Fact check: How does the Russian government justify its actions in Ukraine?

1. What Moscow actually claims — a package of legitimacy and protection

The Kremlin’s official messaging ties legitimacy to the personal status of Ukraine’s leadership and to historical narratives about territory and people. President Putin and Kremlin spokespeople argue that an allegedly illegitimate Ukrainian leadership undermines state institutions, justifying intervention; they also present operations as protecting Russian-speaking populations and “historical Russian lands,” framed as preemptive security measures against hostile forces ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This combination of legalistic and historical language is deployed to convert political grievances into grounds for continued military action.

2. The “special military operation” label — strategic language with legal and moral aims

By calling the campaign a “special military operation,” Russian officials signal it is not a conventional war but a targeted, necessary act to secure state interests and neutralize threats. Putin’s February addresses and subsequent Kremlin statements emphasize defense against perceived neo‑Nazi elements and NATO encroachment, presenting the operation as limited in scope and morally justified ^{[2] [3]}. The label also serves domestic censorship and control functions by shaping permissible public debate and minimizing legal obligations tied to declarations of full-scale war.

3. The historical-security argument — past grievances repurposed as present threats

Russian narratives draw heavily on long-term historical claims and security anxieties, portraying Ukraine as part of a shared civilizational space whose separation endangers Russian security. Putin’s speeches link contemporary policy to centuries of history while emphasizing NATO’s expansion as a direct threat requiring corrective action ^[2]. This framing turns geopolitical rivalry into an existential story, seeking to rally domestic audiences through historic continuity while casting Western responses as provocations rather than deterrents.

4. The illegitimacy and “neo‑Nazi” claims — targeted delegitimization of Kyiv

Moscow repeatedly asserts that Ukraine’s government is illegitimate and dominated by extremist forces, using “illegitimacy” and “neo‑Nazi” rhetoric to strip Kyiv of normative standing. Putin’s December and February statements explicitly link leadership legitimacy to the broader justification for operations, arguing that an illegitimate presidency invalidates the state’s institutions and rights ^{[1] [2]}. This tactic functions to dehumanize opponents internationally and domestically, eroding sympathy and complicating diplomatic recognition of Ukraine’s claims.

5. Kyiv and Western rebuttals — sovereignty, expansion, and sanctions as counters

Ukraine’s leaders and Western allies reject Russia’s premises, framing the conflict as unprovoked aggression and warning that inaction risks broader regional expansion. President Zelensky and allied officials emphasize Russia’s restructuring for perpetual war, arguing the only effective counters are tough sanctions, military assistance, and long‑range capabilities to deter further aggression ^{[4] [5]}. Western reporting contextualizes the invasion within a longer pattern of Moscow’s moves to reshape the regional order, underscoring that security claims are treated by critics as pretexts for territorial revisionism ^[6].

6. Messaging versus practice — where justification meets action

The Kremlin’s public justifications often diverge from the realities on the ground: while Moscow speaks of protection and limited aims, continued offensives and territorial annexation undermine claims of restraint and legality. Kremlin spokespeople vow to continue operations as necessary—language that signals permanence rather than a limited humanitarian intervention ^[3]. Observers note this gap between stated intent and military behavior, which fuels international skepticism and hardens policy responses aimed at degrading Russia’s ability to project force.

7. Media framing and international agendas — competing narratives shape perception

Coverage and commentary split along predictable lines: Russian state outlets amplify themes of illegitimacy and protection, while Ukrainian and Western outlets emphasize sovereignty violations and expansionist motives. Independent analyses place the conflict within a broader contest over the post‑Cold War order, noting that statements by third‑party leaders and institutions can shift diplomatic traction ^{[6] [5]}. Each actor’s institutional interests and audiences shape which facts are foregrounded, producing competing, sometimes incompatible accounts of motive and legality.

8. Bottom line — claims, counters, and what’s notably omitted

Moscow’s justifications rest on three linked claims: Kyiv’s illegitimacy, a need to protect Russian‑aligned populations and lands, and the defense of Russia against perceived neo‑Nazi and NATO threats ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Kyiv and Western actors rebut by highlighting sovereignty violations, territorial ambitions, and a pattern of aggression that sanctions and aid seek to counter ^{[4] [5]}. Important omissions in Russian rhetoric include independent verification of imminent threats, meaningful engagement with Ukrainian sovereignty norms, and transparent long‑term political aims—gaps that explain persistent international rejection of Moscow’s legal and moral case.