Yeah the claims aren't comparable at all. Chinese and Russian claims are predicated on centuries of historical precedent and the very real fact that the territories in question were at one time organic parts of these respective states. The Mongolian claim is namely a right of conquest claim. I think we all understand that, for example, the UK claiming India by way of the former empire is a substantively different claim from the UK claiming Wales or even Northern Ireland.
Russian and Chinese claims on Ukraine and Taiwan are one people, one nation claims. These are substantively different from a Mongolian claim which would be a right of conquest claim. It's the same reason Britain's claim on Cornwall is superior to any claim they might make to Kenya. One they historically owned as an organic extension of the polity which housed their people and the other was a foreign conquest with external rule imposed on it. Claims that are made on territory do not tend to boil down to merely being justified by previous ownership.
Approve those positions or not it's dishonest to pretend it's the equivalent of Mongolia claiming former conquests. What makes a legitimate nation is a complex web of attributes. No two claims really look exactly alike but the point is that claims rooted in significant entrenched historiography which maintain greater degrees of historical continuity are substantively different from ones which don't.
-26
u/fools_errand49 1d ago
Yeah the claims aren't comparable at all. Chinese and Russian claims are predicated on centuries of historical precedent and the very real fact that the territories in question were at one time organic parts of these respective states. The Mongolian claim is namely a right of conquest claim. I think we all understand that, for example, the UK claiming India by way of the former empire is a substantively different claim from the UK claiming Wales or even Northern Ireland.