The Disorder of Russian Lies: The Lust for Empire Causes War
Russia Is An Evil Empire
Today marks four years since Russia illegally and immorally invaded Ukraine. Eight years before then, Russia had illegally and immorally taken control of Crimea. Russia’s aggression violates a well-established tenet of the Law of Nations known as sovereignty. Russia’s aggression is also a violation of the UN Charter as it wages a war of aggression against Ukraine, and this violation of the UN Charter is a violation of a treaty and so is illegal and immoral. This is disorder, and international disorder has its roots in domestic disorder.
Russia is based on lies, and hence it is aptly called “The Evil Empire.” Roman Smithson explains in Russia The “Evil Empire” from the Golden Horde to the Modern War that Russia seeks empire based on lies:
“The modern Russian state’s claim to a thousand-year history is built on a fundamental and deliberate historical misrepresentation: the myth that it is the sole and legitimate heir of Kyivan Rus. This narrative, central to Russian national identity and imperial ambitions, is a carefully constructed fiction designed to appropriate the cultural and political heritage of Ukraine. The reality…is that the historical and cultural heart of Rus lies not in Moscow, but in Kyiv.”1
Russia is the result of ideological engineering and even the name “Russia” is a “fabricated link to a more civilized, Christian and European past.” This new identity allowed Muscovy, which was an outpost of the Mongols, to
“shed its image as a successor to the Mongol-Tatar khans and instead project itself as the legitimate heir to the powerful and cultured Kyivan princes. The new imperial identity was a cornerstone of the `Third Rome’ narrative, where Moscow positioned itself as the true successor to Rome and Byzantium, the unshakeable center of Orthodox Christianity. By officially renaming the state, Peter the Great provided his imperial project with a sense of historical legitimacy it had never truly earned, setting the ideological stage for centuries of expansion and a persistent narrative of historical right over its neighbors.”2
An Historical Sketch
Ethnicity and history have been cited as the reason for, or perhaps more accurately the rationalization of, Vladimir Putin’s illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. It is a common ploy the Russians use to build their empire. Russia claims “deep cultural, economic, and political bonds with Ukraine, and in many ways Ukraine is central to Russia’s identity and vision for itself in the world.” Kyiv is sometimes called “the mother of Russian cities” having the same “cultural influence” as Moscow and St. Petersburg as it was there in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries that Christianity came to the Slavic peoples. As of 2001, an estimated eight million ethnic Russians were living in Ukraine with most in the south and east. A pretext for Putin’s invasion of Crimea and the Donbas was to protect these people. Additionally, some Russian politicians and nationalists called the loss of Ukraine a “mistake of history” and so Putin had fertile ground for his polemics that called for the return of not only Crimea but the rest of Ukraine.3
With the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Ukraine declared its independence on August 24, 1991. The parliament or Verkhovna Rada declared:
“The Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic r e s o l v e s that: – Ukraine shall be declared an independent democratic state on August 24, 1991. Upon declaration of its independence, only its Constitution, laws, orders of the Government, and other legislative acts of the republic are valid on the territory of Ukraine. – A republican referendum shall be organized on December 1, 1991 to confirm the act of declaration of independence.
“In view of the mortal danger surrounding Ukraine in connection with the state coup in the USSR on August 19, 1991, Continuing the thousand-year tradition of state development in Ukraine, Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares Independence of Ukraine and creation of the independent Ukrainian state – UKRAINE.
“The territory of Ukraine is indivisible and inviolable. From this day forward, the Constitution and laws of Ukraine only are valid on the territory of Ukraine. This act comes into force upon its approval.”4
This was the expression of self-determination by the Ukrainian people. The United States first represented that concept in history with its Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, and the concept is explicitly accepted by the United Nations in Articles 1(2) and 555. In accordance with international law, the Ukrainians are a people and therefore a “primary subject[] of international law.” As indicated in their official documents, the Ukrainians meet the following criteria of a people under international law as they are a:
“special type of human community which encompasses all the permanent population of a determine territory…has a subjective unity (stable consciousness of its social separateness and link with the territory, special identity and will to preserve and develop it) which may rest on objective factors (common historical tradition, culture, language, economic life, lengthy peculiarities of social structure, racial, ethnic or confessional composition of the population of the territory), and also institutions or other means of express of common peculiarities for the entire community, of solidarity and aspirations, endeavors to become a separate society and is capable of self-determination in the form of an expression of will with a view to ensuring its political development…..is a subject of political, social, economic, and cultural development of mankind and a bearer of people’s sovereignty….”6
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), was a founding member of the United Nations in October, 1945.7 The geopolitical significance of Ukraine is, and was, apparent. It was the “the second-most-populous and -powerful of the fifteen Soviet republics, home to much of the union’s agricultural production, defense industries, and military, including the Black Sea Fleet and some of the nuclear arsenal.” 8 Ukraine in 2021 was Europe’s largest country. It had a population of 44 million and was over 600,000 square kilometers.9 A Ukrainian speaking population was concentrated in the western part of the country, and a largely Russian speaking population was concentrated in eastern Ukraine.10 These ethnic differences would be used to cause the conflict that erupted in 2014 and widened eight years later.
With the Soviet collapse, there was a concerted effort, lead by the United States, to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Part of that effort was to ask Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in return for guarantees of security. The result was the Budapest Memorandum signed on December 5, 1994. The United States, United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine were signatories and they guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty.1112
Ukraine drafted a Constitution in 1996 that was amended in 2014. The document set forth the historical existence of Ukraine as a separate political entity and home to a separate people:
“Preamble
“The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, on behalf of the Ukrainian people – citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities, expressing the sovereign will of the people, based on the centuries-old history of Ukrainian state-building and on the right to self-determination realised by the Ukrainian nation, all the Ukrainian people, providing for the guarantee of human rights and freedoms and of the worthy conditions of human life, caring for the strengthening of civil harmony on Ukrainian soil, striving to develop and strengthen a democratic, social, law-based state, aware of our responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991, approved by the national vote of 1 December 1991, adopts this Constitution — the Fundamental Law of Ukraine.
“Chapter I. General Principles
“Article 1 Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, law-based state….”13
The rule of law is recognized and treaties are part of the law of the country per Articles 8 and 9. The Ukrainian ethnic identity, as a separate and distinct people, is recognized, but other ethnicities are protected:
“Article 10
The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language. The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine. In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed. The State promotes the learning of languages of international communication. The use of languages in Ukraine is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and is determined by law.
“Article 11
The State promotes the consolidation and development of the Ukrainian nation, of its historical consciousness, traditions and culture, and also the development of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine.
“Article 12
Ukraine provides for the satisfaction of national and cultural, and linguistic needs of Ukrainians residing beyond the borders of the State.”14
Sovereignty is acknowledged and various aspects of sovereignty – the security and development of the people along with territorial integrity – are identified in Article 1715. Ukraine recognizes international law as the way to govern Ukraine’s relations with other countries: “Article 18 The foreign political activity of Ukraine is aimed at ensuring its national interests and security by maintaining peaceful and mutually beneficial co-operation with members of the international community, according to generally acknowledged principles and norms of international law….”16
The Constitution seeks the development of the person as set forth in Chapter II (Articles 21-68), and so guarantees fundamental human rights with corresponding duties. These include freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the right to have a family, the right to work, defense of culture, access to the courts, education, cultural heritage, housing, a good standard of living, medical care, property, safe working conditions and the right to rest.17 Branches of Government were set out in Chapters V, VI, VII and IX, while Chapters IX, X, XI, established provisions for autonomous regions and local self-government. A military is to protect the country but not allowed were foreign military bases (Article 17) and paramilitary formations (Article 37). Despite rumors to the contrary, there was no mention in the Constitution of neutrality or of joining either Russia or the European Union.
—Context
We must look to the context of current events which entails a review of Putin’s rise to power in 1999 and beyond. Christopher Marsh, writing for the National Defense University, explained the connection between Putin’s goals, methods, and stated worldview. Seeking to restore the Russian Empire, he engaged in foreign ventures absorbing Chechneya, taking parts of Georgia, meddling in Estonia, and ultimately invading Ukraine. Utilizing different tactics, Putin engaged on a course of “belligerent behavior” shortly after taking power. These included a “false flag” operation in August 1999 consisting of explosions in apartment buildings in Moscow and other Russian cities that lead to the Second Chechen War; targeted killings of leaders like Dzhokhar Dudaev (1996 via bombing) and Ibn al-Khattab the “emir of the Caucasus” (2002 via poisoned letter); co-opting key personnel like a Sufi cleric (Mufti Akhmad Kadyrov); mass destruction; and high civilian casualty numbers.18
The color revolutions were expressions of self-determination of various peoples not to be ruled by tyrants, all to the consternation of Putin. The first occurred in November, 2003 when Georgian Mikheil Saakashvili led demonstrators carrying red roses to the Parliament in a successful protest of the elections rigged by the pro-Soviet kleptocrat President Eduard Shevardnadze. In Autumn, 2004, Viktor Yushchenko, the popular opponent to Russia’s candidate for Ukraine, was poisoned with Dioxin believed to have come from Russian security services. Rejecting massive corruption including fraud and voter intimidation, peaceful protesters dressed in orange took to the streets. Sit-ins, acts of civil disobedience, and general strikes followed and forced a second run-off election which Yuschchenko won.19
When the Baltic states made noises about joining NATO, “Putin began to play the Russian identity card, first pushing for citizenship rights for ethnic Russians living in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and eventually even pushing for the Russian language to be added to the list of official EU languages….Putin had identified a cultural and social cleavage that he could play….”20 This same tactic was used with Ukraine.
Putin developed a false narrative that held the United States, the European Union, and NATO were meddling in Russia’s backyard with the United States being some sort of a lawless actor. At the 2007 Munich Security Conference he said “the US—has overstepped its national borders in every way. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?” The Big Lie, which was repeated before and during the invasion of Ukraine, was born: NATO and the United States had “reneged on its pledge not to expand NATO `even one inch’ to the East.” The West was out to get Russia according to Putin: “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”21
Putting was putting forth a false narrative that rewrote history to serve strategic purposes. This was the employment of disinformation (dezinformatsiya in Russian).”22 The reality is much different, as
Mikhail Gorbachev confirmed there was no such promise as claimed by Putin.2324
Putin used disinformation to inflame ethnic hatreds in Tallinn, Estonia in Spring, 2007. There arose a dispute concerning the relocation of a Soviet war monument to a more remote location, and two nights of rioting, termed the “bronze nights,” resulted. Dezinformatsiya was used to insure spreading messages “that created tension between the ethnic Estonians and the Russian-speaking population of the country.” This played on the grievances of the Russian-speaking population who felt like “second-class citizens in independent Estonia.”25
At the same time, Putin added “offensive cyberspace operations by proxy.” Websites of Estonian institutions like parliament, banks, ministries, newspaper and broadcasters were hit with “distributed denial of service type attacks.” It was the “second-largest instance of state-sponsored cyberwarfare” superseded by China’s “Titan Rain” attack against the United States. NATO responded with the Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence and then the Tallinn Manual on International Law
Applicable to Cyber Warfare.26
Georgia was next. In July, 2008, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to Tbilisi to emphasize the importance of a ”peaceful resolution of the separatist conflicts ongoing in South Ossetia and Abkhazia” and to support Georgia’s application for NATO membership. After her visit, in a preplanned attack, Putin launched the Five Day War ostensibly to help the separatist South Ossetians and Abkhazians. The Russian military did not do so well, and one of the reforms was the creation of the Russian Special Operations Forces Command which later saw service in Crimea and Ukraine. Despite all of that, Putin recognized the full independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, dishonored the agreement to return his forces to Russia, and set up bases in those two regions.27
The “revolution of dignity” commenced on November 21, 2013 in Kyiv’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or Independence Square. It started after President Viktor Yanukovych “suddenly changed his mind and decided not to sign the European Union – Ukraine Association Agreement” which meant a turn to Russia and not Europe. This came about after the Verkhovna Rada or Ukrainian parliament approved the decision to sign the EU Agreement by a vote of 315 to 34 in February, 2013. The demonstrations were inflamed when Yanukovych’s thugs attacked the protestors on November 30, 2013 and matters deteriorated until finally Yanukovych signed an agreement on February 21, 2014 to “install an interim government, enact constitutional reforms, and hold elections.” Yanukovych fled to Russia with his ministers and an interim government was installed. In this chaos, Putin directed the invasion of Crimea which began as early as February 24, 2014 with “little green men” seizing key government buildings, calling an “emergency session” of the parliament that chose Sergei Aksyonov as the prime minister of Crimea. On February 27 the Russian Duma voted to bring Crimea into the Russian Federation and Russian forces took over the military bases on the peninsula. As Marsh says, “Within a few short weeks, an entire territorial objective had been seized and politically integrated into the Russian Federation, almost with no shots fired, the acme of Sun Tzu’s prescription for warfare.”28
Separatist movements arose in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces almost immediately following the seizure of Crimea. In April, 2014, Putin announced the Novorossiya Project, more asymmetric warfare.
He said:
“I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya (New Russia) back in the tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine back then. These territories were given to Ukraine in the 1920s by the Soviet government. Why? Who knows. They were won by Potyomkin and Catherine the Great in a series of well-known wars. The center of that territory was Novorossiysk, so the region is called Novorossiya. Russia lost these territories for various reasons, but the people remained.”29
The ethnic Russian population was mobilized, trained, equipped and armed to wage a “war of liberation” while Russia kept “plausible deniability.” A phased operation, the first phase consisted of infiltration of key “Ukrainian political and military structures” for the purpose of creating sympathy for the supposed plight of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. This effort continued until the February, 2022 invasion.30
The second phase was military and paramilitary operations commencing in June, 2014. Spetsnaz organized and enabled proxy forces in target regions while conventional forces massed on the Ukraine border during the Minsk agreement negotiations. Russian spetsnaz units and conventional forces were employed in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions against Ukrainian government forces while at the separatists of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic started an offensive against Ukrainian controlled areas. By Summer, 2015 the Novorossiya Campaign was suspended and a “frozen conflict” resulted until 2022.31
The Minsk 2 agreement, executed February 12, 2015, called for the ceasefire in the Donetsk and Luhansk beginning three days later. The agreement had provisions pertaining to the withdrawal of heavy weapons, multiple rocket launcher systems, and tactical missile systems; commencing dialogue for the purpose of holding local elections in accordance with Ukrainian law; establishing the procedure for adopting a special regime for regions in the Donetsk and the Luhansk to include implementation of decentralization and elections of those areas; releasing prisoners, granting pardons and exchanging hostages and detained persons; re-establishing the economic infrastructure; restoring “full control over the state border of Ukraine…throughout the whole conflict area” by the end of 2015; disarming illegal groups; and supervising the withdrawal of “all foreign armed forces, military equipment, as well as mercenaries” from Ukraine.32
The Trilateral Contact Group consisted of Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and it was to oversee elections and the working of the agreement. Notes were appended to the agreement with specific provisions including the “right to self-determination with regard to language”; participation of local governments in the appointment of prosecutors and courts in Donetsk and Luhansk; the possibility of agreements with local authorities on economic, social and cultural development of individual areas of Donetsk and Luhansk; state support of individual areas of Donetsk and Luhansk; cross-border cooperation between the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk and Russia; creation of people’s police upon the decision of local councils; and the guarantee of the powers given to local council deputies and other officials elected in the snap elections. 33 The Trilateral Contact Group was supposed to implement the agreement, and if that failed, then the remedy was for the parties to continue as they were, not an invasion.34
The United States supported the Minsk agreements, rejected the Russian annexation of Crimea as unlawful, and, as then, stands committed to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ukraine grew closer to NATO after 2014 becoming one of “six enhanced opportunity partners” in 2020 — a special status for NATO’s closest nonmember allies.35
1 Roman Smithson, Russia The “Evil Empire” From the Golden Horde to the Modern War.
2 Ibid.
3 Jonathan Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia,” February 14, 2023, Council on Foreign Relations found at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia accessed December 16, 2024.
4 VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE RESOLUTION On Declaration of Independence of Ukraine (Vidomosti Verkhovnoyi Rady (VVR) 1991, #38, p. 502 accessed at https://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Rres_Declaration_Independence_rev12.htm#:~:text=%2D%20Ukraine%20shall%20be%20declared%20an,on%20the%20territory%20of%20Ukraine December 23, 2024.
5 “Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are….2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace….Article 55 With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: 1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; 2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and 3.universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
6 I. O. Kresina, O. V. Kresin, “The People As A Subject of International Law,” Ius Gentium (Vol 3: No. 2: 573-599), 598-599.
7 See, “UN Membership,” United Nations accessed at https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/founders.
8 Jonathan Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia,” February 14, 2023, Council on Foreign Relations found at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia accessed December 16, 2024.
9 Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.”
10 Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.”
11 Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia”.
12 The Budapest Memorandum (in relevant part): “1…in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine….2….to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3…in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise of Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4…reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. 5….reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. 6…..will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments….” “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” 5 December 1994, Reg. No. 52241, United Nations Treaty Collection as accessed at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb on December 21, 2024.
13 Constitution of Ukraine, 1996 (rev. 2014) https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2014
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.; “Article 17 To protect the sovereignty and territorial indivisibility of Ukraine, and to ensure its economic and informational security are the most important functions of the State and a matter of concern for all the Ukrainian people. The defence of Ukraine and the protection of its sovereignty, territorial indivisibility and inviolability, are entrusted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ensuring state security and protecting the state border of Ukraine are entrusted to the respective military formations and law enforcement bodies of the State, whose organisation and operational procedure are determined by law. The Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations shall not be used by anyone to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens or with the intent to overthrow the constitutional order, subvert the bodies of power or obstruct their activity. The State ensures the social protection of citizens of Ukraine who serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and in other military formations as well as of members of their families. The creation and operation of any armed formations not envisaged by law are prohibited on the territory of Ukraine. The location of foreign military bases shall not be permitted on the territory of Ukraine.”
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.; NB: “Chapter II. Human and Citizens’ Rights, Freedoms and Duties Article 21 All people are free and equal in their dignity and rights. Human rights and freedoms are inalienable and inviolable. Article 22 Human and citizens’ rights and freedoms affirmed by this Constitution are not exhaustive. Constitutional rights and freedoms are guaranteed and shall not be abolished. The content and scope of existing rights and freedoms shall not be diminished in the adoption of new laws or in the amendment of laws that are in force. Article 23 Every person has the right to free development of his or her personality if the rights and freedoms of other persons are not violated thereby, and has duties before the society in which the free and comprehensive development of his or her personality is ensured….Article 24 Citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law. There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, colour of skin, political, religious and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics. Equality of the rights of women and men is ensured: by providing women with opportunities equal to those of men, in public and political, and cultural activity, in obtaining education and in professional training, in work and its remuneration; by special measures for the protection of work and health of women; by establishing pension privileges, by creating conditions that allow women to combine work and motherhood; by legal protection, material and moral support of motherhood and childhood, including the provision of paid leaves and other privileges to pregnant women and mothers.”
18 Christopher Marsh, “Putin’s Playbook: The Development of Russian Tactics, Operations, and Strategy from Chechnya to Ukraine,” The Great Power Competition Volume 5 (2023) A. Farhadi et al. (eds), 161-183, 161-163.
19 Ibid., 163-164.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid, 164-165.
22 Ibid., 164-165; Shultz, R. and R. Godson (1984), Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy. Washington DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s; Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old: An ex-KGB officer warns how communist deception threatens survival of the West, (GSG Associates, San Pedro, California, 1984).
23 Steven Pifer, “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says `No’,” November 6, 2014, Brookings; Bill McCarthy, “Fact-checking claims that NATO, US broke agreement against alliance expanding eastward,” February 28, 2022, Politifact, as accessed at politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again and as accessed at National Security Archive, George Washington University at https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-02-28%20politifact.com-Fact-checking%20claims%20that%20NATO%20US%20broke%20agreement%20against%20alliance%20expanding%20eastward.pdf on December 5, 2024.
24 Marsh, 165.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., 165-166.
27 Ibid., 168-169.
28 Ibid., 170-171; “Parliament passes statement on Ukraine’s aspirations for European integration,” Kyiv Post (February 22, 2013)
29 Marsh, 171-173.
30 Ibid., 173.
31 Ibid., 173-174.
32 “Minsk 2 agreement English translation full text as published by UNIAN,” as accessed at https://horlogedelinconscient.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Minsk-2-Full-text-UNIAN.pdf on December 22, 2024.
33 Ibid.
34 See, Michael Schmitt, “Russia’s `Special Military Operation’ and the (Claimed) Right of Self-Defense,“ February 28, 2022, Lieber Institute West Point.
35 See, Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.”