The part in bold is the very definition of vassalage put in less explicit terms.
What I used was part of European (continental) cultural legacy and the way you approach it suggests that your understanding of it comes from American understanding of it (not implying your nationality, just where you acquire knowledge) which is derived from English understanding of it. It's like getting your knowledge of China from a Japanese person who lived on Taiwan. Not a good idea.
In American parlance "vassal" is a derogatory term. I used it as a technical term describing something very important about the new relationship between China and Russia.
There are four fundamental types of relationships in politics:
- an adversary
- a neutral party
- an ally
- a vassal
The difference between an ally and a vassal lies in the relationship between the parties.
Allies choose to make a common cause because of common interest and that common cause may or may not be supported by mutually beneficial exchange of other goods or services. In an alliance the mutual loyalty is voluntary.
A vassal is
pledging his loyalty and this loyalty is confirmed by a grant of
fief by a
liege which may or may be a
sovereign - a person invested by the church with the divine right to rule over a land. If the vassal refused to fulfill his oath to his liege lord he would through this act forfeit his fief and the people who lived in his fiefdom as well as his own vassals (vassals could give the land to their vassals) could turn against him. Similarly the liege lord made an oath to protect and support his vassal in need. Vassalage was a mutual relationship that was asymmetric in the single aspect of the liege lord granting something to the vassal as foundation of their relationship. An ally is assumed to come on his own with his own means. Vassalage is therefore a closer and
binding relationship.
In other words if an ally betrays you he's just a bad ally and a turncoat. If a vassal betrays you he commits treason.
This has two consequences - the liege lord is justified in punishing the vassal or removing him from power and the people who are sworn to the vassal have the right to abandon him. This is important because while in European law there was a rule of "
the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal" there is an implicit understanding that if a vassal was given his fief by a liege lord and then that fief was given in fief to his vassals then the breaking of oath harms the duty of the lege lord to protect his vassals because if the vassal renounced his oath then the fief that he has passed on became invalid.
This means that Putin recognized that his position was vulnerable and that he needed external support. He turned to Xi and aggreed to become a vassal which means that his position as the leader of Russia is backed by China's support of his person. This gives Putin two benefits - he can stop worrying about being eliminated by his underlings while he is in power because he is now the guarantor of China's favour and he can stop worrying about his safety in retirement. His security will be guaranteed by China as well.
In other words Putin was about to lose leadership of Russia as consequence of the war. He agreed to be a vassal of China and that secured his leadership of Russia under new conditions. He used to be sovereign now he is a vassal. Whoever comes after him may attempt to restore the sovereignty of Russia but it is more likely that China will ensure that the successor will continue the vassalage and if anyone tried to restore the sovereignty China will support anyone who defends the vassalage.
Why is it historic?
Because since creation of "Russia" that is the Russian Empire in 1721 following the treaty of Nystad every single European power had become at some point a vassal to another power and that includes the US which began as English dependencies. All, except Russia which since it's emergence from under Mongol rule under Ivan III (then Grand Duke of Moscow) never lost sovereignty of its lands.
It is a historic moment because the last time Russia or its predecessor state was not a sovereign power was
1480. Moscow has not been a vassal since before discovery of Americas by Europeans.
It is also
historic because Russia has always maintained a sense of superiority toward Asian peoples and despised the notion of Tatar Yoke which it used to orchestrate genocide and repressions of indigenous people's in Siberia. Losing its sovereignty not to European supremacists like Germany in the past but to an Asian power that it deemed inferior to itself is
historical irony.
My comments on Russia are objective and neutral. What confuses you is your personal point of view which is neither.
When I comment on events I do it with proper caution and deliberation. Sometimes I use emphatic form for better effect but the form is always a deliberate choice not dictated by my emotional state. It's to prevent the typically long comment from becoming too boring. When I want to express my personal feelings I do so
openly.
Like this:
In my personal opinion becoming China's vassal is more than Russia deserves. Although I do think that the people of Russia, especially the ethnic minorities, deserve better living conditions I don't think it will happen nearly to the extent that it could be achieved under a more pro-social regime that Russia is incapable of forming currently. Russian state is too degenerate and corrupt to be able to reform itself under the current conditions even if given a decade or two. The failure in Ukraine is the necessary consequence of the regime's nature. It is also burdened by historical legacy of one of the most backwards and repressive major regimes in recent history. A truly contemptible entity that doesn't deserve the respect it demands.
China will therefore lend Russia a lifeline that it shouldn't get but there are no "good" guys in the game of politics. It's a game of self-interest played by thugs who managed to convince their followers that while they may not be the best they are good enough while the other guy is just the worst thing in the world so that the followers agree to do the dirty work for the thugs who will reap the rewards. That too is a story as old as time and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Societal progress is a work of accident and it is rather disparaging when you realise just how accidental majority of societal (not: technological) advances truly are.
Stanislaw Lem who is Poland's most famous sci-fi writer once said that humans are apes that build razors to slash the other apes' throats. Generation after generation the work goes on and while the razors get stronger and sharper the apes stay the same.
Now that you have a primer for some of my personal opinion you can use it to navigate the rest of my comments.
