What do you mean by “re-gained” independence? They were part of Russia for centuries prior to that. That was them gaining independence for the first time since like the 1500s or so?

They became independent around 1918 and occupied in 1940. Plenty of the modern European nation-states emerged in 20th century, including Poland, Norway, Hungary.. would you dispute statehood of those?

Those countries existed for centuries. History of Europe is long and complicated, it helps to look further back that the last 100 years.

Poland was established in 966, to lose independence in 1795, to regain it in 1918.

Hungary existed since 895, then merged with Austria (at least in theory as equals, not subjects).

They are nothing like, say, Kosovo which was created 10 years ago by arbitrary UN decision, for no good reason.

The Confederacy also became independent for a few years, before being reabsorbed under the gun. How long do you keep depicting a fiction?

When Russian Empire, AKA Jail of Nations, fall apart, all nations were officially granted power to make their own national countries. Then Russian Federation started war against these independent nations and captured most of them back, killing dozens of millions in the process, but existence of these new countries was not disputed (except for few ones, like Kuban People's Republic, etc).

It's not same as separatism. It was similar to fall of other empires.

The Confederacy wasn't a distinct nation state but a faction in Civil War. Noone argues that Whites and Reds in Russia were independent nations, or would you?

Take Finland: it gained independence in much the same circumstances as Baltic states. The only difference was that USSR was not able to fully occupy it in 1940. That's it, there is no other reason an average Russian would scoff at Balts and respect Finland than getting a bloody nose there once.

What does it even mean to be a "distinct nation" really? For what it's worth, Crimea, which is the main arguing point of the whole thread, doesn't really have a distinct nation either, people there are and always have been pretty much Russian for all practical purposes, even while being a part of Ukraine. And while this isn't true for Latvia, this isn't any more true for Kalmykia (which no one argues over) either. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true.

So I call bullshit any attempts to paint things black and white here.

Did the Whites and Reds lay claim to specific land that they were declaring independent of the larger mass (note that this is distinctly different from controlling parts of the territory during wartime while laying claim to the entirety)? The Confederacy is much closer to parts of the Russian empire claiming independence than to the Whites and Reds: the only difference is the length that they were independent (though this is commonly how a nation's legitimacy is decided)

The Confederate States of America was a distinct state, with its own constitution, government, law, borders, and enforcement of all that.

It was not officially recognized as such by anyone, but de facto it was very much a state, and their goal was to maintain that de facto sovereignty.

They were independent in the interwar period, technically lots of the Western USSR/former Russian Empire formed independent states after the First World War but only the Baltic states are usually considered to have been occupied by the USSR AFAIK.

Russia doesn't exist now, because it renamed itself into Ukraine, to avoid confusion with bloody Russian Empire.

Russian Federation ≠ Russian Empire (doesn't exist) ≠ Russia (now Ukraine) ≠ town of Russia (now Old Russa).

BTW. Romania ≠ Rome (now Italy).

What do you mean when you say 'Russia' then? Do you mean the Kievan Rus? That's the only 'Rus' name I see applied to Ukraine on its wiki page. If so, that was 8 centuries ago, and the Russian ethnic group at that time was spread over Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

Or perhaps, are you saying that the Russian empire isn't truly Russian because the Romanovs were German?

I get what you're saying about country boundaries and composition changing over time, but it seems like a stretch to call Ukraine the true Russia.

<541 — Russia - town of Russia (Русся), now: Old Russa (Старая Русса), but town was moved about 50km up the river at third re-habitation. "Rus`" means Red. They painted their shields in red and used Old Norwegian language.

880-1240 — Russia - Russia, Русь, modern name: Kievan Rus` (to avoid confusion with Russian Empire), now: Ukraine. Built on remnants of eastern part of Volynnia (Free People) kingdom (now: Volyn` region of Ukraine). Rus`-sia means "Rus` there/this" in Slavic, so "-sia" suffix is dropped in Slavic languages, thus Russia transformed into Rus` (BTW: s(с) and s`(сь) are different consonants). In Western Europe traditional name was used: Russia. They used Eastern Slavic Languages.

Then Russia fall apart into 1) Red Russia, or Ruthenia (Rose People Land), now: Western Ukraine, 2) White Russia, or White Ruthenia, now: Belarus`, 3) Black Russia or Black Ruthenia, now: Grodno region of Belarus`, 4) Carphatian Russia or Carpathian Ruthenia, now: Zakarpattia, western part of Western Ukraine.

1721-1917 — Petro I conquered Russia, so he got title "Emperor of All Russia" (Царь всея Руси). Then Catherine II renamed Moscow kingdom into "All Russia Empire" (Всероссийская Империя), which then simplified to Russian Empire(Российская Империя), or just Russia (Россия).

So Russia can mean Russia/Русся (<541), Rus`/Русь (880-1240), Red, White, Black Rus`, or Russian Empire/Российская Империя (1721-1917).

"Rus" (Hellenized as "Rossia", and Latinized as "Ruthenia") was the term used to describe the entire territory from Kiev to Novgorod. Just because it had its capital in Kiev, doesn't mean that modern Ukraine is the only country that can lay claim to the word. Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are all equally successors to that cultural and historical heritage.

There is no such country as Russia. Russian Federation tries to monopolize use of this word for themselves only.

No other government entity is laying claim to it.

Interesting perspective. Are you suggesting Ukraine is the real Russian people? Also, where does that leave Belorussia?

Real Russian people are called "Rusichi/русичи" in Slavic, literally: "sons of Rus`". They are direct ascendants of citizens of town of Russia. Later, they are assimilated, so they forgot their language and culture. Major part of them are assimilated by Slavic tribes at territory of central and west Ukraine and Belarus`, so this territory got name "Russia" in 9 century.

Slavic people of Russia/Русь are called "Rusyns/русины" (y as in lynx), literally: "they are Rus`", or "Russish/руські", literally: "belongs to Rus`". Name "Rusyns" was popular in Habsburg Monarchy, while name "Russish" was popular in Russian Empire.

People of Russian Federation are called "Russish/руские", literally: "belongs to Rus`", or "Rossiiane/россияне", literaly: People of Russia/Россия, "Russish" means here believers of Russian Church, mostly Tatars, Erzan`, Mordva, and many other peoples, known as "Russificated peoples/обрусевшие народы".

So, Ukrainians are not "real Russians". Real Russians are assimilated and now are called Ukrainians, Belorussians, Cossacks, Russians, Lithuanians, etc.

I believe they were all independent for at least a short time between WW1 and WW2.

Yes, and that was largely the subjective opinion of those US-based map publications.

A US-adversary might want to call Puerto Rico a US-occupied independent state and they’d have similar justification.

What is “right” in global politics is highly subjective.