China in my example is a state. Kievan Rus and Russia are states. Civilization is not equal to state. So the Indian analog is irrelevant..
In your example, you use China, Kievan Rus, Russia, Ukraine as "State", but Shaanxi is not a "State", but a "Province" of China. Province is not equal to state, so the Shaanxi analog is irrelevant.
This is what you actually said:
Modern day Russia is an offspring of Kievan Rus from modern day Ukraine, as Putin put it "the two are the same people". The Baltic people are far from that closeness. If we put it in the Chinese perspective, Ukraine is like Shaanxi the birth place of China, the Baltic region is like outer Mongolia only incorporated by much later Yuan and Qing dynasties. Although I may be willing to let go outer Mongolia when I could not hold it, it is impossible for me to give up Shaanxi even if I am living in other part of China.
Shaanxi is the "birthplace of Chinese Civilization" or "Cradle of Chinese Civilization", so I believe the Indus Valley Civilization comparison is apt, as Indians can claim the modern-day Indian state is descendant of Indus Valley Civilization.
I never said Shaanxi is a state by itself. The state started on this land was Zhou and Qin. So Shaanxi is the birth place of Chinese civilization and at the same time the core land of Chinese states.
Shaanxi is a "Province" of China, whereas Ukraine is an Independent sovereign state at breakup of Soviet Union. The two are not comparable. Russia doesn't "give up" anything, because Ukraine is already Independent.
You seem to be very eager to call other people "cherry-picking" by cherry-picking and twisting other peoples meaning to fit your narrative?
Because your message is highly inconsistent - you talk about "Culture" affinity, but dismissing the notion of "Civilization" and focus on "State", even though your Shaanxi example is a "Province", not a "State".
If anything "Civilization" makes more sense because it aligns with your "Culture" affinity argument, but you rather split hairs when your logic doesn't fit your narrative.
From a Chinese perspective, the difference between Russian and Ukrainian is nowhere near the difference between Beijinger and Hongkonger. So don't try to convince me with the "sufficiency" of cultural difference.
Using your logic, the difference between Russian and French is nowhere near the difference between Beijinger and Hongkonger, so Russia would be justified in restoring the Roman Empire and conquering Europe, because there is sufficient "cultural similarity".
I don't give a diem of a treaty if it threats me.
Yea, because you have no objective criteria and your logic doesn't make sense.
Shaanxi has been part of Chinese state since the Zhou dynasty 3000 years ago.
Ukraine is an independent nation at the breakup of Soviet Union, so comparing Shaanxi to Ukraine is a bad choice.
Please don't take just one side of what I said and ignore the other side of fact even if it is not said. I hope you actually know what Shaanxi means to China, state or civilization.
Shaanxi is the birthplace of Chinese Civilization, you splitting hairs between "State vs. Civilization" while at same time arguing for "Cultural similarities" is really ironic don't you think? A Civilization has stronger cultural affinity than a mere state.
I never said Shaanxi is a state by itself. The state started on this land was Zhou and Qin. So Shaanxi is the birth place of Chinese civilization and at the same time the core land of Chinese states.
Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereign independent state in Soviet collapse, so it's no longer a "core land" of Russia anymore.
Do I need to teach you about that? I don't see why you choose to mess around with the irrelevant point of state vs. civilization.
YOU were the one who talk about State vs. Civilization.
You seem to be very eager to call other people "cherry-picking" by cherry-picking and twisting other peoples meaning to fit your narrative?
You talk about "Culture" but then dismiss "Civilization vs. State", so you are the one who is cherry-picking your narrative.
