6 March, 13:25
Three years into the active phase of the war, Russia has failed to present convincing evidence justifying its aggression against Ukraine and the occupation of its territory.
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russia has not provided a clear explanation that could legitimize its war against an independent and sovereign European state. Propagandistic claims about "protecting the Russian-speaking population" or the "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine collapse under scrutiny—both from the standpoint of international law and basic logic.
All attempts to fabricate a casus belli (a formal justification for war) in 2021–2022—when Russia deployed large military forces near Ukraine’s borders and staged shelling incidents in Donbas—proved fruitless: Ukraine did not give Moscow a reason for conflict and refrained from responding to provocations.
If we turn to history, we can find striking parallels with previous wars in which Russia (or the USSR as its successor) sought to portray itself as a "victim of aggression" while actually preparing its troops, conducting large-scale mobilizations, and deliberately provoking military confrontations. Let’s examine some major events chronologically.
The Napoleonic Wars and 1812
On June 24, 1812, the French army, led by Emperor Napoleon, crossed the Neman River, effectively launching a military campaign against the Russian Empire.
However, long before this, Russia had been amassing troops on its western borders, violating the conditions of the 1807 Treaty of Tilsit. Napoleon understood that this was no coincidence: Russia had already fought against France in coalition wars in 1805 and 1807, and by 1811–1812, it was actively preparing for a third campaign.
Napoleon, recognizing the looming threat, repeatedly proposed a peace agreement to Russia and suggested withdrawing troops from the border, but the Russian side rejected his initiatives.
In April 1812, France and Russia severed diplomatic relations—at Russia’s initiative. Russian ambassador Prince Alexander Kurakin requested passports for his departure from Paris, effectively breaking diplomatic ties. In response, French ambassador Jacques Lauriston in Saint Petersburg received similar orders and requested his passports to return to France. This mutual withdrawal officially ended diplomatic relations between the two powers in April 1812. After this, the two states were effectively at war, and Napoleon’s crossing of the Neman became merely a formal point of no return.
Thus, the image of Russia as a "victim of aggression," later promoted in Russian historiography, does not reflect the full picture. Russia had been preparing for war long before Napoleon launched his campaign and was the initiator of the diplomatic rupture that led to hostilities.
World War I (1914–1918)
On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia after Serbia refused to fully comply with an ultimatum.
Russia responded by announcing a general mobilization at the end of July 1914 (various sources cite July 29). According to many historians, this mobilization triggered a "chain reaction" that gave Germany a pretext to declare war on Russia and France.
An interesting contrast is the stance of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which initially declared demobilization, signaling its reluctance to engage in the conflict.
By initiating general (and later full) mobilization, Russia set in motion a process that ultimately escalated into a global war.
World War II and the Start of the "Great Patriotic War" (1941–1945)
On June 22, 1941, former allies and partners in the partition of Europe entered what Soviet propaganda later termed the "Great Patriotic War." For decades, official Soviet narratives claimed that Nazi Germany had launched a "treacherous attack" without declaring war—yet this is far from the truth. Germany formally declared war on the USSR.
Archival research reveals that by the time of the German invasion, Soviet troops were heavily concentrated in western military districts, with concrete plans for offensive operations towards Europe. The USSR was preparing to attack.
Formally, Germany was the aggressor, initiating hostilities. However, Soviet leadership had provoked the war by its own actions. After the joint occupation and partition of Poland, it became clear to Hitler that Stalin was using him as a tool for his broader strategic ambitions. With most of Europe already under German control, Stalin prepared to deliver the "decisive blow"—one that would ostensibly "liberate Europe from fascism" but, in reality, would bring it under Soviet rule.
This explains why the bulk of Soviet forces were positioned near the border rather than deep inside the country, strongly indicating preparations for an offensive.
Russia’s Attempts to Provoke Ukraine in 2021
In the spring of 2021, Russia began large-scale troop movements toward Ukraine’s borders under the guise of "military exercises." Reports emerged of heavy equipment concentrations and the construction of field camps.
According to official statements by Ukrainian military leadership, Ukraine deliberately avoided mirroring Russia’s troop buildup and refrained from deploying forces to the border, despite the clear threat.
When Ukraine did not respond, Russian media escalated narratives about an "escalation in Donbas" in late 2021, accusing Ukrainian forces of shelling the region. However, independent sources failed to confirm any significant attacks or aggression from Ukraine.
At the same time, Russia launched a propaganda campaign showcasing the "evacuation of civilians" from Donetsk and Luhansk. Yet numerous media reports and intelligence assessments indicated that there were no actual Ukrainian attacks.
The logic behind these actions suggests a deliberate effort to fabricate (or stage) a justification for invasion. However, the casus belli never materialized, and on February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation," launching a full-scale war without any legitimate cause.
Why Justifying the Aggression is Impossible
- Lack of Legal Grounds. Neither the UN Charter nor any other international document grants the right to invade a sovereign state under the pretext of "preventing an attack" or "protecting the Russian-speaking population," especially when the alleged threat is entirely fabricated.
- Unproven Allegations. Russia has failed to provide evidence that Ukraine was preparing to attack Donbas or Russian territory. Attempts to portray the shelling of Donetsk as a "Ukrainian provocation" have not been confirmed by independent observers.
- Historical Parallels. In past wars, Russia (or the USSR) often portrayed itself as a "victim of aggression" while amassing significant military forces on the borders well before hostilities began. In Ukraine’s case, Russian troop movements and military exercises had been ongoing since 2021—many months before the invasion.
- Revisionist Propaganda. Russian propaganda actively seeks to rewrite history, portraying itself as a "liberator" or "defender." Yet, the facts clearly indicate that aggression originates from Russia. The Russian population, shaped by years of propaganda, remains unaware of the broader historical realities and its own complicity in the war.
Conclusion
Reviewing events from 2021—when Russia first attempted to provoke Ukraine—to February 2022, when the full-scale invasion began, it becomes evident that there was no legitimate reason for war. More importantly, Russia’s leadership actively sought a way to manufacture an information-based justification for invasion, but never found a convincing one.
This "deficit of justification" is largely driven by Moscow’s broader attempts to embellish or outright rewrite its own history. However, in an age of open information and numerous independent sources, covering up the truth is nearly impossible. Any Russian claims about "historical justice" or the "protection of the Russian world" contradict a simple fact: Ukraine is a sovereign, independent state, and the invasion and attempted occupation of its territory violate all fundamental norms of international law, humanity, and common sense.