Interpretation is everything though. Apart from that, he very conveniently forgets facts that don't fit his narrative. Such as Soviets collaborating with the Nazis on the attack on Poland.
It was a very weird pseudo-historical diatribe.
Discussion
Of course, interpretation is where the conflict is lol
BBC's spin is that their fact checkers disagree--so naturally one thinks the facts are wrong. Unless one has realized that the opposite of MSM statements is usually closer to the truth
Pretty sure the german-soviet pact fits the narrative just fine, dunno what you're getting at there.
This isn't my bailiwick tho and I should probably shut up haha
You’re right, the Nazi collaboration is not a very meaningful fact in this context.
What are meaningful facts however are how Moscow was a backwater during most of the time he discussed, how Alexander Nevsky fought very hard to subjugate other parts of old Rus under Mongol rule, and how the realm governed from Moscow was called by many “Muscovy” well into the 18th century to discern it from the Western part of old Rus.
You could as easily interpret medieval Rus history in a way that shows how the country whose capital is Kiev is the direct descendant of Kievan Rus, and the country whose capital is Moscow has little to do with it, apart from being founded and run by people who betrayed old Rus.
You could also argue that Russians are not a real ethnicity, because the ancestors of modern day Russians are the Russified local tribes from around Moscow, as well as Mongols, Tatars, and everyone else at some point falling under Moscow’s dominion.
I wouldn’t interpret history that way myself though. Because it’d be as one sided as the bullshit Putin spouts.