In the early days of the Russian-Ukraine war of 2022, the legacy media made it obligatory to include in any news presentation, the phrases, Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine, which was always described as a sovereign democratic nation.
These phrases are notable because – as you can see by the linked Google searches above – these exact strings of words appeared in hundreds of articles as if coordinated or demanded by some higher authority. These are the obligatory phrases used even until today. Repetition is a subtle form of brainwashing. Something that is universally repeated thousands of times and not challenged soon becomes part of the accepted media narrative.
Is Ukraine free and democratic?
The latter phrase, which always insists that Ukraine is a “sovereign democracy” or a sometimes a “free democracy” is an enigma because up until the conflict with Russia, Ukraine was often characterized as one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, run by oligarchs who funneled billions of dollars of graft back and forth between Western billionaires and politicians.
In 2015, The Guardian called Ukraine the most corrupt nation in Europe. According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation from 53 surveyed. Yes, the ninth-most corrupt even ahead of Russia, which fared better than even Canada and the UK in the survey.
The Hunter Biden Burisma scandal and the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation from Ukrainian oligarchs are well-known questionable dealings, but are just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, it is unlikely this will ever be investigated thoroughly because both Republicans and Democrats have used their offices to be in all sorts of international money making schemes for decades.
Further, most people in the West don’t realize that the heads of local administrations of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts (regions) are appointed by Kiev. The people do not vote for their regional governors. The local regions are not federalized like in the United States and most Western countries. The anti-Russian government in Kiev has also banned 11 oppositions parties and all opposition media. The Russian language is to a great degree suppressed. Instruction in public and private schools must be in Ukrainian, even in majority Russian speaking regions. Russian authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Pushkin are banned from being taught in Ukrainian schools. Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich are banned from the national theater. The government even banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for having ties to the Moscow patriarch.
This makes it highly unlikely that a forced military conquest of Donbas will ever result in a peaceful reintegration. Since 2014, in several polls of the populations of the Donbas oblasts — Lugansk and Donetsk — the majority wanted either special status, autonomy, independence, or secession and accession to Russia.
Putin’s “unprovoked full scale invasion” of Ukraine?
The most common piece of media propaganda insists that the current military conflict in Ukraine was completely “unprovoked.” This is disingenuous unless it fully examines the decade-old conflict in the Donbas funded by the US and NATO since 2014. Contributing to this media hypocrisy are its numerous stories chronicling overtures to Ukraine from the West since 2008 that it must become part of NATO and host missile systems pointed at Russia — even including nuclear weapons.
Also damning to the “unprovoked” claim is the large cache of legacy media articles from 2014 and 2015 that show some sympathy or are at least neutral in covering the plight of Russian separatists in Donbas. There was also critical yet fair coverage of the secession referendums. It was reported that Putin continually refused both of these region’s appeals to join Russia.
There are numerous articles from this time giving evidence that the conflict could have been provoked by a party other than Russia or Putin. See one such fair and neutral article as an example, Rebels appeal to join Russia after east Ukraine referendum, which gives us evidence of a mass amnesia in the legacy media about the more complex causes of the conflict.
I must give one caveat here that causation does not automatically imply justification. That is, we can be against this war and want it to come to a speedy end without justifying the invasion. However, we are insisting that the lion’s share of the blame for provoking the war is due to US/NATO policy of encroaching on the Russian Federation’s borders.
The following analysis is from a contributor who has compiled a good analysis taking these provocations into account.
U.S. and NATO Interference Instigated the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
By Andy Hauter
A fair analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict must consider how U.S. and NATO interference has instigated the conflict and rejected viable paths to peace, raising serious questions about the moral legitimacy of their involvement.
Whatever you might think about the actions of the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin, you have to look at the Ukraine conflict from a biblically moral perspective.
Russia’s attempts at peaceful negotiations deserve more credit than given in Western narratives. This context is critical to a fair assessment of Russia’s actions, especially in light of the violations of the Minsk Agreements and the rejection of peace talks by Ukraine, often under the influence of Western powers.
The Minsk Agreements, negotiated in 2014 and 2015, were designed to de-escalate the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The agreements included commitments from all sides:
- Ceasefire: Immediate cessation of hostilities.
- Withdrawal: Removal of heavy weapons from the frontlines.
- Autonomy for Donbas: Granting the Donetsk and Lugansk regions special status within Ukraine.
- Political Reforms: Constitutional changes in Ukraine to enshrine greater autonomy for these regions.
Violations of the Minsk Agreements
While Russia, Ukraine, and the separatists all bear some responsibility for violations, evidence suggests that:
- Ukraine: Consistently delayed implementing the political reforms required by the agreements, particularly regarding autonomy for Donbas. Western leaders have admitted that the agreements were largely a stalling tactic to buy Ukraine time to strengthen its military.
- NATO Nations: Rather than pressuring Ukraine to comply with Minsk, NATO countries, particularly the U.S. and Britain, supported Ukraine’s military buildup and defensive operations, undermining the agreements.
Russia, for its part, consistently cited Ukraine’s non-compliance and Western interference as evidence that peaceful resolutions were being sabotaged.
The Istanbul Peace Talks in Turkey (March 2022)
In the early stages of the 2022 conflict, Russia and Ukraine engaged in peace talks in Turkey, facilitated by President Erdogan. Reports indicate that:
- Russia presented terms for peace, including Ukrainian neutrality (no NATO membership) and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, but the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics would remain as part of Ukraine with special status as autonomous regions.
- Ukraine initially showed interest in negotiating, particularly around the issue of neutrality.
However, these talks fell apart, due to Western meddling:
- Britain: Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kiev and strongly discouraged Ukraine from accepting the terms, urging continued resistance.
- The United States: Provided massive military and financial aid to Ukraine, signaling its intent to prolong the conflict rather than support a negotiated settlement.
This rejection of peace talks underscores the extent to which the U.S. and its allies have prioritized their geopolitical goals over a peaceful resolution, effectively discouraging Ukraine from pursuing negotiations that would have definitely prevented the devastation that has occurred.
Russia’s willingness to engage in negotiations, both through the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul peace talks, demonstrates that it was pursuing just diplomatic avenues:
- Minsk Agreements: Russia’s role in the agreements shows an effort to resolve the Donbas conflict peacefully.
- Istanbul Talks: Russia came to the table with specific demands, which indicated a clear interest in avoiding military conflict and Ukraine was close and willing to agree until the West interfered.
When considering just war theory, last resort is a critical criterion:
- Russia’s Attempts at Peace: Both the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul talks suggest that Russia sought non-military solutions before escalating its military campaign. These efforts bolster Russia’s claim that it acted as a last resort after diplomacy failed.
- Western Sabotage: The role of NATO nations in undermining these agreements shifts some moral responsibility for the continuation of the conflict onto the U.S. and its allies.
This does not mean Russia’s actions are above criticism – but Russia in general does not target civilians and genuinely wants Ukrainians to be restored. However, the repeated dismissal of diplomatic solutions by Ukraine and its Western backers must be acknowledged as the most significant factor in the war.
Russia’s attempts at peaceful resolution, including the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul talks, show a willingness to negotiate that is overlooked in Western narratives. These efforts, undermined by NATO nations and Ukraine’s intransigence, suggest that Russia’s military actions is more defensible under just war principles.
For a balanced view on this topic, a highly detailed article examines the failures of the Minsk Agreements and lays blame fairly on both sides.
Through the Ashes of the Minsk Agreements
See also an article from 2014 that explains how the two Donbas regions held separate secession referendums and later appealed continually to Moscow to join the Russian Federation, but Putin always refused.
