In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin's reflections on Russia-Ukraine relations and broader historical territorial claims have ignited a wave of controversy and debate across social media platforms in China and among global leaders. Putin's attempt to justify the Kremlin's actions in Ukraine based on historical precedents has led some Chinese nationalists to revisit their country's historical claims to the port city of Vladivostok, citing the Treaty of Peking of 1860, which ceded the territory to Tsarist Russia.
On platforms like Weibo, akin to X in functionality, Chinese users have expressed a desire for the return of territories they argue were historically part of China, including Vladivostok and regions extending into today's Mongolia and Russian Siberia. These discussions were fueled by Putin's comparison of the historical foundations of Russia, dating back to the 9th century, with the more recent formation of Ukraine in the 20th century, leading to heightened nationalist sentiments among Chinese netizens, as reported by Newsweek.
Robert Wu, a social media user from China, voiced a common sentiment among nationalists, stating, "According to history, Russia should return us Vladivostok and vast territory stolen 100-something years ago." These claims reflect a broader movement among sections of Chinese nationalists who have been advocating for the return of territories they believe were unjustly taken by Russia over a century ago.
However, skepticism about Putin's historical references has also emerged, with experts like Zichen Wang, a fellow at the China Center for China and Globalization, questioning the relevance of ancient historical claims to contemporary international relations. Wang's commentary on X, formerly known as Twitter, highlighted the complexities of relying on historical narratives to justify modern territorial claims.
The discussion has not been limited to Chinese nationalists. Mongolia's former president, Tsakhia Elbegdorj, also weighed in on the debate, using Putin's own historical arguments to remind the Russian leader of Mongolia's vast empire under Genghis Khan, which once encompassed much of Eurasia, including parts of modern Russia, China, and Ukraine. Elbegdorj's posts on X, featuring a Mongolian historic map, served as both a critique of Putin's reliance on history for territorial claims and a statement of Mongolia's peaceful stance.
Elbegdorj, who has previously described Putin as a "narcissist" threatened by democratic movements, emphasized the dangers of using historical precedents to lay claim to territories in the present day. His comments reflect a broader concern about the implications of such historical narratives for international relations and territorial integrity.
As the debate continues to unfold, the responses to Putin's interview with Carlson underscore the delicate balance between historical narratives and contemporary geopolitical realities. With voices ranging from Chinese nationalists to former Mongolian leaders weighing in, the discussion highlights the ongoing challenges in reconciling historical claims with the principles of modern international law and diplomacy.
