Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Zoupa]

I think recent history has shown that negotiations, treaties and signing agreements with russia is worthless. I'm afraid the only way out of this war is on the battlefield.

A French general recently said whatever putin signs or says, it's worth less than a raccoon's fart. I'm not sure it translates but you get the gist.

[Admiral Yi]

Putin claimed a 400-year-old map proved Ukraine isn't a real country, not noticing it has 'Ukraine' written on it

• Russian President Vladimir Putin said an old map proves Ukraine isn't a real country.
• But the document in fact shows the area near Kyiv labeled as "Ukraine."
• Putin has cited his much-criticized belief Ukraine isn't a real country in justifying Russia's invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin Tuesday cited a 17th-Century map of Europe to back his discredited thesis that Ukraine isn't a real country, a claim that he's used to justify Russia's unprovoked invasion.
But, even on the terms of Putin's thesis, there was a problem: the document clearly marks part of the territory as being "Ukraine."

In a meeting with the chairman of Russia's constitutional court, Valery Zorkin, the two pored over a map made by a 17th century cartographer for France's King Louis XIV.

The Kremlin published a video of the encounter, in which Putin and Zorkin hold the map up as proof that a Ukrainian nation is a historical fiction.
[...]

Borrowing a page from the Chinese seven dash line.

[Solmyr]

In terms of Putin's map showing Ukraine doesn't exist, how does that square with things like the Tsar's official title from their early 20th century constitution:

By the Grace of God, We Nicholas, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod;

Both the concept of "All the Russias (plural)" and listing out Moscow and Kiev as separate seems to strongly suggest Moscow Russians and Kiev Russians are not the same thing or part of the same historic entity.

It's not plural in actual Russian, though. It's "Всероссийский" which just means "of all Russia" or "of the entire Russia". The listing of the major historical cities afterwards implies that they are all part of historical Rus which Russia is a continuation of. I have no idea why the English translation of the term is in the plural.

[DGuller]

I think it's wishful thinking to consider the possibility that white Russians don't all consider themselves part of the same group.  The 80% of the Russian population that are ethnic Russians and are overwhelmingly Christian or non-religious will never consider the possibility of their country being anything other than Russia.  In my opinion, this is the same reason that Russians genuinely can't comprehend how Ukrainians or Belarusians would consider themselves different people, since they look a lot like them and speak the same language (you may say that Ukrainians do speak Ukrainian, but Russians don't consider that a real language, but rather a tool to separate the people from Russia).

[crazy canuck]

In terms of Putin's map showing Ukraine doesn't exist, how does that square with things like the Tsar's official title from their early 20th century constitution:

By the Grace of God, We Nicholas, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod;

Both the concept of "All the Russias (plural)" and listing out Moscow and Kiev as separate seems to strongly suggest Moscow Russians and Kiev Russians are not the same thing or part of the same historic entity.

It's not plural in actual Russian, though. It's "Всероссийский" which just means "of all Russia" or "of the entire Russia". The listing of the major historical cities afterwards implies that they are all part of historical Rus which Russia is a continuation of. I have no idea why the English translation of the term is in the plural.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons Putin refers back to Czarist Russia rather than the period in which there were many Soviets.

[Josquius]

Why English says plural all Russias to me sounds like an interesting enough question that surely somebody would have come up with an answer at some point?

[Sheilbh]

I thought all the Russias was Russia plus Little Russia and White Russia.

My guess is that it's probably a translation from the time the title was first being used - so basically Tudor/Stuart English that then got frozen. I'm unsure if many 16th/17th century translations would hold up to modern scrutiny or taste.

I'm not sure listing them out necessarily indicates they are separate either. It could be sort of teleological - they are all tributaries of a single Russia which is expressed in and governed from Moscow. That certainly seems Putin's read (thinking back to that essay he wrote) and seems in line with the whole Third Rome view of Tsarist Russia too?

[celedhring]

I thought all the Russias was Russia plus Little Russia and White Russia.

My guess is that it's probably a translation from the time the title was first being used - so basically Tudor/Stuart English that then got frozen. I'm unsure if many 16th/17th century translations would hold up to modern scrutiny or taste.

I'm not sure listing them out necessarily indicates they are separate either. It could be sort of teleological - they are all tributaries of a single Russia which is expressed in and governed from Moscow. That certainly seems Putin's read (thinking back to that essay he wrote) and seems in line with the whole Third Rome view of Tsarist Russia too?

FWIW, the mistranslation is also present in Spanish.

[Duque de Bragança]

I thought all the Russias was Russia plus Little Russia and White Russia.

My guess is that it's probably a translation from the time the title was first being used - so basically Tudor/Stuart English that then got frozen. I'm unsure if many 16th/17th century translations would hold up to modern scrutiny or taste.

I'm not sure listing them out necessarily indicates they are separate either. It could be sort of teleological - they are all tributaries of a single Russia which is expressed in and governed from Moscow. That certainly seems Putin's read (thinking back to that essay he wrote) and seems in line with the whole Third Rome view of Tsarist Russia too?

Portuguese has both forms:

O prefixo "de Toda(s) a(s) Rússia(s)" foi uma variação da prévia versão "(Czar) de Toda (a) Rus'".

The use of "Rus'" is incommon in Portuguese, restricted to historical works, and recent ones, if at all.

[Zanza]

In German his title refers to Russians as people, not to particular territories called Russia: "Czar of all Russians" basically. 

[Syt]

What makes the German version weird, though, is that the old term was "Selbstherrscher/Zar/Kaiser aller Reußen", apparently from medieval "Riuzen". Catherina the Great used the term in her manifesto inviting German settlers into Russia in the 1760s.

[Solmyr]

The term also references the fact that a lot of old Rus lands were held by Lithuania and later the PLC, Moscow's rivals for supremacy. Thus, as those territories were gradually absorbed into Moscow's domain, "All Russia" meant that the Tsar was also the rightful ruler of those PLC-held territories since they were part of "All Russia".

[Josquius]

In German his title refers to Russians as people, not to particular territories called Russia: "Czar of all Russians" basically. 

I was just thinking that this makes sense for the English, it's just we lost the N somewhere along the way and got confused, maybe during the rus to Russian change.

I'm going to guess it's not a mistranslation and rather a sort of convergant development on the people vs land lines.

[Legbiter]

Ukrainians clearing vatnik trenches around Bakhmut.

Interesting to see how crucial drones are in providing close air support.

[Josquius]

Heard yesterday Russia rotated out the wagners for donetsk conscripts in bakmut. Which is depressing.