How Putin’s Justification for Invading Ukraine Could Be Used to Justify a Chinese Invasion of Russia

Introduction

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly invoked historical claims to justify the aggression. He has argued that Ukraine is an artificial construct, that its land historically belonged to Russia, and that past agreements do not negate Russia’s right to "reclaim" lost territory. However, these very arguments—historical ownership, past treaties, and cultural ties—are far more applicable to another geopolitical scenario: China reclaiming Outer Manchuria from Russia.

Outer Manchuria, now part of Russia’s Far East, was once under Qing Chinese control and was ceded to Russia under the unequal treaties of Aigun (1858) and Peking (1860). If China were to adopt the same historical rationale that Putin uses for Ukraine, it would have a strong case for reintegrating this region, which includes the strategically vital city of Vladivostok. Given that Vladivostok is a crucial seaport for Russia’s Pacific fleet and a key component of its nuclear deterrence, the implications of such a move would be profound.

Putin’s Argument: A Blueprint for China?

Putin’s main justifications for invading Ukraine can be summarized as follows:

Historical Ownership – Putin claims that Ukraine was historically part of Russia and was only separated due to Soviet policies.

Treaties Do Not Erase Sovereign Claims – He argues that previous agreements, such as the Soviet-era recognition of Ukraine’s independence, do not override Russia’s historical rights.

Ethnic and Cultural Ties – He insists that the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine provides a justification for intervention and reintegration.

Each of these points, however, applies even more forcefully to China’s claims over Outer Manchuria:

Outer Manchuria Was Once Qing Chinese Territory – Unlike Ukraine, which had a distinct identity and governance prior to Russian rule, Outer Manchuria was explicitly taken from China via unequal treaties at a time when China was militarily weak.

Past Treaties Do Not Override Historical Claims – If Russia dismisses past treaties as irrelevant when it comes to Ukraine, why should China consider the Treaty of Aigun and Treaty of Peking permanent?

Cultural and Linguistic Links – The Chinese population in the Russian Far East has been growing, and economic ties with China far exceed those with Moscow. A future Chinese government could claim to be “protecting” ethnic Chinese living in these regions, much as Putin claims to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.

The Strategic Value of Vladivostok and Russia’s Nuclear Deterrence

One of the key reasons Russia cannot afford to lose Outer Manchuria is its strategic importance, particularly Vladivostok. Originally known as Haishenwai (海参崴) before its annexation by Russia, Vladivostok is Russia’s largest Pacific port and home to its Pacific Fleet. This fleet is crucial for Russia’s nuclear triad, as it houses nuclear-armed submarines that provide a second-strike capability.

If China were to reclaim Outer Manchuria, Russia would be left with no significant warm-water Pacific ports, dramatically weakening its nuclear deterrence and global power projection. Without Vladivostok, Russia’s ability to maintain a credible presence in the Pacific would collapse, leaving it vulnerable in both military and economic terms.

Could China Make a Move?

For now, China is content with its growing economic dominance over Russia, and it has little incentive to challenge Moscow directly. However, if internal instability weakens Russia—whether due to prolonged war in Ukraine, economic collapse, or political upheaval—China could seize the opportunity. Given the demographic and economic reality that China already dominates the Russian Far East, a future Chinese government could justify a move on Outer Manchuria using the exact same rhetoric that Putin uses against Ukraine.

Conclusion

By claiming that history justifies territorial expansion, Putin has set a dangerous precedent—one that, if applied consistently, would justify China reclaiming Outer Manchuria. Russia’s most important Pacific port, and a key component of its nuclear deterrence, could easily fall under the same logic that Putin applies to Ukraine. While China may not act now, the foundation has already been laid for a potential future crisis in the Russian Far East.

If Putin insists that historical claims override modern sovereignty, then he may find that Russia itself is not immune to the very reasoning he has used to justify his own war of aggression. https://m.primal.net/OLqF.webp