1
Russia is commonly described as a Eurasian nation, as it spans both "Europe"(defined as the land north of the Caucasus, north of the Mediterranean, and west of the Urals) and Asia. The "Asian" part of Russia was historically referred to as Siberia. The Urals are seen as the dividing line between the two continents but I think this is flawed for various reasons.
First of all, ethnic Russians form the vast majority of the population on both sides of the Urals. It has been this way for centuries now and there is really no practical difference between a town in Siberia and one in western Russia other than perhaps the climate. There is also no practical separation between the populations as people move freely between the two regions.
One might argue that the difference is that Siberia was originally inhabited by non-Russian "north Asians" that it is a distinct region from western Russia but this is also mistaken. Many parts of "European" Russia were actually occupied by non-Europeans. For example it was Tatars and other nomads in the southeastern steppes and Nenets in the far north. In fact, Russians living in the greater Arkhangelsk region show a heavy influx of Nenet-like ancestry. Importantly, these groups still exist in the European part of Russia-they did not die off. Udmurts, Mari, Bashkirs, Kalmyks to name a few.
There is also the issue of the Caucasus. The area was not and is not European or Russian ethnically and yet is still deemed part of "European Russia" for some reason. So Chelyabinsk east of the Urals and overwhelmingly Russian is not Europe but Grozny which is Chechen is? Makes perfect sense/s
Overall it seems like the Urals as a demarcation line was flawed to begin with given the character of people living on both sides being exactly the same. In other words, both European Russia and Asiatic Russia have a heavily east European majority with minorities of "Asian" people.
Bookmarks