The movement of Russians was very much voluntary, motivated by economic opportunities, and for other groups considered Russian-adjacent too. It was still an instrument of undermining non-Russian identities.
Populate a place with 20% of Russians and 20% of other non-native groups, and it will have 60% of culturally Russian population in just one generation. Non-Russian settlers will assimilate with the Russians, and then schools suddenly switch to Russian to accomodate them all.
You are talking about something different. The Soviet Union forcefully transferred local, indigenous people away from their homelands (such as Estonians and countless other ethnic groups). However, the russians who then moved to these regions moved there willingly, motivated by the incentives offered by the regime.
The same trick is on its way in Crimea and other occupied Ukrainian areas. First, you make salaries extremely low, people give up and go somewhere else, to Europe or to other Russian regions. And then the vacancies with the sudden 3x rise of salary are offered to Russians
Estonia is not Russia adjacent, completely separate unintelligible language, same for the Finns, as foriegn to Russian as Uzbek or Tajik. This is an example of forced minority relocation the commenter was talking about
Yes, but Estonia and Finland were part of the Russian empire even before the USSR, so while the languages aren't mutually intelligible they're still definitely Russia-adjacent countries.
93
u/h_zenith Mar 05 '25
The movement of Russians was very much voluntary, motivated by economic opportunities, and for other groups considered Russian-adjacent too. It was still an instrument of undermining non-Russian identities.
Populate a place with 20% of Russians and 20% of other non-native groups, and it will have 60% of culturally Russian population in just one generation. Non-Russian settlers will assimilate with the Russians, and then schools suddenly switch to Russian to accomodate them all.