False Russian claims to justify invasion of Ukraine

Every war needs a justification. I believe most of the times, nations and political leaders make up false claims to justify their attacks on other countries. It is exactly what Russia did to invade Ukraine.

After months of Russian disinformation and propaganda about the so-called Ukrainian terrorist attacks, genocide, assaults on civilians and military aggression against the Russian ethnics in the rebel territories in eastern Ukraine, Russia invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine.

The history of false war justifications

The history of false war claims is long. Both 'false flag attacks' and allegations that states engage in them have a long history. The term ‘false flag’ originated to describe pirates’ wielding of friendly (and false) flags to lure merchant ships close enough to attack. They later used it as a label for any attack – real or simulated – that the instigators inflict against “friendly” forces to incriminate an adversary and create the basis for retaliation.

In 1939 both Nazi Germany and Russia used false claims justify their attacks—Germany on Poland and Russia on Finland.

Not to mention the many false claims about the Holocaust or the 9/11 terrorist attack. I cannot believe how many people deny the Holocaust and claim the Jewish people did that to themselves on purpose, only to gain the sympathy of the world and get a country for themselves. Or that the Bush administration engineered the destruction of the twin towers to justify restrictions on civil liberties and lay the foundation for invading Iraq.

These claims speak volumes of the low trust of people in politicians—and I understand that.

The world expected Russia to be lying

We all expected Russia’s false claims to invade Ukraine. The first part of their message had to be about how evil Ukraine is and how badly they treat the Russian ethnic groups in Ukraine. False flag attacks are attacks by a government on its own forces to create the appearance of hostile action by an opponent, allowing the government to broadcast images to the world of its opponent’s supposed actions.

Russia had to present herself as a knight in a shining armor who is on a mission to save the beautiful princess attacked by the 'Ukrainian Dragon.' Putin had to sell the lie of a righteous crusade to defend humanity and especially the Russian people when nobody wanted to do something about 'the cruelty of Ukraine.' Putin loves to be seen as the hero/protagonist who saves the day—a messianic-like person who does anything in his power to impose his justice on Ukraine (a modern 'Triumph of the Will'). He accuses frenetically the West for supporting Ukraine in her pursuit of annihilating the Russians (fake news).

Stupid. It is surprising how many people believe his propaganda.

So, what are some of Russia’s false claims or pretexts to invade Ukraine?

Claim #1: Ukrainian persecutions against Russians

Russia invented nonexistent attacks against the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Moreover, Russia promotes the false claims that Ukraine slaughter innocent Russian people for a long time now. Therefore, Putin claims, Russia needs to do something about it—they need to ‘protect’ the Russian people from being killed by Ukraine.

Remember the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea? At the start of its incursion into Crimea in 2014, the Kremlin used “active measures,” including disinformation and deception, to prevent Ukrainian resistance and secure domestic approval. Russia and other post-Soviet states are also prone to claim a “provocation,” which frames any military action as a justified response rather than a first move. So Putin justified the deployment this week of troops to Luhansk and Donetsk by arguing that they were “peacekeepers”.

Claim #2: Historical claims

To put is straightforward, from Putin’s point of view, Ukraine is Russia. This claim denies Ukraine’s 1000 years of history. Russians and Ukrainians are both Slavic nations, but they are different nations—not one nation.

Then we have people like Ken Livingstone who look at Eastern Europe from a Westerner’s perspective.

He says: ‘These areas [he refers to the Donbas area] in Ukraine have Russian population, they want to be part of Russia. And that happens all around the world on so many countries’ borders. There are people living there that actually are not part of that nation but the neighbor. And literally we should allow people to freedom, to decide if they wish to move the border so they are included in the country they are nationally a part of.’ He also denies Ukraine’s borders.

We know of Russian communities all over Europe: in Finland, Poland, Moldova, etc. Maybe the Russian communities should vote to remove themselves from these countries and become independent or join Russia. There are Romanians living in Serbia, Ukraine, Hungary, Bulgaria—I mean entire villages/towns with a majority of ethnic Romanian people. Perhaps they should vote to join Romania or become independent. Or maybe the Hungarian communities in Ukraine, Romania, Serbia should vote to join Hungary because these countries have a majority of Hungarian speaking people in certain towns. What would happen if people will do that? This is a simple plan to start a war.

We see similar things all over Europe and the world—just look at Spain, for example, and their struggles. Maybe the Mexicans in America should vote to become independent or join Mexico.

And how does Ken Livingstone know what people in Donbas really want? Who could examine the so-called elections in Donbas? The RT media?

In Europe, whenever some country wants new territory, they refer to some sort of historical claims. That’s exactly what Putin did in his discourse on Monday—he referred to Lenin, Stalin and the former Soviet Union’s territory that included Ukraine.

What will happen if the UK tries to take back India because one day India belonged to the British Empire? Or if they try to take back America?

People will think that’s a joke.

What if Turkey decides to take back half of Romania because the Ottoman Empire once possessed almost half of Romania?

If you want peace, you let history remain history.

Claim #3: The NATO threat

Perhaps that’s the only partially true claim. By invading Ukraine, Putin wants to ‘punish’ NATO for wanting to expand into Central and Eastern Europe.

I don’t think Russia feels threatened by NATO, but they somehow feel insecure about themselves. Russia looks weak when she constantly complains about NATO.

Russia wants a weak Ukraine, dependent on them and not on NATO, for help. They will have a weak Ukraine only if they manage to divide Ukraine into many small pieces (or at least in two parts).

Do you agree?