3 ms·

I don't think Russian SSR and the USSR were synonymous terms for anything but for informal colloquial usage. The Russian SSR had only 51% of the population and

I don't think Russian SSR and the USSR were synonymous terms for anything but for informal colloquial usage. The Russian SSR had only 51% of the population and 77% of the land of the Soviet Union.[1] Both the Belyrussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR were United Nations members states and constituent states of the Soviet Union.[2] After the breakup of the Soviet Union, some scholars have referred to Russian Federation as a rump state.[3] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Unio... [2] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/506/why-did-the-soviet-union-get-3-seats-in-the-un https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/506/why-did-the-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state

Armisael16 8y ago
Do you think the nytimes was respecting that difference? Nothing else really matters for this.
eponeponepon 8y ago
I think the previous poster's point was precisely about the vernacular - don't forget the flags in the articles derive from news headlines, of which the vast preponderance are very much expressed in the vernacular. Speaking for myself, growing up in the 80s, I definitely wasn't completely aware that Russia and the USSR were separate concepts, probably until the latter's break-up.
Svettie 8y ago
You're starting with the concept of "Russian SSR" to mean "Russia" and going from there, and this line of reasoning makes sense. But really, "Russian SSR" was the novel concept. Before the USSR, "Russia" meant the "Russian Empire", which comprised of basically the same area as the USSR. So during the time of the USSR, "Russian SSR" had no meaning (to the West), it's only significant now in hindsight after the breakup. To summarize this perspective I'd view it like this: The "Russian Empire" i.e. "Russia", was renamed "USSR" and internally they drew lines to make states, for which "Russia Core" for lack of a better name was simply called "Russian SSR".

Armisael16 8y ago

Do you think the nytimes was respecting that difference? Nothing else really matters for this.

eponeponepon 8y ago

I think the previous poster's point was precisely about the vernacular - don't forget the flags in the articles derive from news headlines, of which the vast preponderance are very much expressed in the vernacular. Speaking for myself, growing up in the 80s, I definitely wasn't completely aware that Russia and the USSR were separate concepts, probably until the latter's break-up.

Svettie 8y ago

You're starting with the concept of "Russian SSR" to mean "Russia" and going from there, and this line of reasoning makes sense. But really, "Russian SSR" was the novel concept. Before the USSR, "Russia" meant the "Russian Empire", which comprised of basically the same area as the USSR. So during the time of the USSR, "Russian SSR" had no meaning (to the West), it's only significant now in hindsight after the breakup. To summarize this perspective I'd view it like this: The "Russian Empire" i.e. "Russia", was renamed "USSR" and internally they drew lines to make states, for which "Russia Core" for lack of a better name was simply called "Russian SSR".