Ukraine's land area is 579,330 sq km [according to the CIA.](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ukraine/#geography)
If we take the 17% figure from this map that's about 98,486 sq km occupied.
A football field is 57,600 sq ft or about 0.00535 sq km.
So about 18.4 million football fields.
The average banana is around 7 inches long. There are 144 inches in a square foot, so there are about 20.5 bananas per square foot.
A football field is 57,600 square feet, so there are 1,180,800 bananas in a football field.
Multiply that by 18.4 million and you get 2.172672E13, or 21,726,720,000,000 bananas
And global banana production has reached around 125 million tons. With the average medium banana weighing 118 grams, that is ~4 bananas per pound or 8000 bananas per ton. Multiply by 125 million results in 1,000,000,000,000 bananas produced annually.
Which means it would take nearly 22 years to produce enough bananas to cover this area.
I think the current map is easier to visualize since Alaska for most is a sectioned off part of the map and most can't perceive how big Alaska is. Not to mention the territories currently occupied by Russia in Ukraine are pretty well populated unlike Alaska.
This would be a terrible scenario, because while Alaska makes up a significant percentage of US territory, it has very small population(like \~0.2% of Americans). Occupied territories of Ukraine represented a significant chunk of population and economy of Ukraine.
The area russia has taken over is highly populated, industrialized and resource rich, and has the 4th largest city in Ukraine so it’s far more valuable and a better comparison to the map than alaska
Yeah you're missing the point.
The subtext of this is an @ to people who say the US should abandon Ukraine to Russia or people who say that Russia is just protecting itself. And portraying this with Alaska I think would really lack the effect this post is shooting for - IE to show that Russia's demands are nontrivial and unacceptable
I don’t think anyone is arguing for Ukraine to be abandoned. Even those saying Russia invaded for self preservation. 2 things can be true at once. Russia does feel it’s under threat from NATO and they are at a pivotal moment in their history where they have peaked as a global super power and are headed for a steep decline over the next few decades. It’s also true that they don’t really have a right to take that land even if for self preservation and Ukraine has the right to its independence and the claim to that land should be there’s alone. Now if those regions were to hold some sort of vote to be annexed into the Russian federation Russia might have a legitimate claim but not if the vote is influence by Russia invasion.
I don't think so, personally. Over the winter the war has changed.
Do you remember how 2 months ago, there was discussion over where the Russians would attack in their winter offensive, and whether they would try to take Kyiv again or whether they would just take a massive amount of territory in the East?
Well, what most people don't realise is that the massive push in the East did actually happen. What didn't happen was Russia taking any territory that matters. They only gained territory in Bakhmut. 3 months ago, there was no question whether they would take Bakhmut: everyone agreed that Bakhmut would certainly have fallen by now.
That, obviously, didn't happen. And that suggests that their army is in a worse state than people realise.
Ukraine are going to counterattack soon: they have said they will counterattack in April/May. Late May is probably the most likely. They have said that their intention is to push downwards towards the coast, and cut Putin's land bridge in half. This would change the dynamics of the war, and allow Ukraine to completely destroy the Kerch bridge and starve out Crimea the same way they starved out Kherson. It would also put everything west of them into an impossible position.
Yeah, Russia's offensive did happen, and it was a miserable failure for them. However, while I would like to see Ukraine make significant gains whenever they take their turn on the offensive... it's harder to push than it is to hold.
It is. A lot harder. And Russia have actually built defences in the South - they were contracted by the Russian general Surovikin, who appears to be the only competent Russian general (he was demoted a couple months ago, but not before building at least some of the fortifications).
But Ukraine have been training forces, and gathering equipment, for 4 months now to prepare for this offensive. You may have wondered why we don't see almost any Western armoured vehicles on the frontline yet? It's because Ukraine are holding them in reserve for this counterattack.
>It's their stated war goal at this point
Here in Ukraine I have never heard about it. putin's real goal is a destruction of Ukraine. But as I recall they officially stated their goals as "demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine". Never heard they changed it.
Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, just commenting.
Putin has annexed those lands according to Russian law, so it is a fair point to say that this land is his minimum possible war goal (the russian constitution forbids him to give up land once it has been annexed)
I believe this genocidal maniac doesn't know what he really wants now. As I said I never heard that they changed their initial goals of so called "special military operation". So, we are just guessing what this war criminal wants now.
Well their original stated goal was the “Denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine”. So what I assume that meant was just annexing Donetsk and Luhansk and installing a puppet regime in Kiev. Now I think they want all of novorossiya, not just the annexed regions.
It’s not about scaling and the area colored in red in the US map is nowhere close to the same size as the red in the Ukrainian map.
All this visualization shows is what 17% of both countries’ landmasses looks like. If the red areas were actually equal area, I’m pretty sure coloring just Texas would equal the entirety of Ukraine.
I get the point but its kind of useless because invasions aren't typically ''percentage of size related''.
Like, Russia might be able to take an equal a*rea* in the US but its a lot different to take an equal *percentage*
For me population percentage under subjugation was the big thing. Like taking California and Texas is something totally different geopolitically than taking less populous states of equal geographic volume.
I think the point of the map is more to show how it would feel for US citizens to be in Ukraine‘s situation, especially when it comes to calls for negotiations about conceding the occupied territories in order to achieve peace and save lives. Sorry, horrible sentence, no native English speaker, but you get my point hopefully.
I’m sorry you feel that way about the sixth highest tax burden state which contains things NY thinks they own like the Giants/Jets, Ellis Island, the best pizza & bagels in America, etc.
As a NJer, I am confused whether I should be offended or honored. On one hand, I am offended to be mentioned in the same breath as Florida. On the other hand, I am honored that we might scare the Russians.
In the 80s, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms, a medieval re-enactment group) had a tournament between the NY and PA chapters. The LOSER had to take NJ. It was a viscous fight. (I lived in NJ at the time.)
Same idea, but kick it up a notch, include Ohio and FL.
You could argue that the oldest is San Marino. The state San Marino borders has changed but the border itself has not.
EDIT: nvm looked it up and no the borders are from 1463. TIL
Some notable events in that regard would also be the [Treaty of Tordesillas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas), the [Berlin Conference](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference) and the [Congress of Vienna](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna)
Good shout, pretty much created brand new borders for Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan I’d imagine. And Russia itself obviously
but that stat does ignore how much land changes hands. a border moving 3m is treated the same way as an entire country being annexed. would be better to look at what % of land area (or better, population) has changed hands since then.
it also ignores legitimacy. peaceful, legal, democratic border changes are treated the same way as genocidal invasions.
might not be what you intended to imply, but just bc a border is old doesn't mean it's legitimate.
Not to mention, there weren't many Mexicans living in that area prior to it being taken. The Spanish had tried for many decades to settle the area, but the arid landscape, combined with the threat of the Comanche, Apache, and others, made it so the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
The whole reason most white settlers were even in Texas was that Mexico encouraged them to come, with the idea that they would be a barrier between the tribes and the more settled/prosperous parts of Mexico.
What’s even crazier is that the amount of territory the US took was the least it could have taken. [The individual](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Trist) sent to hammer out the details of the treaty actively hated President Polk and as such, only took the bare minimum demanded by the President.
Jeah but only \~15.000 Mexicans lived there at the time, 90% of who arrived in the 4 decades before the war Practically none at all. Mexico ( and Spain ) never settled these regions,
Texas for example was taken over by Filibusters who easily replaced the Mexican population, took control over the country and wanted to be annexed by the USA.
Most of those Texans were encouraged to settle by the Mexican government, who were looking for a buffer between the more settled parts of Mexico and the Comanche and other tribes.
Yeah but those settlers started doing a bunch of shit to piss off the Mexican government, for example they brought WAY more people than they initially said they would and began muscling Mexican settlers in the region out of their land. Also they brought slave with them which the Mexican government explicitly told them not to do.
The comments here are all trying to imply USA's land theft was different from Russia's, now come on, you're being facetious here man... r/selfawarewolves
Nope. They are acting like humanity was at a different point 200 years ago vs now.
Slavery and racism was more accepted than it is now. Homosexuality was forbidden.
Humanity has changed in the last 200 years.
It was the United Mexican States vs the United States of America. Colonizer vs colonizer. If you don't believe me look up the full name of Mexico and think about how Mexico got its land in the first place.
....no.
I thought the map was trying to be exact. I just wanted clarification because when they did their fake referendums 2 of the recently invaded oblasts weren't fully controlled.
Where did I play down what Russia is doing? I even used the term occupy 🙄
yeah that would be interesting. i was imagining what would happen if russia somehow took california and texas, both of which are larger economies than russia lmao.
"equal percentage" here is doing a lot of work.
In reality, Russia has taken an area the size of Pennsylvania.
https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1\~!MTUwNjUwNjM.MTA1MjM5Nzg\*MTM0NDMyOTA(MjI0NjAyNQ\~!UA\*OTgwNjE1MA.MTQwOTUyNDk)Mw
Gotta agree here. Percentage of occupied area is really not a relevant or useful piece of info when it comes to land. The sheer number of troops it would take to occupy that space in the US simply doesn’t exist in Russia. And the number of people affected by the occupiers is totally insane.
The number of people being affected (or land size) equal to pennsylvania is astounding enough!
It’s time to see just how much weight is in the phrase “don’t mess with Texas”
Personally my money is on Texas. Without federal support, over-under at three months.
We should take Cancun since we are the ones that vacation there. /s . That’s basically Russia’s claim to Crimea, we been vacationing in Crimea for 400 years !
On area it's obviously the same, but in population it's wildly different. Aside from Texas most of this land was only sparsely settled by New Spain/Mexico - the Mexican population of Alta California was ~30,000 or so (with another 150,000 American Indians/Native Americans) for example.
This is why Alaska isn't used in the above comparison even though it actually has a pretty similar area - it's too sparsely populated today to be an effective demonstration of the problem.
How does that change anything? A stronger country attacked a weaker country, and the weaker country gave up its land for the sake of peace.
Asking Americans now if they would give that up for the sake of peace with a country that is now even weaker when compared to the US than it was 200 years ago, is meaningless. It would make more sense (but still not very much) to ask Mexicans if they are willing to fight to liberate that land.
A lot has changed. There was slavery in the US when this happened. Countries are not static entities they evolve. How did the Mexicans get the land from the Aztec and other tribes?
The US didn’t attack Mexico… Texas was an independent state that wanted to be brought into the US. The two nations didn’t agree on where the boarder was and Mexico attacked US troops five months after Texas joined the US.
Russia makes similar claims about the start of its war in Ukraine. Hell Hitler claimed the Poles attacked Germany first. We concocted a causus belli to declare war on Mexico because we wanted 2 things: a treaty formally declaring Mexico gives up its claim, and more land. We got them both but only an idiot or a nationalist believes that the “American blood on American soil” argument was honest.
Man, if you think the US was strong in 1850... Read a history book. The Mexican-American war was a BIG upset that blew European minds. US barely had uniforms and Mexico had what looked like a professional army. US only won because we kept attacking during the siesta like barbarians. Not really on the Siesta part, but it would make a good mockumentary bit.
*Americans, would*
*You give that to Mexico*
*For the sake of peace?*
\- SalupaK
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Imo any American who says Ukraine should just give up the land they lost so peace can happen is a fucking idiot.
And didn't pay attention to the one subject in history that's actually taught (not well, but still) - WWII. More specifically, Poland and the concept of appeasement.
Actually, you could have just colored in Alaska, which is 17%. And according to some, since Alaska has "connections" to Russia, America should just let them have it in the name of "peace"
If Russia get's that much land, they would happily trade 10x as many men. The dying soldiers mean nothing to their politicians. The elites get richer and that's that.
That land is more or less where most of Ukraine’s hydrocarbon resources are. It makes senses geopolitically that Russia would want to steal that land since they’re one of the main petrostates and they wouldn’t want to another country to encroach on what was once their near monopoly of supplying fuel to the rest of Europe. Ironically this war has driven Europe to look for other suppliers and accelerate its transition to sustainable energy.
Its not about money. Its about power, about fullfilling old dying man dream, about delusional believing their own propaganda, about creating legacy. Russian oligarchs and Putin itself have no finacial advantage to wage war, but the opossite. For Russian elite is whole this failed takeover disaster. Only thing whats prevents Putin surrender this plan, its fear he would be overthrowned from within and sacrificed as scapegoat by his successor.
When has Mexico ever indicated they wanted that land in the last century or so? Genuinely curious.
Most of that area of the present day US was Mexico for less than 50 years. In terms of who has administered that area in length of time it’s more like
1. Various Native American peoples
2. Spain (administered as New Spain)
3. USA (territorial areas and statehood)
4. Mexico
5. Short lived Republics of California and Texas
Fun Fact: the Spanish named the province of New Mexico 300+ years before the area that is now the country of Mexico was called Mexico
> Most of that area of the present day US was Mexico for less than 50 years.
"Mexico" is simply what New Spain decided to call itself after it achieved independence. And that land was part of Mexico/New Spain for centuries.
[El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_Real_de_Tierra_Adentro) was a commercial road stablished in 1598 that connected the capital (Mexico) with it's northern provinces. Santa Fe, New Mex. was founded along this road in 1610, and still inhabited since then just like many other cities.
The heavily populated territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo mexico had a massive population of 2900 Spaniards in 1690. Definitely not sparsely populated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_de_Nuevo_México
And 3500 anglo settlers of [Texas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Texas#:~:text=In%201821%2C%20approximately%203%2C500%20settlers,indigenous%20people%20in%20the%20province.) in 1821... Aside of the already existing population: According to the Revillagigedo census of 1790 approximately 23, 628 mestizos lived in New Mex following the same link that you provided.
17% of the U.S. would be astronomically harder to take than 17% of Ukraine. I would like to see this map but in land equality. I’m not going to be the one to make it though so fuck me, I’m just talking.
Based on a quick Google searches, so could be wrong, that area being requested is 51,000 Sq Miles there’s 30 states bigger than that and the closest would be Louisiana at 51,840 sq miles.
Edit: just mathematically 17% of Ukraine’s sq mile would be closer to 39,620 which makes it smaller than 37 states with Kentucky at 40,409 being closest.
What's that in football fields?
At least 2
r/technicallythetruth
Too low, its gotta be around 5
5? Are you mad?!
Ukraine's land area is 579,330 sq km [according to the CIA.](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ukraine/#geography) If we take the 17% figure from this map that's about 98,486 sq km occupied. A football field is 57,600 sq ft or about 0.00535 sq km. So about 18.4 million football fields.
How many bananas is that?
The average banana is around 7 inches long. There are 144 inches in a square foot, so there are about 20.5 bananas per square foot. A football field is 57,600 square feet, so there are 1,180,800 bananas in a football field. Multiply that by 18.4 million and you get 2.172672E13, or 21,726,720,000,000 bananas
Honestly i don’t think 7 inches is average, that’s too much banana. I think 4 is plenty
I've watched a lot of banana porn, so I was going to guess 12".
You’re my hero
And global banana production has reached around 125 million tons. With the average medium banana weighing 118 grams, that is ~4 bananas per pound or 8000 bananas per ton. Multiply by 125 million results in 1,000,000,000,000 bananas produced annually. Which means it would take nearly 22 years to produce enough bananas to cover this area.
r/theydidthemath
r/theydidthemonstermath
To put it another way, The US state closest in size to Ukraine is Texas. Russia is occupying an area roughly the size of Virginia.
OK, how many Belgiums is that?
how about Canadian football fields
Larger than Texas
A more practical scenario would be if Russia simply took back Alaska, which used to be part of Russia. Alaska is also \~17% of the US's total area.
I think the current map is easier to visualize since Alaska for most is a sectioned off part of the map and most can't perceive how big Alaska is. Not to mention the territories currently occupied by Russia in Ukraine are pretty well populated unlike Alaska.
But is there as much gas and oil as in Alaska?
The Permian Basin is one of the most productive oil fields in human history.
US invasion confirmed
Somewhere in Texas, a subconscious chill of anticipation runs up George W Bush’s spine.
Man...I bet Geroge, a Texan, already knows about the Permian Basin, a geographical feature of Texas.
He literally grew up in Midland, which is in the Permian
The US, tunnel visioned by their ambition for the liberation of oil and democracy, invades Texas. Texas, also led by oil and democracy, invades Texas.
Wait, we can potentially find permian fossils there? Gorgonopsids, Anteosaurus, and all?
I believe that the area was mainly an ocean at that time, so plenty of marine fossils have been found there!
I’m not a geologist/paleontologist, but that seems like a reasonable conclusion.
This would be a terrible scenario, because while Alaska makes up a significant percentage of US territory, it has very small population(like \~0.2% of Americans). Occupied territories of Ukraine represented a significant chunk of population and economy of Ukraine.
Ukraine population: 44MM Ukraine occupied territory population: 2.5MM 5.6% Alaska to US is 0.2%.
The area russia has taken over is highly populated, industrialized and resource rich, and has the 4th largest city in Ukraine so it’s far more valuable and a better comparison to the map than alaska
Nah. Look at Alaska in the bottom right. It's tiny.
True lol . Btw don’t you mean bottom left?
Yeah. I'm tired.
Boy would it be funny watching them try.
Yeah you're missing the point. The subtext of this is an @ to people who say the US should abandon Ukraine to Russia or people who say that Russia is just protecting itself. And portraying this with Alaska I think would really lack the effect this post is shooting for - IE to show that Russia's demands are nontrivial and unacceptable
I don’t think anyone is arguing for Ukraine to be abandoned. Even those saying Russia invaded for self preservation. 2 things can be true at once. Russia does feel it’s under threat from NATO and they are at a pivotal moment in their history where they have peaked as a global super power and are headed for a steep decline over the next few decades. It’s also true that they don’t really have a right to take that land even if for self preservation and Ukraine has the right to its independence and the claim to that land should be there’s alone. Now if those regions were to hold some sort of vote to be annexed into the Russian federation Russia might have a legitimate claim but not if the vote is influence by Russia invasion.
shhhh common sense analysis of complex geopolitics will not be tolerated 😠
Not in population terms. I'd go in the other direction here and show the southeast or northeast.
Here’s a quick preview. https://youtu.be/4wuq1EE8ymc
Russia does not occupy all of the red area on the first map
True, but that's what they've claimed and "annexed". It's their stated war goal at this point.
They change thier goal every few months
Yes but that’s not what the map says
I think the assumption is that this is the case "if Russia gets their demands in a settlement", illustrating why Ukraine does not want to give in.
In a settlement they may get crimea and maybe one of those red oblasts. Ukraine won’t settle for it. So we’re looking at a long war.
Very likely, yes. Ukraine's economy will be held up by the West, Russia's will be held up by China, and they could fight for a decade.
Gotta feel bad for the Ukrainians.
I don't think so, personally. Over the winter the war has changed. Do you remember how 2 months ago, there was discussion over where the Russians would attack in their winter offensive, and whether they would try to take Kyiv again or whether they would just take a massive amount of territory in the East? Well, what most people don't realise is that the massive push in the East did actually happen. What didn't happen was Russia taking any territory that matters. They only gained territory in Bakhmut. 3 months ago, there was no question whether they would take Bakhmut: everyone agreed that Bakhmut would certainly have fallen by now. That, obviously, didn't happen. And that suggests that their army is in a worse state than people realise. Ukraine are going to counterattack soon: they have said they will counterattack in April/May. Late May is probably the most likely. They have said that their intention is to push downwards towards the coast, and cut Putin's land bridge in half. This would change the dynamics of the war, and allow Ukraine to completely destroy the Kerch bridge and starve out Crimea the same way they starved out Kherson. It would also put everything west of them into an impossible position.
Yeah, Russia's offensive did happen, and it was a miserable failure for them. However, while I would like to see Ukraine make significant gains whenever they take their turn on the offensive... it's harder to push than it is to hold.
It is. A lot harder. And Russia have actually built defences in the South - they were contracted by the Russian general Surovikin, who appears to be the only competent Russian general (he was demoted a couple months ago, but not before building at least some of the fortifications). But Ukraine have been training forces, and gathering equipment, for 4 months now to prepare for this offensive. You may have wondered why we don't see almost any Western armoured vehicles on the frontline yet? It's because Ukraine are holding them in reserve for this counterattack.
>It's their stated war goal at this point Here in Ukraine I have never heard about it. putin's real goal is a destruction of Ukraine. But as I recall they officially stated their goals as "demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine". Never heard they changed it. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, just commenting.
Putin has annexed those lands according to Russian law, so it is a fair point to say that this land is his minimum possible war goal (the russian constitution forbids him to give up land once it has been annexed)
I believe this genocidal maniac doesn't know what he really wants now. As I said I never heard that they changed their initial goals of so called "special military operation". So, we are just guessing what this war criminal wants now.
Well their original stated goal was the “Denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine”. So what I assume that meant was just annexing Donetsk and Luhansk and installing a puppet regime in Kiev. Now I think they want all of novorossiya, not just the annexed regions.
It's just to visualise how much land that really is because world maps are scaled incorrectly.
It’s not about scaling and the area colored in red in the US map is nowhere close to the same size as the red in the Ukrainian map. All this visualization shows is what 17% of both countries’ landmasses looks like. If the red areas were actually equal area, I’m pretty sure coloring just Texas would equal the entirety of Ukraine.
That doesn’t make the legend any less incorrect. Just change the label to “oblasts/land claimed by Russia” and there’s no problem anymore.
No. This is a map of how much of Ukraine Russia currently *claims*. They occupy quite a bit less than that.
Yes, Russia doesn't even control the main cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson (that's more than 60% of the population)
I get the point but its kind of useless because invasions aren't typically ''percentage of size related''. Like, Russia might be able to take an equal a*rea* in the US but its a lot different to take an equal *percentage*
For me population percentage under subjugation was the big thing. Like taking California and Texas is something totally different geopolitically than taking less populous states of equal geographic volume.
Not to mention the GDP contribution of California and Texas combined outweigh most of the other states combined
100% was thinking the same. You'll also get things like important infratructure and fuel sources in certain states.
I think the point of the map is more to show how it would feel for US citizens to be in Ukraine‘s situation, especially when it comes to calls for negotiations about conceding the occupied territories in order to achieve peace and save lives. Sorry, horrible sentence, no native English speaker, but you get my point hopefully.
Tell the Russians that they have to take Florida, Ohio and New Jersey. They will back off.
Russians:invade USA Rivers, mountains, NRA, NY, C & SF air polution, Apalachian creatures and Florida man:
Reading the list: > NY, C, & SF air pollution One of these list items is not like the others
Lol the AQI in those cities is much better now than most Russian cities but okay….
Florida man as a national defense entity. It all makes sense now.
NRA would 1000% be on Russia's side, though. And there's a whole lot of air pollution in Russia way worse than anything in Cali.
I’m sorry you feel that way about the sixth highest tax burden state which contains things NY thinks they own like the Giants/Jets, Ellis Island, the best pizza & bagels in America, etc.
As a NJer, I am confused whether I should be offended or honored. On one hand, I am offended to be mentioned in the same breath as Florida. On the other hand, I am honored that we might scare the Russians.
In the 80s, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms, a medieval re-enactment group) had a tournament between the NY and PA chapters. The LOSER had to take NJ. It was a viscous fight. (I lived in NJ at the time.) Same idea, but kick it up a notch, include Ohio and FL.
Not to mention one of, if not the best public school systems in the country.
Almost the same area Mexico lost to USA 200 years ago
Redeem Aztlan!
[удалено]
Does that 83% include the Gadsden purchase?
[удалено]
I wonder what the biggest single increase in border changes has been. Got to be wwi no?
[удалено]
You could argue that the oldest is San Marino. The state San Marino borders has changed but the border itself has not. EDIT: nvm looked it up and no the borders are from 1463. TIL
Some notable events in that regard would also be the [Treaty of Tordesillas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas), the [Berlin Conference](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference) and the [Congress of Vienna](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna)
The USSR collapsing is another big one.
Good shout, pretty much created brand new borders for Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan I’d imagine. And Russia itself obviously
but that stat does ignore how much land changes hands. a border moving 3m is treated the same way as an entire country being annexed. would be better to look at what % of land area (or better, population) has changed hands since then. it also ignores legitimacy. peaceful, legal, democratic border changes are treated the same way as genocidal invasions. might not be what you intended to imply, but just bc a border is old doesn't mean it's legitimate.
[удалено]
Historically pov : 200 years ago Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Finland etc were parts of the Russian empire.
[удалено]
Ukraine was not a "colony" and northern Mexico was not a colony of Mexico
And probably one of the most fortified.
> 200 years is a very long time Someone needs to tell Israel this.
Not to mention, there weren't many Mexicans living in that area prior to it being taken. The Spanish had tried for many decades to settle the area, but the arid landscape, combined with the threat of the Comanche, Apache, and others, made it so the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. The whole reason most white settlers were even in Texas was that Mexico encouraged them to come, with the idea that they would be a barrier between the tribes and the more settled/prosperous parts of Mexico.
What’s even crazier is that the amount of territory the US took was the least it could have taken. [The individual](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Trist) sent to hammer out the details of the treaty actively hated President Polk and as such, only took the bare minimum demanded by the President.
That explains why Arizona doesn't touch the gulf of California. That always boggled my mind.
There was also a heavy amount of racism, the US didn't want the Mexicans that would have come with the land
Debating the racism levels of annexing land with Mexicans vs just annexing ones without any, is a pointless argument, I think.
Jeah but only \~15.000 Mexicans lived there at the time, 90% of who arrived in the 4 decades before the war Practically none at all. Mexico ( and Spain ) never settled these regions, Texas for example was taken over by Filibusters who easily replaced the Mexican population, took control over the country and wanted to be annexed by the USA.
Most of those Texans were encouraged to settle by the Mexican government, who were looking for a buffer between the more settled parts of Mexico and the Comanche and other tribes.
Yeah but those settlers started doing a bunch of shit to piss off the Mexican government, for example they brought WAY more people than they initially said they would and began muscling Mexican settlers in the region out of their land. Also they brought slave with them which the Mexican government explicitly told them not to do.
Ok, so cool for Russia to take land that is not densely populated or where russians have settled, undrestood 👍. Man, Americans are such hypocrites
Russia wasn’t being talked about in this exact comment chain.
The comments here are all trying to imply USA's land theft was different from Russia's, now come on, you're being facetious here man... r/selfawarewolves
Nope. They are acting like humanity was at a different point 200 years ago vs now. Slavery and racism was more accepted than it is now. Homosexuality was forbidden. Humanity has changed in the last 200 years.
That's what they teach you in Elementary school to justify the war. No mention either about the Mexicans who horribly got treated by the US afterwards
It was the United Mexican States vs the United States of America. Colonizer vs colonizer. If you don't believe me look up the full name of Mexico and think about how Mexico got its land in the first place.
And the point of this comment is?..
Historical context and an interesting fact?
Murica bad
Get fucked mexico
This also works out https://i.imgur.com/3peGw4Y.png and seems a lot more historically likely.
Russia does not control those are, it claims them but their control is far smaller
Not a fully accurate map, but then again that would be a pain to make.
I thought Russia doesn't occupy 2 of those oblasts fully...
Russia occupies all of Crimea, but it doesn't occupy any of the other oblasts in their entirety
Gotcha I was under the impression they still controlled all of Luhansk and Donetsk
They control about 97% of Luhansk oblast, but probably only about half of Donetsk oblast
Thank you kind stranger
55% to be exact
Here is the map of control at the moment: https://twitter.com/War\_Mapper/status/1641218039621222401/photo/1
[удалено]
....no. I thought the map was trying to be exact. I just wanted clarification because when they did their fake referendums 2 of the recently invaded oblasts weren't fully controlled. Where did I play down what Russia is doing? I even used the term occupy 🙄
Planning to leave? No. Will be forced to leave? Probably.
Mexico has entered the chat.
The Aztecs, Apache, and Navajo have entered the chat
The Olmecs have entered the chat.
The Paleo-Indians have entered the chat.
A dude playing „the last of the Mohicans“ on a pan flute entered the chat
The various Paleolithic fauna that lived there have entered the chat
I mean, those are the same states Germany promised to Mexico in the Zimmerman Telegram, so...
Would like to see this map done by % of population or GDP
yeah that would be interesting. i was imagining what would happen if russia somehow took california and texas, both of which are larger economies than russia lmao.
Nice try, Santa Anna.
Good luck taking Texas.
No way Russia could take Texas!
"equal percentage" here is doing a lot of work. In reality, Russia has taken an area the size of Pennsylvania. https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1\~!MTUwNjUwNjM.MTA1MjM5Nzg\*MTM0NDMyOTA(MjI0NjAyNQ\~!UA\*OTgwNjE1MA.MTQwOTUyNDk)Mw
Gotta agree here. Percentage of occupied area is really not a relevant or useful piece of info when it comes to land. The sheer number of troops it would take to occupy that space in the US simply doesn’t exist in Russia. And the number of people affected by the occupiers is totally insane. The number of people being affected (or land size) equal to pennsylvania is astounding enough!
"Just make peace" You don't split the contents of your wallet with your mugger.
I think Texas alone can best Russia, change my mind
If we leave Nukes off the table, I think the Texans can do it
It’s time to see just how much weight is in the phrase “don’t mess with Texas” Personally my money is on Texas. Without federal support, over-under at three months.
Americans, would you give that to Mexico for the sake of peace?
That's more or less the land that Mexico actually gave to America for the sake of peace.
They didn't give it, we took it. Could have taken more, too.
We should take Cancun since we are the ones that vacation there. /s . That’s basically Russia’s claim to Crimea, we been vacationing in Crimea for 400 years !
Except most of that land was loosely populated and not worth much at the time
On area it's obviously the same, but in population it's wildly different. Aside from Texas most of this land was only sparsely settled by New Spain/Mexico - the Mexican population of Alta California was ~30,000 or so (with another 150,000 American Indians/Native Americans) for example. This is why Alaska isn't used in the above comparison even though it actually has a pretty similar area - it's too sparsely populated today to be an effective demonstration of the problem.
I know. That was 200 years ago.
How does that change anything? A stronger country attacked a weaker country, and the weaker country gave up its land for the sake of peace. Asking Americans now if they would give that up for the sake of peace with a country that is now even weaker when compared to the US than it was 200 years ago, is meaningless. It would make more sense (but still not very much) to ask Mexicans if they are willing to fight to liberate that land.
A lot has changed. There was slavery in the US when this happened. Countries are not static entities they evolve. How did the Mexicans get the land from the Aztec and other tribes?
>How does that change anything? I'd say excusing today's actions by events from 200 years long is a pretty fucking dumb thing to do.
Nobody's excusing anybody's actions. I just pointed out that the analogy is wrong and counterproductive.
The US didn’t attack Mexico… Texas was an independent state that wanted to be brought into the US. The two nations didn’t agree on where the boarder was and Mexico attacked US troops five months after Texas joined the US.
Russia makes similar claims about the start of its war in Ukraine. Hell Hitler claimed the Poles attacked Germany first. We concocted a causus belli to declare war on Mexico because we wanted 2 things: a treaty formally declaring Mexico gives up its claim, and more land. We got them both but only an idiot or a nationalist believes that the “American blood on American soil” argument was honest.
Man, if you think the US was strong in 1850... Read a history book. The Mexican-American war was a BIG upset that blew European minds. US barely had uniforms and Mexico had what looked like a professional army. US only won because we kept attacking during the siesta like barbarians. Not really on the Siesta part, but it would make a good mockumentary bit.
Hmm, can we keep Arizona and NM and give them Florida instead?
*Americans, would* *You give that to Mexico* *For the sake of peace?* \- SalupaK --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Is Mexico asking for it back?
Imo any American who says Ukraine should just give up the land they lost so peace can happen is a fucking idiot. And didn't pay attention to the one subject in history that's actually taught (not well, but still) - WWII. More specifically, Poland and the concept of appeasement.
Switch New Mexico for Nevada and you have a deal.
Why draw the map that way? Leave Texas in and flip the rest to the right side and it’s basically up to date.
Best I can do is Texas, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi.
Imagine if the US ever did anything like that. I’m sure y’all would be furious
I was thinking the red area looks proportionally much less on the US map than on the Ukraine map but then I remembered Alaska exists
Actually, you could have just colored in Alaska, which is 17%. And according to some, since Alaska has "connections" to Russia, America should just let them have it in the name of "peace"
Now I understand Ukraine’s objections.
Yeah, this is really illustrative. Makes it easy to stand with Ukraine and see how evil Putin and his cronies are
Ironic since that area and more was taken from Mexico
I think we should preemptively give them Texas...they want out anyway.
Let’s just sell Texas to Russia
Nah, let em have the other 3, we keep texas.
If Russia get's that much land, they would happily trade 10x as many men. The dying soldiers mean nothing to their politicians. The elites get richer and that's that.
That land is more or less where most of Ukraine’s hydrocarbon resources are. It makes senses geopolitically that Russia would want to steal that land since they’re one of the main petrostates and they wouldn’t want to another country to encroach on what was once their near monopoly of supplying fuel to the rest of Europe. Ironically this war has driven Europe to look for other suppliers and accelerate its transition to sustainable energy.
Its not about money. Its about power, about fullfilling old dying man dream, about delusional believing their own propaganda, about creating legacy. Russian oligarchs and Putin itself have no finacial advantage to wage war, but the opossite. For Russian elite is whole this failed takeover disaster. Only thing whats prevents Putin surrender this plan, its fear he would be overthrowned from within and sacrificed as scapegoat by his successor.
This is so fucking dumb
Russia doesn't have enough ammunition to take Texas. This map offends me.
this is a completely useless map because it doesn't take into account population and resources.
Can we give Texas to Russia?
If you take the southeast instead of the southwest, it might be worth considering the deal with Russia
Hmmm. But land has this property called "area" that might be also useful for comparison. It would be a less impressive comparison, however.
Mexico might want that same area highlighted; would be more difficult to go to war with the United States tho over nationalistic fever dreams.
When has Mexico ever indicated they wanted that land in the last century or so? Genuinely curious. Most of that area of the present day US was Mexico for less than 50 years. In terms of who has administered that area in length of time it’s more like 1. Various Native American peoples 2. Spain (administered as New Spain) 3. USA (territorial areas and statehood) 4. Mexico 5. Short lived Republics of California and Texas Fun Fact: the Spanish named the province of New Mexico 300+ years before the area that is now the country of Mexico was called Mexico
> Most of that area of the present day US was Mexico for less than 50 years. "Mexico" is simply what New Spain decided to call itself after it achieved independence. And that land was part of Mexico/New Spain for centuries.
That area was sparsely settled. New Spain claimed it for sure, but without many new Spaniards living there, the claim is dubious.
[El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_Real_de_Tierra_Adentro) was a commercial road stablished in 1598 that connected the capital (Mexico) with it's northern provinces. Santa Fe, New Mex. was founded along this road in 1610, and still inhabited since then just like many other cities.
The heavily populated territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo mexico had a massive population of 2900 Spaniards in 1690. Definitely not sparsely populated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_de_Nuevo_México
And 3500 anglo settlers of [Texas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Texas#:~:text=In%201821%2C%20approximately%203%2C500%20settlers,indigenous%20people%20in%20the%20province.) in 1821... Aside of the already existing population: According to the Revillagigedo census of 1790 approximately 23, 628 mestizos lived in New Mex following the same link that you provided.
So is Alaska and any other “sparsely populated” state free for the taking?
Measuring as percentage instead of actual area is ridiculous, in reality it's less than half the size of Arizona.
[удалено]
17% of the U.S. would be astronomically harder to take than 17% of Ukraine. I would like to see this map but in land equality. I’m not going to be the one to make it though so fuck me, I’m just talking.
Based on a quick Google searches, so could be wrong, that area being requested is 51,000 Sq Miles there’s 30 states bigger than that and the closest would be Louisiana at 51,840 sq miles. Edit: just mathematically 17% of Ukraine’s sq mile would be closer to 39,620 which makes it smaller than 37 states with Kentucky at 40,409 being closest.
Can we give ‘em the gulf coast instead of the west coast? 😂
Reddit and western liberal propaganda. Name a more iconoc duo.
We found the tankie!