That's pretty standard with the big mapping providers. Sometimes called world view (one of many) or political view. For example a law in India says you have to use the official border when building in product in India, let's say put a navigation system in a car sold there. There's 90 disputed areas listed on wikipedia (Western Sahara has 4 different views even, some islands are claimed by 3 even 4 countries).
Leaving aside the merits / demerits of this specific case, cartography presents an interesting dilemma - is there a single source of truth, if so what is it, and what happens if adherence to it contravenes of the prevailing mood?
It is explicable, but I think they are still taking a side? Within Russia, Google is agreeing with Putin's claims on Crimea, regardless of whether that represents the views of people in Russia, or Crimea.
On cartography, yes, the artist, Simon Weckert, makes a point about that dilemma
"With maps it is possible to enforce truth claims of knowledge under specific conditions, which are closely interwoven with power."
I guess international law, the UN is supposed to be the arbiter of this , rather than Google and it's commercial interests in the countries in which it operates.
However, UN rulings are frequently overturned or ignored when run contravention to the opinions of the most powerful countries. Palestine / Israel, an obvious example.
Does anyone know how to see what this artist saw? How can I see what Russian's see when they use Google Maps? I'd love to know how Google Maps is representing Ukraine and Russia's current borders.
