That's a book by Aleksandr Dugin, not Putin. I was asking specifically if there are ANY sources for the recurring statement that Putin wants to conquer back former USSR states. I see why its concerning, and how Dugin's close ties to the government are interesting, but I do not see a quote, or any other source, where Putin explicitly STATES this intent. I don't see it.

Surely I'm missing something here. Putin's 2023 "The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation" also does not state conquering back former USSR states. Where is it? If he states it so clearly that people keep quoting it, surely there must be a source for it? Sorry if I'm a PITA.

To be clear, I'm interested in this because this would be a fantastic argument to bring to discussions, but without having seen a source, I don't think I could.

▲

AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent [-]

Imagine that someone writes a post saying something outrageous. And imagine that Trump retweets it. He didn't say it... but he kind of did.

I think Dugin's book is like that. Sure, Dugin said it, not Putin. But IIRC Putin did some things to make Dugin's book more influential. I forget the specifics - making it required reading in the Russian military academies, maybe?

There have been other statements by Russian politicians who are widely regarded as Putin's mouthpieces. Medvedev, certain key figures in the Russian parliament. I know I've seen that, though I don't recall the specifics.

So Putin maybe didn't say it. And yet, his endorsed mouthpieces (more than one) do say it.

You said "without having seen a source". Well, I didn't give you one. But if you want to look, I have given some places to start.

▲

lionkor an hour ago | parent [-]

I fully get that! I understand how people get to that conclusion. What I don't understand is why I repeatedly see people online, also on HN (as you can see), who claim that Putin "stated" that he wants to rebuild the USSR, when I can't find any source that he did.

> making it required reading in the Russian military academies, maybe

Yeah, I think he did.

> So Putin maybe didn't say it.

That's my concern. When people make the statement that he did, when he didn't, they essentially preempt any reasonably discussion and start it off on the entirely wrong foot.

If I want to have a discussion with my neighbor about him not cleaning up his own trash, surely I would not start the discussion with "you LOVE living in trash, don't you", even if I can reasonably deduce that he does. It just turns the entire discussion hostile to make claims that aren't supported, and it weakens all subsequent arguments!

▲

AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent [-]

But does it start the discussion off on the entirely wrong foot? If Putin endorses Dugin's book, requiring the military academies to read it, don't we have fairly high confidence that it is at least close to Putin's position?

So I don't think it's the entirely wrong foot. It's a shortcut and an imprecision, but the point (that Putin actually thinks this) seems to be valid. (Though one should have less than 100% certainty that it represents his position - but with Putin, that should apply to a direct quote as well.)

	▲	lionkor 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The statement should be "he endorses XZY who/which argues for reforming the USSR by force" or something. I think factual accuracy is the one thing we need to hold ourselves to, to the best of our abilities, also to ensure that we don't create an echo chamber and can keep our biases in check a bit more.