User talk:Johnny Moor/archives 1

Belarus is Russia's vassal/lapdog/military district. That is not xenophobia, that is reality.

Another emerging wrinkle in the conflict is a build up of forces in Ukraine’s northern neighbor Belarus, largely viewed as a Russian vassal state under President Alexander Lukashenko. ~ [1]

While Kyiv has long chosen to become an adversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambition, Belarus’s leader Alexander Lukashenko formally kept power but actually became a vassal of Russia. ~ [2]

Belarus never had the option of staying neutral in the invasion of Ukraine, given how dependent Belarus remains on Russia. Since the outset of the invasion, Belarus has provided a rear base for Russia’s unsuccessful attempt to seize Kyiv and a staging area for both Russian troops and missiles. “Russia fired artillery and missiles into Ukraine from Belarus,” noted Ekaterina Pierson-Lyzhina, a Belarus specialist at the Free University of Brussels. “Lukashenko went along with Putin and reinforced his desire for war, while his anti-NATO rhetoric further inflamed tensions,” she said. ~ [3]

Belarus is even called a military district of Russia. The deepening of military cooperation is unlikely to be reversed. Instead, Belarus is apparently on the way to becoming a de facto extension of Russia’s Western Military District. Hence, all in all, the official removal of neutrality from the new constitution of Belarus is only rubberstamping a reality that Belarus has been rapidly heading towards since 2020, and that has now materialised violently and dramatically following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ~ [4]

Your slander that I am somehow xenophobic when calling Belarus Russia's lapdog only reflects on you and not on my truthful statements.

Belarus is not a legitimate inheritor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while Lithuania is the sole true successor to it because:

1) en:Lithuania Proper was the most developed and important part of GDL. The territories of what is now Belarus were far less densely-populated and were economically inferior to the territories of what is now Lithuania.

2) There were two foundation myths of GDL (en:Palemonids and en:Vaidevutis), each of which was tied to the Lithuanians and not the conquered Slavs within the Lithuanian state. Both show that the state was fundamentally connected to the Lithuanians and not Belarusians as the state's essence.

3) The state religion was Catholicism and Catholics of several rites (Roman, Greek and Armenian) predominated in the GDL. This is in contrast with the absolute majority of people in modern Belarus being Orthodox, which is under the en:Russian Orthodox Church. Ergo, Belarus is religiously under Russia and belongs to the religion that is harshly opposed to the one which was the dominant one in the GDL.

4) The most important and famous rulers of GDL were en:Gediminids, which was a Lithuanian dynasty. Most of them had entirely Lithuanian names: Gediminas, Jaunutis, Algirdas, Jogaila, Kęstutis, Vytautas and etc.

5) The capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, en:Vilnius, was in ethnographically Lithuanian lands, since its very foundation.

Many more arguments could be listed, but all of these are sufficient to state that modern Belarus has not the true inheritor of GDL's state tradition, as it was only a periphery of the Lithuanian state, while the core of the Lithuanian state was, quite naturally, in Lithuania Proper. Modern Belarus is religiously opposed to GDL's state and majority religion, so it would be akin to the Catholic Kingdom of Spain claiming it was the true inheritor of the heritage of the Islamic Emirate of Granada, which was a sworn enemy of all that Spain stood for. Which is nonsense. So too, some Belarusians claim to be inheritors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while being of the religion against which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania fought, while also being de facto vassals of the country that was the sworn enemy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. An honest observer would realise that the Belarusian claims to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are patent nonsense because they have neither its religion, neither its core, neither its national essence, neither its strategic views, neither its Western orientation, etc, etc.

Please revert your latest edit here [5] or I will be forced to take this matter up elsewhere. Regards, Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you a secret, this does not relate to historical topics. You mix modern politics where it is not necessary, not only that, but also openly and brazenly mock. And stop using only one-sided sources, you have already been told about this. There is only one thing visible here, a manifestation of your Lithuanian nationalism with the full connivance of the local administration. And I will open the cercret, other sections of Wikipedia cannot be sources. And your further actions are considered only as unethical behavior with vandalism. Johnny Moor (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact that politics is part of history and vice versa. History is actually VERY relevant to modern events, especially the Russian invasion of Ukraine, partly through Belarus. Please tell me where I, according to you, openly and brazenly mock. Do you mean me pointing out Belarus' current official policy as subservient to that of Russia, a statement with which even experts agree with, is somehow me mocking? If that's the case, then I don't know what to tell you.

You do not disprove any of my claims, my reasoning or anything, and instead resort to name-calling. I wasn't using these Wikipedia articles as sources, I just pointed them out if you want to learn more about the topic, but your only response so far is to accuse me of 1) vandalism, 2) nationalism and 3) xenophobia, just because you disagree with my edits. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because you delete other people's edits under the pretext of a "pet dog", so you don't need to pretend to be someone, maybe somewhere else they will fall for it. This does not apply to this topic at all, however. It's like reading about nuclear physics in a biology textbook, in the sense of the relationship it has nothing to do. And what you are trying to tell me "under the truth" is that you are writing only an original study of pure water with nationalist elements and loud statements. And the links that you presented to me are just one of the sources of information, and to the Wikipedia articles themselves, which cannot be a source in themselves. Wikimedia Commons already has a solution on this issue, and you probably know about it, but don't want to take it c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Former countries in Lithuania. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)