Russia Defends Ukraine War, Blames West for “Distorted” Narrative
The Russian Federation has defended its military intervention in Ukraine, arguing that the roots of the conflict date back to 2014 rather than the widely cited February 2022 timeline. Speaking at a press briefing in Abuja, Russian Ambassador to Nigeria, Andrey Podelyshev, rejected claims that Moscow launched an unprovoked invasion. He maintained that the crisis stemmed from prolonged political tensions, alleged human rights concerns, and evolving security challenges near Russia’s borders. According to the envoy, the situation escalated during the 2013–2014 protests in Kyiv, which led to the removal of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. He described the development as a Western-backed “coup d’état,” arguing that it created political instability and deepened divisions within Ukraine. Podelyshev further claimed that subsequent policies by Ukraine’s leadership marginalized Russian-speaking communities, particularly through restrictions affecting language use in education, media, and public life. He said these developments contributed to unrest in regions such as Crimea and the Donbass. The ambassador noted that tensions later evolved into armed conflict between Ukrainian forces and separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, resulting in years of violence and civilian casualties. He argued that this phase of the crisis received limited global attention. He also pointed to the collapse of the Minsk Agreements—internationally brokered deals aimed at ending hostilities—as a key turning point. According to him, Ukraine, with backing from Western allies, failed to implement the terms of the accords, while Russia continued to advocate for a diplomatic resolution. Podelyshev said Moscow’s eventual military action followed what it viewed as the exhaustion of peaceful options. He also defended Russia’s recognition of the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, stating that their requests for assistance influenced Russia’s decision under what he described as mutual defense considerations. The envoy criticized Western governments for what he called a selective interpretation of international law, emphasizing territorial integrity while, in his view, overlooking the principle of self-determination. He insisted that Russia’s objective is not territorial expansion but the protection of civilians and the prevention of further conflict, urging that the situation be understood within a broader historical and geopolitical framework.
