Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, I’ve observed – from a safe distance – debates about who’s responsible for the conflict. I have my own opinion*, but that’s not the focus here.
Instead, I wanted to understand what drives people’s reasoning: why do they assign blame the way they do? If I had engaged in these discussions rather than staying on the sidelines, I might have better understood their perspectives.
Since I didn’t participate, I turned to research to find answers.
The question of who is to blame for the war in Ukraine is highly contentious and depends heavily on political perspectives, historical interpretations, and ideological biases. Here’s a breakdown of the main arguments from different sides:
1. Those Who Blame Vladimir Putin & Russia
The dominant Western perspective holds Putin and the Russian government primarily responsible for the war. Key arguments include:
Unprovoked Invasion: Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, violating international law and Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Historical Expansionism: Putin has repeatedly denied Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent nation, calling it an “artificial state” and suggesting it should be part of a “Greater Russia.”
Rejection of Diplomacy: Before the invasion, Russia made maximalist demands (e.g., banning Ukraine from NATO, demilitarisation) that were seen as non-negotiable pretexts for war.
Proxy War in Donbas (2014–2022): Russia supported separatist movements in eastern Ukraine after annexing Crimea, undermining Ukraine’s stability.
Imperialist Motives: Putin seeks to rebuild a Russian empire and sees Ukraine’s Western alignment as a threat to his regime.
2. Those Who Blame Volodymyr Zelenskyy & Ukraine
A minority view, often pushed by Russian propaganda and some far-left/far-right groups, argues that Zelenskyy or Ukraine provoked the war. Their reasoning includes:
NATO Expansion: Ukraine’s push for NATO membership (even if unlikely in the short term) was an unacceptable security threat to Russia.
Failure to Implement Minsk Agreements: Ukraine did not sufficiently negotiate with Donbas separatists under the 2014–2015 peace deals (though Russia also violated these agreements).
Nationalist Policies: Ukraine’s restrictions on Russian language and culture (e.g., 2019 language law) alienated Russian-speaking regions.
Refusal to Accept Neutrality: Before the invasion, Zelenskyy rejected Putin’s demand for Ukraine to renounce NATO aspirations entirely.
3. Those Who Blame the United States/NATO
A third perspective (common among anti-interventionists, some realists, and pro-Russian voices) argues that the U.S. and NATO share blame by:
Encircling Russia: NATO’s eastward expansion since the 1990s is seen as a threat by Russia, despite Western claims it’s defensive.
Supporting Regime Change: Some point to U.S. involvement in the 2014 Maidan protests (though not a coup) as destabilising.
Arming Ukraine: The U.S. and allies provided military aid to Ukraine post-2014, which hardliners in Russia saw as preparation for conflict.
Blocking Diplomacy: The West allegedly dismissed Russian security concerns and could have prevented war with earlier concessions.
Why the Disagreement?
Geopolitical Alignments: Pro-Western voices typically blame Putin; anti-Western or anti-NATO voices often shift blame to the U.S./Ukraine.
Historical Narratives: Russian state media portrays the war as a defensive “special operation” against “Nazi-led” Ukraine, while the West sees it as imperialist aggression.
Misinformation: There are allegations that both the West and Russia spread propaganda.
Conclusion
Most governments and international bodies (UN, ICC) hold Russia primarily responsible for the invasion. However, critics of NATO expansion argue that Western policy contributed to tensions. Blaming Zelenskyy is far less common outside pro-Russian circles, as Ukraine is widely seen as defending its sovereignty.
*I belong in Group 1.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Angels might fear to tread these boards, but Roswell does, as might we all. So, study Russian history from Catherine on, but focus on Lenin, Stalin, Yeltsin, Putin eras. Look at the North Atlantic, so far from Kyiv. Assess a huge conga line of USA operatives with little sense, experience, clarity. Consider the barrage available of ICBM types, especially Russia’s S S 23 biggies; both sides appear to have c. 6,000 first class warheads each. Contemplate the view of them passing across in the eight or so minutes of W W 3. Reassess Putin’s view of history relevant to him, to Russia. Always, constantly reassess, apportion. Start over again. Now…
“If you really want my opinion…”
Well, no — not without a reason.
Steve, it’s already stated. Read Part 1.
But thank you for pointing out that I should have worded that sentence better. I’ll change it now.
That’s OK Roswell, I thought Part One was you playing the devil’s advocate.
Cheers.
A well reasoned analysis.
I’ve made my position clear on many occasions, but a couple of points often ignored by the pro Putin brigade-
° just 3 days before invading Ukraine, Putin denied any plans to invade
° the invasion occurred before (non war) diplomatic measures were exhausted- such as a blockade and economic sanctions
Roswell, I’d like to go through your Part One if you don’t mind.
Unprovoked invasion.
There’s two points here, it was not unprovoked as explained by Arestovich in a 2019 interview in which he forecast almost to the day when Russia would act, and why Ukraine wanted Russia to act. For the interview, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNHmHpERH8&t=449s
There was no violation of international law because in the face of Ukraine’s attacks on its own people seeking autonomy within Ukraine, Russia had signed a friendship agreement with the two Republics. That would allow the Republics to ask for military help in case of attack. And that’s why, on the 24th of February when Putin decided to launch the offensive, it could invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides for assistance in case of attack.
It’s never mentioned in the Western media that concern over Ukraine’s troop movements so alarmed Moscow that the Russian Parliament on February 15, a few days before the invasion, asked Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he refused to do. On February 21 he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics.
The intervention is also covered under international law since 2005, by the Responsibility to Protect.
Rejection of diplomacy.
Russia’s demands were made after several years of pleading with Europe for security guarantees that would provide security for all of Europe. Russia’s draft security treaties were ignored, so fearing a threat to Russian security Moscow explained that the consequences of not entering a treaty would be serious. As we now see.
Proxy war in Donbass.
There was no proxy war. There was a rebellion by the Donbass to protect their language, and status as Ukrainian citizens. Russia was not involved in the rebellion, as verified by the OSCE. This was confirmed by an admission by the chief of the Ukrainian Security service (SBU) in 2015 that there were no Russian units in Donbass. As well a U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
Jacques Baud has shed light on the “proxy” war with this.
In June 2014, as the West tried to explain Russia’s (imaginary) intervention in the Donbass conflict, Russia expert Mark Galeotti “revealed” the existence of a doctrine that would illustrate the Russian concept of hybrid warfare. Known as the “Gerasimov Doctrine,” it has never really been defined by the West as to what it consists of and how it could ensure military success. But it is used to explain how Russia wages war in Donbass without sending troops there and why Ukraine consistently loses its battles against the rebels. In 2018, realizing that he was wrong, Galeotti apologized—courageously and intelligently—in an article titled, “I’m Sorry for Creating the Gerasimov Doctrine” published in Foreign Policy magazine. Despite this, and without knowing what it meant, our media and politicians continued to pretend that Russia was waging a hybrid war against Ukraine and the West. In other words, we imagined a type of war that does not exist and we prepared Ukraine for it. That explains a lot of misperception.
Russia annexing Crimea.
Ukraine did not have a legal right to Crimea. Crimea was independent from Kiev even before Ukraine became independent from Moscow in December 1991.
There is no evidence that Putin “seeks to rebuild” a Russian empire. The Guardian article you linked to should have alerted you to that. When a writer says “It’s long been known that Putin hankers for a lost age of…” you know that what follows is primarily assumption. Speculation. Mind-reading.
But you are correct — Russia does see Ukraine’s western alignment as a threat.
Perhaps the tragedy was best summed up by Jacques Baud when he wrote — Also, it simply is not accurate that those who hold the United States and NATO responsible for the crisis are saying, in effect, “Good on you, Vladimir Putin.” Rather, most of those who emphasize Western culpability for the Ukraine crisis seem to view the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an unmitigated disaster. They see it as an event that—regardless of what the underlying causes might be—has resulted in horrible suffering, destruction, and death. Many critics of NATO, in fact, are also explicitly critical of Putin, even as they emphasize the role of the West in precipitating the crisis.
In fact, after the expansion of NATO to Russia’s doorstep had begun, George Kennan stated that NATO’s decision was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Far from protecting the West, he explained, expansion would lead the U.S. toward war with Russia. And once this outcome occurred, Kennan predicted, proponents of the expansion would say this proved that inherent Russian militarism was the cause. Kennan stated: “Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the proponents of expansion] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.” Kennan’s prediction was thus doubly correct: First, about Russian reactions to NATO expansion; second, about the circular, self-justifying response of those Western policy hawks who were on the wrong side of events.
Are you sure Article 51 is applicable? There are plenty of international law experts that say it doesn’t. See the requirement for UN membership
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The right of the republics to declare independence from Ukraine without consultation with Ukraine was established by the ICJ.
The consequent attack on the republics by Ukraine, was therefore illegal under section 2.4 of the UN Charter.
Art.4 of the Charter recognises states that are not members of the UN.
The right of Russia to intervene to protect the newly independent states (known as R2P, Responsibility to Protect) is established in the Kosovo Advisory opinion of the ICJ that was endorsed by the UN in 2005.
Because Ukraine’s attack on the Donbass was illegal, NATO support for Ukraine is also illegal under international Law.
The Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States, as a restatement of customary international law, codified existing legal norms and principles that apply not merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. From the Convention Article 1.
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Those conditions are fulfilled in the case of the Donbass republics. Thus, under international law, both republics are sovereign States, irrespective of the lack of recognition of this status by other states, as per Art. 3 of the Convention.
Article 3. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
Steve, you might have missed my point. I wrote:
“The question of who is to blame for the war in Ukraine is highly contentious and depends heavily on political perspectives, historical interpretations, and ideological biases. Here’s a breakdown of the main arguments from different sides:”
The intention of my article was to report on what people believed. As such, there is no right or wrong answer.
You said – “And that’s why, on the 24th of February when Putin decided to launch the offensive, it could invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides for assistance in case of attack.”
It’s good to see that you’ve walked away from this, and your claims have now proven to be far more tenuous and disputed
An interesting read and some even more interesting comments. But no one has mentioned why America needed to get involved in the first place?
“you’ve walked away from this…”
I’ve walked away from nothing.
The quote from the UN has no relevance to Russia’s action.
“As such, there is no right or wrong answer.”
C’mon now Roswell, yer carnt throw a stick at the hornets’ nest then stand back to watch the fun! 🙂
So the actual text of Article 51 (that you used to claim Russia was entitled to invade) “has no relevance “?
That’s a new standard in obtuse logic, even for you
We can all say we were right as we marvel at the mushroom clouds on the horizon.Shit, what’s not to like?
You’re a brave man, Roswell. Or perhaps you ha ve more stomach than I for the endless circuitous arguments that have occured over the matter.
How about: US pushing NATO expansion was a problem, but not sufficient to justify the invasion. And no, Steve, don’t bother with another lecture; I’ve read them all and I won’t waste any more time doing so again (and again, and again and again …)
Steve, opinions are never wrong. To the person forming them they are 100% correct. Their thought processes in arriving to that opinion could be missing a few key ingredients though.
I’m in Group 1. Putin had no cause to invade Ukraine.
re. jonangel’s question… “why America needed to get involved in the first place?”… is it enough to remind oneself of the parable of the scorpion & the frog?
America, self-evidently, as attested many times, gets involved, and not always to its advantage… e.g., an incomplete list: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
AC has quoted Article 51 but is yet to explain why it undermines the Russian position.
Or how it over rules Article 4 and The Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States, which give the republics the right to appeal for help when under attack.
The UN Charter is not a menu from which you can pick and choose, as Lavrov has stated.
2) and 3).
What set the war off Was NATO, egged on by the USA, wanting to put nukes near the Russian border. The last time America did this was over sixty years when the Russians rertaliated by putting nukes in Cuba, after the Americans put them in Turkey.
Why don’t I trust America?
After the Gaza horror?
You said- “it could invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides for assistance in case of attack.”
But article 51 states it only applies to members of the United Nations. The self proclaimed states weren’t.
You can’t reconcile your claim with the actual text
The word “only” is not seen in Article 51.
AC is yet to explain why Article 51 over-rules Article 4 and The Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States, which give the republics the right to appeal for help when under attack.
With AC’s single minded focus on the somewhat nebulous wording of a particular Article to the exclusion of all else, I think we can take it as given that my other points are acceptable to him.
You’re changing your position Steve, and I’m entirely willing to point that out.
I’ve previously noted your habit of making big, bold unqualified statements, that you then change and modify when challenged.
This is the latest example.
You introduced the Article 51 justication, (no proviso, no small print)
I challenged it.
You now seek to use a range of other conventions to negate you original claim.
That’s hilarious and typical
AC is yet to explain why Article 51 over-rules Article 4 and The Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States, which give the republics the right to appeal for help when under attack.
In short, AC has not shown how Article 51 shows the Russian action to be unlawful.
AC has not denied that my other points are acceptable to him.
This is most gratifying.
It’s standing out that those who do not endorse my examination of the Part 1 segment provided by Roswell have come up with nothing of substance to contradict it.
Even more significant is that the label “unprovoked” that has been used incessantly since 2022 to describe Russia’s action is clearly not appropriate.
Yet no-one has tackled the matter of the Arestovich interview.
The interview puts to bed forever that allegation, yet no-one has disputed it, or better still, stated that it is a significant factor that makes them re-assess.
This might seem simplistic but shouldn’t it be up to Ukraine, not Russia, to say whether it should join NATO? I always come back to the fundamental: Russia invaded Ukraine. I believe you cannot believe anything Putin or the Russian media say about anything. Ukraine was an apparently functioning self-determining democracy at the time of that invasion. Russia is a dictatorship led by a thug. To me all of the rest is jibber-jabber including Steve Davis long-winded expositions.
“Ukraine was an apparently functioning self-determining democracy at the time of that invasion.”
Here’s some more jibber-jabber for RomeoCharlie. Or is it just a long-winded exposition?
From Consortium News — In February 2021, (a year before the war) by order of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine shut down three domestic television channels, accusing them of spreading Russian “propaganda.”
Three months later, Zelenksky arrested Viktor Medvedchuk, who was at the time leading the second-biggest party in Ukraine’s national parliament, the pro-Russia and Eurosceptic Opposition Platform for Life (OPZZh).
Zelensky didn’t have trouble incinerating vaunted democratic norms well-before Russia crossed the Rubicon into Ukraine this year. So it was no surprise when he did it again amid the war in late March, invoking emergency powers under martial law to nationalize TV channels and ban 11 opposition parties, including OPZZh — all supposedly done in the name of combatting Russian misinformation and Russian sympathizers, even though OPZZh’s then-chairman, Yuriy Boyko, denounced the war and called for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.
Pandora Papers. Of more than 300 politicians and public officials, including several current and former national leaders, in more than 91 countries and territories to whom the Pandora Papers documents were linked, Ukraine was home to more secret offshore holdings than any other, including Russia.
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which contributed to the Pandora investigation, found that just before Zelensky was elected president, “he gifted his stake in a key offshore company, the British Virgin Islands-registered Maltex Multicapital Corp., to his business partner — soon to be his top presidential aide. And in spite of giving up his shares, the documents show that an arrangement was soon made that would allow the offshore to keep paying dividends to a company that now belongs to his wife.
So no, RC, Ukraine is not and never has been a beacon of democracy.
As to your question about who is stopping Ukraine joining NATO, if you dig into this instead of trying to keep things “simplistic”, you’ll find that NATO has been the biggest stumbling block to Ukraine joining.
Keeping things simple takes a load off the mind, but it rarely leads anywhere useful.
Western propaganda has been hugely successful by exploiting the widespread urge to keep things simple.
Yes Steve, the fact is – you provided a wordy reply to this post, you referred to the applicability of Article 51.
I’m pointing that out because having a “friendship agreement” does not cover the requirements specified in the text of Article 51.
That you now seek to amend, qualify, moderate your position is fine. It’s what you routinely do when you make a big bold statement which is challenged
“you only referred to the applicability of Article 51.”
Oh dear, what an oversight.
My deepest, sincerest apologies.
I failed to write a book-length explanation for the lead-up to the Russian action. Unforgivable.
But I promise to make amends.
Herewith, I shall further amend, qualify, and moderate my position to put AC’s mind at rest.
I have something that should put at ease his concern about a possible mis-application of Article 51 by Russia.
There is an interpretation of Article 51 that supports its relevance in the case of the Russian action. Just to be clear, this is not my opinion.
“The problem is that neither DPR nor LPR is a “Member of the United Nations” (although an armed attack on the Donbass was clearly occurring). However, this does not mean the Article does not apply. A number of decisions have been reached under Article 51 by the UN Security Council or General Assembly related to the State of Palestine which is not a Member of the UN, and involving the right of collective self-defense, and no party made the argument that a Member does not have the right of self-defense with a State which is not a Member of the United Nations.”
Whew! We can relax now. All is well in the legal world.
AC can sleep easy, knowing that Russia is legalistic to a fault.