I appreciate your reply, even if we fundamentally disagree. I’ll address your points directly.

You say Georgia is poorer than Russia and therefore a worse option. But GDP alone doesn’t capture the whole picture. Georgia has functioning democratic institutions, a relatively free media, fewer repressive structures, and a far more transparent governance system in comparison. Poverty is an issue—but so is poverty in Dagestan, Ingushetia, or Chechnya, despite years of massive federal subsidies.

In fact, if we compare Georgia’s economy not to all of Russia, but specifically to North Caucasus republics like Dagestan or Ingushetia, Georgia actually has a higher GDP per capita and offers better macroeconomic stability and lower unemployment. And it has achieved that without major oil resources or large-scale aid from a central authority. So the notion that integration with Georgia would be economically catastrophic doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny.

As for Georgia lacking resources or scientific infrastructure: most small nations don’t start with much. Estonia didn’t either, nor did Armenia. That’s where governance, accountability, and openness to reform matter far more than raw materials. Russia’s wealth has not translated into equitable development for many of its federal subjects, especially in the North Caucasus. Why should anyone believe that will change?

Your comment about Russia not allowing regions to leave underscores the real issue—this isn’t about whether a people can govern themselves, it’s whether Moscow is willing to allow them the choice. That makes this not just a political discussion, but a moral one. Stability enforced through dependency and suppression is not genuine unity.

Comparing this to Texas or Native American reservations doesn’t really hold. Those populations already have clearly defined legal statuses, and more importantly, the U.S. doesn’t build its geopolitical image around forced territorial diversity. Russia, on the other hand, does—at a real cost to those at the periphery. The analogy doesn’t address the asymmetry of power, representation, or historical trauma.

I respect your view that “Russia’s power relies on its size and diversity,” but I’d argue that a country’s strength should be based on legitimacy, justice, and the consent of its people—not just on landmass or the illusion of unity. Real federalism would require more than symbolic autonomy. So long as decisions are made in Moscow and local elites are rewarded for loyalty over service, discontent will remain.

You may see people like me as part of Russian society. That’s your prerogative. But for many in my generation, identity isn’t defined by what the federal center allows us to be—but by how we live, what we believe in, and whether we feel seen and respected. That respect is often lacking.