Lisa Patel4 said:Did you read that in an American newspaper? Have you actually studied any history regarding Russia or Ukraine? I guess Putin lied about a lot of things, but he never claimed the Bolsheviks just drew today's borders for Ukraine.
Crimea was handed over by decree. A literal decree, seriously.
Have you even heard of rootization?
Honestly, I think those Soviet borders are just unsustainable garbage. Those communists drew lines all over Europe whenever they felt like it, basically inventing entire nations like Moldova.
Only in a communist mind could you find "invented" states and nations like Moldova or Canada.
Poor Ukrainians. Just tell me how they ended up with Volonija, Lviv, and Uzhhorod? How did Lviv even become a majority Ukrainian city?
And do they even recognize Rusyns as a nation?
Sure, but that kind of reasoning is just pro-Mexican or pro-Russian rhetoric—the idea of our "eternal homeland" living in a perpetual illusion while fueling radical nationalism because someone supposedly "wronged" them... it's tired.
Let’s be realistic: Ukraine was annexed to Russia by the Ukrainian Hetman Khmelnytsky back in 1654.
Ukrainians didn't start with a massive, fully developed ethnic identity; it evolved gradually, though it was never identical to the Russian one.
Beyond their military Cossack history, the formation of Ukrainian identity was shaped by European, Jewish, and Russian cultural influences.
Ukrainians were never slaves—they always had a streak of freedom—whereas the Russian political elite has always been oppressive, whether it was a Tsar, a President, a Monarchy, or the Communist nomenclature. It remains the same today.
Despite the diversity, most Ukrainians considered themselves Rus (Little Russians) before WWI; later events like Lenin and the Holodomor helped drive the development of the modern identity.
Once a nation is formed, it isn't possible to turn back the clock, despite what pro-Russian or pro-Mexican ideologues claim—you can't just find a time machine.
A nation's identity can be slowed down or suppressed under certain circumstances, but it can never be truly destroyed.
Regarding Ukrainian territory: from its incorporation into Russia to the way the USSR or Imperial Russia expanded, it was often dictated by Russian Tsars, Lenin, and later, after WWII, how the USSR grew.
Lviv was acquired just like Kaliningrad and Vilnius were after WWII.
Putin’s vision essentially boils down to this: when you leave a marriage, you only take what you brought into it—he’s referring to those territorial "gifts" from the Tsars and the USSR as "mistakes."
If we're playing the historical card, why doesn't the little guy return Kaliningrad (Königsberg)? And if we're going strictly by history, who hasn't been ethnically cleansed or conquered? At that rate, there’d be nothing left of Russia but a suburb of Moscow.
Ukrainians often provided the massive sacrifices necessary to defend Soviet Russia and the USSR, only for Stalin to hand them the Holodomor.
The Russians never actually ratified the borders with Ukraine or the other Soviet republics; they still view those areas as part of "Mother Russia."
In the 1994 memorandum, they committed to being guarantors of Ukrainian integrity and sovereignty alongside the USA and the United Kingdom, promising that in exchange for giving up nuclear warheads, Russia would never use them against Ukraine.
Sure, America invades certain countries and engages in plunder like any other superpower, but it doesn't annex foreign territory—especially not internationally recognized nations.
Russia must be defeated as an occupier and
humiliated!
They have a massive 17 million km² but only 150 million people—that is far too much territory for one nation to be snatching up someone else's land.
What kind of "buffer zone" logic are they using against NATO when they occupy one-sixth of the Earth's landmass?
Glory to Ukraine!