serbia failed immediately. Russia failed in Ukraine and China will also fail eventually.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5v7v4w wrote

The only thing Putin miscalculated was the Russophobia and the Empire devotion in Europe as exemplified by him signing the Minsk accords, whereas they (he’s not a dictator contrary to what your empire sources tell you) could have annihilated the Ukro army in weeks if not days. Of course neither Ukraine, Germany or France were ever planning on adhering to it, as they have admitted to recently, but he was naive enough to let NATO build up the Ukrainian army and continue to shell civilians in Donetsk for 8 years. Now it’s gonna take them years and thousands of lives (mostly Ukrainian) to liberate the Donbass. It will happen though, sorry. The gloves haven’t even come off yet.

The ‘civilized’ countries (aka the ones that are bowing down to US hegemony) tried twice before. Napoleon lost, the Nazi’s lost and NATO will lose too. Send yourself a remindme to rub it in if you want to.

Remindme! 1year


trisul-108 t1_j5v98zx wrote

He miscalculated when he decided to go to war. He miscalculated badly. He was prepared to win in 5 days and thought that the West would not support Ukraine, that Zelenskyy would run, that NATO would be weakened and the EU would be weakened.

In reality, Ukraine beat the first wave of Russian attacks and pushed them back, he never expected this. The Russian army is shown to be ineffective. NATO is much strengthened and is now expanding. The West is increasing military spending. The EU is strengthened. Russia is failing.

Putin badly miscalculated everything that could be calculated ... He has no way back and is forced to continue a losing war.


Allgoodonesaretaken9 t1_j5vom9h wrote

Oh boy are you in for a surprise. Remindme 6 months!


trisul-108 t1_j5vr6dt wrote

Exactly, we shall see.

I suspect you were also telling Europeans 6 months back how we will all freeze when Russia shuts off our gas. It turned out to be just another bit of GRU propaganda.

We will see how $1.3tn GDP Russia will fare against the $55tn economy of the West that it wants to destroy. The West has a stronger economy, finances, military, diplomacy, social cohesion, education, media ... any aspect you can name. Russia only has parity in nuclear weapons which it cannot use because of MAD. But, we'll see.


pyriphlegeton t1_j5i663p wrote

I would've loved to see the actual percentages on the regions, where possible. Interesting map though, thanks.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5iz00m wrote

Russia has over 190 ethnic groups, it's a federation not an ethnostate


FormerKarmaKing t1_j5jfwy0 wrote

Yup. According to the Tatar video I just watched, 15% of Russia is compromised of ethnic minorities of which the Tatars are largest.

Both political scientists and Russian leaders have cited this diversity and the large land mass without natural defenses as why Russia gravitates towards strong-man leadership.


RichestTeaPossible t1_j5pwt9x wrote

I think that past informs its present. The EU would not invade, and if NATO really wanted too, they would not. It’s better to keep the team. Similarly, friend tell me of the nationality section in the surveys they wrote in school as already filled out as Russia, she was descended from Kalingrad Germans deported to north-east Altai.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5jgy24 wrote

There is no purpose to your latter political anecdote other than to inject your own opinion


RedditUser91805 t1_j5igh21 wrote

Inverse map of where Russia mobilized soldiers from


[deleted] t1_j5isuee wrote



taron_baron t1_j5iw8zk wrote

Meh it's not really about ethnicity here. It's just that these regions are complete backwaters, no one cares about the citizens not because of ethnicity, but just because they are underdeveloped. Rural ethnic Russians are drafted all the same, and state policy toward them isn't much different.

Meanwhile msk and spb are the centers of political power, so they need to maintain a calm population there.


leela_martell t1_j5ixgl7 wrote

Sure. And the regions with ethnic minorities have some of the richest natural resources on the planet but the people are poor because the Russian federal government channels all the money into places like Moscow.


Adventurous-Moose863 t1_j5j49wv wrote

It's kinda complicated. Some of them lack resources or have bad geography. This is how they were saved from Russian mass migration and are able to keep their ethnic identity. Regions like Chechnya, Dagestan or Tuva are heavily donated by the federal government.

Other regions are reach of resources and have good geography, but flooded by ethnic Russians. Ethnic minorities there are well off but suffer from assimilation. Their languages and culture are dying out.

It's a hard choice. Either you are reach, but everything you love is disappearing, or you are poor but keep going.


taron_baron t1_j5jetuw wrote

See, it's not about them being minorities, it's about the rich and powerful vs. the poor and powerless.


SlouchyGuy t1_j5ip896 wrote

A note - people of the same ethnicity are defined by sharing the same common cultural background or descent, so there's a huge variability among self-identifying Russians, they can't be separated from the other ethnicities by certain alleles of genes. Historically Russians were mixing up with other ethnicities that lived in regions, and also people who moved to Russia often started to call themselves "Russians" in the second or third generation, so percentages here are more cultural than anything else.


Adventurous-Moose863 t1_j5j10yc wrote

Isn't it about any ethnicity?


SlouchyGuy t1_j5j54me wrote

Yes, but people here in comments seem to be up in arms regarding percentages


Adventurous-Moose863 t1_j5j6z35 wrote

Well, I don't see anything wrong here. The map shows the percentage of Russia's population, which self-idenify themselves as ethnic Russians regardless of their origin.


chrisdolan622 t1_j5il3tb wrote

It would be interesting to include the former Soviet Union countries


faciepalm t1_j5kvxca wrote

the problem is that russia has used the strategy of replacing local ethnicities with ethnic russians for decades in order to validate their claims


chrisdolan622 t1_j5kwb7a wrote

Then perhaps looking at the data would help us to better understand that problem


-KKD- t1_j5l6tmy wrote

The problem is that locals didn't know much and couldn't build shit, the russians who came or were sent there were building bridges, tunnels, power plants, railroads, mines, fucking spaceport, as well as a shit ton of civil infrastructure and factories, universities and all that. If this is how people "validate their claims" than I guess other countries did that wrong.


kyralfie t1_j5jggg1 wrote

As a person who lived in Omsk Oblast bordering Kazakhstan feels like there's way more Kazakh than shown here. Probably only citizens of Russian Federation are counted. Republic of Tatarstan looks correct though - about 50/50 there.


Majikaja t1_j5jr093 wrote

ELI5, what is an ethnic Russian?


Tiromir- t1_j5jekxe wrote

Where's Crimea? It's in no way legal occupation but i'd be surprised if the 2021 russian census didn't include a territory they've been claiming and occupying since 2014


madrid987 t1_j5m2ki6 wrote

Russia, of course, did a census there too, but took it out of that map.


canttouchmypingas t1_j5jhob5 wrote

Incomplete data on the OPs part to extend the political stance of the west by not recognizing it personally. OP doesn't realize that by withholding data from the origin country's census he only creates more controversy


[deleted] t1_j5jmnge wrote



Adventurous-Moose863 t1_j5jwde8 wrote

If we make an analogy with the U.S., then ethnic Russians are Americans who are descendants of migrants, while ethnic non-Russians are natives.
The difference is that in the U.S. there are racial distinctions between natives and non-natives. Whereas in Russia natives can also be of European appearance. Nevertheless, they have separate languages and sometimes a different religion and culture.


ptoto20 t1_j5k6g4v wrote

My dad is from arkhalngelsk. I can’t tan for shit.


nildecaf t1_j5lbhhp wrote

Is like to see this compared with population density and income per Capita


Heya_Andy t1_j5jd5vz wrote

Can anyone explain why the area near the top-right is pink? Most of the other low proportions seem to be near borders, where people may perhaps identify as belonging to a former state that was absorbed into Russia. But this area has always been part of Russia, has it not?


Waneshasa t1_j5jh6vu wrote

It's a relatively new territory (mid 17th century) as most of Siberia. Native Russian lands are located in 'Central Russia' (geographically those are actually the most western territories of Russia, some regions of Belarus and Ukraine).

The reason for low ethnic Russian population is very simpe - it's too cold there and locals were very hostile towards Russians, there was almost no reason for making settlements there. When cossacks advanced through Siberia they tended to stick to southern border, which resulted in cities like Irkutsk.

Harsh climate was also a reason why those territories were difficult to subjugate.


Other pink areas are north Caucasus (south-western region, 18-19th centuries) with very hostile natives and Tuva (begining of 20th century, the newest territory of Russia).


Odoxon t1_j5ijcoe wrote

Do people have to get political on every subreddit? It's as if their homecountry was attacked by Russia personall. No one needs your chivalrious Russia-bashing. It doesn't help shit and most certainly it doesn't help Ukraine.


pyriphlegeton t1_j5i5wv8 wrote

Despite the efforts of Russia to change that.

Starve minorities or foreigners, then export ethnic russians into those territories. There you go, Mother Russia just expanded. Sort of what they're doing in eastern Ukraine - but there they're rather directly killing and kidnapping.

Look up "Holodomor" for a fun read.


Odoxon t1_j5iiwk5 wrote

The Holodomor wasn't a planned genocide. And Stalin would've been too stupid to pull that off anyways. His intention was to collectivise grain production in the USSR, so that the state would have more control over the economy. Since Ukraine was, and still is, the breadbasket of Europe, the Ukrainians had to suffer the most. But to think of it as a plan to remove ethnic Ukrainians is wrong. I don't know of any crimes Stalin commited where ethnicity or race played a key role. After all, he wasn't Russian himself but Georgian.

Edit: Typo


leela_martell t1_j5it8hg wrote

This is so ignorant.

Look up The Great Purge, happened before WWII. Look up the deportations of Baltic peoples, Ukrainians, Chechens after the war. Smaller groups of people as well like Ingrian Finns, Volga Germans. How they tried to banish all their Jews into the “Jewish Autonomous Oblast” in the Far-East.

Look up gulags and how people ended up in them (spoiler: it wasn’t just the kulaks or “political enemies” as if that made it better). Look up forced deportations in cattle carriages and how people fared in them.


feorh t1_j5iwekl wrote

What's ignorant in your statement is your statement.


leela_martell t1_j5ix538 wrote

So how would you describe displacing entire ethnicities or groups of people just because they belong to a certain ethnicity, forcibly deporting them to different regions with many dying on the way, if not ethnic cleansing? What in my statement was incorrect?


feorh t1_j5o6izd wrote

Your statement is incorrect. Like the whole of it.


madrid987 t1_j5ipne3 wrote

Stalin had no interest in the people. He was only interested in the Soviet Union. Communism was an idea that completely ruled out nationalism, and Stalin therefore slaughtered the nationalists, but Stalin himself was not a nationalist and had nothing more to do with Russia.


NLwino t1_j5jd57f wrote

The Holodomor is considered:

  • Genocide by 23 countries and the European Parliament
  • Criminal act of Stalin's regime by 6 countries
  • Crime against humanity by 5 international organizations

Besides that a lot of the world has no clear stance on it. But straight up saying that it was not genocide is disagreeing with a lot of governments. And the official definition of genocide includes intent:

>acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group


madrid987 t1_j5ib7ub wrote

so beautiful ethnic russians


reedmer t1_j5in330 wrote

dick ethnic russians comprize the dick of Russia. seems legit to me.


Snoo74629 t1_j5irk7b wrote

This is the Siberian Autonomous Okrug. And its form is a present for you.


reedmer t1_j5k77nh wrote

Apparently my dick joke was not to your liking. dully noted.


[deleted] t1_j5gsfdt wrote

This is utter bullshit. Arguably 2/3 of russian territory is inhabitant by non russian nations


Fieldhill__ t1_j5h9pjg wrote

But most of those nations have really low population


[deleted] t1_j5iutz3 wrote

Tell that to buryats


Fieldhill__ t1_j5iuwwb wrote

The buryats are one nation of many and even still there are FAR more russians than buryats


Some_siberian_guy t1_j5ijop4 wrote

I'm actually a bit intrigued to know where they pulled out that 2/3 from. Everything to the East of the Urals?


DickThief3301 t1_j5ha3r2 wrote

I know, right? Claiming that Yakutia has 50% of ethnic Russians in it is downright ridiculous


IMSOGIRL t1_j5ho3yl wrote

Are you colorblind? It's clearly in the red meaning there's way less than 50% reported.


DickThief3301 t1_j5hu16f wrote

Huh, you are right. Didn't notice it was a faint hue of red. What a terrible pallete choice.


Muninnless t1_j5hl3sq wrote

"According to the 2021 census" I don't disagree, but for actual numbers to cite, it might well be the highest quality source, which isn't great, but says a lot about modern Russia.