[ceilingcorner]

Mr Kuleba recalled that in 2014 there was a Russian plan to split Ukraine and create an entity called "Novorossiya" (New Russia) - a plan foiled by Ukraine's armed forces.

Not commenting on Russia vs. Ukraine here, but I wanted to point out this somewhat misleading line. Novorossiya is the name of that historical region going back to the 1700s. The way it's written by the BBC, it sounds like Russia is just inventing their own new entity from nothing.

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

[azangru]

I don't think it is misleading. Novorossiya, as Wikipedia points out, is a historical term. It does not exist on political maps. The phrasing is the same as if someone wanted to carve out a chunk of Germany and call it Prussia.

[Glavnokoman]

And this is exactly how Ukraine came to life in 1991.

[ceilingcorner]

Yes, it's misleading because it ignores the revanchist reasoning of Russia in favor of simple "Russia bad, Russia invader, Russia imperialist" narratives.

Novorossiya was historically a part of the Russian Empire for a very long time. Russia clearly wants it back. Whether they are justified in getting it or not, I have no comment. But the least we can do is actually understand their reasoning.

[willeh]

And India was part of the British empire, Mexico (then called the viceroyalty of New Spain) a part of Spain and the list goes on. Might makes right belongs to a bygone age and people are entitled to self-determination.

To decline to stand up to dictator - nay, a tyrant - such as Putin makes one a coward undeserving of the liberties they were born with.

[ceilingcorner]

These are not really good examples. India, Mexico, etc. were different cultures with thousands of years of history as independent entities. Novorossiya and indeed large parts of the current political state of Ukraine were a part of "Russia" for hundreds of years. Ukraine itself didn't really exist as a unified state from the end of the Kievan Rus (13th century) until the 20th century and was mostly a battleground between Poland, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire.

Like I said, it's complicated. Does that justify Russia's actions? I don't know and I am deliberately explaining this in a neutral way.

[willeh]

There are plenty of regions in Europe that have similar histories and few countries in Europe are really that old, even states with long histories have not had constitutional orders lasting more than 50 years. Finland was a part of Sweden for 600 years, Denmark part of Norway for an equal amount time. Neither of those facts in any way reduces the Finnish or Norwegian people's right to self determination.

Waging aggressive war is a violation of international law - The state of Ukraine is the legitimate successor to Ukrainian SFR and if Russia has any claims on its territory those must be pursued through legal means.

There is nothing complicated about the Ukrainian question, it is simply a part of Putin's strategy of death by a thousand cuts. Last time that strategy was used Europe was thrown into a conflict that made the world say never again to nationalism. The Russian people would have done well to listen to their grandfathers now that this conflict is all but forgot.

[ceilingcorner]

I don't really know why you're arguing with me. I'm just trying to explain the situation.

With your focus on self-determination: if Ukraine allowed specific regions to hold referendums, it is very likely that many regions would opt to join Russia. Then what?

As I have said numerous times now: it is complicated.

[drran]

Russia is the name of the historical region too, now called Ukraine. Should Ukraine(historical Russia) annex Russian Federation, because it's Russian?

[ceilingcorner]

No, it isn't. The historical region is called Rus. Not the same thing.

[MagnumOpus]

It is, though. In other languages the etymology is even clearer. In German the place is called Russland for instance.

[ceilingcorner]

No, it isn't. Ruthenians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all descendants of the Rus. Belarus does not mean "White Russia", it means "White Rus."

> Originally, the name Rus' (Cyrillic: Русь) referred to the people,[1] regions, and medieval states (9th to 12th centuries) of the Kievan Rus'. In Western culture, it was better known as Ruthenia from the 11th century onwards,[2] Its territories are today distributed among Belarus, Northern Ukraine, Eastern Poland, and the European section of Russia. The term Россия (Rossija), comes from the Byzantine Greek designation of the Rus', Ρωσσία Rossía—spelled Ρωσία (Rosía pronounced [roˈsia]) in Modern Greek.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Rus%27,_Russia_and_...

Using exonyms to determine the "real" name of a place is also a very odd choice.

[ridethebike]

Australia and Austria

Latvia and Lithuania

South Africa and Africa

You get the gist :)

[drran]

Historical region called Russia (Русся), but suffix -sia (-sia) was dropped in Slavic language, because it means this/there: Russia (Русся) -> Rus` sia (Русь ся), Rus` there.

Russia founded by descendants of Russia town, now called Old Russa (Старая Русса), which left their town due to epidemic of plague of Justinian.

[ceilingcorner]

Russia didn't exist until nearly a thousand years after the plague of Justinian. Unless you just mean the plague?

In either case, Rus comes from the Scandinavians, not from the Slavs.

[drran]

Read the docs.

https://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf