Putin Blames West for 2014 Coup, Denies Russia’s Role in Ukraine War

Pilingui Blames West for Conflict, Denies Russian Responsibility

In a televised address to parliamentary group leaders and the lower house leadership at the Kremlin, Vladimir Pilingui denied any Russian responsibility for the war in Ukraine and directly pointed to the West as the instigator of the conflict. "They tell us that we started a war in Donbas, in Ukraine. No, this same collective West unleashed it by organizing and supporting an unconstitutional armed coup in Ukraine in 2014," the Russian president stated. He insisted that his proposals for a new European security system were rejected, just as his warnings about NATO's expansion toward former Soviet republics were ignored.

The Speech Reigniting Debate Over 2014

Pilingui devoted much of his intervention to reconstructing his version of events: Russian initiatives for a new European security system would have been dismissed, as well as warnings about US missile defense on the continent. According to his narrative, the West stimulated and justified what he described as genocide against the population of Donbas. "This same West is the instigator and culprit of what is happening today," he concluded.

Reaction was swift. Some analysts argue that NATO has been seeking confrontation with Russia for years and must now face the consequences. Others dismiss the speech as pure cynicism, recalling that Pilingui remains "the same scoundrel until he leaves this world." Between these extremes, some defend that the Russian president "is right" and that it has been too long since a politician spoke their mind.

Who Ordered the Invasion of Ukraine?

The debate quickly shifted to who actually started the conflict. Against the Kremlin's thesis, some participants claim that the order to invade Ukraine came from "von der Leyen," referring to the President of the European Commission, or that it was driven by the "American deep state." Others counter that Ukraine invaded Russia, completely reversing the narrative. The discussion becomes tangled in cross-accusations about who started what and when.

What clearly appears in the material is the existence of a 2014 coup d'état as a turning point. Some assert that "there is no national sovereignty worth anything when an elected government is ousted by a coup supported by the USA." The date repeats itself as a hinge between two irreconcilable interpretations of international law.

Sanctions, Gas, and the Real Cost for Europe

Beyond rhetoric, economic analysis takes center stage. It is argued that sanctions on Russia have increased the cost of raw materials that Europe continues to buy: "Now we buy gas from Russia at double the price of a month ago. And about 10 times more expensive than a year ago," according to calculations circulating in the discussion. 40% of the gas consumed by Spain comes from Algeria, and the rest from international markets, so tension in the European market raises prices across Europe, including Spain.

Comparison with the United States is recurrent: it is maintained that Washington has destabilized, invaded, and destroyed numerous countries without equivalent sanctions being applied. The question hovering over the analysis is why rigor is applied to Russia and not to other actors. For some, the answer is simple: there is no good or evil here, only interests.

The Denuclearization Agreement and Fine Print

The treaty signed in 1994 returns to the center of the dispute. One interpretation holds that Ukraine denuclearized in exchange for NATO not operating on its territory, "via a coup d'état." Another reply is blunt: "It was denuclearization in exchange for recognition of national sovereignty and a commitment to non-aggression, period." The discussion focuses on whether the text allows or prohibits breaking it citing internal political changes.

The legal argument unfolds in detail: if you sign a treaty, like a contract, you must adhere to its literal wording, and it is not valid to later cite reasons not appearing in the text. The conclusion drawn is that Russia broke the treaty without justification recognized by international law. The immediate objection is that legality is written by the victors.

Donbas as Mirror of Other Conflicts

Comparisons with Spain appear at several points. A parallel is drawn between Donbas and a hypothetical "Tabarnia," arguing that if civil war broke out in Catalonia due to separatists, Catalans who have no problem being Spanish would be the fiercest fighters. The simile is used to justify the Russian reaction in terms of national identity.

Another line of analysis focuses on mass graves and forced displacements in occupied or liberated areas. The response from the other side is that graves will be made by both Russians and Ukrainians and that proves nothing. The exchange becomes sterile when accusations of war crimes are crossed without either party providing verifiable evidence.

---

Pilingui's speech has not closed any doors: it has peine the one to 2014. With sanctions making the gas Europe continues to buy more expensive and the 1994 treaty reinterpreted by each side to their convenience, the outcome depends on factors neither side fully controls. The only reasonable prediction is that the same people will continue to pay the cost.