The Core Thesis and Its Purpose
The thesis 'All major powers act in their own interests' sounds rational but is, in fact, an ideological smoke screen. Its purpose is to legitimize the destruction of cities, killing of civilians, and disregard for international law. Russian propaganda substitutes concepts: aggression becomes 'natural policy of strong states,' and responsibility and victims are erased from the discourse. Comparison with US or NATO actions serves solely as a distraction from the invasion of Ukraine (UN Charter).
Psychological and Rhetorical Mechanisms
The thesis is built on a false dilemma: the world is divided into 'strong' and 'weak,' and rights are determined by power rather than international law norms. Propaganda works through repetition, polarization of 'us/them,' and creating the illusion of 'naturalness' of violence. Within the country, this generates a sense of 'no alternative' and moral justification for aggression.
Factual documentation shows the opposite: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International document strikes on civilian objects, mass deportations, and use of prohibited weapons against civilians.
Historical Context and Selective Memory
Indeed, the US and other powers intervened in Latin America, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as confirmed by UN reports and independent investigations. But these actions had consequences: the international community condemned them, imposed sanctions, and conducted legal inquiries.
Russia, however, appeals to the 'right of the strong' to justify its own violations of international norms, ignoring the control and accountability mechanisms established by the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.
Logical and Linguistic Traps
The thesis is deployed through pseudo-scientific tone, selective historical precedents, and emotional substitution of facts. Within the country, this fosters learned helplessness: violence is perceived as 'natural policy,' and international 'double standards' block criticism.
For the international audience—especially in Global South countries—the thesis is framed as anti-Western rhetoric, creating the illusion of 'moral parity,' while in reality violating international law norms (Geneva Conventions, 1949; Additional Protocol I, 1977).
Factual Invalidity
Russia invaded a sovereign state, destroyed cities, and killed thousands of civilians — as documented by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (2023–2025). Any comparison with other powers does not remove responsibility, and the propagandist thesis only attempts to legitimize criminal actions.
Legally, such actions violate:
- UN Charter, Article 2 — prohibition of threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states;
- UNGA Resolution 3314 — classification of acts of aggression;
- Geneva Conventions, 1949 and Additional Protocol I, 1977 — protection of civilians during armed conflict.
Purpose and Social Consequences
The propagandist thesis aims to legitimize war and erode trust in international law. It fosters a cynical belief: 'If the strong do it, then we can too.' In practice, this erases the boundaries between lawful and criminal acts, turning violence into 'the natural order of things' and justifying militarism (Atlantic Council DFRLab).
Conclusion
The thesis 'We do the same as you' is a cynical propagandist mask for aggression. It substitutes facts, manipulates historical examples, and psychologically influences audiences, turning lies into 'norm' and crimes into 'political rights.' Exposing this strategy demonstrates its absurdity, destructive effect, and danger to the international order.
Main Sources and Materials
- UN Charter
- UNGA Resolution 3314 — Definition of Aggression
- OSCE Special Monitoring Mission Reports, 2023–2025
- Amnesty International — Reports on Russian War Crimes
- Human Rights Watch — Reports on Russian War Crimes
- Geneva Conventions (1949)
- Additional Protocol I (1977)
- Atlantic Council DFRLab — Disinformation Monitoring
- International Crisis Group — Conflict Analysis
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