In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.
Sorry, I’m talking about things that are actually formalized. Maybe that’s where the confusion is? Russia has never (to my knowledge) claimed any part of Belarus.
Just saying, like, “I think we have a common heritage” is not the same as saying, “All your territory belongs to me and I intend to take it.” The distinction is enormous.
Let me take a step back and use an example. Suppose a Native American reservation puts out a document talking about how, historically, the land that the US was founded on was stolen from Native tribes. Now, hypothetically, someone could use that argument to delegitimize the US and claim all of its territory, if, like, this reservation had a massive army somehow. But just saying that would all still be theoretical.
If I say, “Taiwan claims territory occupied by the PRC” (or vice versa) I am making an objectively true statement, because they’ve made those claims formally and explicitly. But when you say that Russia is claiming all of Ukraine, that’s just your opinion about Putin’s opinion, it’s speculation. If you say that he claims Donbass, that’s a fact, because that’s something that’s formalized. But when he’s talking about history, of course his goal is to delegitimize Ukraine, but unless it’s explicitly applied to the present day, it’s not an actual claim.
It’s literally not.
Do you think he’s also claiming Belarus?
Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state? Yes.
That’s also not true.
Sorry, I’m talking about things that are actually formalized. Maybe that’s where the confusion is? Russia has never (to my knowledge) claimed any part of Belarus.
Just saying, like, “I think we have a common heritage” is not the same as saying, “All your territory belongs to me and I intend to take it.” The distinction is enormous.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
But fine, they are not technically the same country. As if that matters since Putin controls it.
Let me take a step back and use an example. Suppose a Native American reservation puts out a document talking about how, historically, the land that the US was founded on was stolen from Native tribes. Now, hypothetically, someone could use that argument to delegitimize the US and claim all of its territory, if, like, this reservation had a massive army somehow. But just saying that would all still be theoretical.
If I say, “Taiwan claims territory occupied by the PRC” (or vice versa) I am making an objectively true statement, because they’ve made those claims formally and explicitly. But when you say that Russia is claiming all of Ukraine, that’s just your opinion about Putin’s opinion, it’s speculation. If you say that he claims Donbass, that’s a fact, because that’s something that’s formalized. But when he’s talking about history, of course his goal is to delegitimize Ukraine, but unless it’s explicitly applied to the present day, it’s not an actual claim.
Me:
You:
Me: [shows multiple sources about how Belarus is a Russian vassal state.]
You (ignoring that):
No, let’s not. You’re not here in good faith. I’m done.
I thought you had conceded the point. Guess I misunderstood.