Phnom Penh (FN), Feb. 28 – This week marks three years since Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine (SMO) began. Its significance is difficult to overestimate, especially on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the Victory over Nazi Germany, a decisive role in which was played by the USSR. At that time, the Soviet people crushed Hitler’s armada at the cost of incredible efforts and colossal sacrifices. Our victory in the Great Patriotic War heralded the beginning of a new era in the history of mankind.
The roots of the current crisis of international relations extend beyond the borders of the conflict in Ukraine. The key problem is to establish the system of indivisible security for all. Russia has consistently advocated for such a system, but, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and NATO turned out to have two left feet. One need only recall the Alliance’s refusal to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE Treaty (1999, Istanbul) or its outright dismissal of Russia’s initiative for a European Security Treaty (2008). In December 2021, Moscow conveyed to the Biden administration a draft treaty on security guarantees, which was the culmination of diplomatic efforts to resolve the broader crisis between the two countries. This document clearly outlined Russia’s fundamental stance: NATO’s expansion eastward to include former Soviet republics was entirely unacceptable. It also spelled out the necessary steps to avert military conflict, as the direct confrontation between Russia and the USA could turn nuclear. Unfortunately, we have not received a constructive response to these proposals.
Another serious issue in today’s international discourse is the West’s inexplicable decision to date the Ukraine crisis only from 2022. This approach is fundamentally flawed, as it ignores the events that forced Russia to resort to military measures to secure its own safety. We urge those who speak of the so-called “Russian aggression” to revisit 2014, when radicals seized power in Kiev through a coup d’état. At that time, Moscow called for a peaceful resolution, but this did not suit the usurpers and their Western sponsors. The official representatives of Germany, Poland, and France – the “guarantors” of the agreement between the then-President of Ukraine and the opposition – did not live up to their commitments and did not stop further violence. It is hardly surprising that the residents of southeastern Ukraine refused to live under the regime they had not elected – especially the one that glorified war criminals such as Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, infamous Nazi collaborators. This led to the proclamation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Instead of engaging in dialogue, Kiev opted for military force, launching punitive operations against Donbas residents as early as summer 2014, deploying aircraft, artillery, and tanks – all in spirit of the figures Ukraine’s new leadership sought to idolize.
The nationalist extremists directed particular fury at then-Ukraine’s Russian-speaking regions. Donetsk and Lugansk bore the brunt of these attacks. Ukrainian forces engaged in systematic violence against their own citizens, indiscriminately shelling peaceful cities, targeting schools, hospitals, and residential areas, killing women, the elderly, and children. The Odessa massacre of May 2, 2014 – where 48 civilians perished, 42 of them burned alive in the Trade Unions House – stands as one of the most horrific examples of this brutality. In every instance, Kiev labeled the victims as “terrorists” rather than the perpetrators themselves.
Ukraine has since been gripped by militant Russophobia. The pathological hatred of its adherents has been directed at Russian-speaking citizens, who have lived in these lands for generations.
Nazism has become the ideological cornerstone of the Kiev regime. In the fervor of its anti-Russian crusade, historical monuments were demolished, history was distorted, and the Orthodox Church was persecuted. The scenario unfolded in a manner disturbingly reminiscent of the fascist Germany’s dark past.
The image of Russia as an enemy was purposefully ‘moulded’, educating the younger generation in the spirit of hatred of everything Russian.
Moscow, however, sought a peaceful resolution. It initiated the signing of the Minsk Agreements. Notably, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2202 (2015), urging the full implementation of these measures. In a joint declaration on February 12, 2015, the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine, along with the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France, reaffirmed their commitment “to the implementation of the Minsk accords”. However, for the West, these promises proved meaningless – Angela Merkel and François Hollande later admitted they had never intended to honor the agreements but merely used them to buy time for Ukraine to amass weaponry. From the very outset, the West chose the path of war and steadily raised the stakes.
For eight years, Russia made every effort to peacefully resolve the conflict in southeastern Ukraine. Yet it became evident that peace was never an option for Kiev, or its Western superintendents.
And when our intelligence received credible information that Kiev was preparing a new punitive operation to seize control of Donbas, thus burying the Minsk Agreements for good, the decision to recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) was made. Moscow signed the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with them, yet even this did not deter Kiev from its course. In fulfilment of the obligations to the DPR and LPR, and in accordance with the norms of international law (Article 51, Part 7 of the UN Charter) and Russian federal legislation, President Vladimir Putin declared the special military operation. Within the scope of the SMO, units of the Russian armed forces have been assigned the tasks of protecting the peaceful population of Donbas and demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine.
Throughout the operation, Russia has repeatedly reaffirmed its willingness to engage in peace negotiations – provided that its interests and the realities on the ground are taken into account. In spring 2022, during the Istanbul talks we managed to initial the agreements. However, when Russia withdrew its troops from near the capital of Ukraine as a gesture of good will, the Ukrainian side reneged on the deal. It is now clear why: such a settlement did not serve Western interests. If the agreement was signed, Ukraine would simply not have met the expectations of its overseas sponsors; it would not have recouped the financial and military resources that had been pumped into it for one purpose only – to weaken Russia as much as possible, and to inflict a strategic defeat on it. The future of Ukraine and its people did not bother them then, and, from all appearance, does not bother them now.
Ukraine’s representatives often accuse Russia of unwillingness to negotiate, forgetting that at the moment this is legally impossible under the very Ukrainian laws: on October 4, 2022, Zelensky imposed a ban on holding negotiations with Russia as long as Vladimir Putin remains its President. On January 15, 2025, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga confirmed that this decision remained in force.
There is another obstacle, which lies in the illegitimacy of Zelensky himself. On May 20, 2024, his term of office expired, and now he remains in power illegally. Under their Constitution, only the Verkhovna Rada retains legitimacy at the moment, and only its Chairman has powers of defense, security, and supreme command.
Russia remains open to a constructive, substantive dialogue aimed at addressing the root causes of the conflict rather than a simple ceasefire. We are pleased to note that a demand for peace is taking shape, which can be seen in Donald Trump’s more realistic approach to the Ukrainian crisis. Nonetheless, the revitalization of the contacts between Russia and the USA does not cause Zelensky to take advantage of this opportunity. On the contrary, he continues the rhetoric of inflicting defeat on Russia while sending Ukrainians to certain death in the attempt to preserve his power. This is futile – the objectives of the special military operation outlined by our President will be definitely achieved.
A well-known expression has it: those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who 80 years later have tried to turn their weapons against Russia again, now by the hands of the Ukrainians, tainting their minds with Nazi ideology, are condemned to defeat. Russia’s victory will put an end to the conflict in Ukraine, as well as mark, as 80 years ago, a new era in the history of mankind – the era of a multipolar world.
Anatoly Borovik, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Kingdom of Cambodia
This article was first published on Khmer Times.
=FRESH NEWS
