> The subtexts that you are pinning on me are your own invention, I just say about unfaithful representation of history in the press.
What is the purpose of having to mention that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were in Russian Empire in the context of their invasion and occupation in the 1940s if not an attempt to give legitimacy to the invasions?
It's far more important to stress that the people on the Baltic coast are not Russians, have nothing in common with them, nor have never wanted to be close with them. The same applies to the many other indigenous Finno-Ugric peoples[1] on the other side of the border inside the present-day Russia who have been driven away from their land like Native Americans and decimated with hostile policies that have resulted in their rapid decline.
> people on the Baltic coast are not Russians, have nothing in common with them, nor have never wanted to be close with them
That wording already shows an unexpected amount of agitation that would prompt further inquires.
> have been driven away from their land like Native Americans and decimated with hostile policies that have resulted in their rapid decline
That's mostly an unfaithful description of what's been happening, no. It also runs counter to the previous "have nothing in common with them, nor have never wanted to be close with them". If you really didn't want to be close to Russians you would get out of our hair for a chance.
> the main language used in administrative affairs was German
> to portray Georgia as a mere "province of Russian Empire" is ridiculous given that they are so distinct that you cannot even read what they write
Please don't tell me that many Englishmen could read Devangari script or that many Frenchmen could read (pre-Latin) Vietnamese.
You may not like it today, but these territorial claims were seen as completely valid.
The subtexts that you are pinning on me are your own invention, I just say about unfaithful representation of history in the press.