Litvinism

Litvinism (Belarusian: Ліцвінства, ліцвінізм / lićvinstva, lićvinizm, or літвінства, літвінізм / litvinstva, litvinizm) is a branch of nationalism, philosophy and political current in Belarus, which bases the history of its state on the heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and emphasizes the Baltic component of the Belarusian ethnic group.[1] According to this branch of Belarusian nationalism, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje, and to modern Lithuania as Летува, Letuva or Жмудзь, Žmudź) was a Slavic or Belarusian state, the medieval Lithuanians were Belarusians, and modern Lithuania is a consequence of a falsification of history.[2][3][4] On the other hand, some Russian Litvinists refer to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Slavic Russian state.[2][5][6]

Map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the main foundation of the Litvin identity, at its greatest extent from the 13th to 15th centuries.

The ideas of Litvinism claiming that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a "Belarusian state" and that the Belarusians have "historical rights" to the Lithuanian capital Vilnius were expressed by the interwar period Belarusians,[7] Belarusian Communists,[8][9] long-term Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko,[10][11] members of the Belarusian opposition to Lukashenko,[12][13][14][15] and modern Belarusian scientists.[16][17][18][19]

Opponents of Litvinism consider it a fringe pseudohistorical theory.[20][21][22][23][24] The usage of the word "Letuva" [Летува] when referring to modern Lithuania in Belarusian language was also criticized among the Belarusians themselves who deemed it "unacceptable", "monstrous" and stressed that in the early 1990s there was an agreement between the Belarusian and Lithuanian intellectuals to stop using terms "Letuva" [Лету́ва], "Letuvísaŭ" [летувíсаў] in Belarusian publications.[25] Belarusian political activist Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya had described Litvinism as "marginal cases", which seek to artificially set at variance Lithuanians and Belarusians, she had also claimed that the Belarusians respect the integrity and heritage of Lithuania.[26][27] Litvinism was also described as a form of fascism with expansionistic territorial claims to neighboring countries of Belarus.[28]

Some Litvinists reject their Belarusian national identity[29] and affiliation with the Republic of Belarus,[29] in favor of a reconstructed Baltic Catholic[29] Litvin ("Lithuanian") identity, based on the history and legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. According to national censuses, only a few dozen residents of Belarus state their ethnic identity as Litvin rather than Belarusian.[30]

History
Osip Senkovsky, the founder of Litvinism

According to the Lithuanian author Tomas Baranauskas, who claims to have coined the term,[2] "Litvinism" is the synthesis of two different historiographies: the Tsarist Russian, which claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Russian state, and the interwar Polish historiography, which deemed the Polonized Lithuanians of eastern Lithuania proper as "Litwins" (i.e. "real Lithuanians"), in contrast to the "Lietuvisy" of the Republic of Lithuania.[2]

Litvinism began following the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, due to the Russian Empire's needs to change the old Grand Ducal Lithuanian identity into a new one that would better suit the Empire's interests.[1] Professor Osip Senkovsky from St. Petersburg University, originally from the Vilnius Region, collaborated with the Tsarist administration and developed the theory that the Lithuanian state's origin was Slavic and that it was allegedly created by the Ruthenians who had moved westwards due to Mongol attacks.[1][31] Furthermore, his contemporary, the pseudo-historian I. Kulakovskis, propagated theses that Lithuania was Slavic before the creation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[1]

After the First World War, Józef Piłsudski's plans to restore Poland-Lithuania were shattered by Lithuanian desires for an independent state, manifested in the nation state of the Republic of Lithuania.[1] For propaganda purposes, theories about how the inhabitants of the Republic of Lithuania are lietuvisai, who were unrelated to the "right" and "historical" Lithuanians, the Litvins, appeared.[1] The Polish historian Feliks Karol Koneczny used the terms letuwskije, Letuwa and letuwini to describe the "fake Lithuanians" in his book Polska między Wschodem i Zachodem ("Poland between East and West") and other works.[1] He also wrote about how Vilnius should belong to the Litvins and thus be a Polish-owned city, instead of a lietuvisai one.[1]

Map of Lithuania proper according to Yermalovich

The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to these ideas being taken over by some Belarusian nationalists seeking a national identity.[1] The self-taught Belarusian historian Mikola Yermalovich stated that Lithuania began in the territory between Novogrudok and Minsk, i.e. in modern Belarusian lands, which allegedly occupied parts of modern Lithuania.[1] M. Yermalovich considers Samogitia as the country's sole Baltic territory, while Aukštaitija is an artificially conceived ethnographic region occupying a part of the Belarusian lands.[1] Litvinism's theories were developed even earlier by Pavlas Urbanas in the Belarusian diaspora, who presented his pseudo-scientific theories in his writings "On the National Nature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Historical Term of Lithuania" (1964), "In the Light of Historical Facts" (1972), "Ethnic belongings of Ancient Litvins" (1994) and "Ancient Litvins. Language, origin, ethnicity".[1] By the end of the 20th century, there were more disseminators of Litvinism's ideas: Vitovt Charopko popularized the concept of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania being a Belarusian state with Belarusian leaders, while Alexander Kravtsevich tried proving that the Lithuanian state's old capital and that the city where King Mindaugas had been crowned was Novogrudok.[1]

In recent years, the number of followers of Litvinism in Belarus has been growing, and there is a division into even smaller, often marginal historical and ideological directions.[1]

Litvinism is mostly espoused in books published in Belarus and on the Internet, as well as in English, which target a foreign audience in an attempt to disseminate M. Yermalovich's "discoveries" and the "real" history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[32] However, experts say that Litvinism is not widespread as it is marginal and sometimes associated with pro-Russian ideas.[33] The Belarusian academia is dominated by a variety of ideas, e.g. ancient historians guided by Soviet guidelines and methodology, although there certainly is a number of Litvinist scholars.[1]

Identity

The motivation behind some Belarusian cultural activists adopting the Litvin identity is a rejection of the Soviet ideology, the Soviet-imposed Pan-Slavism and simultaneously the Belarusian national identity which the Litvin activists claim to be Soviet-related.[29] The Litvinists underline their closeness to Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) viewing the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a common heritage of the nations that live on its former territory.[29] Previously an idea exclusive to some intellectuals, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, "Litvinism" gained popularity among some Belarusian civilians.[29][30]

Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state. Litvinists claim this duality due to the significant Russian influence on the state.[34]

Language

The Belarusian historian Jan Lyalevich, who identifies as Litvin, cited medieval Muscovite sources referring to the "Old Belarusian" language as the "Lithuanian language".[30] He also describes the medieval Litvins as a "proto-nation that existed approximately since the 14th century to the late 19th century, when its remainders, represented by mostly Catholic szlachta and intelligentsia, disappeared".[30]

Some Litvin activists are reported to teach their children altered forms of the Belarusian language considered more traditional and de-russified, or asking that their passport states their Litvin ethnicity.[29] This may also extend to the Belarusian state, one example of this being the Belarusian historian Jan Lyalevich, who stated in 2017: "Personally, I am still convinced that it is not too late for returning to our state its real name: Lithuania" (Літва in Belarusian).[30]

Nevertheless, 19th-century poet Władysław Syrokomla, who titled himself as "Litwin", whose writings were mainly dedicated to the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and who wrote his publications in the Polish (mostly) and Belarusian languages, in his own texts was clearly disappointed by his inability to speak the Lithuanian language: "z powodu nieznajomości Litewskiéj wymowy, ducha Litewskiego schwycić mi było niepodobna" (English: Due to my ignorance of Lithuanian pronunciation, it was impossible for me to capture the Lithuanian spirit).[35] Moreover, Syrokomla described his experience talking with a Lithuanian villager near Kernavė as follows: "tu kiedym się chciał wieśniaka o cóś rozpytać, niezrozumiał mię i zbył jedném słowem ne suprantu. Litwin, na ziemi czysto Litewskiéj, nie mogłem się rozmówić z Litwinem!" (English: Here, when I wanted to ask the villager something, he didn't understand me and answered me with one word "ne suprantu" [I don't understand]. I, a Lithuanian on purely Lithuanian soil, couldn't talk to a Lithuanian!).[35]

Assessment

In Belarus

Litvinism does not have a relevant impact on Belarusian politics, with its supporters focusing more on areas such as education. It has been at times both tolerated and opposed by the state narrative of the Government of Belarus,[29] and has found some support among the Belarusian opposition as a part of broader effort to express pre-Russian Belarusian culture.[12] According to the Belarusian Litvinists, the Republic of Lithuania without the Vilnius Region is Samogitia and according to them the name of Lithuania was historically used for the entire state or exclusively Belarusian territories by clearly separating Baltic Samogitia during the existence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1795 when it was partitioned together with Poland and subsequently annexed by the Russian Empire.[36] The Belarusian Litvinists claims that the Belarusian lands were the core and the main part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[36]

Territory claimed by the Belarusian Democratic Republic in 1918, which includes Vilnius, Smolensk, Białystok, Daugavpils, Bryansk, etc.

On 20 February 1918, the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic formed a government, announced the Belarusian Democratic Republic in 9 March 1918, and on 25 March 1918 declared its independence, but these were mostly symbolic acts, as the state's development was restricted by the Bolsheviks, Germans, and later Poles.[37] In 1918, the Republic of Lithuania was one of the first countries to recognize the independence of the Belarusian Democratic Republic; however, the Belarusian territories were captured by the Red Army in December 1918 and the Belarusian government in exile moved to the Lithuanian temporary capital Kaunas, while Jazep Varonka became a minister of the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs.[38] The Belarusians and Lithuanians agreed to attach Grodno to the Republic of Lithuania and to form Belarusian military units there (e.g. 1st Belarusian Regiment).[38] In November 1920, the Government of the Belarusian Democratic Republic and the Government of Lithuania signed mutual recognition treaties.[39] During the Genoa Conference in 1922 Vaclau Lastouski, a Prime Minister of the Belarusian Democratic Republic, and Alaksandar Ćvikievič, a Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic, recognized the Republic of Lithuania's rights to the Vilnius Region, but this was evaluated negatively by other members of the Belarusian Rada and Vaclau Lastouski resigned.[39] In November 1923, the leadership of the Belarusian Rada departed to Prague due to the worsened relationships with the Government of Lithuania.[39] In October 1926, Vaclau Lastouski presented to the Soviet Embassy in Kaunas a concept where he argued that the Lithuanians are "living with a foreign passport" because the Republic of Lithuania "illegally appropriated Belarusian state legacy" and that the "real Lietuviai" [a word in the Lithuanian language meaning Lithuanians] are Samogitians.[40]

In 1938, Mikalaj Škialionak, a Belarusian historian, military and political figure, published an article "Падзел псторы! Беларус! на перыяды" (English: Partition of space! Belarus! On periods) in which he narrated that the Lithuanian King Mindaugas' Kingdom of Lithuania was already Belarusian since its formation, as it consisted of Novogrudok, Grodno, Slonim, and Vawkavysk lands, while the Lithuanian regions Aukštaitija and Samogitia were only later "conquered" by the Belarusians from these lands, and then other Belarusian territories (e.g. Principality of Polotsk, Principality of Turov, Principality of Minsk, Principality of Vitebsk) voluntarily and willingly joined the newly established state – the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[41]

Title page of the Sovetskaya Belorussia newspaper (10 October 1939 edition) with a photo of the 75,000 people pro-Byelorussian rally in the Lukiškės Square in Vilnius which demanded to attach the Vilnius Region to the Byelorussian SSR in 1939

In September 1939, Vilnius was captured by the Red Army and the Belarusian revivalists (e.g. Anton Luckievich) publicly welcomed the accession of the Vilnius Region to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, while the Byelorussian communists (e.g. Ivan Klimov) in Minsk also were positive about the possible attachment of Vilnius to the Byelorussian SSR.[8][19] The Byelorussian Communists considered the Vilnius Region as a part of Western Belorussia and the NKVD of the Byelorussian SSR also claimed that the Vilnius Region should be annexed by the Byelorussian SSR.[9] Provisionally, the Vilnius Region was administrated by envoys from Minsk, while the chairman of the provisional administration was Byelorussian Jakim Aliaksandravič Žylianin.[8][9][42] On 24 September 1939, an official ceremony was organized in the Belarusian Gymnasium of Vilnia to commemorate the accession of Vilnius to the Byelorussian SSR "forever and ever".[19] On 7 October 1939, a rally of 75,000 people was held in the Lukiškės Square which demanded to attach the Vilnius Region to the Byelorussian SSR.[8][9][19] Furthermore, pro-Byelorussian rallies were also held in other towns of the Vilnius Region during which its participants also demanded to attach the Vilnius Region to the Byelorussian SSR.[9] Moreover, Byelorussian SSR central newspapers proclaimed that "Vilnius is Byelorussian again" as well as narrated why it is a "historical justice" and about the plans for Belarusization of the Vilnius Region.[8][9] Articles in Soviet publications (in the Byelorussian SSR and outside of it) narrated that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a "Byelorussian state", therefore according to them the Byelorussians had "historical rights" to the Vilnius Region.[9] The publishing of the Vilienskaja praŭda (English: Vilnius' Truth) newspaper was started in the Vilnius Region and other regional centres of the Byelorussian SSR which regularly promoted ideas about the Byelorussians "historical rights" to the Vilnius Region.[9][42] The preparations for the elections to the People's Assembly of Western Belorussia were started in the Vilnius Region and there even were ideas to move the Byelorussian SSR capital from Minsk to Vilnius.[9][42][19] Nevertheless, the Byelorussian administration of the entire Vilnius Region lasted for only 40 days and subsequently according to the Soviet–Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty of 10 October 1939 a part of the Vilnius Region, including the city of Vilnius, was attached to the Republic of Lithuania which was soon converted into the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic.[8][9]

According to Uładzimir Arłou, a Belarusian historian and politician, the 1939 transfer of the Vilnius Region to "Letuvy" [Летувы] was a "criminal conspiracy" of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, while Arłou refers to the Vilnius Region and the city of Vilnius as "ethnic Belarusian territory".[9] Arłou claims that the Vilnius Region was historically and ethnically Belarusian since the early Middle Ages and that for centuries the Belarusians-Lićviny [Беларусы-ліцьвіны] composed the majority of its population.[19]

The theories of Škialionak were further developed in the late 20th century by Mikola Yermalovich, who also denied the Baltic origin of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[43] Subsequently, Alexander Kravtsevich also argued that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was from the beginning a "Baltic–Eastern Slavic state" in which the Slavs "dominated", followed by the assimilation of Balts by the Slavs; a new Belarusian ethnic group appeared in the 13th century.[43] According to Kravtsevich, the Samogitians (who he also describes as "Letuvisy", not equal to "Litviny") have appropriated the name of Lithuania during the Lithuanian National Revival and in 1918 attached it to the Republic of Lithuania (which he calls "Lituva").[44]

Litvinist rally in Minsk on 19 September 1991, one of the posters has the inscription: "Return to the people its old symbols: the coat of arms of Pahonia and the white-red-white flag, as well as the name of the country – Litva, the capital – Minsk!"

In 1990, following the adoption of the Act of March 11 by the Supreme Council – Reconstituent Seimas, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic on 29 March 1990 adopted an official statement, signed by chairman Mikalay Dzyemyantsyey, which claimed that upon the withdrawal of the Lithuanian SSR from the Union with the Byelorussian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR will not consider itself bound by all laws, decrees and other acts regarding the transfer of part of the Belarusian lands to Lithuania.[8] On 24 October 1991 Vytautas Landsbergis and Stanislav Shushkevich in Vilnius signed a declaration regarding the principles of good neighborly relations between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus.[45] However, in 1992 Piatro Kravchanka, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, told the Reuters correspondent that the Vilnius Region should belong to Belarus (the ministry later apologized for these words), while Zianon Pazniak, the founder and leader of the Belarusian Popular Front, spoke about possible Belarusian claims to the territories of the Republic of Lithuania during his visit to the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania in Vilnius.[45][46] Moreover, in the early 1990s, Belarusian mass media (e.g. Sovetskaya Belorussiya on 25 August 1990, Nasha Niva in 1992) considered the issue of the transfer of Vilnius to Belarus or granting an independent city status to Vilnius, while an assembly named Slavic Sobor on 20 February 1992 adopted a statement that Belarus had legal and historical rights to inherit the Vilnius Region.[47] Consequently, the agreement between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus on good neighborliness and cooperation was signed only on 6 February 1995.[48][47]

When Alexander Lukashenko was elected president in 1994, he altered government historiography to be closer to Soviet historiography, claiming that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian state while Belarus was created during the Russian Revolution. This marked a change from the Belarusian position before 1994, which regarded the Grand Duchy as jointly Belarusian and Lithuanian. In 2005, the state narrative returned to this position. According to Lithuanian historian Rūstis Kamuntavičius, this could have possibly been caused by a rapproachment between Lukashenko and the opposition or an effort by the former to distance Belarus from Russia. After the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, Lukashenko began persecuting historians and changed textbooks and university curricula to remove references to Belarusian involvement in the Grand Duchy.[49]

The Belarusian regime does not follow a coherent historical narrative and juggles conflicting facts to pursue unclear goals. Kamuntavičius states that "There is complete chaos. They write textbooks for schools, and before publishing, they rewrite them in a different way. History is taught according to one logic in the earlier grades, and according to another logic in the older grades." and argues that "Belarusian authorities don't have the intellectual capacity to control the narrative."[49]

On 20 May 2000 a group of mostly Belarusian Litvinists in Novogrudok signed the Act of Proclamation of the Litvin nation, while its members consider that in 1900-1922 the Old Lithuania died and the name "Lithuanians" was assigned to the Samogitians.[50]

Following departure from Belarus in fear of repressions, Belarusian nationalist Zianon Pazniak in 2005 wrote that the task of the Belarusian intelligentsia, education, educational and national literature is to "return the historical consciousness of the people to their native home – to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" and in the next stage "return the official name of the state" which according to him should be named in the Constitution of Belarus as the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian Belarus (Belarusian: Вялікае Княства Літоўскае Беларусь) and abbreviated as Belarus (Belarusian: Беларусь) to solve political and historical-ethnic questions.[51] Pazniak's suggestion to change the name of Belarus to the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian Belarus received only partial support among the Belarusians and also was criticized.[52] According to Pazniak, the Belarusian language, culture and other attributes were destroyed by the Russian occupation policy (tsarist and communist), which instead tried to tie the historical consciousness of Belarusians to the history of Russia, while Lukashenko's government is a "pro-Muscovite regime".[51] The 2019 census demonstrated that the Belarusian language is perceived as a native language of Belarus by ~60% of its population, however only ~25% use it in their everyday life.[53]

In September 2015, Zianon Pazniak stated that the Russian propaganda is trying to use some "Belarusian marginals" who dream about the revival of Greater Lithuania.[54] Later, in December 2016, Zianon Pazniak stated that the agenda of "returning to the name Літва [Litva]" would be fruitless for Belarus because it is 150 years too late and a new Belarusian nation was created over this time.[55] Nevertheless, by describing etymological terms, he continued to claim that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Belarusian: Вялікае Княства Літоўскае) corresponds to today's Belarus (according to him, the term was also favorable for the Russian Empire for Russification purposes, but was later banned by the Governing Senate in 1840 and the Belarusians were then treated as a "branch of the Russian tribe"), while the current Lithuania is Samogitia (Belarusian: Жамойцкае), and that in the 17th century the Belarusian language was noted in Muscovy as "Litvinskaya" (Belarusian: ліцьвінскай), "Lithuanian" (Belarusian: літоўскай), "Lithuanian writing" (Belarusian: літоўскае пісьмо).[55] Also, according to Pazniak, due to struggle in the Belarusian–Russian relations during the national revival in the 19th century, the Samogitians (Belarusian: Жамойць), who according to him allegedly did not even have their own writing system, benefited by choosing the name "Літва [Litva]" and built a fantastic state ideology.[55]

The differences in Wikipedia's articles illustrate different Belarusian points of view to history. Article about Lithuanians in the Belarusian Classical Orthography Wikipedia describe them as "Letuvisy" [Летувісы] and historically as "Žamojty" [жамойты] (Samogitians), while the popularier Belarusian Wikipedia describe them primarily as "Litoŭcy" [Літоўцы] and secondary as "Letuvisy" [Летувісы], but without historically completely equating them to the Samogitians.

In recent times, open declarations have been published in Belarus, stating that Vilnius is a "non-Lithuanian" city and should supposedly belong to the "historical Lithuanians" – Belarusians.[56] For example, since 2013, during annual Zapad (English: West) exercises in which the Russian Armed Forces and Armed Forces of Belarus jointly participate, the narrative that the Vilnius Region should supposedly belong to Belarus is openly repeated.[57] In 2018, Alexander Lukashenko stated during an interview with the Echo of Moscow that "we are not the heirs of Kievan Rus', we are the heirs of Vilnius".[58][11] Russian right-wing politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky also publicly called on Belarusians to "take back" Vilnius.[59]

On 1 March 2021 Belsat TV published a program in which Alexander Kravtsevich, a Belarusian professor, Doctor of History, argued that Vilnius was founded, built and named by the Belarusians and that history does not know cities built by Lithuanians.[17] According to Alvydas Nikžentaitis, the director of Lithuanian Institute of History, this theory is not new, but has been known for a long time and has its fans and followers in Belarus; however, even some Belarusian historians regard Alexander Kravtsevich as a radical and refuse to cooperate with him.[17] Nevertheless, Belsat TV actively promotes the Litvinist narrative in various programs it shows: movies, discussions of historians and scientists in the TV studio, and the main narrator of the Litvinist movies is Litvinism propagator Alexander Kravtsevich.[60][61][62] Belsat TV show where historians gather and promote Litvinism is called Intermarium, which is named after Józef Piłsudski's post-World War I geopolitical plan of a future federal state in Central and Eastern Europe dominated by Poland.[60][63][64] Since June 2022 Belsat TV is being broadcast in Belarusian and Russian languages in Southeastern Lithuania.[65]

Moreover, Alexander Kravtsevich also seeks to segregate the terms "Lietuviai" (a word in the Lithuanian language meaning Lithuanians, but according to Kravtsevich "Lietuviai" were Catholic Samogitians (жамойты) in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), "Lietuva" (a word in the Lithuanian language meaning Lithuania) from "Litovcy" (a word in some Slavic languages, including Belarusian, meaning Lithuanians), "Litva" (a word in the Slavic languages, including Belarusian, meaning Lithuania) and accuses Lithuanians (Lietuviai) that they assigned the whole history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for themselves after proclaiming the restoration of an independent State of Lithuania in 1918 and maintaining it.[66] According to Kravtsevich, the usage of the words "Litva" [Літва], "Lićviny" [ліцьвіны] when describing a historical country and "Letuva" [Летува], "Letuvisy" [летувісы] when describing a modern country is "completely justified and even necessary", because according to him, the historical Lithuania [гістарычнай Літвы] was created in the middle of the 13th century in territories which mostly are "ethnically Belarusian" (Grodno Region, Vilnius Region, Novogrudok Region, and western Minsk Region) and the Lithuanians ("[летувісы] / Letuvisy") made up only a small percentage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania's population, but during the Soviet period the legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was attributed to the Lithuanians ("[Летувы] / Letuvy") and now it is almost exclusive to a Baltic state with a self-name "Letuva" [Летува] (Lietuva).[67]

According to Źmicier Sańko, a Belarusian linguist and publisher, the ancient history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was "changed" by manipulations of the 20th-century dictators and if Joseph Stalin had assigned Vilnius to Belarus, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would have been "indisputably interpreted as a Belarusian state".[18] Sańko also stated that the Lithuanians ("[летувісы] / letuvisy") want to preserve the equality between historical Lithuania ("[Літвой] / Litvoj") and today's Lithuania ("[Летувой] / Letuvoj"), therefore, according to him, there is an urgent requirement to terminologically demarcate historical Lithuania ("[Літвы] / Litvy") and modern Lithuania ("[Летувы] / Letuvy").[18] Furthermore, according to Sańko, Moscow made two "expensive gifts" to Lithuania ("[Летуве] / Letuvie") when it "gave Vilnius from us [Belarus]" in 1939 and "organized" the 1995 Belarusian referendum to change the national state symbols.[18]

"The words "Litva" [Літва], "Litvin" [літвін], "Litoŭski" [літоўскі] in the Old Belarusian language from the beginning meant the Baltic union of tribes, its representatives and their language. (...) For modern Belarusians, Lithuania is the name of today's neighboring country. (...) Every Belarusian should know that Lithuania is also his ancient country."

— Vincuk Viačorka, Sergei Shupa[25]

Vincuk Viačorka and Sergei Shupa together wrote an article why Lithuania should be called "Litva" [Літва], not "Letuva" [Летува].[25] Viačorka and Shupa narrated that "Litva" [Літва] is our [Belarusian] ancient word" and "Litva" [Літва] as well as Baltic "Lietuva" are etymological equivalents, while the usage of a word "Letuva" [Летува] is unacceptable because it contradicts the nature of the Belarusian language and that such an approach was incompetent linguistically.[25] Moreover, from the early periods the Old Belarusian language words "Litva" [Літва], "Litvin" [літвін], "Litoŭski" [літоўскі] described Baltic tribes, their language and representatives, and this approach was continued by the interwar classical orthography tradition linguists (e.g. Valiancina Paškievič).[25] According to Viačorka and Shupa, every Belarusian should know that Lithuania is also his ancient country and "childish complexes" about it should be discarded, while the imposition of a word "Letuva" [Лету́ва] is "monstrous" and instead there is a necessity of historical education.[25] Viačorka and Shupa also reminded that in the early 1990s there was an agreement between the Belarusian and Lithuanian intellectuals to stop using the terms "Letuva" [Лету́ва], "Letuvísaŭ" [летувíсаў] in Belarusian publications.[25]

In December 2021, Belarusian politician Valery Tsepkalo, one of the denied candidates of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, narrated online that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created in the current Belarusian territory in the 13th–14th centuries and later expanded, while the spoken language in the state was the Russian language ("Russkiy jazyk"), not the current Lithuanian language.[15][68]

According to Aleś Čajčyc, the Information Secretary of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic,[69] the Litvinism article on English Wikipedia was written by "Lithuanian marginals".[70] However, the same year after secretary's statement the official Twitter account of the exiled government tweeted that the coat of arms is "a symbol of centuries of friendship between Belarusians and Lithuanians".[71]

Statues of Lithuanian Grand Dukes Vytautas and Jogaila in the Belarusian National History Museum in Minsk, Belarus which were removed in 2022

In July 2022, during the Independence Day celebration, Alexander Lukashenko claimed that the Belarusian ethnos was the "backbone" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was "the first Belarusian country" and "a defensive alliance with the Baltic tribes, where the Slavs taught them to read, introduced them to the philosophy of Christianity".[10] However, the same month the statues of Grand Dukes Vytautas and Jogaila, who were called "Polish occupiers", were removed from the Belarusian National History Museum.[49] Furthermore, there were cases in 2022 when people in Belarus were arrested or even sentenced to multiple years in prison for the usage of Pahonia (one of the historical names of the coat of arms of Lithuania, alternative unofficial coat of arms of Belarus with a horse rider closely resembles it and bears the same name) when they publicly painted it or left a sticker featuring it.[72][73]

In March 2023, Zianon Pazniak, speaking in Belarusian, stated that "in our history and our culture Vilnius is our head, the loss of Vilnius turned out to be very disadvantageous for us", also narrated that the Lithuanians have no rights to Vilnius, provided propositions how Vilnius could be separated from Lithuania by granting Vilnius an "independent city" status, a "special status" or a "common city" status or making it "Belarusian", and used term "Letuvisy" when describing Lithuanians.[13][14] While in one of his earlier published articles Pazniak wrote that "in 1939, "Letuvisy" [летувісы] accepted Stalin's offer to take Vilnius (...) lost their independence (...) but historically (at least for today) they won. Vilnius remained in Letuva [Летуве]".[74]

"This problem is artificially created, I am absolutely sure that 99 percent of Belarusians have never heard of Litvinism. This is created here now so that Lithuanians and Belarusians would be set against each other, just to provoke people and this discussion. This is only talked about in Lithuania, there are no such discussions in Belarus at all. We will never question the integrity of Lithuania. Vilnius is a Lithuanian city. I don't understand why people talk about it at all, because it is only intended to set Lithuanians and Belarusians against each other. (...) There is not even such an idea in Belarusian society. Call the historians and talk. Belarusians respect the integrity and heritage of Lithuania."

— Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya[26][27]

On 23 August 2023 Belarusian political activist Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya claimed that the theory of Litvinism was put forward in order to set at variance Lithuanians and Belarusians and that they will never question the integrity of Lithuania, Vilnius is a city of Lithuania.[26] Moreover, Tsikhanouskaya stated that Belarusians generally do not talk about Litvinism and that these are isolated, marginal cases.[27] On the other hand, according to Lithuanian military historian Karolis Zikaras, Litvinist attitude prevails in the society of Belarus, but there is an increase of Belarusian historians who look more objectively at the history of their country.[11]

According to Lithuanian scientist Artūras Dubonis, the ethnogenesis of Belarusians is still in process and its community is divided into two unequal groups: pro-Moscow (larger) and pro-Western (smaller), however both of these groups seeks to find or create historical ethno-cultural supports and the pro-Moscow ones also do not want to become Russians–Muscovites.[75] During a poll conducted in 2021 86% of Belarusians evaluated Russia positively, Russian President Vladimir Putin received 60% support and about two-thirds supported the development of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.[76]

In Lithuania
Lithuania in the Mappa mundi of Pietro Vesconte, 1321. The inscription reads: Letvini pagani – pagan Lithuanians
Lithuanian (Lingwa Lietowia) was mentioned as one of the languages of the participants of the Council of Constance in a 15th century chronicle by Ulrich of Richenthal.
Universitas lingvarum Litvaniae, Vilnius, 1737.
According to Lithuanian scientists, the Ruthenian language was one of the chancellery languages of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (also with Latin, Polish), but they deny that it was a state language, while Lithuanian was mostly a spoken language in ethnographic Lithuania until the 17th century (later partly).[77]
A fragment from the early 17th-century Radziwiłł map where Kernavė is marked as "Kiernow primum M. Duci Lith. domicilium" (English: Kernavė, the first residence-capital of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania).[78] This historical map denies the myth of Belarusian historiography which claims that Novogrudok was the first capital of Lithuania.[79]
French map of the 18th century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in which the Lithuania proper (Vraye Lithuanie), which the Lithuanian scientists consider as a state founding Baltic-origin core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,[80] is clearly separated with a green line from Samogitia and the Belarusian territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Russie Blanche ou Lituanique) and includes cities Vilnius, Kaunas, Trakai, Alytus, Grodno, Lida, Braslaw, etc.[81][82][83]

Numerous Lithuanian authors view "Litvinism" as potentially dangerous or harmful for the modern Lithuanian state.[33][84][85][86] In 1996, Lithuanian historian Edvardas Gudavičius criticized Mikola Yermalovich's theories by providing scientific counterarguments.[87] Furthermore, Lithuanian scientists deny that Novogrudok anytime in its history was the capital of Lithuania and tractate it is as a "parasitic myth" in Belarusian historiography.[79]

According to Lithuanian scientists, part of the ethnic eastern and southeastern Lithuanian territories, which historically used to be part of the Lithuania proper (considered as a state founding Baltic-origin core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by Lithuanian scientists), were Slavicized in the 16th–19th centuries through Belarusization, Russification, and Polonization, therefore they are no longer dominated by Lithuanians or Lithuanian-speakers (e.g. Lida, Kreva, Ashmyany, Smarhon, Vidzy, Braslaw).[80][88][89][90][91] Relevant historical source illustrating Lithuania in the 15th century is Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas the Great's 11 March 1420 letter to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, in which he wrote that Samogitia is the same land of Lithuania and that Lithuanians in Aukštaitija and Samogitians (who also call themselves only as Lithuanians) are the same people with one language.[92][11] The exact territory of Lithuania proper is known since the 1566 reform of the administrative divisions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and it was constituted of the Vilnius Voivodeship and Trakai Voivodeship (included Grodno County in 1413–1793), however, the Lithuanians themselves also considered the Duchy of Samogitia as part of Lithuania proper, while other six voivodeships (out of nine voivodeships since 1569) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were called "Lithuanian Ruthenia" (Litovskaja Rus).[93][80][81][38] Moreover, the importance of Lithuanian language for Lithuanian-speaking population within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also remained in the later years as during the Kościuszko Uprising in 1794 Tadeusz Kościuszko's appeals were written in Lithuanian and Polish languages.[11][94] In the first half of the 20th century, despite the restoration of Lithuanian statehood in 1918, a part of historical Lithuania proper, including the cities of Grodno, Lida, Braslaw, Kreva, Ashmyany and their surroundings, became a part of Poland and later a part of the Byelorussian SSR, and in the late 20th century (1989) only 7606 people in the Byelorussian SSR considered themselves Lithuanians.[81][82][83][88]

According to Lithuanian publications, terms which start with the traditional Lithuanian roots "Let" and "Liet" have a significant and historical usage.[95] For example, in early German chronicles the name of Lithuania was spelled Lettowen and in Latin as Lethovia, Lettovia, Lettavia,[95] Lithuanian monarch Gediminas in the 14th century titled himself in Latin letter to Pope John XXII as "Gedeminne, letwinorum et multorum ruthenorum rex" (which literally translates to English as "Gediminas, by the grace of God, King of the Lithuanians and many Ruthenians"), his son Algirdas after becoming the Lithuanian monarch appeared as "rex Letwinorum" (English: King of Lithuania) in the Livonian Chronicles, and Algirdas' son Jogaila, being a Lithuanian monarch since 1377, used a seal in 1377–1386 with a Latin gothic minuscule "* ia ‚ gal * - dey * gracia * r - ex - in * lettow" (which literally translates to English as "Jogaila, by the Grace of God, King in Lithuania"), while the name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Lithuanian language publications even in the mid-17th century was still written "dides Kunigiſtes Lietuwos", etc.[96][97][98] Furthermore, Lithuanian (Lietuviai) ethnicity consists not only of Samogitians (Žemaičiai), but also of Aukštaitians (the largest Lithuanian ethnic group) and the region of Aukštaitija is known in the written sources since the late 13th century when Peter of Dusburg described it as "Austechia, terra regis Lethowie" (English: Aukštaitija, the land of Lithuanians King), while some German sources also titled Lithuanian monarch Gediminas as "Rex de Owsteiten" (English: King of Aukštaitija).[99][100][101][102]

The Act of Independence of Lithuania, signed by the Council of Lithuania on February 16, 1918, proclaimed that "the Council of Lithuania, as the sole representative of the Lithuanian nation, based on the recognized right to national self-determination, and on the Vilnius Conference's resolution of September 18–23, 1917, proclaims the restoration of the independent state of Lithuania, founded on democratic principles, with Vilnius as its capital, and declares the termination of all state ties which formerly bound this State to other nations".[103] In the preamble of the most recent Constitution of Lithuania, adopted during the 1992 Lithuanian constitutional referendum, the continuity of Lithuanian statehood is also stressed with the words "the Lithuanian Nation, having created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago, having based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes and the Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania, having for centuries staunchly defended its freedom and independence, having preserved its spirit, native language, writing, and customs, embodying the innate right of the human being and the Nation to live and create freely in the land of their fathers and forefathers – in the independent State of Lithuania, fostering national concord in the land of Lithuania, striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a State under the rule of law, by the will of the citizens of the reborn State of Lithuania, adopts and proclaims this Constitution".[104]

According to Lithuanian historian Artūras Dubonis, the theories of Mikola Yermalovich and Alexander Kravtsevich have nothing in common with the science of history, distort the past of the Lithuanian nation and are politically motivated to strengthen the Belarusians' self-awareness and their statehood.[105]

In 2013, Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence stated that the Belarusians attempt to present Lithuanian monarchs as Belarusians in an information warfare part of Russian attempts to discredit Lithuania's efforts to restore its independence.[106]

In 2014, Lithuanian historian Alfredas Bumblauskas claimed that the relations with the Belarusians should be reconsidered (e.g. by establishing counterpropaganda institutions) because the Belarusians spread heritage propaganda and have appropriated the history of Lithuania.[107] Furthermore, Bumblauskas said that to him the imperialistic-minded Belarusians remind Adolf Hitler's aspirations in the Sudetenland.[107] Moreover, Bumblauskas recalled that already 15 years ago there were messages in the internet claiming that Vilnius will see Belarusian tanks with the symbolism of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[107] Bumblauskas stressed that historically Lithuanian monarch Algirdas was the creator of the Lithuanian Empire who annexed through conquests and marriages large parts of the current Belarusian and Ukrainian territories.[107]

In September 2022, public institution Litvinai was established in Lithuania.[108][109] Reportedly members of the club Litvinai (Lićviny) train militarily and strives to preserve internal relations and self-identification of Belarusians in Lithuania, however they train with airsoft weaponry as citizens of Russia and Belarus are prohibited to own combat weaponry in Lithuania since late 2022 and the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union terminated cooperation with them.[108] According to Siarhei Shalyhin, leader of the club Litvinai, they do not have plans to overthrow Lukashenko's government.[108]

In August 2023, Laurynas Kasčiūnas, the Chairman of the National Security and Defense Committee of Seimas, said that Litvinism is a threat to Lithuania because it is a concept where, on the one hand, Belarusians appropriate the tradition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, on the other hand, they push us aside, saying that the national state of Lithuania is a Russian project.[110] According to Kasčiūnas, Lithuania cannot tolerate an ideology of Litvinism that denies Lithuania's identity and memory and appealed to the Belarusian opposition regarding the issue.[111] Another member of the National Security and Defense Committee of Seimas, Raimundas Lopata, urged Lithuanian institutions to create a strategy of Lithuania's policy towards hostile Belarus by including measures to completely close the Belarus–Lithuania border, strengthened border protection and measures to combat Litvinism which he described as Kremlin hybrid warfare.[112] Petras Auštrevičius, Member of the European Parliament, also named Litvinism as a hybrid warfare designed to antagonize nations, create mistrust and historical revanchism.[113]

The State Security Department of Lithuania (VSD) stated in August 2023 that the supporters of the radical Belarusian nationalist ideology of Litvinism claims that modern-day Belarusians are the true heirs to the legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, thus they are making territorial claims to other countries surrounding Belarus, including Lithuania and its capital city Vilnius; however, their activities do not pose a real threat to the sovereignty, constitutional order and territorial integrity of the Republic of Lithuania at the moment, but may increase inter-ethnic tensions and negative attitudes towards Belarusian community in Lithuania.[114][115] The VSD also stated that the Litvinists are against the governments of Belarus and Russia and do not support narrative that Russians and Belarusians are "one people", thus part of the Litvinists departed to EU countries amid repressions against them.[114][115] Also, in August 2023, it was announced that 910 Belarusians and 254 Russians were recognized as a threat to the national security of Lithuania and all these 1164 foreigners were prohibited to arrive in Lithuania.[116]

According to Lithuanian politician Vytautas Sinica, Litvinism is especially characteristic of the opponents of Alexander Lukashenko's rule and the denial of Lithuanian historical statehood by them is a serious issue, which is incompatible with the national security of Lithuania, therefore he suggested to inquire Belarusians, who want to live in Lithuania, who founded the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Vilnius.[117]

In September 2023, members of the Seimas unanimously voted for the proposed amendment to the Lithuanian Law on the State Flag and other flags which consist of allowance to raise the historical flag of Lithuania (with Vytis) at border checkpoints and encourages residents to raise it near their homes during historical public holidays, while the initiator of the changes, Andrius Kupčinskas, pointed out Litvinism from the Belarusian-side as one of the reasons for these changes.[118]

On 2 October 2023 a discussion was held in Seimas Palace with Lithuanian, Polish, Belarusian scientists, writers and politicians about the origin of Litvinism, its influence and challenges in Belarusians and Lithuanians relations.[119] One of the members of the Lithuanian coalition government, Liberals' Movement, announced that the purpose of the discussion in Seimas Palace was searching for ways to stop the radical Litvinism ideology.[120] Soon afterwards, also in October 2023, a video was published online where three armed men standing in front of the Belarusian white-red-white flags issued threats to Lithuanian politicians, demanded to stop persecuting Belarusians and explained that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian, not a Lithuanian state.[68]

In Russia
Monument of Russian Empress Catherine the Great in the Cathedral Square, Vilnius, which was unveiled in the early 20th century following the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1795 and had inscription "separated to recover"[6]

Tomas Baranauskas claims that Litvinism also has some supporters in Russia, although it is much less popular than in Belarus. Some Russian Litvinists refer to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Russian state.[2] According to Belarusian historian Alieś Biely, Litvinism is the frontier ideology of Russian civilization.[121] According to Virginijus Savukynas, a Lithuanian historian and journalist, Litvinism is the Belarusian variant of the ideology of Russian imperialism and the beginning of Litvinism lie in the Russian Empire when it annexed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1795 and then Russian Empress Catherine the Great claimed that she just "restored historical truth".[6] Moreover, Savukynas pointed out to the fact that in the early 20th century a monument was unveiled in Vilnius dedicated to the Russian Empress Catherine the Great with inscription "separated to recover".[6]

In an interview held by Lietuvos rytas, the Belarusian journalist Alesis Mikas stated that the Russian Government could be using the new phenomenon of Litvinism in Belarus as a form of hybrid warfare against Lithuania.[122]

Lev Krishtapovich claims that:

In fact, under the guise of Belarusian nationalism, or the so-called Litvinism, a Polish gentry clique stands aimed at transforming Belarus into Poland's eastern frontiers.[123][124]

Panorama of the city of Polotsk in 1812, 1912, and 2006. Officials of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union Russified, Sovietized the city skyline and rebuilt or demolished historical religious buildings built during the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

In response to the Belarusian nationalism and unable to erase the importance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) for the formation of the Belarusian nation, Russian propaganda seek to slavicize GDL and its rulers.[56] Additionally, Russia actively deny occupation of the Baltic states and tractate Baltic states statehood of 1918 and 1990 as temporary and accidental formations resulting from crises in Russia.[125] Since GDL, which has existed for more than 500 years, prevents such a narrative in relation to Lithuania, several strategies are used in Russia to rewrite GDL history.[125] According to one of the strategies, it is aimed to present the GDL as a "historical misunderstanding" in the area of Russian civilization that allegedly gravitated towards Poland, and in some publications the entire Baltic region is named as the historical area of Russia since the 10th–12th centuries.[125][126] According to another strategy, it is claimed that the GDL also supposedly was a Russian (Ruthenian) state ("more democratic"), which has nothing to do nor with the 20th century "Samogitian" statehood of Lithuania, nor with Ukraine and Belarus as historical entities.[125][127] Even in Russian sources that emphasize the subjectivity of the history of the GDL, the "Russian" aspects are treated as phenomena of the history of Russia, not Ukraine or Belarus.[125]

Russian far-right political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin claims that after the Golden Horde there was not one Russia (Rusj Moskovskaja – Grand Duchy of Moscow), but two – also a "Lithuanian Russia" (Rusj Litovskaja – GDL), which had a majority population (80%) of Orthodox Slavs who also were the elites of the state and at the same time deny the Baltic origin of the GDL and claim that the rulers of the GDL were Russians.[59][128][5][56] Other Russian historians (for example, Michail Kojalovich, Nikolai Ustrialov, Matvei Liubavskii) in their publications consider the GDL as a state of Western Russia, and the expansion of the GDL to the east and south was supposedly a process of unification of Russian lands in which Western Russia (GDL) and Eastern Russia (Muscovy) competed.[129] Also, Russian historians often call the vicegerents of the GDL rulers as Russian dukes because they supposedly spoke Russian and claims that the GDL was a Slavic state because its written language was Slavic.[56] According to these Russian historians, precisely because of the majority of Orthodox Slavs in the population of the GDL, the GDL was supposedly a "non-Baltic" or "non-Lithuanian" state.[56] These Russian paradigms are taken from the 19th century and are intended to justify the destruction of the GDL.[125] From such Russian points of view, the partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and GDL were essentially a "restoration" of the separated Russian lands.[130] These assumptions are also actively echoed by Litvinists, who claim that the Slavic (Litvin) origin of the GDL can be judged from the fact that its political elite allegedly spoke Old East Slavic language (Litvin language), however actually in the GDL it was only one of the written languages, not a spoken language.[56] Moreover, historically only the Slavic voivodeships of the GDL (six out of nine) were referred to as "Lithuanian Ruthenia" (Litovskaja Rus).[38]

A number of Russian historians consider Ruthenian language to be a "Western dialect of Russian language" or "Western Russians language".[125][131] For propaganda purposes, the ancient Eastern Slavs are equated with Russian speakers or even modern Russians.[56] However, actually during the time of the GDL there was no such nationality as Russian and there was no standardized Russian language as different Ruthenian dialects were spoken.[56] Slavic-speakers of the GDL and Muscovites could understand each other, but letters received from the GDL, before being presented to the addressee, were translated into the Muscovite variant of the written language in the Grand Dukes of Moscow chancellery which proves their separateness.[56] Moreover, the separateness of GDL Orthodox and Muscovite Orthodox is proved by the Orthodox Metropolis of Lithuania which using the favor of the Patriarch of Constantinople and seeking church power was liquidated by the Metropolitans of Moscow.[56][132][133] When the Muscovites took control of the left-bank Ukraine, Metropolitan Methodius of Kiev refused to swear an oath to Moscow, stating that "If a Muscovite Metropolitan is sent to us, we will shut ourselves up in monasteries, and let them drag us out of them by our necks and legs. We would rather die than accept a metropolitan from Moscow."[56] Until then Orthodox Christians of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth massively switched to the Ruthenian Uniate Church, and in the 18th century only Mstsislaw and Mogilev remained Orthodox in the territory of the Commonwealth.[56] In 1790, Catholics of the "Latin" and "Greek" rites made up 77.8% of the total population of the GDL.[134]

Lithuanian monarchs Gediminas (left) and Algirdas (right) depicted in the Millennium of Russia Monument which was built in Veliky Novgorod in 1862

A lot of anti-Lithuanian propaganda is directed at Grand Duke Algirdas because he used war and diplomatic means to unite Ruthenian lands into the GDL.[56] Also, many dukes of Slavic lands gave priority to their own positively evaluated GDL rather than the Tatar Golden Horde and their negatively evaluated money collectors ‒ the Muscovites.[56] These circumstances destroy the authority of Moscow as the "unifier of all Russian lands", so the aim of such claims is to Russify Grand Duke Algirdas or at least convert him to Orthodoxy.[56] The first attempts to do this can be seen already in the 16th–17th centuries Bychowiec Chronicle and Hustyn Chronicle which describe Algirdas supposedly Orthodox baptism after his first or second marriage in an anti-Catholic context.[56] Also already in the 16th century annals of the Moscow state it was stated that Algirdas was allegedly an Orthodox believer, this way aiming to undermine the rulers of Lithuania and show their subordination to the rulers of Moscow.[135] Later this narrative, which contradicts the Catholic Christianization of pagan Lithuania in 1387 and the history of the martyrs of Vilnius, was being repeated by the propagandists of the Russian Empire.[135] For example, Russian historiographer and writer sentimentalist Nikolay Karamzin in the 18th century "discovered" another date of Algirdas alleged baptism and put into use, claiming that Algirdas, who was ordained as a monk on his deathbed, was buried according to Orthodox rites.[56] However, German and old Ruthenian chronicles mention that Algirdas died as a "pagan fire-worshipper, an enemy of the cross and faith" and was burned.[56] Some Litvinists claim that Lithuanian King Mindaugas also adopted Orthodoxy in Novogrudok.[136]

In 2011, Belarusian Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate initiated the canonization of the former Metropolitan of Vilnius Joseph Semashko who was the primary organizer of the Synod of Polotsk in 1839 during which the 1596 Union of Brest was abolished.[137] Consequently, Lithuanian and Belarusian Uniates became part of the Russian Orthodox Church and Joseph Semashko assisted to formulate ethnopolitical ideology of "Western Russia".[137] Proponents of canonization identify this event as the "return" of the lands of Lithuania and Belarus to the sphere of influence of Eastern Christian civilization and the restoration of the self-awareness of the Russian Orthodox people of Belarus.[137] In Belarus, the 1839 Synod of Polotsk is commemorated in celebrations.[138]

The Institute of Russian Civilization operating in Moscow has published the encyclopedia Holy Russia. The Great Encyclopedia of the Russian Nation (Russian: Святая Русь. Большая энциклопедия русского народа) which is full of historical forgeries as in it the GDL is called an artificial and unviable state that existed from the 13th to the 18th century.[128] In this encyclopedia it is stated that already in the 10th–12th centuries the territories of the Baltic states were supposedly part of the Russian state.[128] Also, in this encyclopedia the Baltic states are named as puppet states, and their occupation in 1940 is seen as the collapse of pro-Western regimes allegedly ruled by German agents and political adventurers and a "legal return" to Russia.[128] It also states that in 1991 the "puppet" Baltic states were led by representatives of the US Central Intelligence Agency and other Western special services, and in this way they allegedly became Western colonies.[128]

However, there is also an unofficial narrative in Russia that emphasizes the civilizational space determined by the GDL together with Poland, thus Lithuania is considered the main obstacle for Russia to implement the Eurasian strategy in the post-Soviet states.[125] Every year on 4 November Russia celebrates a national holiday called the National Unity Day which marks the expulsion of the Polish–Lithuanian military crew from the Moscow Kremlin on 4 November 1612.[125][139][140] According to historians, Lithuania was the generalized symbol of an enemy or a foreign country in the consciousness of 17th-century Russians, and it became established in folklore as well (for example, about a stubborn person they said: "Fight him like with Lithuania", and an unfamiliar guest was asked: "What kind of horde are you? What kind of Lithuanian are you?").[140] Russian President Vladimir Putin explains the conflict with the Ukrainians by the fact that Lithuanians and Poles created a "divide and conquer" strategy in "historical Russian lands" in the 15th century and developed it in the 16th–18th centuries.[141] According to Putin, both Lithuanian Russia and Muscovite Russia could have had united "Old Russia", but it happened that Moscow allegedly became the "center of unification" and after the partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth the Russian Empire allegedly "regained" the old lands of Western Russia (Little Russia and Novorossiya, where supposedly only Russians lived).[141] Putin has also publicly stated that "Russia's borders do not end anywhere".[142] In 2022, Dmitry Medvedev wrote on his Telegram account that "after liberating Kyiv and all the territories of Little Russia from the nationalist gangs, Russia will become united again" and that "We will embark on another campaign to restore the borders of our Motherland, which, as we know, do not end anywhere."[143] Also, Russia seeks to escalate conflicts in Lithuania–Poland relations.[125]

By international sources
Part of a map (published in 1827) by historian, geographer Stanisław Plater with an area (marked in greenish-yellow) where in 1827 the Lithuanian language was still dominant

Litvinism is not supported by notable information sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica, which states that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was exclusively created by Lithuanians,[144] that Lithuania in the past ruled territories of present-day Belarus[145] and that the Belarusians had no state and no national symbols until 1918.[146] Notable historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee also support the approach that the Lithuanians conquered Ruthenian territories.[147]

Multiple international scientists made conclusions that the Lithuanian-speaking territory was larger in the past. By studying place names of Lithuanian origin, linguist Jan Safarewicz concluded that the eastern boundaries of the Lithuanian language used to be in the shape of zigzags through Grodno, Shchuchyn, Lida, Valozhyn, Svir, and Braslaw.[148] Such eastern boundaries partly coincide with the spread of Catholic and Orthodox faith, and should have existed at the time of the Christianization of Lithuania in 1387 and later.[148] Safarewicz's eastern boundaries were moved even further to the south and east by other scholars (e.g. Mikalay Biryla, Jerzy Ochmański, and others).[148]

See also

References

Citations
  1. Sutkus 2020a.
  2. Venckūnas, V. (29 September 2012). "Tomas Baranauskas: Litvinistams svarbiausia turėti gražią istoriją, kuri galėtų sutelkti tautą". Bernardinai.lt (in Lithuanian).
  3. Sąlygaitė, Jonė; Baranauskas, Tomas; Laužikas, Rimvydas. "Kaip užkirsti kelią litvinizmo apraiškoms?". Žinių radijas (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  4. Bružas, Rimas; Baranauskas, Tomas (6 September 2023). "Istorijos perimetrai. Litvinizmas - istorinė fikcija ar hibridinio karo dalis?". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  5. Savukynas, Virginijus. ""Istorijos detektyvai": kodėl Rusija siekia perrašyti Lietuvos istoriją?". 15min.lt, Lrt.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  6. Savukynas, Virginijus (19 September 2023). ""Litvinizmo" šaknys slypi Rusijos imperinėje ideologijoje". Lithuanian National Television and Radio (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  7. Dubonis 2005, p. 520–521, 524.
  8. Пазняк, Кірыла (10 October 2019). "80 гадоў без Вільні". Новы Час (in Belarusian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  9. Арлоў, Уладзімір; Навумчык, Сяргей; Каткоўскі, Уладзімір (11 December 2007). "Вільня, Вялікае Княства і Беларусь — поўны тэкст онлайнавай канфэрэнцыі з Уладзімерам Арловым". Радыё Свабода (in Belarusian). Retrieved 20 October 2023. Answer to a 07/02/2005 14:24 question
  10. "Lukašenka pareiškė, kad baltarusiai buvo LDK stuburas" [Lukashenko stated that the Belarusians were the backbone of the GDL]. Lithuanian National Radio and Television.
  11. Gurevičius, Ainis. "Karininkas: jie kels ginklą prieš Lietuvą nuoširdžiai tikėdami, kad Vilnius priklauso jiems". Alfa.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  12. Repečkaitė, Daiva (26 July 2022). "Medieval history powers a crisis of identity in Lithuania and Belarus". Coda. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
  13. Pazniak, Zianon. "Вільня - наша. Пазняк пра тое, як падзяліць сталіцу з Літвой". YouTube.com (in Belarusian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  14. Pazniak, Zianon. "ПАЗНЯК: як беларусы стварылі краіну, Вільня – наша, Дзень Волі – галоўнае свята, БНР – 105 год (related timelapse: from 48:10 to 01:11:32)". YouTube.com (in Belarusian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  15. Цепкало, Валерий. "ВКЛ. Маяк ДЕМОКРАТИИ. Авторский фильм Валерия Цепкало. (related timelapse from 6:20)". YouTube.com (in Russian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  16. Dubonis 2005, p. 521–522.
  17. Grigaliūnaitė, Violeta. "Istorijos profesorius baltarusiškos televizijos BELSAT laidoje apie Vilnių: jį įkūrė baltarusiai". 15min.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  18. Санько, Зьміцер (2 March 2020). "І ўсё ж — Літва ці Летува?". Радыё Свабода (in Belarusian). Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  19. Арлоў, Уладзімер (7 October 2010). "Ці належала Вільня БССР?". Радыё Свабода (in Belarusian). Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  20. Bakaitė, Jurga (27 December 2011). "LRT FAKTAI. Ar lietuviams reikia bijoti baltarusių nacionalinio atgimimo?" (in Lithuanian). Lithuanian National Radio and Television.
  21. Baranauskas, Tomas; Ramanauskas, Algis (16 July 2015). ""Greiti Pietūs": Algis Ramanauskas ir Tomas Baranauskas". YouTube (in Lithuanian). Žinių radijas. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  22. Baranauskas, Tomas; Baranauskienė, Inga; Ramanauskas, Algis (11 October 2019). "B&R Pristato: Istorikai Inga ir Tomas Baranauskai. LICVINIZMAS 20191010". YouTube. Bačiulis ir Ramanauskas. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  23. Pancerovas, Dovydas. "Ar perrašinėjamos istorijos pasakų įkvėpta Baltarusija gali kėsintis į Rytų Lietuvą?" [Can Belarus, inspired by the fairy tales of rewritten history, invade Eastern Lithuania?]. 15min.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2014.
  24. "Opinion: Why are our neighbours poaching our history?". Lithuania Tribune. 17 July 2014.
  25. Вячорка, Вінцук; Шупа, Сяргей (20 February 2020). "Чаму Літва, а не «Летува»". Радыё Свабода (in Belarusian). Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  26. Gaučaitė-Znutienė, Modesta; Skėrytė, Jūratė (23 August 2023). "Cichanouskaja apie litvinizmo apraiškas: tai kuriama dirbtinai, norint sukiršinti lietuvius ir baltarusius". Lithuanian National Radio and Television, Baltic News Service (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  27. Valkauskas, Tomas (12 September 2023). "Litvinizmo baimė: ar Lietuva labiau pripratusi prie Lukašenkos, o ne demokratinės Baltarusijos?". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  28. "Gudijos fašistai atidarė filialą Vilniuj". Alkas.lt (in Lithuanian). 28 August 2023.
  29. "Litwinizm – nowe zjawisko na Białorusi [Litvinism - a new phenomenon in Belarus]". Kresy.pl (in Polish). 24 July 2008.
  30. Kirkevich, Ales (29 January 2017). ""Яшчэ не позна вярнуць краіне сапраўднае імя — Літва" ["It is not too late for returning to our state its real name: Lithuania"]". Novy Chas (in Belarusian).
  31. Kurdiukov, Oleg (30 September 2023). "Mūsų rusų gatvė. Litvinizmo įtaka baltarusių ir lietuvių santykiams bei "Caritas" parama Ukrainai". Lithuanian National Television and Radio (in Russian and Lithuanian). Retrieved 18 October 2023.
  32. "Pramanytos Lietuvos Šmėkla". Voruta.lt. 10 January 2010.
  33. Bakaitė, Jurga (27 December 2011). "LRT FAKTAI. Ar lietuviams reikia bijoti baltarusių nacionalinio atgimimo?" (in Lithuanian). Lithuanian National Radio and Television.
  34. "Grand duchy of Lithuania". Encyclopædia Britannica. 21 September 2023.
  35. Griškaitė, Reda (2018). "Zalučės ir Bareikiškių šeimininko Vladislovo Sirokomlės istorikos" (PDF). Archivum Lithuanicum (in Lithuanian and Polish). 20: 49. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
  36. Литвин, Игорь. "Где находилась летописная Литва". Litvin.by (in Russian). Retrieved 18 October 2023.
  37. "Baltarusijos istorija". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  38. Mockienė, Jurgita; Spečiūnas, Vytautas. "Baltarusijos santykiai su Lietuva". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  39. "Baltarusijos rada". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  40. Dubonis 2005, p. 524.
  41. Dubonis 2005, p. 520–521.
  42. "Як Сталін і Гітлер малявалі беларускія межы ў 1939-м". Радыё Свабода (in Belarusian). Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  43. Dubonis 2005, p. 521.
  44. Dubonis 2005, p. 522.
  45. Kuzmickas, Bronislovas; Plečkaitis, Vytautas Petras (2016). "Nelengva geros kaimynystės pradžia. Baltarusija" (PDF). Nepriklausomybės sąsiuviniai (in Lithuanian). 3 (17): 15–16, 78. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  46. "Belarus Official Lays Claim To Lithuanian Border Lands". The New York Times. 25 February 1992. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  47. Leonavičiūtė-Gecevičienė, Rasa; Šadauskas, Vilius (2023). Lietuvos ir Baltarusijos kultūriniai ir istoriniai ryšiai (PDF) (in Lithuanian). Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University. p. 48. ISBN 978-609-467-564-5. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  48. "Lietuvos Respublikos ir Baltarusijos Respublikos sutartis dėl geros kaimynystės ir bendradarbiavimo". Official website of Seimas (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  49. "Lukashenko and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – appropriation of history or taking distance from Moscow?". Lithuanian National Radio and Television. 30 July 2022.
  50. "ЛИТВИНЫ - ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ЕВРОПЕЙСКАЯ НАЦИЯ НА ТЕРРИТОРИИ БЕЛАРУСИ". Litvania.org (in Russian). Archived from the original on 8 October 2013.
  51. Пазняк, Зянон (15 September 2005). "(Разьдзел з артыкула "Прамаскоўскі рэжым")". Bielarus.net (in Belarusian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  52. "Вялікае Княства Літоўскае Беларусь — пражэкцёрства ці візіянэрства?". Наша Ніва (in Belarusian). 11 November 2005. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  53. Coakley, Amanda (28 October 2022). "Inside the Fight To Preserve the Belarusian Language". Time. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  54. Пазняк, Зянон. "ГЭТА СЛОВА САКРАЛЬНАЕ. АБ НЕКАТОРЫХ АСПЭКТАХ БЕЛАРУСКАГА АДРАДЖЭНЬНЯ І ПАРАЗЫ РУСКАЙ ПАЛІТЫКІ". Pazniak.info (in Belarusian). Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  55. Пазняк, Зянон (December 2016). "БЕЛАРУСЬ-ЛІТВА". Pazniak.info (in Belarusian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  56. Sutkus, Darius (2020b). "Litvinizmas II: Baltarusija – ideologinės kovos laukas". Karys (in Lithuanian). 2.
  57. Pankūnė, Dainora. "Kokiu tikslu Lukašenka svaidosi išgalvotais kaltinimais: ar baltarusių pajėgos ruošiasi naujiems iššūkiams". DELFI (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  58. Rimkevičienė, Liepa; Jakilaitis, Edmundas. "Dekonstrukcijos. Rusija propagandos mašina taikosi ne tik į LDK, Vilnių, bet ir Žalgirio mūšį". DELFI. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
  59. Rimkevičienė, Liepa; Jakilaitis, Edmundas. "Dekonstrukcijos. Rusija propagandos mašina taikosi ne tik į LDK, Vilnių, bet ir Žalgirio mūšį". DELFI, Laisvės TV (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  60. Dilius, Rimgaudas (7 December 2019). "Kas ir kodėl skatina litvinizmą?". Alkas.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  61. Kraucewicz, Alaksandr. "Вялікае Княства Літоўскае – Беларусь ці Летува? / Загадкі беларускай гісторыі" [Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Belarus or Lithuania?]. БЕЛСАТ NEWS (in Belarusian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  62. Kraucewicz, Alaksandr. "Вільня як нашая сталіца / Загадкі беларускай гісторыі" [Vilnius as our capital / Riddles of the history of Belarus]. БЕЛСАТ HISTORY (in Belarusian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  63. "Intermarium – гістарычнае ток-шоў". Belsat.eu. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  64. "Intermarium". Naviny.belsat.eu. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  65. "Pietryčių Lietuvoje pradėtos retransliuoti dvi naujos televizijos programos". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). 3 June 2022. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  66. Краўцэвіч, Аляксандар. "Літва - ЯКАЯ сапраўдная і ДЗЕ яна?". YouTube.com (in Belarusian). Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  67. Краўцэвіч, Аляксандар (20 July 2023). "Чаму трэба казаць і «Літва», і «Летува». Аргумэнты гісторыка Алеся Краўцэвіча". Радыё Свабода (in Belarusian). Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  68. "TV3 Žinios. Siaubo diena Izraelyje; Litvinistai grasina Lietuvos politikams; Didmiesčiai griežtina automobilių stovėjimo kontrolę (related timelapse from 9:28)". TV3.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  69. "Прэзыдыюм – Рада Беларускай Народнай Рэспублікі" [Presidium - the Council of the Belarusian People's Republic] (in Belarusian). Retrieved 6 September 2021.
  70. Čajčyc, Aleś (13 August 2021). "Будзьма беларусамі! » Хобі для эрудытаў: абараняць "Пагоню" ў галоўнай сусветнай энцыклапедыі" [Hobbies for scholars: to defend the Pahonia in the world's major encyclopedia]. Будзтма беларусамі [Be Belarusians] (in Belarusian).
  71. "Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic". Twitter. 23 September 2021.
  72. Romanenko, Valentyna. "Lukashenko regime deems "Long live Belarus!" to be Nazi slogan". Ukrainska Pravda. Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  73. "2022 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Belarus". U.S. Embassy in Belarus. 25 May 2023. Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  74. Пазняк, Зянон. "Ідэалы БНР у рэчышчы геапалітыкі". Pazniak.info (in Belarusian). Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  75. Salynė, Roberta. "Kai kurių baltarusių galvose lietuviai – tik lituvisai ar "žmudai": įrodinėjama, kad dabartinė mūsų tauta neturi nieko bendra su istorine Litva". 15min.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 13 September 2023.
  76. Kojala, Linas (1 February 2021). "Ką baltarusiai mano apie Rusiją ir Lietuvą". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 13 September 2023.
  77. Ragauskienė, Raimonda (2013). "Kalbinė padėtis Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje (iki XVI a. vid.): interpretacijos istoriografijoje". Lituanistica (in Lithuanian). Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. 59 (3(93)): 148–149. doi:10.6001/lituanistica.v59i3.2730. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  78. "1613-ųjų Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos žemėlapis" (PDF) (in Lithuanian). Bank of Lithuania. 2013: 1. Retrieved 23 October 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  79. Dubonis, Artūras. "The Myth of Navahrudak | Orbis Lituaniae". LDKistorija.lt. Vilnius University. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
  80. Spečiūnas, Vytautas. "Didžioji Lietuva" [Lithuania proper]. Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  81. Minkevičius, Jonas; Jasas, Rimantas; Vidugiris, Aloyzas. "Gardinas". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  82. Ereminas, Gintautas; Garšva, Kazimieras. "Lyda". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  83. Garšva, Kazimieras; Gaučas, Petras. "Breslauja". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  84. Bružas, Rimas; Baranauskas, Tomas (6 September 2023). "Istorijos perimetrai. Litvinizmas - istorinė fikcija ar hibridinio karo dalis?". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  85. Laurinkus, Mečys. "Litvinizmas ir jo pavojai: ką apie jį žino Lietuvoje ir Baltarusijoje?". Lrytas.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  86. Milašius, Arūnas; Rakutis, Valdas (23 September 2023). "Tylusis istorijos pagrobimas. Litvinizmas - kas tai?". Paninfo.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  87. Gudavičius, Edvardas (1996). "Following the Tracks of a Myth". Lithuanian Historical Studies. 1 (1): 38–58. doi:10.30965/25386565-00101003. S2CID 231347582. Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  88. "Baltarusijos lietuviai". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  89. Gaučas, Petras; Universitetas, Vilniaus (1997). "Etnolingvistinė Rytų Lietuvos gyventojų raida XVII a. antrojoje pusėje - 1939 m: istorinė-geografinė analizė". Lituanistika (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  90. Vidugiris, Aloyzas (1994). "Dėl pietryčių Lietuvos ankstyvųjų slavėjimo tarpsnių". Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai (in Lithuanian and German). XXXIV: 75–83. Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  91. Staliūnas, Darius. "Rusinimas". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  92. Vytautas the Great; Valkūnas, Leonas (translation from Latin). Vytauto laiškai [ Letters of Vytautas the Great ] (PDF) (in Lithuanian). Vilnius University, Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. p. 6. Retrieved 2 October 2023. Juk pirmiausia Jūs padarėte ir paskelbėte sprendimą dėl Žemaičių žemės, kuri yra mūsų paveldėjimas ir mūsų tėvonija iš teisėtos prosenolių bei senolių įpėdinystės. Ją ir dabar nuosavybėje turime, ji dabar yra ir visada buvo viena ir ta pati Lietuvos žemė, nes yra viena kalba bei tie patys gyventojai. Bet kadangi Žemaičių žemė yra žemiau negu Lietuvos žemė, todėl ir vadinama Žemaitija, nes taip lietuviškai yra vadinama žemesnė žemė. O žemaičiai Lietuvą vadina Aukštaitija, t. y. iš Žemaičių žiūrint, aukštesne žeme. Taip pat Žemaitijos žmonės nuo senų laikų save vadino lietuviais ir niekada žemaičiais, ir dėl tokio tapatumo (sic) savo rašte mes nerašome apie Žemaitiją, nes viskas yra viena, vienas kraštas ir tie patys gyventojai.
  93. Gimžauskas, Edmundas (2005). "LDK idėjos likimas XX a. Lietuvos bei Baltarusijos valstybingumų dirvoje". Naujasis židinys-Aidai (in Lithuanian): 528. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  94. Kuolys, Darius. "Tadas Kosciuška". Šaltiniai.info (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  95. Zinkevičius, Zigmas. "Lietuvos vardas". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  96. Ūsienė, Auksė. Lietuvos karaliai arba Lietuvos valstybės statusas XIII–XIV a. (PDF) (in Lithuanian). Ministry of National Defence of Lithuania. p. 7.
  97. Baranauskas, Tomas. "Medieval Lithuania – Sources 1283–1386". Viduramziu.istorija.net (in English and Latin). Archived from the original on 8 April 2022.
  98. "Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos (1684)". Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  99. Milius, Vacys. "Aukštaičiai". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  100. Tautavičius, Adolfas; Vyšniauskaitė, Angelė. "Aukštaitija". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  101. Rowell, Stephen Christopher (1994). Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-107-65876-9. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  102. Baranauskas, Tomas (2006). "Aukštaitija XIII–XV amžiuje". Aukštaičių tapatumo paieškos: Straipsnių rinkinys (in Lithuanian). Kaunas: Žiemgalos leidykla: 32. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  103. "Act of 16 February". Official website of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania.
  104. "The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania". Official website of the Seimas.
  105. Dubonis 2005, p. 524–525.
  106. "Ministerija: Rusijos ir Baltarusijos taikiniai - Lietuvos viduramžių istorija". KaunoDiena.lt (in Lithuanian). 30 December 2013.
  107. Ignatavičius, Tadas; Bumblauskas, Alfredas (1 July 2014). "A. Bumblauskas: "Baltarusiai seniai yra pasisavinę LDK istoriją"". Lrytas.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 21 October 2023.
  108. "Lietuvoje gyvenantys baltarusiai įkūrė klubą: Šaulių sąjunga jau nutraukė bendradarbiavimą". DELFI, LNK.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  109. "Litvinai, VšĮ". Rekvizitai.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  110. Vasiliauskas, Mindaugas. "Lietuvai priekaištų pažėrę baltarusiai apie LDK šaknis: "Gal laimėsim, tada pasiaiškinsim"". TV3.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  111. Lyberytė, Augustė. "Kasčiūnui neramu dėl baltarusių pretenzijų į Lietuvos tapatybei svarbius simbolius: turime nusibrėžti raudonas linijas". DELFI (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  112. "Lopata ragina kurti nacionalinę strategiją Baltarusijos atžvilgiu: siūlo uždaryti sieną, kovoti su litvinizmu". Lithuanian National Radio and Television, ELTA (in Lithuanian). 16 August 2023. Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  113. Miliūtė, Rita (27 August 2023). "Europarlamentaras Auštrevičius: turime būti budrūs, bet nepradėti taikyti neprotingų apribojimų baltarusiams". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  114. Jakučionis, Saulius (24 August 2023). "Litvinism not a threat to Lithuania, but may stoke tensions – intelligence". Lithuanian National Radio and Television, Baltic News Service. Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  115. "Litvinizmas". State Security Department of Lithuania via Facebook (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  116. "Grėsme Lietuvos nacionaliniam saugumui pripažinti 910 baltarusių ir 254 rusai". Lithuanian National Radio and Television (in Lithuanian). 4 August 2023. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  117. Sinica, Vytautas (30 August 2023). "Litvinizmas ir baltarusių problema". Lithuanian National Television and Radio (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  118. "Amendments to the law: the historical flag of Lithuania can be hoisted at border checkpoints". MadeinVilnius.lt, ELTA. 14 September 2023. Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  119. "2023-10-02 Diskusija "LITVINIZMAS": kilmė, įtaka ir iššūkiai baltarusių ir lietuvių santykiams". Seimas via YouTube (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  120. "Seime ieškos būdo, kaip stabdyti radikaliojo litvinizmo ideologiją". Liberalai.lt (in Lithuanian). 28 September 2023. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  121. Lopata, Raimundas (9 October 2023). "Apie geopolitinį Baltarusijos pasirinkimą". DELFI (in Lithuanian).
  122. "Paminklą lietuviui atidengę baltarusiai: "Į Lydą pagaliau grįžo šeimininkas"". Lietuvos rytas (in Lithuanian). 19 September 2019.
  123. Krishtapovich, Lev (21 November 2016). "Общерусская культура как основа белорусской идентичности" [All-Russian culture as the basis of Belarusian identity]. Regnum.ru (in Russian).
  124. Yeliseyeu, Andrei; Laputska, Veranika (2016). "Anti-Belarus disinformation in Russian media: Trends, features, countermeasures" (PDF). EAST Media Review (1): 11.
  125. Bumblauskas, Alfredas; Jegelevic̆ius, Sigitas; Potašenko, Grigorijus; Pšibilskis, Vygintas Bronius (2009). Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir tautiniai naratyvai (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. pp. 19–21. ISBN 978-9955-33-500-9. Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  126. Платонов, О. А. "Прибалтика // Большая энциклопедия русского народа / Институт Русской Цивилизации". Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  127. Широкорад, А. Б (2004). "Русь и Литва. Рюриковичи против Гедеминовичей" (in Russian). Москва. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  128. Katinas, Petras. ""Didysis brolis" peržengia visas ribas". Xxiamzius.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  129. Norkus, Zenonas (2007). "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Retrospective of Comparative Historical Sociology of Empires" (PDF). World Political Science Review (in Lithuanian). 3 (4): 3. Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  130. Jakštas, Juozas. "Russian historiography on the origin of the Lithuanian state: some critical remarks on V. T. Pashuto's Study". Lituanus.org. Archived from the original on 9 August 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  131. Курукин И. Великая Литва или «альтернативная» Русь? Вокруг cвета, Январь 2007. № 1 (2796).
  132. Laužikas, Rimvydas. "Lietuvos stačiatikių metropolija". Aruodai.lt, Lietuvos istorijos institutas (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  133. Mockus, Vitalijus. "Lietuvos Stačiatikių Bažnyčia". Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  134. Pusčius, Šarūnas. "LDK santvarka - liberali ar katalikiška? (I)". Fsspx.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  135. Baronas, Darius. "Algirdas – "stačiatikis"". LDKistorija.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  136. "The origins of the Grand Duchy of Litva (Lithuania)". Belarusguide.com. Retrieved 9 September 2023.
  137. "Metr. Josifas Semaška – ar "Vakarų Rusios" ideologijos simbolis bus paskelbtas Maskvos patriarchato šventuoju?". Ortodoksas.lt (in Lithuanian). 17 September 2022. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  138. "Belarusian Church celebrates anniversary of council that brought 1.5 million Uniates back to Orthodoxy". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  139. Žalys, Leonas. "Paslaptinga šventė Rusijoje". Kauno.diena.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  140. Iškauskas, Česlovas. "Tautos vienybės diena – paprasto putinizmo išraiška". DELFI (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  141. Saldžiūnas, Vaidas. "Skandalingas Putino laiškas – grėsmingas signalas ne tik Ukrainai: Lietuva paminėta neatsitiktinai". DELFI (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  142. Saldžiūnas, Vaidas. "Besišypsančio V. Putino perspėjimas pasauliui: Rusijos sienos niekur nesibaigia". DELFI (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  143. "Medvedevo paskyroje – skandalingas įrašas: leisimės į kitą žygį". DELFI, ELTA (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  144. "Lithuania - History". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 3 July 2021.
  145. "Belarus - Lithuanian and Polish rule". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 3 July 2021.
  146. Smith, Whitney. "Flag of Belarus". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 3 July 2021.
  147. Toynbee, Arnold Joseph (1948). A Study Of History (Volume II) (Fourth impression ed.). Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p. 172. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
  148. Zinkevičius, Zigmas. "Lietuvių kalbos kilmė" [The Origin of the Lithuanian Language]. Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 16 October 2023.

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.