Putin conquers and annexes all of Novorossiya in 2014

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,925
Europix
#71
Be very careful of these maps and statistics, as they can be very misleading.
For example, my ex-GF was from Crimea, Ukraine.7

Her father was Russian, and 3 of 4 grandparents were Russian, one was born in Crimea.
Her mother was also ethnically Russian, born in 1956, in Crimea.
Her first language was Russian, she only spoke Russian until she entered school. ...
My Lord, that is confirming what I was talking about: there are Ukrainians, there are Russians, there are Tartars, there are Momdavians, but not "Novorossians" there.

And if someone from there responds You "I'm novorssirsky" it's in the sense "I'm a Russian (or Ukrainian) from that region".

I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

...
Her nationality according to Ukrainian documents? - Not Russian - Ukrainian !
(According to Kiev, she was born in Ukraine of a Ukrainian mother = therefore Ukrainian.)
What do You mean by "nationality"

And to avoid another misunderstanding:

In a lot of places in Central and Eastern Europe, there's/was a distinction between "nationality" (= citizenship) and ethnicity, even at legal level.

There's an often recurring confusion, firstly, because usually Western Europe simply doesn't have that distinction, secondly, often "ethnicity" is called "nationality" in Central/Eastern Europe, while Western "nationality" is called citizenship.
 
Jan 2015
3,130
Rupert's Land ;)
#72
What do You mean by "nationality"
And to avoid another misunderstanding:

In a lot of places in Central and Eastern Europe, there's/was a distinction between "nationality" (= citizenship) and ethnicity, even at legal level.

There's an often recurring confusion, firstly, because usually Western Europe simply doesn't have that distinction, secondly, often "ethnicity" is called "nationality" in Central/Eastern Europe, while Western "nationality" is called citizenship.
Correct, by "nationality" i mean ethnicity, as listed in Soviet era documents
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,925
Europix
#73
Correct, by "nationality" i mean ethnicity, as listed in Soviet era documents
(disclaimer: not taking parts here!)

AFAIK, the norm is that in mixed marriages, the nationality (=> ethnicity) is the mother's one. I suppose it comes from the "mother tongue" (or maybe from "pater incertus"?).

Is it good or bad, that's another question.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
3,130
Rupert's Land ;)
#74
(disclaimer: not taking parts here!)

AFAIK, the norm is that in mixed marriages, the nationality (=> ethnicity) is the mother's one. I suppose it comes from the "mother tongue" (or maybe from "later incertus"?).

Is it good or bad, that's another question.
Correct, although in the case i mentioned, the mother's nationality was Russian, however she was born in Crimea 2 years after it became Ukrainian (Therefore the mother was "Ukrainian born"), so the daughter was not listed as Russian. (i.e. born in Ukraine of a Ukrainian born mother)
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2015
1,510
Kyiv
#75
Novorossia (New Russia) was an archaic term that the administration of the Russian Empire used for the Crimea and the steppe lands of the Northern Black Sea region of Ukraine in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The territory of the first Novorossiyskaya
province (1764-1783) differed significantly from the second one (1796-1802)

It looked like the first Novorossiyskaya province on the map of modern Ukraine. As we see - there was almost no Donbass territory in the Novorossiya of that time



And this is the Novorossssiyskaya province on the map of 1800. Its borders are highlighted -



After 1802, the territory of this province entered the Odessa, Tauride, Nikolaev and Kherson provinces. Why Russian propaganda reanimated this word - Novorossiya - in 2014? Obviously, because this archaic name of the southern lands of Ukraine contained the word Russia (NovoRossiya)

Obviously, the topic of Novorossia was promoted in Russia in the 2014 in the hope that it would be possible to tear off from Ukraine all her southern part within the borders of the former second Novorossiyskaya province. The plans failed. Therefore, Russia did not save this propaganda name - Novorossia - after 2014 for a small part of it, the eastern one in the Donbass. Otherwise, the name of Novorossia just for a small part of Ukraine occupied by Russia in 2014 it in the Donbass would sound like a statement of the failure of this Russian Novorossian project.
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2015
1,510
Kyiv
#76
(disclaimer: not taking parts here!)

AFAIK, the norm is that in mixed marriages, the nationality (=> ethnicity) is the mother's one. I suppose it comes from the "mother tongue" (or maybe from "pater incertus"?).

Is it good or bad, that's another question.
As far as I know in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus etc. the ethnicity is not indentified with the mother's one. It can be by mother's, father's ethnicity of the person - or a person can choose his or her etnicity by own will. By the by very many children of non-Russian father and mother were called Russians by the will of their parents or by their own choice when they get passport in their 16 years old.

Here we say that a tradition to fix ethnicity as the mother's one is Jewish, not Slavic
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,925
Europix
#79
Correct, although in the case i mentioned, the mother's nationality was Russian, however she was born in Crimea 2 years after it became Ukrainian (Therefore the mother was "Ukrainian born"), so the daughter was not listed as Russian. (i.e. born in Ukraine of a Ukrainian born mother)
Well, it's logical. Of course, logical isn't fair, isn't good in a lot of cases. Like the one You mentioned: just another example of how a person is born "x", living in "y", dying in "z", tho never moved, lived all her life in the same place. It's the border moving left, then right, then left again ...
 
Nov 2015
1,510
Kyiv
#80
Well, Putin didn't even annex Donbass in 2014. When there was best chance for that and Ukraine military was in poor shape.
Putin’s plans for Ukraine for the 2014. as far as I see, were not the annexation of Donbass. The plans were the annexation - direct or indirect - at least of half of Ukraine to the east of the line from Kharkov to Odessa. With the obligatory seizure of the sources of the Crimean Canal from the Dnieper near Kakhovka. Without this, the annexed Crimea lost 85% of fresh water, which gave it the Crimean Canal. The annexation of Kiev was also desirable. Overboard was definitely intended to leave the "nationalist" western regions of Ukraine.

The fact was that Russia could annex only the Crimea and occupy half of the Donbass (about half of Donetsk and Lugansk regions) .
And it was a failure of this plan. At the same time, with Donbass Ukraine lost a key industrial region with the majority of coal mines. The annexation of Donbass by Russia would have caused the end of war with Russian forces in that region. Ukraine would not fight directly with a nuclear power - Russia. Of course, the annexation of Donbass by Russia would also cause a grand international scandal. I think - much more than with the Crimea. Therefore, Putin decided to voice - according to the old Russian habit, that in Ukraine there is a kind of "civil war" to which Russia has nothing to do.

When the initial plan for Ukraine collapsed, Putin was interested in the long-playing hybrid war, which was wasting the Ukrainian economy. And he started it. For that Russia began to create her expeditionary army in the Donbass, recruiting part of the local residents there and sending her volunteers from the former military, as well as officers and soldiers of the regular Russian army.

In August, this semi-built army was close to defeat. Ukrainian forces were advancing rapidly, and Donetsk and Lugansk were half surrounded. To save the so-called LDNR from full defeat, Putin made a new big step. At the end of August 2014, he sent regular Russian troops to the Donbass, and they suddenly struck the rear of the Ukrainian troops near Ilovaisk. It was a new round of Russian participation in the war. Soon after, world oil prices collapsed. I already wrote that the United States made that in prliminary collusion with the Saud - and for this purpose, Obama prudently flew to the Saud with an unofficial visit after Crimea was annexed by Russia.

The Russian economy has experienced severe shock, and plans for an active expansion of Russia further into Ukraine have finally ruined. The war acquired a protracted nature, and after the capture of Debaltseve in early 2015, it became unhurried and slow.

Economically, the Donbass was of little interest to Russia. Moreover, in a ruined and robbed form, in which it turned by the fall of 2014.
For Russia It was more interesting to create a chronic ulcer with a continuous war on the body of Ukraine in Donbass.

Population was asking Putin for help and Russia to come. Russia didn't
- First of all, among the population that asked Russia to come in spring 2014 it was a solid portion of Russian citizens that were brought from Russia to the meetings in Donetsk that time and played very active role in the events in the cities of the region. One of that Russian citizens later published photo when he raised Russian banner over the building of Kharkiv administration

 
Likes: Gvelion

Similar History Discussions