He’s making a claim about history that seeks to delegitimize the Ukrainian government, but that is not the same thing as saying that all Ukrainian territory belongs to Russia.
Please back this up with evidence. I gave you a direct quote.
Putin claimed there is “no historical basis” for the “idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians”
There’s your evidence. Don’t know what else to tell you. He could try to use that argument to claim all of Ukraine’s territory, but he has not claimed all of Ukraine’s territory, the quote simply does not show him doing that.
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.
Please back this up with evidence. I gave you a direct quote.
There’s your evidence. Don’t know what else to tell you. He could try to use that argument to claim all of Ukraine’s territory, but he has not claimed all of Ukraine’s territory, the quote simply does not show him doing that.
…
What quote are you reading? That is literally him claiming that.
This is some weird as fuck gaslighting.
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.