Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday reignited global tensions with a provocative assertion that “the whole of Ukraine is ours,” citing the belief that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin did not rule out the possibility of Russian forces seizing the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumy, framing it as part of a necessary “buffer zone” to protect Russian territory.
“We have a saying, or a parable,” Putin said. “Where the foot of a Russian soldier steps, that is ours.”
While Putin stated that Russia does not question Ukraine’s sovereignty, he stressed that when Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, it did so as a neutral state — something he claims Kyiv abandoned by pursuing NATO membership and Western alignment.
Putin’s View: Strategic and Historical Dimensions
Putin’s comments drew immediate condemnation from Kyiv and its Western allies, but they also touched on centuries of complex history between Ukraine and Russia — history that, while often overlooked in Western discourse, informs Moscow’s worldview and is used to justify its actions.
The roots of the shared identity narrative stretch back over a thousand years to the Kievan Rus, a powerful medieval state that emerged in the 9th century with its capital in present-day Kyiv. Both Russians and Ukrainians trace their cultural and religious heritage to this early Slavic polity. In Putin’s narrative, modern Russia and Ukraine are descendants of the same civilizational tree, artificially divided by borders and politics.
In the 17th century, parts of Ukraine entered into a military alliance with the Tsardom of Russia via the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654), which many Russian historians cite as a key moment of unification. However, that alliance also marked the beginning of centuries of imperial control by Moscow over much of Ukraine — a history Ukrainians remember not as unity, but as domination.
Under the Soviet Union, Ukraine was formally one of the 15 republics, but heavily subordinated to Moscow. It suffered devastating repression, most infamously during the Holodomor — the 1932–33 famine widely considered a man-made atrocity under Stalin’s rule that killed millions of Ukrainians. The memory of that trauma shape’s modern Ukrainian identity and deepens resistance to Russian narratives of brotherhood.
Ukraine’s Independence and Shift Westward
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became fully independent, pledging neutrality but later increasingly aligning with the West. That trajectory accelerated after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its support for separatists in the eastern Donbas region. In response, public support in Ukraine for joining NATO and the EU grew sharply.
Putin, however, insists that this Western shift contradicts Ukraine’s original post-Soviet status and poses a strategic threat to Russia. “We never doubted Ukraine’s sovereignty,” he said, “but that sovereignty was tied to neutrality. If that is gone, it creates risks for our security.”
Kyiv and the West: Rejection and Resistance
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has rejected Putin’s repeated claims that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people,” calling them a dangerous distortion used to justify military aggression. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Putin’s latest remarks show “complete disdain” for U.S.-led peace efforts and expose Moscow’s real intent: more territorial conquest.
As of mid-2025, Russia controls about 20% of Ukraine, including nearly all of Luhansk and large parts of Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea.
Disputed Histories, Distant Peace
Putin’s assertion that Russian forces may move to seize Sumy comes amid reports of ongoing fighting in Ukraine’s northeastern border regions. He said that any peace would depend on Kyiv accepting the “reality on the ground” — shorthand for Russia’s continued occupation of vast Ukrainian territories.
Despite global condemnation, some analysts argue that Putin’s perspective, though controversial, reflects long-standing Russian insecurities and a view of history shared by segments of the Russian public and political elite.
“History doesn’t excuse aggression,” said one European diplomat, “but it explains why Russia justifies its actions this way.”
Ultimately, Putin’s remarks have further widened the divide between Moscow and Kyiv. What one side sees as shared heritage, the other sees as historical trauma. And as the war grinds on, both history and geography continue to fuel a conflict where neither side appears ready to concede.
