by Ram ben Ze'ev
In the court of Western public opinion, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is routinely condemned as an illegal invasion—a naked act of aggression by a belligerent power. But that simplistic narrative fails to account for decades of broken promises, foreign interference, and political engineering carried out under the banner of “democracy promotion.” From the perspective of Moscow—and any objective reading of international relations—Russia’s actions can be viewed not as a breach of international law, but as a long-delayed and legally justified response to Western provocation, foreign subversion, and a mounting humanitarian crisis in the Donbas.
At the heart of Russia’s legal position lies Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which upholds the right to individual and collective self-defence. Following the formal recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent states in February 2022, both republics requested military aid from Russia to defend against what they described as years of shelling, persecution, and systematic aggression by the Ukrainian government. Russia signed mutual defence treaties with these republics and intervened accordingly. Under the doctrine of collective self-defence, this move was entirely consistent with established international norms, no different from interventions carried out by NATO in various theatres under far thinner pretences.
Additionally, Russia justified its intervention on humanitarian grounds, invoking the responsibility to protect Russian-speaking civilians who had been subjected to violence since the 2014 Maidan coup. That event—publicly supported and privately orchestrated by the United States—toppled Ukraine’s elected, Russia-aligned President Viktor Yanukovych and replaced his administration with one carefully curated to serve Western interests. While the current president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is lauded in the West as a democratic hero, in practice his government has parroted Washington’s positions, clamped down on dissent, outlawed opposition parties, and embraced NATO’s expansionist agenda. This is not democracy—it is colonial stewardship under the guise of sovereignty.
Indeed, Zelenskyy's five-year term, which began on May 20, 2019, concluded on May 20, 2024—nearly a year ago. Regardless of Ukrainian law, which prohibits holding elections during martial law, Zelenskyy could end martial law and hold elections at any time. However, he chooses not to, due to the very real likelihood that he would be removed from power.
The NATO dimension is critical and cannot be overstated. In 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would move “not one inch eastward” beyond a reunified Germany. That promise, echoed by Western leaders across Europe, was quietly discarded. Since then, NATO has admitted 14 former Eastern Bloc countries, installing military infrastructure on Russia’s doorstep. Moscow’s protests were ignored. Ukraine was the final straw—not merely because of geography, but because Ukraine had become, in Russia’s view, a forward operating base for NATO ambitions and American military intelligence.
The principle of humanitarian intervention, while not enshrined explicitly in the UN Charter, has been invoked repeatedly by the West—most notably in Kosovo (1999), Iraq (2003), and Libya (2011). In each of these instances, Western powers bypassed or manipulated international law to justify regime change or military action. Russia's defence is that it is now being held to a hypocritical double standard. If protecting Albanians in Kosovo from Serbia was considered “illegal but legitimate” by Western jurists, why is protecting ethnic Russians in Donbas from Ukrainian artillery viewed as illegitimate, let alone criminal?
International law is not a set of rules imposed solely on those outside Washington’s orbit. If NATO and the United States reserve the right to act unilaterally in the name of security or humanitarian necessity, then so too must Russia. The difference, of course, is that Russia has been strategically encircled, its red lines crossed, and its sphere of influence destabilised—all while the West cries foul when Russia finally responds.
History will not remember this conflict through headlines and hashtags. It will remember that the so-called “rules-based international order” is selectively applied, that promises made to Russia were broken, and that the crisis in Ukraine was not born in 2022, but in 2014—or perhaps even in 1991. Russia’s intervention, while undesirable and tragic in its cost, was not irrational, unprovoked, or illegal. It was the inevitable consequence of decades of Western expansionism, subversion, and deceit.
###
Bill White (Ram ben Ze'ev) is CEO of WireNews Limited, Mayside Partners Limited, MEADHANAN Agency, Kestrel Assets Limited, SpudsToGo Limited and Executive Director of Hebrew Synagogue. Bill White also writes on Substack under the byline "Bill White Says..."