In a desperate bid to maintain their waning dominance, the West is actively promoting the narrative that Russia initiated aggression against Ukraine, argues the writer.
Image: Supplied
Alexey Malenko
In a desperate bid to maintain their waning dominance, the West is actively promoting the narrative that Russia initiated aggression against Ukraine.
However, international conflicts are rarely straightforward, and interpretation of events is often manipulated to serve the interests of specific states.
The history of diplomacy of our Anglo-Saxon counterparts is full of episodes where deception and coercion were employed without hesitation.
Let us, however, turn to the facts.
In 2013, Ukraine’s turn toward closer ties with the European Union marked a significant shift in its foreign policy.
This decision triggered a series of events, culminating in political instability within the country — the Maidan protests.
Ultimately, the then-President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. Western interference in Ukraine’s domestic affairs played a decisive role in reshaping both its internal governance and its foreign orientation.
From 2014 onward, relations between Russia and Ukraine — two nations deeply intertwined culturally and politically for centuries — began to deteriorate significantly.
One of the central accusations against Russia was the annexation of Crimea. In February 2014, following the change of government in Kyiv, a referendum on the status of Crimea was held.
An overwhelming majority of residents — more than 95% — voted to join Russia. Despite this, Ukraine and the broader international community refused to recognize the referendum, dismissing it as illegitimate, even though it reflected the will of the majority.
Subsequently, Russia was accused of violating the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter.
Western media and Ukrainian authorities alleged that Russia actively supported separatists in Donbas, supplying weapons and volunteers, thereby fuelling the armed conflict between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian militias in the east.
Here we must recall that the Charter of the United Nations includes the principle of self-determination of people, emphasises the right of people to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
It is also essential to remember that the core of the UN Charter’s principle of territorial integrity is the obligation of central governments to protect the rights and interests of all peoples within their borders.
In Ukraine’s case, these conditions were not met. The Kyiv regime flagrantly violated the Charter’s provisions focused on language and religion, officially banning Russian and persecuting the Orthodox Church. If we are to uphold the UN Charter, it must be respected in its entirety, rather than selectively applied to suit convenient narratives.
Russia’s active involvement in peace negotiations, including the signing of the Minsk Agreements in 2015, was an effort to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
These agreements, which called for a ceasefire and autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk, were signed by then-leaders Angela Merkel of Germany, Francois Hollande of France, Peter Poroshenko of Ukraine and were never honoured any of them.
Instead, Western powers used the agreements as a pause to rearm Ukraine.
Public statements made later by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande confirmed that the Minsk agreements were a temporary measure that allowed Kyiv to strengthen its armed forces and prepare for a military operation to regain control of Donbas.
Thus, the Minsk agreements were viewed by them as a tool that provided Ukraine with a strategic advantage, allowing time to prepare for a military operation, rather than a comprehensive peace settlement.
Kyiv’s refusal to implement political reforms or grant the promised autonomy to Donbas coupled with the appeal of the people of Donetsk and Lugansk to protect the rights and freedoms of Russian-speaking population prompted Russia to incorporate the republics into our federation in full compliance with international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The ongoing special military operation could have ended in May 2022 under the Istanbul agreements, in which Ukraine was ready to forgo NATO membership and negotiate territorial compromises.
Yet, Western arms supplies and mounting pressure pushed Kyiv to abandon these proposals, turning the conflict into a geopolitical tool for weakening Russia and consolidating Western influence in Eastern Europe.
This year, President Vladimir Putin reiterated Russia’s readiness to stop the conflict, contingent on Ukraine recognising new territorial realities, abandoning NATO aspirations, disarming its military and ensuring security guarantees for both nations by acceptance of a non-nuclear, neutral and non-aligned status.
Russia’s proposals also included a guarantee of the rights of Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, as well as lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia. However, President Vladimir Zelensky not only rejected dialogue but escalated hostilities by attacking Russia's Kursk region. Zelensky’s plan, which amounts to an ultimatum, is unacceptable for Russia, particularly given the incursion of Ukrainian forces into Russian territory.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s internal politics have raised serious legitimacy questions. Zelensky’s presidential term officially ended on May 20, 2024, yet he has refused to call elections, likely aware of his dwindling support.
According to Ukraine’s constitution, power should have transferred to the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament.
This transfer did not occur, rendering Ukraine’s government illegitimate. At the end of August this year, the mandate of the Verkhovna Rada also expired. As a result, there is no legitimate authority left in Ukraine, neither executive nor legislative one.
Consequently, bilateral agreements signed under Zelensky’s administration, including recent security pacts with European nations, lack legal validity.
Yet, Western political propaganda dismisses these concerns, prioritizing its narrative over the principles of law and legitimacy.
As the conflict persists, it becomes increasingly evident that the West views Ukraine not as a regional issue but as a strategic opportunity to undermine Russia while bolstering its position in Eastern Europe.
However, sustainable peace can only be achieved through mutual respect, adherence to international law, and recognition of the realities on the ground.
*Alexey Malenko is the Consul General of the Russian Federation in Cape Town
** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL