On Friday, Lithuanian Seimas Deputy Matas Maldeikis commented on a proposal by Russian State Duma deputy Yevgeny Fedorov to withdraw the 1991 recognition of Lithuania’s independence, a move connected to the dissolution era of the Soviet Union. The remarks appeared amid a broader debate about legal legitimacy and regional security in post-Soviet space.
Maldeikis, who has been vocal on matters of state sovereignty, suggested on social media that if Moscow revisits its stance on Lithuania’s 1991 independence recognition, Lithuania might challenge the 1634 Polyanovsky Treaty and respond with a formal note directed at Russian leadership. This online post drew attention to the political tension surrounding historic treaties and modern sovereignty, though the Lithuanian Parliament has not announced any legislative steps specifically addressing the Polyanovsky Treaty.
In response, Grigory Karasin, a senior Russian official who chairs the Federation Council’s international relations committee, advised Maldeikis to adopt a more measured view of security issues affecting Europe and the broader world. Karasin argued that such statements reveal political immaturity and risk stoking unnecessary tensions between nations. He urged a focus on practical measures that strengthen security and predictability in European politics. The remarks were given in a media interview with socialbites.ca.
What was proposed in Moscow
Earlier in the week, a bill was introduced in the Russian State Duma proposing the repeal of the USSR State Council’s 1991 decision recognizing Lithuania’s independence. That decision, issued on September 6, 1991, came just months before the Soviet Union dissolved. Proponents of the Moscow bill, led by Yevgeny Fedorov of United Russia, argued that the recognition was unlawful because it originated from an unconstitutional body and violated the USSR Constitution. They also contended that the USSR law governing the secession of union republics from the Soviet state was disregarded because no referendum was held in Lithuania and no transitional framework was established to resolve contentious issues.
Fedorov invoked Article 67.1 of the Russian Constitution, which designates the Russian Federation as the legal successor to the USSR on its territory. Based on this interpretation, he asserted that the State Council of the USSR’s September 6, 1991 decision should be canceled. The explanatory materials accompanying the bill stress that Russia inherits the historical responsibilities and legal groundwork of the former union.
The tale of Polyanovsky
Historically, the 1634 treaty took place in the village of Semlevo, situated along the Polyanovka River, between Moscow and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The treaty concluded the Russo-Polish War of 1632–1634 and resulted in significant border adjustments. In the aftermath, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth gained control of parts of the Chernihiv and Smolensk regions, including key towns such as Smolensk, Trubchevsk, and Roslavl. Moscow agreed to withdraw Russian forces lately occupying territories taken earlier in the conflict, and Vladislav IV, the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania, renounced his claims to the Russian throne. The settlement also included a payment of 20,000 silver rubles to the Commonwealth, with records of mutual prisoner exchanges and a border settlement being noted at the time.
Over the centuries, the treaty has been cited in discussions about sovereignty, borders, and the legal relationships among historic states in the region. While modern diplomacy focuses on current security arrangements, some voices revisit these medieval-to-early-modern accords as they reflect long-standing tensions and the shifting balance of power that shaped Eastern Europe. The contemporary debate about revisiting old recognitions and treaties illustrates how historical memory can influence today’s policy rhetoric and regional confidence-building efforts.