The Thesis and Its Purpose
The construct of "an internal conflict in Ukraine" did not arise from public demand but as a strategic narrative launched by Russian officials in 2014. Its key purpose was to remove Russia from the status of a party to an international armed conflict and create the appearance of "popular resistance." This formula allowed Russia to evade sanctions, deny responsibility for civilian casualties, and present military presence as "assistance to the population."
How the Manipulation Works
The narrative is built on a rhetorical cycle:
- Creating a fictitious category of "people's republics";
- Declaring them "independent entities";
- Labeling Ukraine as the "conflicting party," supposedly waging war against its own population;
- Substituting the actual aggressor — instead of Russia, "Donbas" is depicted as the actor.
This scheme is reproduced in speeches by Russian officials, comments from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and state media, creating the effect of a "normalized version of events."
Fact Check: Russia’s Involvement Proven
Internationally recognized observations and legal decisions confirm direct Russian involvement.
- In the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (2025), it was established that Russia exercised effective control over the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (ORDLO) and is responsible for widespread systematic human rights violations.
- Annex B to the judgment provides an extensive list of legal and factual evidence, analyses of Russian and "republic" laws, and their interconnections.
- Observational missions, such as the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), systematically documented border crossings by armed columns, the appearance of heavy equipment, placement of weapons in residential areas, and violations of ceasefire regimes.
- OSINT investigations (including Bellingcat and other independent collectives), referenced by the ECHR, identify weapons and equipment as belonging exclusively to the Russian armed forces, including serial numbers and supply routes.
Myth of "Shelling by Kyiv"
Propaganda claims that Ukraine "deliberately destroyed Donbas." However:
- UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports show that heavy artillery systems were primarily used by Russian-backed forces, especially where equipment movement from Russia was documented.
- OSCE reports on the Mariupol shelling on January 24, 2015, indicate that fire originated from positions controlled by militants (supported by Russia), not Ukrainian forces.
- Human rights organizations, including Bellingcat and other NGOs, documented armed formations and heavy weapons in residential areas, violating international humanitarian law.
Therefore, the thesis that "Kyiv shelled itself" is legally untenable: there is no reliable independent evidence of such actions.
Legal Analysis and Violations
Russia violated fundamental norms of international law:
- Article 2(4) of the UN Charter — prohibits aggression and interference in the internal affairs of another state;
- Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Articles 47–49 — prohibit occupation, forced change of citizenship, deportation, forced retention of populations, and alteration of territorial legal status without the consent of the sovereign state. Russia, through the provision of passports, pensions, and social benefits to ORLDO residents, effectively legitimized control, violating the Convention;
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Article 8 — ensures criminal liability for supplying weapons, material support, and command to illegal armed groups, which Russia effectively performed, qualifying as a war crime;
- International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) — transfer of financial and material resources to armed groups outside Ukraine’s legal system violates international obligations, especially if these groups continue hostilities against civilians.
By portraying the conflict as a "civil war," propaganda masks the aggressor state's factual violations of international law and responsibility for occupation, deportations, repression, and war crimes.
Internal Contradictions of the Myth
- No "self-organization" can explain the presence of missile systems, armored vehicles, air defense systems, and artillery — such equipment could not appear without direct logistical support;
- Social benefits, passport issuance, and administrative functions by Russia logically contradict the "observer party" thesis;
- Appointment of commanders, rear support, delivery of ammunition, and operation coordination clearly indicate a structure subordinated to Russian leadership, not spontaneous "people’s formations."
Fact Check of Militant Weaponry
At the start of the conflict, there were no depots of heavy equipment, artillery, electronic warfare systems, or guided missile systems in Donetsk and Luhansk regions; the appearance of all these was recorded as movement from the state border of the Russian Federation.
- Dozens of cases of anti-tank systems, air defense systems, artillery, and armored vehicles matching Russian serial numbers were documented — confirmed by Bellingcat investigations and assessed by the Court.
- Militant uniforms and equipment completely matched those used by the Russian Armed Forces; equipment was accompanied by logistics, supplies, and maintenance — impossible without military infrastructure support.
- Under international humanitarian law, such arms, material support, and command provided to illegal formations make the foreign state — in this case Russia — a party to the conflict, confirmed by international court precedents (e.g., ICJ case law on external intervention).
Actual Goals of the Narrative
The main purpose of the thesis:
- Free Russia from aggressor status and avoid international responsibility;
- Create a legal and political basis for annexation and prolonged occupation;
- Legitimize control over the population, deportations, resettlement, and passport issuance;
- Use propaganda for domestic and international information "whitewashing" of military actions.
The Truth
All international bodies — from the ECHR to the UN Human Rights Mission — document that events in Donbas have the characteristics of an international armed conflict with Russia as the aggressor party. The thesis "this is a civil war" serves only political purposes and aims to conceal aggression, occupation, and widespread human rights violations.
Main Sources and Materials
Documents and materials used:
- ECHR judgment Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (2025)
- Annex B — list of evidence, laws, and regulations used
- Daily and operational OSCE SMM reports (2014–2022)
- UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports (2014–2025)
- OSINT investigations (Bellingcat, InformNapalm, Atlantic Council) — referenced by international judicial bodies.
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025