{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "Don\u2019t you think Russia is historically justified by seeking to annex lost territories with majority Russians? Obviously using...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/676866942585487360/", "html": "
Anonymous asked:

Don\u2019t you think Russia is historically justified by seeking to annex lost territories with majority Russians? Obviously using force is bad but compared to the rest of europe? To America?

\n

ghostpalmtechnique:

afloweroutofstone:

\n\n

I cannot stress enough to you how batshit insane it is to argue that a country has the right to invade and annex territories that contain a lot of people of their predominant ethnicity. Why not have the Dutch invade South Africa, or the Mongolians invade northern China, or Germany invade Austria

Although sort of hinted at in the examples, this understates the case explicitly. Much of the population of Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts identifies as Russian-Speaking Ukrainians (with the latter being an ethnicity, not just citizenship), not “ethnic Russians”.

A convenient table of polling data from an article you can otherwise ignore for not making the distinction I’m about to
https://regnum.ru/news/society/2240754.html

The proportion of Donetsk residents self-identifying as Ukrainians was, if anything, rising in the years leading up to Russia’s hybrid invasion. It drops afterward, but that’s t least as likely to be… not “social desirability bias” so much as “not-getting-disappeared bias”… as it is anger with the government in Kyiv.

\n

I mean how much of that is just that Russia/Ukraine maps to a legacy Orthodox/Catholic split?

", "thumbnail_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/media/98cb429a79f4fe0f252aae127a3b8b05620dde03_872069aa5564.png", "thumbnail_width": 640, "thumbnail_height": 189}