Vladimir Putin declares war on Ukraine, launches full-scale invasion

After days of simmering tensions, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared war on Ukraine on Thursday, confirming the world’s worst fears. Putin delivered a televised statement that was loaded with past grudges and rage. “The blame for the likely prolongation of the slaughter would fall fully on the conscience of Ukraine’s ruling regime,” Putin stated as he announced a “military action.” Putin also warned other countries that any attempt to interfere with Russia’s move would result in “consequences they have never seen.”

Today, I believe it is vital to speak again about the awful events in Donbass and the critical components of preserving Russia’s security.

I’ll start with what I said in my speech on February 21, 2022. I discussed our main concerns and worries, as well as the underlying threats that irresponsible Western politicians have constantly, rudely, and unceremoniously posed to Russia year after year. I’m referring to NATO’s eastward expansion, which is bringing its military facilities increasingly closer to Russia’s border.

It is true that we have been patiently attempting to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe for the past 30 years. In response to our ideas, we were constantly met with either cynical deception and lies or pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance expanded despite our complaints and misgivings.

What is causing this? Where did this arrogant tone of voice originate from, coming from the heights of their exceptionalism, infallibility, and all-permissiveness? What explains this scornful and dismissive attitude toward our legitimate interests and demands?

The solution is straightforward. Everything is obvious and clear. The Soviet Union became weaker and eventually disintegrated in the late 1980s. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, as it demonstrated that the paralysis of strength and will is the first step toward total deterioration and oblivion. We just lost confidence for a split second, yet it was enough to upset the world’s balance of powers.

As a result, previous treaties and agreements are no longer valid. Intercessions and requests are ineffective. Anything that does not fit the dominant state, the powers that be, is derided as outdated, obsolete, and ineffective. At the same time, anything it considers valuable is portrayed as the ultimate truth and foisted on others at any cost, abusively, and through all means possible. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to coercion.

What I am saying today is not limited to Russia, and Russia is not the only country concerned about it. This is about the entire international relations system, and occasionally even US friends. The fall of the Soviet Union resulted in a reshuffling of the world, and the norms of international law that had developed by that time, most notably the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome, came in the way of those who declared themselves Cold War winners.

Of course, practise, international relations, and the laws that govern them had to take into consideration changes in the globe and the balance of forces. This, however, should have been done properly, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states as well as one’s own responsibilities. Instead, we witnessed a state of pleasure brought about by a sense of total superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, combined with the low cultural norms and arrogance of individuals who developed and pushed through policies that suited only themselves. The scenario changed course.

There are numerous instances of this. First, a violent military campaign was launched against Belgrade, without the approval of the UN Security Council, but with combat planes and missiles deployed in the heart of Europe. For several weeks, bombs were dropped on quiet cities and crucial infrastructure. I have to remind myself of these facts because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we bring up the occurrence, they prefer to avoid discussing international law, instead emphasising the conditions that they interpret as they see fit.

Then it was Iraq, Libya, and Syria’s time. The illegal use of military force against Libya, as well as the distortion of all UN Security Council decisions on Libya, devastated the country, turned it into a hotbed of international terrorism, and plunged it into the grip of a civil war that has lasted for years. The catastrophe that has befallen hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people not only in Libya but throughout the region has resulted in a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

Syria was likewise doomed to a similar fate. The Western coalition’s military operations in Syria without the Syrian government’s agreement or the UN Security Council’s sanction can only be described as aggression and intervention.

The example that jumps out from the preceding events is, of course, the illegal invasion of Iraq. They utilised the excuse of apparently accurate information regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that was available in the United States. To back up that claim, US Secretary of State John Kerry held up a vial of white powder, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent developed in Iraq.