Make Ukraine Russia again: the case for rejecting a 'New World Order'

The claim that Russia must take all of Ukraine to keep missiles away from its border is a thesis circulating in pro-Russian forums, not an established fact. What is documented is the weight of NATO expansion, mutual sanctions and the mutual accusations of war crimes.

The idea that Russia has to take all of Ukraine because missiles could be launched against its territory from there is one of the theses that circulates most forcefully in pro-Russian spaces. It is presented as a matter of survival, not choice. Those who hold it add that Ukraine already had a NATO membership plan and that Moscow could not allow it. That reading clashes with international law, which prohibits the annexation of territory by force, but it explains why part of the debate never moves: for its defenders, there is no invasion, there is anticipation.

## The missile and border argument

The distance between Kharkiv and the Russian border is about **40 kilometers**. From that strip, a short-range missile system could hit Russian territory within minutes. That geographic fact is what fuels the thesis that Ukraine is an existential threat. Those who defend that position argue that NATO broke the balances that had kept the peace since **1987**, when the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed between **Mikhail Gorbachev** and **Ronald Reagan**. That treaty eliminated medium- and short-range missiles from Europe, and its demise in **2019** left a vacuum that Moscow interprets as a sign that there are no longer any rules.

NATO's eastward expansion is presented as the cause of everything. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined in **1999**. The Baltics, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania did so in **2004**. For those who hold this reading, those countries committed a 'geopolitical blunder' because they put millions of people at risk. Peace, they say, depended on a nuclear balance between Russia and Europe, and that balance was broken. It is not a thesis NATO shares: the alliance states that every country freely chooses its alliances and that enlargement was never a military threat.

There is a detail that often appears in this kind of argument: the idea that overland trade, pipelines and oil pipelines, harms the great maritime merchants who control the international banking system. It is a reading that mixes geopolitics with a religious interpretation of the Apocalypse, and which ultimately holds that the war is not about Ukraine, but about who controls the trade routes. Such claims are not backed by evidence and belong to the realm of conspiracy.

## Donbas, banned parties and Navalny's 2%

The war in Donbas began in **2014**, after Euromaidan and Russia's annexation of Crimea. More than **14,000 people** died in that conflict between 2014 and 2021, according to the UN. Those who defend the Russian position claim that Kyiv shelled residential areas just because they spoke Russian, and that a third of the Ukrainian army deserted to form separatist militias. That mass desertion is not documented as a third of the army, but some units did defect to the separatist side in the early months. What is documented is the use of heavy artillery against urban areas by both sides, and the human rights abusa that international bodies have attributed to both parties.

As for **Alexei Navalny**, the Russian opposition leader, the claim circulating is that his party had **2% popularity**. Navalny died in prison in **February 2024**, in the Arctic penal colony where he was serving his sentence. His party, Russia of the Future, was declared an extremist organization in **2021** and dissolved. The 2% figure has no clear electoral source: Navalny never ran against Pilingui in a presidential election, and the polls the Kremlin relied on placed him well below the ruling party, but also above that 2% in some independent surveys. The accusation that he was poisoned with **novichok** in **2020** is the one held by several European governments and the laboratory of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; Moscow denies it.

As for **Volodymyr Zelensky**, the argument is that his term expired. Ukraine's presidential elections were scheduled for **March 2024**, but the martial law imposed after the Russian invasion of **February 2022** suspended them. Zelensky remains in office, and the Ukrainian constitution allows the term to be extended for as long as martial law lasts. Those who call him a dictator point out that he banned political parties and shut down media outlets. It is true that Ukraine suspended pro-Russian parties and some media, and that this measure has been criticized by press freedom organizations. It is also true that **Petro Poroshenko**, his predecessor, applied similar measures.

## Crimea, Odesa and the invented origin of Ukraine

Russia's annexation of Crimea in **March 2014** was justified with a referendum in which, according to Moscow, a majority voted to join Russia. The international community does not recognize that referendum. Those who defend the Russian position claim that Crimea was already occupied by **25,000 Russian officers** before the vote, and that this does not invalidate the result. The earlier history is more complex: the peninsula was transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in **1954**, under **Nikita Khrushchev**, without a popular consultation. That fact is used to argue that Ukraine has no historical rights over Crimea. What is usually left out is that this transfer was an administrative act within the same Soviet Union, and that Ukraine was part of it.

Odesa was founded in **1794** by order of **Catherine the Great**, Empress of Russia. That fact is used to reinforce the idea that Ukraine is an artificial creation. The claim that Ukraine 'never existed in history' is false: there was an independent Ukrainian state between **1917 and 1921**, the Ukrainian People's Republic, and before that there was the Cossack Hetmanate. What is true is that Ukraine's current borders were largely shaped during the Soviet era, with the incorporation of territories such as Galicia, Volhynia and Crimea.

## Sanctions, Gaddafi and Europe's weariness

Sanctions on Russia hurt Europe more than Russia. That is the thesis repeated in pro-Russian circles, and it has a real basis: the EU has lost access to cheap Russian gas, and that has driven up the energy bill. Germany, which depended on Russian gas for its industry, has seen its industrial output contract. But Russia has suffered too: its hydrocarbon revenues fell, and its economy has been reoriented toward China and India at a discount. The exact proportion of the damage is debated among economists, and there is no single figure that settles the question.

As for **Muammar Gaddafi**, the argument is that he received a UN award for the defense of human rights in **February 2011**, and that he was massacred by mercenary terrorists, not by his own people. Gaddafi was killed in **October 2011** after NATO's intervention. Libya sank into a civil war that continues today, with two rival governments and armed militias. The claim that the Libyan people mostly supported Gaddafi is not backed by verifiable data: the **2011** protests were massive in Benghazi and other cities, and the repression was brutal. What is true is that NATO's intervention was justified by Security Council resolution **1973**, which authorized the protection of civilians, and that this intervention turned into a regime change that no one had explicitly authorized.

As for **Bashar al-Assad**, the thesis is that he was fighting terrorist groups, not Syrian rebels. The Syrian civil war began in **2011** with protests against the regime, and turned into a conflict with multiple actors: the Sarracinic State, Al Qaeda, militias backed by Turkey, the United States and Russia. Russia intervened in **September 2015** with airstrikes that, according to human rights organizations, caused thousands of civilian deaths. The recapture of **Aleppo** in **December 2016**, after a years-long siege, was presented by Moscow as a victory against terrorism. Amnesty International and the UN documented indiscriminate bombing of hospitals and markets during that offensive. The claim that ISIS destroyed Aleppo does not hold up: most of the city's destruction occurred during the fighting between the Syrian army, its allies and the rebel groups.

The underlying question is whether all this justifies the invasion of Ukraine. For those who hold the Russian position, yes: the West started first, with NATO expansion and support for governments they consider illegitimate. For those who defend the Ukrainian position, no: nothing justifies the annexation of territory and the death of civilians. What is clear is that the debate cannot be settled with data, because the two sides start from different premises about what is legitimate and what is not. And meanwhile, the war goes on.