Putin’s Appeasers Support Historical Unity Attempts
They either don’t know it or don’t care.
In addition to his victim-blaming and NATO finger-pointing, Putin is playing a dangerous historical unity game in his endless quest to justify invading Ukraine. The far-reaching implications of this false justification are massive if left unchecked. Should the democratic world retreat into appeasement, there would be little to deter other countries from attempting to realize any of their territorial ambitions.
Yet some in the west still want peace in Ukraine regardless of costs. They consider peace paramount to punishing Putin or deterring future Russian aggression. They care less about Putin’s baseless justifications for invading Ukraine, and more about striking a deal with an autocrat who has shown a propensity to renege.
These western appeasers are playing Putin’s dangerous historical unity game for him. They’re letting the argument prevail that Ukraine lacks a unique cultural and historical identity. Even if they don’t believe that argument themselves, calling for peace at all costs - instead of demanding Putin to retreat from Ukraine - tacitly condones Putin’s historical unity arguments.
And don’t just take my paraphrasing of Putin’s position. Read Vladimir Putin’s own words for yourself.
Failing to check Putin and deter future acts of similar unprovoked aggression is not in support of peace. It’s quite the opposite. It gives the green light to any country that can cherry-pick together similar historical arguments. So long as - like Putin - they engage in enough nuclear saber-rattling to scare western doves.
Historical unity has mass appeal
The biggest danger with Putin’s historical unity argument is that it has mass appeal. Many countries can make similar claims against neighbors both near and far. The most obvious example is how China views Taiwan.
President Xi Jinping of China has used eerily similar language as Vladimir Putin when describing Taiwan. He has said that “reunification must be fulfilled.” Notably, he has not ruled out the use of force to achieve this reunification.
Xi has pointed to the fact that Taiwan was not only a province of China’s Qing dynasty dating back to the 17th century but was also reclaimed by China after Japan was forced to give it up following the end of World War II.
Taiwan sees the same history very differently. They argue that China had no sovereignty over the island nation during the two critical Chinese revolutions in the 20th Century: (1) the 1911-12 overthrow of the Qing Empire that established the Republic of China (ROC); and (2) the 1948-49 civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the ROC where the CCP lost in its attempts to overthrow the remaining ROC government that had fled mainland China for present-day Taiwan.
How Taiwan views its history, however, is irrelevant if China sees it differently and is not deterred from using force. While China has been hesitant to provide military support to Russia, recent reports suggest their stance may be changing. China knows that supporting another aggressor’s historical unity arguments will only bolster its own toward Taiwan if they succeed. Although the geopolitics are different between China and Russia, and Taiwan and Ukraine, China’s Russian support must be viewed through the lens of reunification.
Less threatening versions of reunification claims could also be made by almost every other country in the world. Borders have changed constantly throughout history, creating historical bonds and cultural connections unconstrained by land and sea.
I’m writing this article from Bulgaria, a country southwest of Ukraine along the Black Sea. Some may know that the Bulgarian Empire was much larger than its current borders suggest. If Bulgaria were strong enough militarily to play the historical unity card, they too could make their own territorial claims against parts of present-day Romania, Albania, and even Ukraine, among others.
Of course, this is only illustrative. There’s nothing to suggest Bulgaria has imperialistic ambitions, let alone the capability to act on them. But the point remains that claims for historical unity and reunification have mass appeal and have been used throughout time to justify invasions. Putin did not invent this strategy himself.
Claim historical unity, invade, and then threaten to blow up the world
Any peace deal with Putin that does not at least force him back to his starting position in February 2022 in effect supports this strategy. The only thing missing is the NATO pretext and baseless claims of the “Nazification” of Ukraine. Other countries looking to follow Putin’s lead would also need to blame someone else for their aggression, and like almost any accused rapist, blame the victim too.
While pretexts and victim blaming may change depending on the specific geopolitical situation, historical unity arguments strike similar chords everywhere. Yes, they are also unique depending on history, culture, language, etc., but the strategy and ultimate goals are the same.
Connect people culturally and then win their hearts and minds without spilling their blood.
When that fails, articulate a case for historical unity in writing, develop and execute a propaganda campaign, and let any useful idiots in other countries help do your work for you. Then invade and threaten nuclear war with anyone who attempts to intervene. The useful idiots and extreme pacifists globally will be on your side.
Here’s a current example of one useful idiot from the United States. His name is Charlie Kirk and he loves to do Putin’s bidding.
And here’s a typical Ukrainian response.
While she may be stating too much in assuming Kirk even has “expertise”, it’s clear what her position is in response to a Putin appeaser. It’s also clear that most Ukrainians do not want reunification with Russia. They rightfully view themselves as having a distinct culture and identity, not a historical unity that requires Russian occupation.
So if you find yourself making any arguments that do not first start with Putin must retreat from Ukraine, ask yourself about the broader implications of what you’re advocating. Are you tacitly condoning historical unity arguments globally? Would that type of precedent lead to a more peaceful world?
The only way of truly realizing peace in the modern world is by forcing every country to respect current borders and then punishing those who don’t.
For more of my writing, find me on Medium and subscribe if you haven’t already.