-
Putin believes that Ukraine is historically part of Russia and it's independent existence is only tolerable if the country is firmly in Russia's sphere of influence.
-
He believes the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and replaced it with a western puppet regime in 2014.
-
He believes the modern nationalist Ukrainian state draws from the legacy of Nazi collaboration during WWII and poses a direct threat to Russian national security. Removing this particular nationalist influence is a key goal of the military operation, which he seeks to achieve through negotiation.
-
Russia expressed interest in joining NATO during the Clinton administration but was rejected. This lead Russia to feel geopolitically isolated and cut off from the whole western project.
-
He believes the west is obsessed with weakening Russia as much as possible and that NATO is nothing more than an anti-Russian alliance.
-
Putin thinks China is now more powerful than the United States and more relevant.
-
He believes our government is controlled by an entrenched bureaucracy that cannot be changed through elections.
-
He believes the US and European Union are extorting taxpayers to fund Ukraine's war. He sees no reason why the US continues to support Ukraine.
Putin Interview Summarized
RUSSIAN SALT MINES 🇷🇺
You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.
However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.
If it can further be shown that all of what we today call "history" (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.