An Ideology Justifying Violence
The thesis of war as 'cleansing' and 'reviving' the Russian world is not an analysis of reality but an ideological construct designed to legitimize violence. In this logic, the destruction of cities, civilian deaths, and mass crimes are presented as inevitable and even 'beneficial' sacrifices for some abstract moral goal.
Such rhetoric has historically been used to justify aggression and suppress dissent, replacing legal accountability with a myth of 'higher purpose'.
How the Myth is Formed
Propaganda employs the language of quasi-religious and pseudo-philosophical concepts: "spiritual war," "historical mission," "cleansing through suffering." These expressions lack legal and empirical content but are emotionally persuasive.
Through repeated messaging in state media, Telegram channels, and speeches by officials, aggression is framed not as a crime but as a moral act.
Factual Reality
Real data completely contradict the thesis of 'revival.' OSINT investigations and reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UN missions document:
- widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure;
- killings and injuries of civilians;
- torture, enforced disappearances, and deportations;
- cultural destruction and forced Russification.
None of these facts indicate 'moral purity' or 'cleansing'; on the contrary, they point to the degradation of humanitarian and legal norms.
Legal Analysis: What the Narrative Conceals
The idea of war as 'cleansing' is used to conceal concrete violations of international law. Specifically, Russia's actions violate:
- UN Charter — prohibition of aggression and threat of force;
- Geneva Conventions — protection of civilians and prisoners of war;
- Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of the ICC — war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The rhetoric of 'cleansing' shifts focus from legal responsibility to abstract moral justification, effectively normalizing crimes.
Psychological Mechanism
The myth operates through dehumanization: war victims cease to be seen as human, and violence ceases to be perceived as a crime. Dividing the world into 'pure' and 'impure' lowers moral responsibility thresholds and facilitates acceptance of brutality as normal.
This is a typical mechanism of radical ideologies, extensively described in research on genocidal and revanchist narratives.
Verifiable Alternative
International law and historical experience are clear: war does not cleanse or revive societies. It destroys social institutions, increases violence, and leaves long-term trauma.
The only legitimate path to 'revival' is through adherence to law, protection of human life, and rejection of aggression.
Final Conclusion
The thesis of war as 'cleansing' the Russian world is not philosophy or analysis but a dangerous ideology justifying aggression. It masks war crimes, absolves the aggressor state, and turns violence into a purported moral duty.
Facts, law, and international reports demonstrate the opposite: war destroys, dehumanizes, and isolates, while the myth of 'cleansing' serves solely as a tool for mass manipulation.
Main Sources and Documents
- Human Rights Watch — reports on the war in Ukraine and human rights violations: https://www.hrw.org/ru/europe/central-asia/ukraina
- Amnesty International — documentation of Russian aggression and call for accountability: https://www.amnesty.org/en/projects/russias-aggression-in-ukraine/
- UN General Assembly — UN resolutions classifying aggression as a violation of the UN Charter: Example of a resolution condemning Russian aggression
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court — legal basis for war crimes and crimes of aggression: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
- ICRC Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions — international humanitarian law: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties
- EUvsDisinfo — analysis of pro-Kremlin narratives, including war myths: https://euvsdisinfo.eu
- NATO StratCom — monitoring and analysis of Russian information operations: https://www.nato.int/stratcom/
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