Oddly enough, so is Kazakhstan! By most definitions of the Asia-Europe border, Kazakhstan has a chunk on the European side that’s actually still bigger than most European countries
The European part of Turkiye is still about twelve million people as well, it’s not like Russia but it is still a pretty substantial number of people. It’d be the 12th-most populous country in Europe if it was independent
It’s not as out of balance as Russia though. European Russia accounts for about 15% of Europe’s entire population. It’s a huge area, a lot of which is rural, but its population density of 27/km^2 is almost 10x as high as the population density of Siberia at 2.8/km^2. Siberia is 13.1 million km^2, European Russia is just under 4 million km^2.
Siberia is normally thought of as a snowy wasteland, but it also includes Russia’s entire Pacific coast, including Vladivostok where in the summer the average highs through July, August and September are all above 20C. That’s warmer than Edinburgh. Its winters are colder, but they’re not much colder than Moscow.
i feel there’s a big difference in how the parts of the countries culturally relate to each other, too.
Like i’m not aware of any real difficulty getting between european and asian Turkey, whereas with russia it’s 1) a massive distance, 2) there’s a big fuckoff mountain chain in the way, and 3) the fuck are you going to do in siberia?
Most of it is in Asia, but the part in Europe has most (75%+) of the actual people. Partly colonial population dynamics at work, partly the rest of it being Siberia.
Most popular coloring is deceiving: It could mean 90% emigrate to that country or 10% do. Also this map totally neglects how many stay in that country.
To visualize the data completely (not on a map unfortunately) one could choose a chord diagram.
It’s deceiving in multiple ways. Like of course more Romanians emigrate to Germany than to Belgium or Luxembourg, Germany is many times larger. They should add the to-country base population and/or surface to the equation.
This makes me wonder how does the graph diagram wind up looking like. Most nodes seem to end in a Germany-Switzerland-France loop
sorry to be nitpicky, but it’s only a 2-cycle, switzerland and france. but most of the countries get there via germany.
it would be interesting to look at the induced directed acyclic graph of the original graph’s connected components.
And then there’s the edge case of England going literally outside of the continent, with Australia
That’s because Brits would rather move to the literal other side of the globe where everything wants to kill you than learn a second language.
That makes a lot of sense - but if that were all there was to it, wouldn’t most of the emigration go to the fellow Commonwealth member, Canada?
Better not risk the chance of ever seeing a french word. By accident
The other side of the world: for when you really need to get as far away from it all as you can.
They took away our right to live in Europe. I imagine things would be very different for British 18-34 year olds had that not happened.
I’m not sure that’s true, even when we were in the EU more Britons moved to Australia.
Russians also move to Kazakhstan
Right, I keep forgetting Russia is still partly in Europe
Oddly enough, so is Kazakhstan! By most definitions of the Asia-Europe border, Kazakhstan has a chunk on the European side that’s actually still bigger than most European countries
Some countries like Turkey are part of both Europe and Asia on technicalities. They straddle the border so they get to be part of both.
Then there’s Russia, where the population is mostly in Europe, but the land is mostly in Asia.
The European part of Turkiye is still about twelve million people as well, it’s not like Russia but it is still a pretty substantial number of people. It’d be the 12th-most populous country in Europe if it was independent
It’s not as out of balance as Russia though. European Russia accounts for about 15% of Europe’s entire population. It’s a huge area, a lot of which is rural, but its population density of 27/km^2 is almost 10x as high as the population density of Siberia at 2.8/km^2. Siberia is 13.1 million km^2, European Russia is just under 4 million km^2.
Siberia is normally thought of as a snowy wasteland, but it also includes Russia’s entire Pacific coast, including Vladivostok where in the summer the average highs through July, August and September are all above 20C. That’s warmer than Edinburgh. Its winters are colder, but they’re not much colder than Moscow.
i feel there’s a big difference in how the parts of the countries culturally relate to each other, too.
Like i’m not aware of any real difficulty getting between european and asian Turkey, whereas with russia it’s 1) a massive distance, 2) there’s a big fuckoff mountain chain in the way, and 3) the fuck are you going to do in siberia?
It seems to me that if all the people and power weren’t in European Russia, someone would do something more with Vladivostok.
Most of it is in Asia, but the part in Europe has most (75%+) of the actual people. Partly colonial population dynamics at work, partly the rest of it being Siberia.
They do like to make themselves at home in other people’s homes. Wouldn’t be such a problem if so many of them weren’t such horrible cunts.
Most popular coloring is deceiving: It could mean 90% emigrate to that country or 10% do. Also this map totally neglects how many stay in that country.
To visualize the data completely (not on a map unfortunately) one could choose a chord diagram.
It’s deceiving in multiple ways. Like of course more Romanians emigrate to Germany than to Belgium or Luxembourg, Germany is many times larger. They should add the to-country base population and/or surface to the equation.
It just ends in a France Switzerland loop. I think you’re mistaking Austria for Switzerland.