What's more interesting about that article is the threat of social shaming at the end:

> Like it or not, and intentionally or not, the language a person uses reflects their political positions, including their position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.

As a citizen of the United States, this whole issue seems ridiculous. It's remarkable though how a media and PR campaign, combined with social pressure, can change our lexicon practically overnight.

What's even more interesting still is that you had the opportunity to (attempt to) disprove any of it while replying, but did not do so.

The article mentions the hole in their argument and then glosses over it:

> There are exceptions, but these are the general principles that bind speakers of Russian and English.

These exceptions include collections of states (eg. the UAE, the US) and country names derived from regions (the Netherlands, the Congo, the Ukraine).

>These exceptions include collections of states (eg. the UAE, the US) and country names derived from regions

Let's take these one by one:

>the Netherlands This is plural: the Low Countries. You are referring to a group, same as the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

>the Congo Which one? ... Exactly.

>the Ukraine Already discussed, referring to it as a region denies its sovereignty.

The etymology of the Netherlands is the Dutch "nederland", or "lower lands". I'd consider "the lowlands" to fall into the region category, much in the same way that the Ukraine translates to "the frontier" or "the border".

> Which one? ... Exactly

What can I say, English is weird. The Gambia does the same, in both cases referring to the region around a particular river.