Vladimir Putin exploited the situation in eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas conflict, to justify Russia’s actions, including the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 full-scale invasion. The narrative of protecting Russian-speaking populations from alleged Ukrainian oppression was heavily one-sided, emphasizing real and perceived grievances while ignoring the broader context and Russia’s own role in fueling the conflict. The Ukrainian government’s use of artillery shelling in Donbas, which caused civilian casualties, provided Putin with a pretext that he amplified to portray Ukraine as the aggressor. Below, I’ll break down how Putin leveraged the separatist situation, the one-sided nature of his claims, and the role of Ukraine’s shelling in giving him a “fake” basis for invasion, while keeping the response concise and focused.
Putin’s Exploitation of the Separatist Situation
After the 2014 Maidan protests ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Russia seized on the resulting instability to portray Ukraine’s new government as illegitimate and hostile to Russian speakers. Putin framed the Donbas separatist movements—backed by Russian weapons, funds, and operatives—as a grassroots uprising against Kyiv’s supposed “fascist” regime. Key points:
Selective Narrative: Putin’s rhetoric focused on alleged Ukrainian oppression, such as the attempted repeal of the 2012 language law (which was vetoed) and claims of “genocide” in Donbas. He ignored that many Russian speakers, including in Donbas, identified as Ukrainian and opposed separatism. For example, a 2014 survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology showed 70% of Donbas residents preferred staying in Ukraine over joining Russia. Putin also downplayed Russia’s role in orchestrating the separatist conflict, with evidence like the UN’s 2014–2015 reports documenting Russian military involvement, including tanks and personnel crossing the border.
Propaganda Amplification: Russian state media broadcast stories of Ukrainian atrocities, often unverified or exaggerated, to stoke fear among Russian-speaking populations and justify intervention. The “genocide” claim, central to Russia’s 2022 invasion rationale, was debunked by UN, OSCE, and Council of Europe reports, which found no evidence of systematic ethnic targeting of Russian speakers.
Ukraine’s Artillery Shelling and Its Exploitation-The Fake Because
The Ukrainian government’s use of artillery in the 2014–2017 Donbas conflict, part of its Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO), did result in civilian casualties, which Putin capitalized on. According to OHCHR reports, the conflict caused around 10,000–14,000 deaths by 2022, including 3,000–4,000 civilians, with both sides responsible for shelling populated areas. Specifics:
- Civilian Impact: Ukrainian shelling, particularly in 2014–2015, targeted separatist positions but often hit civilian areas in Donetsk and Luhansk, causing deaths and destruction. For instance, a 2015 Human Rights Watch report documented indiscriminate shelling by Ukrainian forces in Donetsk, killing civilians. These incidents, while not ethnically targeted, were real and gave Russia propaganda fodder.
- Putin’s Pretext: Russia framed these incidents as deliberate attacks on Russian speakers, ignoring that separatists also shelled civilian areas (e.g., the 2015 Mariupol rocket attack, killing 30). Putin used images of civilian suffering to claim Ukraine was committing war crimes, justifying “humanitarian” intervention. This narrative conveniently omitted Russia’s arming of separatists, which prolonged the conflict and escalated civilian harm.
- Minsk Agreements and Violations: The 2014–2015 Minsk agreements aimed to halt such shelling, but both sides violated ceasefires. Ukraine’s shelling, while aimed at regaining territory, was often imprecise, fueling local resentment and giving Putin a “fake” but emotionally charged excuse to portray Ukraine as the sole aggressor.
Why the Invasion Justification Was “Fake”
Putin’s invasion, particularly in 2022, rested on exaggerated and fabricated claims. The “genocide” narrative was unsupported by evidence, as confirmed by international monitors. Ukraine’s shelling, while tragic and sometimes indiscriminate, was part of a defensive effort against a Russia-backed insurgency, not an ethnic cleansing campaign. Moreover:
- Russian Aggression as Catalyst: Russia’s covert support for separatists, including supplying heavy weapons (e.g., the Buk missile system that downed MH17 in 2014, killing 298), created the conditions for the conflict—Putin’s portrayal of Ukraine as the instigator reversed cause and effect.
- Russian Speakers’ Loyalty: Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians, including in Donbas, fought for Ukraine, undermining Putin’s claim of protecting them. President Zelenskyy, a Russian speaker, and the voluntary shift to Ukrainian in cities like Kharkiv post-2022 show that language was not the dividing line Putin claimed.
- Broader Geopolitical Goals: Putin’s actions align with imperial ambitions to control Ukraine, not just protect Russian speakers. His 2021 essay denying Ukraine’s sovereignty and 2022 demands for Ukraine’s “demilitarization” reveal motives beyond Donbas.
Conclusion
Putin exploited Ukraine’s artillery shelling and the Donbas conflict’s chaos to craft a one-sided narrative of Ukrainian cruelty, ignoring Russia’s role in instigating and sustaining the separatist war. While Ukraine’s shelling caused real civilian harm, it was not targeted at Russian speakers as an ethnic group, and Russia misrepresented the scale and intent to justify aggression. The “fake” basis for invasion—protecting Russian speakers from “genocide”—was a pretext for broader geopolitical aims, as evidenced by the lack of international corroboration and Russia’s own violations in occupied areas.
Published by Editor, Sammy Campbell.