I read the entire thing [1], well I just skimmed the historical section until the 20th century. I do not see how this can be read as Ukraine is part of Russia end must be conquered back.
For the current situation the most relevant part is probably the one dealing with the recent history, say the fall of the USSR or maybe even only past 2014. Unfortunately I am in no position to judge what is laid out and reading up on all the events would probably take weeks and figuring out the actual truth might still be quite hard.
In the letter Putin directly states that he considers significant amount of Ukrainian territory as not-really-ukrainian, but a "present" from Bolsheviks or something. He also states that all of these territories now are "subject to discussion". I think it should be quite obvious to anyone (including the author) that Ukraine (like any other country) wouldn't be inclined to willingly discuss giving away its lands, so conquest is the only logical consequence.
Relevant excerpts:
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people's views.
...
In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. ...
One can debate whether this is a legitimate point of view, that for example Crimea was given to Ukraine after 1922 and therefore they are not entitled to it after the desolution of the USSR. I do not know and have no opinion at the moment either.
But no matter what, this passage is a far cry from Russia wants to grab land left and right and conquer everyone.
Okay, so the thread started from your request to provide sources for Putin discussing historical borders of Ukraine:
"I just read the entire address by Putin [1] after the invasion started - it's all about NATO expansion, historical borders or something along that lines make no real appearance in the entire thing.
"I know that he supposedly said things more in line with your point on other occasions but I never came across something that convincingly provided support for this point of view. Can you provide sources?"
I provided a source (even though your message was directed to someone else) and you proceeded with moving the goalpost to basically "yes, but did he stated he intends to conquer Ukraine to re-establish those borders?" (even though that wasn't what you asked for in your initial message):
"I read the entire thing [1], well I just skimmed the historical section until the 20th century. I do not see how this can be read as Ukraine is part of Russia end must be conquered back."
I indulged you and provided a specific excerpts that in my opinion reasonably support the notion of re-establishing the borders by force. Now you moved the goalpost again and constructed a stawman by saying something along the lines of "yes, but how does that implies that Russia intends on conquer everyone?!". Well, guess what, no one in this thread said that "Russia wants to grab land left and right and conquer everyone"!
Let me put one thing first, I really could not care less who is to blame for what, whether Russia is the bad guy or the US or NATO or the EU or the Illuminati. I am interested in understanding what went wrong and maybe get some insight into what should be done better the next time.
With that out of the way, after the invasion started I got somewhat interested in the conflict and how it developed. Pretty quickly it seemed pretty clear to me that NATO expansion was most likely the main driving factor behind Putin's decision to start this war. But for many in the West it seems incomprehensible that NATO's actions might have played any role, even less that Putin's reaction might to some extend be understandable.
So following the invasion this narrative spread in the West that Putin is simply mad and wants to rebuild the Soviet empire - first Ukraine, then the Baltic states, then the rest of the world. And as I said, I could never find much evidence for this explanation. The thread started with the following.
So when putin claims casus belli over another nation's land due to previous ownership a whole bunch of times [...]
So I thought casus belli should maybe be best addressed in Putin's address after the invasion started and I never read it completely before. In there essentially nothing about territorial claims. So I asked for something else as I was of course aware of that other explanation. You pointed me towards On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians which, as you point out, talks about how Russia may have legitimate claims for territories in former Soviet states.
My point is just that the language in there does not match - at least in my opinion - what some people want to explain with this. »All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.« I just can not see the imperial Russia in that language that would make this a reasonable explanation for the invasion, especially if you contrast it with the clear and direct language used to address NATO expansion and similar topics, repeatedly again and again for three decades now.
So if you think I moved the goal posts, then I probably just did not make clear enough where they are. I am looking for evidence that supports the theory that mad Putin simply wants to rebuild an empire as his legacy. And not some bits here and there, but something that makes it similarly plausible as NATO expansion as the leading cause, which is supported by countless speeches and documents with no uncertain language spanning decades.
Think about it that way: Ukraine was not going to join NATO any time soon while having significant chunk of its territory occupied by nuclear superpower. NATO states knew it, Ukraine knew it (Zelensky's own election campaign was along the lines "You won't take us?! Fuck you NATO we won't even apply then!"), and _Russia themselves absolutely knew it_. Also, Ukraine offered to commit to neutrality multiple times during peace negotiations, but Russia apparently wasn't interested.
Now, of course, you could reasonably disagree and continue pressing the narrative that, no, Russia has all the reasons to be concerned. However, in fact there is a Russian neighbor that shares a land border with Russia that is currently in the process of actually joining NATO for real - Finland. And what do Russia do about that? Invades them? No. Maybe a naval blockade and 100k military personnel "on exercise" near their border? No, nothing. In fact, Russia is so unconcerned that according to satellite images they have recently transferred bunch of personnel and equipment from a military base near border with Finland[0]... to fight in Ukraine. It is almost like Russia is not _that_ afraid of NATO and is actually pursuing some other goals in Ukraine... Reasonable person may even conclude that Russia was lying and faking its concern about NATO expansion after consulting the map and determining that for some reason NATO is still not nuking Moscow from Latvia that has been a member for some time now... Go figure!
