Opinion: Russia's military operation in Ukraine is ensuring its national security

The first anniversary of the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine provides an opportunity for us to recall the fundamental causes of the crisis, as well as to gain a better understanding of its true nature and wider background, drawing some conclusions based on unpleasant truths uncovered since February 24, 2022. We can be confident now that the decision put into force on this same date one year ago was absolutely right and timely. The current crisis did not arise today but originates in the Maidan coup in 2014, when the radical nationalist forces supported by the West took power in Ukraine and for eight years after that had been preparing for a war which, by our estimates, could have started no later than March 2022. First, they aimed to violently subdue the defiant people of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, who did not accept the russophobic policies of the post-Maidan authorities and were defending their right to speak their native Russian tongue in their homeland. Eventually Kiev planned to bring the war to our country. The preventive military operation launched in February allowed Russia to ensure its national security, protect the people in our historical lands and neutralise the threat from the aggressive neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. President Zelenskyy was so blunt in his aggressive designs that he did not even hesitate to voice a desire for nuclear weapons at the Munich Security Conference of 2022. This left us no choice but to take decisive measures for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as further delay would have endangered the very existence of our country. The brutal fact is that Russia’s militant neighbour has not been acting on its own. Ukraine was, and still is, merely an instrument of a global hybrid war against the Russian Federation and an element of the struggle by the US and its satellites to preserve at all costs the obsolete domination of the global West in a rapidly changing, multipolar world. As has become crystal clear by now, the Euro-Atlantic camp had been preparing for confrontation with Russia for years, building alliances, surrounding our country with military bases, encircling it with a “belt of instability” and intervening in our internal affairs. As for Ukraine, it is an example of an artificially bred “anti-Russia” project and a battering ram, though disposable, to be used against us. While Moscow is persistently reiterating that it is not fighting the Ukrainian people, the handlers of the regime in Kiev are making every effort to instigate and mobilise Ukrainians to fight Russia – literally until the last of them. The scale of the support provided for Mr Zelenskyy for this purpose is remarkable and demonstrates that the West has staked a great deal on its war against Russia waged by Ukrainian hands and at the cost of the well-being of millions of Ukraine’s citizens, who have become hostages of the radicals in Kiev and their western masters. The international community, including the states subdued to be the allies of Washington in this “adventure”, are paying their price, too. Having already spent more than $150 billion to pump up Kiev’s punitive forces with weapons, mercenaries and advisers, the US is demanding from its partners and satellites further material contributions and a stronger political commitment to the war effort. It seems that other global issues and challenges, such as fighting poverty, hunger and climate change, promoting sustainable development, and protecting the environment, have been put on hold. For what reason? For the sake of the geopolitical ambitions of the Euro-Atlantic community that hardly represents a quarter of our planet’s population. Declaring its desire to see Russia “beaten” on the battlefield, the West is striving to isolate our country and cut it off from the global economy. Moscow is being held responsible for a number of global setbacks, such as the food crisis, which in fact was primarily due to the selfish position of the US and its allies and had been in the making long before the start of the special military operation. Moreover, the purposeful anti-Russian steps taken by the West – both before and during the operation in Ukraine – were precisely what brought the world closer to the threshold of uncontrolled nuclear confrontation. It is important that the dominant part of Russian society today stands behind our leadership, understands the compelling reasons of the military action in Ukraine and is confident that we are doing the right thing. Attempts to boycott Russia have also failed. Our responsible approach to addressing the challenges of the Ukrainian crisis and other pressing global and regional issues contributed to the further strengthening of Moscow’s dialogue with non-western partners and fuelled their interest in promoting various formats of mutually beneficial co-operation. Among the best examples are the enlargement of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation and the discussions to bring new members into the Brics group. What should the world expect next? Russia will continue to deal with the emerging challenges carefully and consistently – be they military, political or economic – pushing threats farther away from our borders and, at the same time, building stronger ties with our friends and partners. We will spare no effort to rebuild a peaceful life in the new Russian regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye which have returned home forever. Globally, regardless of the West’s drive to prevent the transformation of the world order towards a more balanced and polycentric architecture, the developments around Ukraine will contribute to the acceleration of this overdue process. On the occasion of the anniversary of the Ukraine war, The National is publishing an op-ed authored by the Ambassador of Russia to the UAE on the ongoing war. The National also published a joint op-ed by the Ambassadors of the EU and Ukraine . In the spirit of reflecting their thoughts accurately, The National has published their articles in full, and the views expressed within them do not represent that of the paper.