I remember watching a documentary film about Eastern Europe, where an older man said something like: I was born in Russia, have lived in Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union, and now I live in Ukraine, and I have never lived anywhere but this house.

What is a country, anyway?

I bring that up in light of the comments of the Chinese Ambassador to France who recently said that he questioned whether former Soviet Republics were, in fact, independent countries. In light of the war in Ukraine and the question of whether China itself can help bring about a cessation of fighting, this comment was surprising. But it deserves some thought.

The basic facts are obvious. For about 75 years, following a revolution in czarist Russia, there was a country known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, consisting of 24 semi-autonomous states located on land that had been previously parts of the Russian empire. In 1995, the Soviet Union broke up and each of those republics declared itself independent, and their independence was recognized internationally, through multi-state organizational memberships (like in the United Nations) and through bilateral agreements between the new republics and other established countries throughout the world. So far, so good.

Then, something happened. Vladimir Putin began to think about recreating all or part (we really don’t know) of the old Russian empire, whether as a presumed defensive measure (to keep out Western political influences which would isolate Russia) or as a simple belief that Russia just should be bigger and more influential than it is. And, as we know, in 2014, he invaded the eastern part of Ukraine and recaptured the Crimean peninsula.

Now, you can make an argument that all of Ukraine and all of Russia belong together. Historically, they have been together more than apart, and you can even make an argument that Kiev is the most important center of early Russian history. And because Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR until 1954, you can perhaps make that argument even more strongly regarding Crimea.

But the better argument is that Ukraine and all the other former Soviet republics have been internationally recognized by treaty, etc. as independent countries and that, once this has been done, a country can’t simply change its mind and invade. This, of course, is what was done in 2017 and in 2022 in Ukraine.

So why would the Chinese ambassador say what he said? Well, there was Hong Kong, which China decided should no longer be independent, and there is the perpetual question of Taiwan, which broke away from mainland China in 1949. Now, there are differences between Hong Kong and Taiwan, on the one hand, and the former Soviet Republics on the other, to be sure. For one thing, Hong Kong became a British colony in the 1840s, and was transferred by Britain to China under certain conditions (which the Chinese have since breached) in 1997. Taiwan’s situation is even more uncertain, since so many other countries, including the United States, have recognized Taiwan without “recognizing” Taiwan. China certainly does not want to admit that, if it wanted, it could simply fully absorb both of these regions into China proper. And just as certainly, China does not want to give any support to potential separatist movements – such as in Tibet. China does not want any limitations on a potential irredentist Chinese empire, and therefore perhaps China cannot argue against an irredentist Russian empire, in spite of the differences in the two situations.

But a treaty is a treaty. International recognition is international recognition. Once established and recognized, borders should only be changed by mutual agreement, not by aggressive invasion. And aggressive invasion must be opposed. Always.