Litvinism (Belarusian: Літвінізм, romanized: Litvinizm; Russian: Литвинизм, romanized: Litvinizm) is a pseudohistorical 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 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]

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 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 some modern Belarusian scientists.^{[16][17][18][19][20]} Some Belarusians appropriate the Lithuanians national identity by claiming that they are the "real Litvins (Lithuanians)", while according to them modern Lithuanians are lietuvisai or Žmudins (Samogitians) who never before had their own state because Samogitia never was a state and because the current Lithuanian nation has nothing in common with "historical Litva (Lithuania)".^[21][22] Furthermore, according to Litvinist theories Aukštaitija, including Vilnius, are "historical Litvins, that is Belarusians, lands".^[23] Moreover, some Belarusians claim that the history of "Летува [Letuva]" is based on the "twisted real history of Belarus (historical Litva)",^[24] and demand to use separate terms to denote "historical Litva" as "Літва, ліцьвіны [Litva, Litviny]" and modern Lithuania as "Летува, летувісы [Letuva, Letuvisy]".^[25]

Opponents of Litvinism consider it a fringe pseudohistorical theory.^{[26][27][28][29][30]} The usage of the word "Letuva" when referring to modern Lithuania in Belarusian language was also criticized among Belarusians themselves who deemed it "unacceptable" and "monstrous" and stressed that in the early 1990s there was an agreement between Belarusian and Lithuanian intellectuals to stop using terms Лету́ва, Letuva and летувíсы, letuvísy in Belarusian publications.^[31] Belarusian political activist Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya described Litvinism as "marginal cases" which seek to artificially set at variance Lithuanians and Belarusians, and claimed that Belarusians respect the integrity and heritage of Lithuania.^[32][33] Litvinism was also described as a form of fascism with expansionistic territorial claims to neighboring countries of Belarus.^[34] In 2024, a dozen of Belarusian organizations in Lithuania signed a declaration with which they distanced themselves from the ideology of Litvinism and denied any territorial claims to Lithuania.^[35]

Some Litvinists reject their Belarusian national identity^[36] and affiliation with the Republic of Belarus,^[36] in favor of a reconstructed Baltic Catholic^[36] 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.^[37]

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][38] Furthermore, his contemporary, the Polish-speaking pseudo-historian, poet Ignacy Kołakowski [pl]^[a] propagated the thesis 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 an independent Lithuanian republic.^[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 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] General Lucjan Żeligowski, who supported Pan-Slavism and commanded the Polish forces which captured Vilnius from the Lithuanians during the Żeligowski's Mutiny in 1920, claimed that "Lithuania was the heart of the Slavs" and strongly opposed to what he considered to be a "German ploy for Samogitian Lithuania".^[40] Żeligowski in his youth only spoke in the Tutejszy language, which is a Belarusian vernacular, and identified himself as a Litvin, not a Belarusian, but was very positive towards the Belarusian movements.^[41] In contrary, Żeligowski referred to the Baltic-Lithuanians only as Samogitians and personally staunchly denied their right to use the ethnonym "Lithuanians".^[39] Subsequently, being in exile in 1943 following the invasion of Poland, Żeligowski wrote: "Why did we, the eternal inhabitants of Lithuania, have to avoid that dear name for us, and other people who have nothing in common with Lithuania shamelessly call themselves Lithuanians?" and criticized the world-wide politicians and scientists whose point of view did not match with his.^[39]

The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to these ideas being taken over by some Belarusian nationalists seeking a national identity.^[1] The amateur 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 Paviel Urban [be] 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, Belarus.^[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.^[42] However, experts say that Litvinism is not widespread as it is marginal and sometimes associated with pro-Russian ideas.^[43] 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]

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.^{[36][unreliable source?]} 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.^{[36][unreliable source?]} Previously an idea exclusive to some intellectuals, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, "Litvinism" gained popularity among some Belarusian civilians.^[36][37]

Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state.^{[citation needed]} Litvinists claim this duality due to the significant Russian influence on the state.^[44]

The Belarusian historian Jan Lyalevich, who self-identifies as Litvin, cited medieval Muscovite sources referring to the "Old Belarusian" language as the "Lithuanian language".^[37] 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".^[37]

The theory of Jan Lyalevich coincides with the opinion of some historians of the 19th and 20th century.^{[citation needed]}

In 1988, Polish literary historian and linguist Aleksander Brückner emphasized that "when [Nikolai Ray] later described the Rusyns, they spoke "Lithuanian" (i.m, Belarusian; Litvin was always only Belarusian for him, never Ukrainian)".^{[45][relevant?]}

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.^{[36][unreliable source?]} 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).^[37]

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).^[46] 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!).^[46]

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,^[36] 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.^[47] The Belarusian Litvinists claim that the Belarusian lands were the core and the main part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.^[47] Nevertheless, some of patriotic Belarusians criticize the idea of Litvinism considering it as a form of national separatism.^[48]

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.^[49] 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.^[50] 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).^[50] In November 1920, the Government of the Belarusian Democratic Republic and the Government of Lithuania signed mutual recognition treaties.^[51] 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.^[51] In November 1923, the leadership of the Belarusian Rada departed to Prague due to the worsened relationships with the Government of Lithuania.^[51] 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.^[52]

According to Polish historian Daniel Boćkowski [pl], Arkadź Smolič, a Minister of Education of the Belarusian Democratic Republic, wrote in 1919 that if the Bolsheviks will "restore real borders" and will create a united Belarus (according to Smolič such Belarus must include Vilnius, Białystok, Gomel), then "we [Belarusians]" should join the defenders of such an order and to "fight even with the entire world", despite the fact that Smolič also acknowledged that the Bolsheviks do more harm to Belarus than they bring benefits.^[53]

According to Belarusian historian Hienadź Sahanovič, in the early years of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, national Belarusians mainly supported Lastouski's ideas that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was "their own", were explaining incorporation of Belarusian territories into it as "voluntary" and valued it positively, while Russia was then evaluated as "alien" to the Belarusians, therefore such national Belarusians faced Soviet political repressions.^[54] Subsequently, according to Sahanovič, there was a major shift in the 1930s and 1940s when historians in the Byelorussian SSR presented Russia positively, while the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was then described as "predatory" and "alien" country for the Belarusian statehood.^[54]

In 1938, Mikalaj Škialionak [be], a Belarusian historian, military and political figure, published an article "Padzieł historyi Biełarusi na peryjady" (Belarusian: Падзел гiсторыi Беларусi на перыяды, lit. 'Partition of the History of Belarus into Periods') in which he claimed that the Lithuanian King Mindaugas' Kingdom of Lithuania was Belarusian from 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.^[55]

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 SSR, while the Communist Party of Byelorussia (e.g. Ivan Klimov) in Minsk also were positive about the possible attachment of Vilnius to the Byelorussian SSR.^[8][19][53] The CPB 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][53] Provisionally, the Vilnius Region was administrated by envoys from Minsk, while the chairman of the provisional administration was the Belarusian Jakim Žylianin [be].^[8][9][56] 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-attachment 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", additionally arguing that it was a "historical justice" and discussing 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 "Belarusian state", therefore according to them the Belarusians had "historical rights" to the Vilnius Region.^[9] The publishing of the Vilienskaja praŭda [be] (English: Vilnius' Truth) newspaper was started in the Vilnius Region and other regional centres of the Byelorussian SSR which regularly promoted ideas about the Belarusians' "historical rights" to the Vilnius Region.^[9][56] Panteleimon Ponomarenko, a First Secretary of the Communist Party of Byelorussia, issued authorizations to Ivan Klimov to declare Vilnius as the capital of Western Belorussia.^[53] 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][56][19] Nevertheless, none of the Soviet Union's documents in 1939 officially stated that Vilnius belongs to the Byelorussian SSR.^[53]

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] The Soviets blackmailed the Lithuanians that if they will not accept the Mutual Assistance Treaty, Vilnius will be attached to the Byelorussian SSR.^[57] The Byelorussian SSR also transferred to the Lithuanian SSR cities and surroundings of Švenčionys, Dieveniškės, Druskininkai that were mostly inhabited by Lithuanians.^[50] 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]

In the early 1960s, Paval Urban [be], a historian of Belarusian diaspora, claimed that from the beginning the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Slavic–Belarusian state and completely rejected the possibility of other conclusions and concepts, thus he denied that modern Lithuania ("Летува [Letuva]") and Lithuanians ("Летувісы [Letuvisy]") has any exclusive connection to the national character of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and blamed Soviet historians for such conclusions.^[58] In 1972, Urban published a book In the light of historical facts (У сьвятле гістарычных фактаў) where he equated Lithuania ("Litva") and Litvins ("ліцьвіны [Lićviny]") to Western Baltic Slavs.^[59]

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.^[60] Subsequently, Alexander Kravtsevich [be] 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.^[60] 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").^[61]

In 1990, following the adoption of the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania 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.^[62] 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.^[62][63] 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.^[64] In June 2024, Viktoras Baublys, the first Lithuanian ambassador to independent Belarus, recalled that in the early 1990s the narratives that the heritage and history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were mostly Belarusian were very popular among Belarusian cultural representatives and oppositionists to Lukashenko.^[65] According to Justas Vincas Paleckis, the former adviser for foreign affairs of Lithuanian President Algirdas Brazauskas, Stanislav Shushkevich, the first head of state of independent Belarus, publicly demonstrated in the early 1990s that he do not recognize the Belarus–Lithuania border when during his visit to Lithuania he refused to be welcomed near the border (which was common at the time).^[66] 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.^[67][64]

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.^[68]

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."^[68]

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.^[69] Subsequently, the leaders of the Congress of the Litvin League ("Ліцвінскай лігі, Licvinskaj lihi") and the authors of the Act of Proclamation of the Litvin nation were arrested in Poland as agents of Federal Security Service.^[48]

In February 2005, Viačaslaŭ Rakicki [be], a Belarusian writer and journalist, publicly discussed with Alieh Trusaŭ [be], a Belarusian archaeologist and publicist, and mutually agreed that the "ancient Belarusian state" – Grand Duchy of Lithuania had two colonies: the Duchy of Livonia and the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia (both of which were primarily presented as the former "Belarusian colonies" near the Baltic Sea).^[70] According to Trusaŭ, the Belarusian nation and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created from East Slavs,^[71] thus the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the Middle Ages was a predominantly Belarusian state with Lithuanian ("[літоўскія] / litoŭskija") and Ukrainian elements.^[72]

Following his departure from Belarus in fear of repressions, Belarusian nationalist Zianon Pazniak complained in the June 2004 edition of the newsletter Belarusian News [be] that Belarus was a victorious state in World War II, but instead of territorial gains like other victorious states it "lost its territories and even its historical capital".^[9] In February 2005, Arłou expressed his agreement to such Pazniak's statements about World War II.^[9] In 2005, Pazniak 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 to solve political and historical-ethnic questions.^[73] 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.^[74] 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".^[73] 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.^[75]

Belarusian public figures Voĺha Ipatava (left) and Alexander Kravtsevich (right), both expressed their support for claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania "arose in Belarusian lands" and that Belarus is its "main successor"^[76]

On January 22, 2009, a public organizing committee Lithuania Millennium was formed to commemorate the first mentioning of the name of Lithuania in written sources in 1009 (its chairman was professor Anatol Hrytskievich and it also included: writer Voĺha Ipatava [be], historian Alexander Kravtsevich, professor Alieś Astroŭski [be], biologist Aliaksiej Mikulič [be], archeologist Edvard Zajkoŭski [be], painter Aliaksiej Maračkin [be], priest Lieanid Akalovič, writer Zdzislaŭ Sićka [be]).^[76] According to members of the committee Lithuania Millennium, the name of Lithuania refers to the ancient territory of Belarus because the Grand Duchy of Lithuania "arose in our [Belarusian] lands" and its first capital was in Novogrudok, while the current Belarusians called themselves Lithuanians ("літвінамі [Litvinami]") until the beginning of the 20th century, thus Belarus is the "main successor" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.^[76]

In September 2009, Belsat TV published a video where Belarusian historians, including Hienadź Sahanovič and Alexander Kravtsevich, narrated that under the reign of Grand Duke Vytautas the "Belarusian state" became the largest in Europe.^[77]

In October 2009, Vadim Deruzhinskiy and Anatoĺ Taras [be] (scientific editor) published a 560 pages book Secrets of Belarusian History (Тайны белорусской истории) where in its preface it was stated that the Belarusians were previously called Litvins and Belarus did not exist in the Middle Ages, however instead there was Lithuania to which the Republic of Lithuania ("Республика Летува [Respublyka Letuva]") has no relation because in ~1220 Lithuania appeared in Western Belarus due to the migration of Polabian Slavs.^[78]

On 23 April 2017, it was stated in the official website of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was always considered as the previous embodiment of Belarusian statehood by the leadership of the Belarusian Democratic Republic.^[79]

In September 2015, Zianon Pazniak claimed that the Russian propaganda is trying to use some "Belarusian marginals" who dream about the revival of Greater Lithuania.^[80] Later, in December 2016, Pazniak stated that "the state was called Grand Duchy of Lithuania (now Belarus), Ruthenia (now Ukraine) and Samogitia (now Letuva)" and that "fantastic history of Letuva is based on a twisted real history of Belarus (historical Litva)".^[24] However, according to Pazniak 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.^[24] 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).^[24] 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.^[24]

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.^[81] 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.^[82] 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".^[83][11][84] Russian right-wing politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky also publicly called on Belarusians to "take back" Vilnius.^[85]

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.^[86][87][88] 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.^[86][89][90] Since June 2022 Belsat TV is being broadcast in Belarusian and Russian languages in Southeastern Lithuania.^[91] On 19 November 2022, Belsat published an article where it was stated that Vilnius is "our lost capital" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.^[92] In October 2023, Belsat TV published a show during which the events of Żeligowski's Mutiny were justified when, according to the host of this show, Vilnius was captured by the Lithuanians–Belarusians, led by general Lucjan Żeligowski, who until his death "hated three things: the Bolsheviks, Germans and Lithuanians" and was separating Litvins from Lithuanians.^[93]

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.^[94] 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 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 "Letuvisy" (летувісы) 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 and now it is almost exclusive to a Baltic state with the endonym of "Letuva".^[25]

According to Źmicier Sańko [be], 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 want to preserve the equality between historical and modern Lithuania, therefore, according to him, there is an urgent requirement to terminologically demarcate historical Lithuania and modern Lithuania.^[18] Furthermore, according to Sańko, Moscow made two "expensive gifts" to Lithuania when it "gave Vilnius from us [Belarus]" in 1939 and "organized" the 1995 Belarusian referendum to change the national state symbols.^[18]

In February 2020, Vincuk Viačorka and Sergei Šupa [be] together wrote an article arguing that Lithuania should be called "Litva", rather than "Letuva".^[31] Viačorka and Shupa argued that "Litva" is "our [Belarusian] ancient word" and "Litva" as well as Baltic "Lietuva" are etymological equivalents, while the usage of a word "Letuva" is unacceptable because it contradicts the nature of the Belarusian language and that such an approach was incompetent linguistically.^[31] Moreover, from the early periods the Old Belarusian language words "Litva", "Litvin", "Litoŭski" described Baltic tribes, their language and representatives, and this approach was continued by the interwar classical orthography tradition linguists (e.g. Valiancina Paškievič [be]).^[31] According to Viačorka and Šupa, 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" is "monstrous" and instead there is a necessity of historical education.^[31] Viačorka and Šupa also reminded that in the early 1990s there was an agreement between the Belarusian and Lithuanian intellectuals to stop using the terms "Letuva" and "Letuvísaŭ" [летувíсаў] in Belarusian publications.^[31]

On 23 April 2020, the official account in Twitter of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic stated that the political ideal of Belarusians was the revival of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a federation of Belarus and Lithuania ("[Летувы [Letuvy]").^[95]

In December 2021, Belarusian politician Valery Tsepkalo, one of the denied candidates of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, stated 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 Ruthenian/Russian language ("Russkiy jazyk"), not the current Lithuanian language.^[14][96]

According to Aleś Čajčyc, the Information Secretary of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic,^[97] the Litvinism article on English Wikipedia was written by "Lithuanian marginals".^[98] 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".^[99]

In September 2021, Alexander Lukashenko claimed that the Lithuanian capital Vilnius and Polish city Białystok are Belarusian lands.^[100] In January 2022, the official website of the Union State published an explanation by Lukashenko which claims that "Lithuania and Poland deny the contribution of the Belarusian people to the development of historical forms of statehood on Belarusian soil" and that the "modern Lithuanians" (whose ancestors previously "lived in the darkness of paganism and led a primitive economy", while the "Polotsk and Turov principalities thundered throughout Europe as centers of spirituality and enlightenment") privatized the heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but according to Lukashenko historically the language of this state was "ours [Belarusian]", "the people are 80% ours – Slavs", the dominant faith was Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy) and the state mainly constituted of modern Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian territories.^[101] In July 2022, during the Independence Day celebration, 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.^[68] 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.^[102][103]

In March 2023, Zianon Pazniak stated that "in our history and our culture Vilnius is our head, the loss of Vilnius turned out to be very disadvantageous for us", and further claimed 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][104][105]} While in one of his earlier published articles Pazniak wrote that "in 1939, 'Letuvisy' accepted Stalin's offer to take Vilnius (...) lost their independence (...) but historically (at least for today) they won. Vilnius remained in Letuva".^[106]

On 18 March 2023, Íhar Marzaliúk [be], a Belarusian historian, archaeologist and politician, known for his support of Lukashenko's policies,^[107] claimed in his television show that Vilnius was not established by Baltic-Lithuanians [балты-літоўцы] at all but by Krivichs, who he equated to "our [Belarusians] ancestors" and stressed that despite Vilnius currently not being part of the Republic of Belarus, it must "remain in our [Belarusians] historical memory and hearts".^[20] In October 2023, Marzaliúk, acting as the Chairman of the Commission on Education, Culture and Science of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, publicly presented in the premises of the Belarusian State University his newly published book about the history of Belarus titled Symbols of the Belarusian Eternity: Historical Symbols of the Belarusian Eternity [Сімвалы беларускай вечнасці: гісторыя сімвалаў беларускай дзяржаўнасці].^[108] This Marzaliúk's book was published by the Belarus Publishing House [be], which is controlled by the Ministry of Information of the Republic of Belarus [be], while its content is based on Marzaliúk's television show Symbols of Belarusian Eternity [Сімвалы беларускай вечнасці], but is also supplemented with additional content.^[109]

On 23 August 2023, Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya stated that the theory of Litvinism was put forward in order to set at variance Lithuanians and Belarusians, that Belarus would never question the integrity of Lithuania, and that Vilnius was a city of Lithuania.^[32] Moreover, Tsikhanouskaya claimed that Belarusians generally do not talk about Litvinism and that these are isolated, marginal cases.^[33] 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 seek to find or create historical ethno-cultural supports and the pro-Moscow ones also do not want to become Russians/Muscovites.^[22] 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.^[110]

In April 2023, Belarusian oppositionist Siarhei Kavalenka with others organized a political demonstration near the Embassy of Lithuania in Warsaw, which by them was described as "Samogitian Embassy" ("[амбасады Жмудзі [ambasady Žmudzi]"), and its participants narrated that the "Samogitian Government" ("[жамойцкага ўраду [žamojckaha ŭradu]") laws are discriminatory towards the "Belarusian–Lithuanians" ("[беларусаў ліцьвінаў [bielarusaŭ lićvinaŭ]") and suggested to do not use "our name" in the future.^[111]

On 14 August 2023, Vladislav Zhivitsa (who previously fled from Russia) and Yan Rudzik held a press conference where they announced that they are planning to recreate independent Smolensk statehood in a close union with Belarus and other countries whose territories were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania because "Smolensk is a Belarusian land which is under Moscow occupation".^[112]

On 26 August 2023, Aleś Čajčyc, a Member of the Presidium at the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic, claimed that "we [Belarusians]" are the descendants of the historical Litvins ("літвінаў [litvinaŭ]") and Lithuanians ("летувісы [letuvisy]") are also their descendants.^[113] Also in August 2023 Čajčyc stated that the discussion on a topic of territorial claims of Belarusians to the Republic of Lithuania is "heating up more and more actively", as well that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the "golden age of Belarusian statehood" and that identifying modern Lithuanians with historical Lithuanians is an "unforgivable simplification".^[114] Furthermore, Čajčyc claimed that modern Lithuania ("сучаснай Летувой [sučasnaj Letuvoj]") should be clearly linguistically separated from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ("Вялікім княствам Літоўскім [Vialikim kniastvam Litoŭskim]") and historical Lithuania ("істарычнай Літвой [istaryčnaj Litvoj]") because according to him the usage of the same word [Летува / Letuva] "creates confusion" which is "useful for Lithuanian ("летувіскага [letuviskaha]") nationalist historical myth".^[113] Nevertheless, according to Čajčyc, the term Samogitia ("Жмудзь [Žmudź]") is not suitable because the Republic of Lithuania is more than that [Samogitia].^[113] In the same post Čajčyc also stated by using a hashtag that he is a proud Litvinist.^[113] On 26 October 2023, Čajčyc criticized the usage of the name Vilnius ("Вільнюс") when referring to the "ancient Lithuanian capital" ("старадаўняй літоўскай сталіцы [staradaŭniaj litoŭskaj stalicy]") in Belarusian because according to him such a name is a "word from the colonial Soviet dictionary".^[115] On 27 October 2023, Čajčyc suggested to make Belarusian, Lithuanian ("летувіскую [letuviskuju]") and Polish as semi-official languages in the region compromising of Białystok, Vilnius, and Grodno.^[116]

In November 2023, a discussion of Belarusian opposition was held in Warsaw during which Belarusian historian Cimoch Akudovič (Цімох Акудовіч) narrated that for the Belarusians the concept that Vilnius is "theirs" is important and that the monoethnic Vilnius is "some kind of nonsense", therefore Belarusian elements in Vilnius should be "restored".^[15][117] Soon afterwards, also in November 2023, Cimoch Akudovič sent a letter of apology to the Lithuanian news portal DELFI where he narrated that he said a "disappointing stupidity".^[118]

On 19 November 2023, Alexei Dzermant, a Belarusian philosopher, journalist and political observer, stated that Vilnius is a "Belarusian city" and criticized emigrated Belarusian politicians who according to him "favor Lithuanian chauvinists" and do not defend Belarusians interests, thus he claimed that the Belarusian national movement in Lithuania must be organized and led by other leaders.^[119] On the other hand, Dzermant previously advocated the banning of the white-red-white flag in February 2021.^[120]

On 15 March 2024, Belarusian online news outlet Charter 97 published an article where it claimed that the Battle of Saule in 1236 near Šiauliai was won by the Belarusian Army, despite the fact that it was won by Samogitians commanded by Samogitian Duke Vykintas.^[121][122]

On 24 March 2024, Pazniak congratulated the Belarusians with Freedom Day and claimed that factually in 1918 the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was restored but with a name Belarus, while in the territory of Samogitia appeared "Letuva".^[123]

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).^[124][125]

Numerous Lithuanian authors view "Litvinism" as potentially dangerous or harmful for the modern Lithuanian state.^{[43][132][133][134]} In 1952–1953, Lithuanian Americans newspaper Draugas and Lithuanian Brazilians journal Mūsų Lietuva published articles why the Belarusians are embezzling Lithuania and concluded that it is because their leaders for a long-time were and still are under the influence of Russian Marxism–Leninism which further developed the Russian imperialism theory about Lithuania as "Russian land" which was "recovered" by Catherine the Great in 1795.^[135][136] In 1955, Lithuanian professor Mykolas Biržiška gave a lecture in Los Angeles during which he drew attention that some Belarusians have intensified propaganda where they claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, its rulers, coat of arms, culture, and language were Belarusian and criticized such Belarusians theories.^[137] In 1996, Lithuanian historian Edvardas Gudavičius criticized Mikola Yermalovich's theories by providing scientific counterarguments.^[138] 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.^[127]

According to Lithuanian scientist Zigmas Zinkevičius, some patriotic Belarusian nationalists presents the Belarusians historical affiliation with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in an anti-historical way because they claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by the Slavic Litvins (who according to them are the current Belarusians ancestors), while they describe the current Lithuanians as "lietuvisai" who according to them were previously called Samogitians (not "lićviny") and did not participate in the creation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.^[139] Zinkevičius also explained that the most reliable theory how the name "White Ruthenia" was established is that the White Lands ("белая земля") or White Ruthenia ("Белая Русь") did not pay tribute to the Lithuanian Dukes, unlike the Black Lands ("белая земля") or Black Ruthenia ("Черная Русь") which had to pay tribute, while the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by the Lithuanian-speakers.^[139] Moreover, Zinkevičius pointed out that the Belarusian historian, professor Jakaŭ Traščanok [be] in 2003 acknowledged that there was no large preponderance of Slavs over the Balts in the early years of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania's existence (compared to the contemporary times because Western Ruthenian principalities were very scarcely populated), territories inhabited by the Balts were previously vaster than are currently and the ethnic Lithuanian units formed the basis of Lithuanian military power, while the German chroniclers wrote by strictly distinguishing the Lithuanians from Slavs.^[139][140]

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).^{[128][141][142][143][144]} In the 1338 Peace and Trade Agreement, concluded between Gediminids Gediminas, Algirdas, Narimantas and the Livonian Order, there is a clear distinction between the Lithuanians and the Rus' people [ Ruthenians ] as well as Lithuania from Rus' [ Ruthenia ] as these were recorded as separate entities.^[145] Furthermore, a 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.^[146][11] In 1501, Erazm Ciołek, a priest of the Vilnius Cathedral, explained to the Pope that the Lithuanians preserve their language and ensure respect to it (Linguam propriam observant), but they also use the Ruthenian language for simplicity reasons because it is spoken by almost half of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.^[147] 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).^{[148][128][129][50]} 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][149] 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.^{[129][130][131][141]}

According to Lithuanian publications, terms which start with the traditional Lithuanian roots "Let" and "Liet" have a significant and historical usage.^[150] For example, in early German chronicles the name of Lithuania was spelled Lettowen and in Latin as Lethovia, Lettovia, Lettavia,^[150] 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.^{[151][152][153]} 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).^{[154][155][156][157]} The patrilineal descendants of Gediminas from the Gediminids dynasty had continuously ruled the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until the death of Sigismund II Augustus in 1572.^[158]

According to Lithuanian sources, the name of Vilnius is of Lithuanian-origin and it comes from a Vilnia River which flows through the city and historically was an important element of the Vilnius Castle Complex's defensive system.^{[159][160][161]} The hydronym "Vilnia" is linked with the Lithuanian words "vilnia", "vilnis" (English: a water mound or a wave), while the Lithuanian verb "vilnyti" in English means "to wave [water]".^{[159][162][163][164]} The name of the city "Vilnius" was established in the ~15th-century when in the Lithuanian language it replaced form "Vilnia" and form "Vilnius" is used in the 17th-century Lithuanian language written sources, however form "Vilna" remained in Latin texts.^[159][160] The ruler of the Duchy of Vilnius (did not include Duchy of Trakai), which is known since the second quarter of the 14th century, also was the Grand Duke of Lithuania, but in 1392 Vytautas the Great transformed it into the Vilnius Voivodeship.^[165]

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".^[166] 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".^[167]

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.^[168]

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.^[169]

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.^[170] Furthermore, Bumblauskas said that to him the imperialistic-minded Belarusians remind Adolf Hitler's aspirations in the Sudetenland.^[170] 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.^[170] 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.^[170]

In September 2022, public institution Litvinai was established in Lithuania.^[171][172] 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.^[171] According to Siarhei Shalyhin, leader of the club Litvinai, they do not have plans to overthrow Lukashenko's government.^[171]

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.^[173] 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.^[174] In November 2023, Kasčiūnas said that identical restrictions should be applied to the Belarusians like to the citizens of the Russian Federation.^[15] 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.^[175] Petras Auštrevičius, Member of the European Parliament, also named Litvinism as a hybrid warfare designed to antagonize nations, create mistrust and historical revanchism.^[176] In November 2023, Lopata said that the Belarusians often deviates into the theories of Litvinism and seeks to deprive a part of history of Lithuania for themselves, however the Belarusians should concentrate to the independence of Belarus, not the conquests of Vilnius.^[177]

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.^[178][179] 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.^[178][179] 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.^[180]

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.^[181] According to Sinica, Belarus was highly sovietized during the Soviet period and currently it lacks national identity, thus attempting to solve this issue the theory of Litvinism is employed and is becoming more popular.^[182]

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.^[183]

On 30 September 2023, Dainius Gaižauskas [lt], a Deputy Chairman of the National Security and Defense Committee of the Seimas, told that a topic of Litvinism must be legally included in a questionnaire of the Lithuanian Migration Department to determine person's opinion about Litvinism, and drew parallels between Litvinism and Russian propaganda which justified the Russian invasion of Ukraine with "falsified facts".^[184] According to Justinas Dementavičius, a scientist of the Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Litvinism is a romantic or radical form of Belarusian nationalism, which questions the fact that historically the Lithuanians created the State of Lithuania.^[184]

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.^[185] 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.^[186] 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.^[96]

In April 2024 Auksė Ūsienė, a Lithuanian historian and analyst of the Department of Strategic Communication of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, drew parallels between the Litvinists' statements and Russia's denial of Ukrainian statehood and stated that the Belarusian Litvinists become the executors of the Russian world goal, she also pointed out to the fact that in Belarusian school history programs it is still claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state with its initial capital in Novogrudok and later in Vilnius.^[21]

In July 2024 a dozen of Belarusian organizations which are operating in Lithuania (e.g. public organization Dapamoga, Belarusian Council for Culture, public organization Litvinai, etc.) signed a declaration with which they distanced themselves from the ideology of Litvinism and denied any territorial claims to Lithuania, while Mikalai Kvantaliani, a member of the Belarusian National Platform, stated that Litvinism is "a harmful rhetoric prepared by the Kremlin's special services and the Lukashenko's regime".^[35]

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 [be], Litvinism is the frontier ideology of Russian civilization.^[187] 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.^[188]

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.^[189][190]

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.^[81] 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.^[191] 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.^[191] 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.^[191][192] 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.^[191][193] 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.^[191]

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.^{[85][194][5][81]} 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.^[195] 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.^[81] 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.^[81] These Russian paradigms are taken from the 19th century and are intended to justify the destruction of the GDL.^[191] From such Russian points of view, the partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and GDL were essentially a "restoration" of the separated Russian lands.^[196] 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.^[81] Moreover, historically only the Slavic voivodeships of the GDL (six out of nine) were referred to as "Lithuanian Ruthenia" (Litovskaja Rus).^[50]

A number of Russian historians consider Ruthenian language to be a "Western dialect of Russian language" or "Western Russians language".^[191][197] For propaganda purposes, the ancient Eastern Slavs are equated with Russian speakers or even modern Russians.^[81] 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.^[81] 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.^[81] 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.^{[81][198][199]} 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."^[81] 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.^[81] In 1790, Catholics of the "Latin" and "Greek" rites made up 77.8% of the total population of the GDL.^[200]

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.^[81] 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.^[81] 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.^[81] 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.^[81] 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.^[201] 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.^[201] 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.^[81] 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.^[81] Some Litvinists claim that Lithuanian King Mindaugas also adopted Orthodoxy in Novogrudok.^[202]

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.^[203] Consequently, Lithuanian and Belarusian Uniates became part of the Russian Orthodox Church and Joseph Semashko assisted to formulate ethnopolitical ideology of "Western Russia".^[203] 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.^[203] In Belarus, the 1839 Synod of Polotsk is commemorated in celebrations.^[204]

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.^[194] 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.^[194] 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.^[194] 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.^[194]

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.^[191] 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.^{[191][205][206]} 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?").^[206] 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.^[207] 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).^[207] Putin has also publicly stated that "Russia's borders do not end anywhere".^[208] 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."^[209] Also, Russia seeks to escalate conflicts in Lithuania–Poland relations.^[191]

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,^[210] that Lithuania in the past ruled territories of present-day Belarus^[211] and that the Belarusians had no state and no national symbols until 1918.^[212] Notable historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and Timothy D. Snyder also support the approach that the Lithuanians (Balts) conquered/gathered Ruthenian territories, incorporating them into their state.^[213][214]

Multiple international scientists made conclusions that the Lithuanian-speaking territory was larger in the past. A note written by Sigismund von Herberstein in the first half of the 16th century states that, in an ocean of Ruthenian in this part of Europe, there were two non-Ruthenian regions: Lithuania and Samogitia where its inhabitants spoke their own language, but many Ruthenians were also living among them.^[215] By studying place names of Lithuanian origin, linguist Jan Safarewicz [pl] 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.^[216] 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.^[216] Safarewicz's eastern boundaries were moved even further to the south and east by other scholars (e.g. Mikalay Biryla [be], Jerzy Ochmański [pl], and others).^[216]

According to Polish linguist Leszek Bednarczuk, Belarusian ethnos and language were formed due to the dependence on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.^[217][218] Moreover, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, during this epoch of Lithuanian domination, the Belarusian language and nationality began to take shape.^[211]

According to Polish professor Jan Otrębski's article published in 1931, the Polish dialect in the Vilnius Region and in the northeastern areas in general are very interesting variant of Polishness as this dialect developed in a foreign territory which was mostly inhabited by the Lithuanians who were Belarusized (mostly) or Polonized, and to prove this Otrębski provided examples of Lithuanianisms in the Tutejszy language.^[219][220] In 2015, Polish linguist Mirosław Jankowiak [pl] attested that many of the Vilnius Region's inhabitants who declare Polish nationality speak a Belarusian dialect which they call mowa prosta ('simple speech').^[221]

In 2023, Crimean Tatar journalist Ayder Muzhdabaev criticized Zianon Pazniak, Litvinists, their claims to Lithuania's history and capital Vilnius and concluded that such Litvinists should be deported from Lithuania with wolf's tickets.^[222][223]

• Coat of arms of Lithuania
• Belarusian nationalism
• Belarusian national revival
• Lithuanian national revival
• Ethnographic Lithuania
• Lithuanians in Belarus
• Russification of Belarus

• Budreckis, Algirdas (1967). "ETNOGRAFINĖS LIETUVOS RYTINĖS IR PIETINĖS SIENOS". Karys (in Lithuanian).
• Hesch, Michael (1933). Letten, Litauer, Weissrussen (in German). Wien.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Sutkus, Darius (2020a). "Litvinizmas: istorija, prielaidos, perspektyvos". Karys (in Lithuanian). 1: 3–9.
• Sutkus, Darius (2020b). "Litvinizmas II: Baltarusija – ideologinės kovos laukas". Karys (in Lithuanian). 2: 4–10.
• Dubonis, Artūras (2005). "Saldus lietuvių gyvenimas "svetimu pasu"" (PDF). Naujasis Židinys-Aidai (in Lithuanian).
• Dubonis, Artūras (2016). "The Prestige and decline of the official (state) language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (fifteenth-sixteenth century): problems in Belarusian historiography". Lithuanian Historical Studies. 20: 1–30. doi:10.30965/25386565-02001002. S2CID 217985575.