Essence of the Claim and Its Purpose
Russian propagandists repeatedly push the narrative: "The US destroyed Iraq, NATO caused chaos in Libya — therefore, Russia acts legitimately." The logical flaw is clear: the comparison is based not on facts or international law but on emotional substitution, attempting to whitewash Russian aggression through the illusion of 'moral equivalence.' The aggressor is portrayed as a 'victim of a hypocritical world,' while international norms are ignored.
Methods of Narrative Promotion
Promotion relies on media, Telegram channels, diplomatic rhetoric, and pseudo-analytical materials. Russia positions itself as a 'defender of justice' against the 'neocolonial West.' Emotional formulations ('fighting injustice,' 'against a hypocritical West') enhance credibility while ignoring facts and legal context. Historical grievances of the Global South increase audience susceptibility.
Fact-Checking
The 2003 invasion of Iraq lacked a legal UN Security Council mandate: Resolution 1441 provided inspections and possibilities for further decisions but did not authorize a unilateral military operation. Subsequent allegations regarding chemical weapons were false (UN report).
NATO's intervention in Libya (2011) was sanctioned by UNSC Resolution 1973 to protect civilians. The absence of a long-term stabilization plan led to civil war, terrorist group proliferation, and a humanitarian crisis (UNDP, HRW).
These examples do not create a 'right to aggression.' International law prohibits the forcible alteration of borders and occupation of foreign territory, as confirmed by UN resolutions on Ukraine (A/RES/68/262) and the UN Charter.
Logical and Emotional Traps in Russian Propaganda
Russian propaganda employs openly manipulative tactics aimed at confusing audiences and justifying aggression:
- Substitution of concepts and legal deception: The slogan "if the West violated, Russia has the right" is a brazen misrepresentation. Violations of international law by other states do not create rights for new aggressors. Any attempt to justify invasion with this 'argument' directly ignores UN Charter norms and sovereignty principles.
- False dilemmas and psychological pressure: "Either us or the West" creates the illusion of choosing between extremes, completely excluding peaceful and diplomatic solutions. This suppresses critical thinking and legitimizes violence through fear of a 'hostile West.'
- Emotional substitution of logic and demonization of opponents: Appeals to "fighting the hypocritical West" and "historical injustice" replace fact-based and legal analysis. The aim is to elicit an emotional response rather than provide objective information.
The context and facts of international law are ignored:
- Iraq (2003): the intervention without a renewed UNSC mandate remained legally questionable; chemical weapons claims were unverified; consequences included state collapse, thousands of casualties, and a humanitarian crisis.
- Libya (2011): UNSC Resolution 1973 legitimized only civilian protection, not territorial expansion. Violating this mandate had catastrophic regional stability consequences.
- Russia against Ukraine: The invasion occurred without Security Council approval, violating the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. There was no threat to Russia's security or humanitarian crisis requiring intervention. This is a direct and blatant violation of international law, and attempts to portray it as a 'legitimate response' are false and legally manipulative.
The propaganda narrative is not merely erroneous — it is a targeted information attack that substitutes moral standards, legal norms, and common sense to justify crimes against a sovereign state.
Purpose and Consequences of the Narrative
The main goal of this narrative is to legitimize illegal aggression, create the illusion of 'just symmetry,' and weaken international support for Ukraine. Within Russia, it is used to justify military losses, the conflict's duration, and repressive measures. Outside Russia, the narrative undermines allies’ trust, slows aid deliveries, and weakens the international community's readiness to support Ukraine decisively.
Psychological effect: the audience is convinced of a 'moral equivalence' that does not exist. The narrative creates a false sense of legitimacy for aggression and disorients the global community, making it a dangerous tool of information warfare.
Legal Analysis
- UN Charter, Art. 2(4) — prohibits threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state: UN Charter
- Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War — prohibits aggression and occupation without legal basis: Hague Conventions
- UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 confirms Ukraine's sovereignty and non-recognition of Crimea annexation: UN Resolution
- Promoting the thesis of 'moral equivalence' violates international norms, propagates false legitimation of violence, and justifies illegal aggression.
Conclusion
The thesis of 'the right of the strong' is a manipulation based on moral equivalence and emotional substitution. Its dissemination via media and diplomatic channels aims to justify aggression, undermine international support for Ukraine, and weaken global stability. UN, HRW, UNDP, and OSCE assessments confirm that Russia's actions violate international law, and any appeal to Iraq or Libya as 'precedent' is false.
Main Sources and Materials
- UN Resolutions on Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine: UN Digital Library
- Reports by UNDP, HRW, Amnesty International
- Analyses by International Crisis Group, SIPRI
- Monitoring by EUvsDisinfo: EUvsDisinfo
- Atlantic Council DFRLab: DFRLab
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