By Florian Deltgen

Russia insists that Ukraine is at fault for Russia attacking it, because it aspired to become a NATO member. Putin claims that he had made it clear that Russia would find it unacceptable if Ukraine became a NATO member. But why should a sovereign country not be permitted to join NATO? Ukraine’s desire for closer Western ties, including eventual NATO membership, was long-standing and publicly known. Does this constitute a legal or moral justification for Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea or its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine? I think not.

The Budapest Memorandum

In 1994, Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, agreed to transfer its inherited Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state. In exchange, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

The memorandum’s key commitments included:

• Respect for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders,

• Refraining from the threat or use of force against Ukraine,

• Refraining from economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine’s sovereign rights.

Russia explicitly participated as a guarantor. The 2014 seizure of Crimea and the 2022 invasion are widely viewed by the US, the UK, and most of the international community as violations of those assurances. Russia has argued that the memorandum was not a formal treaty and that the 2014 change of government in Kyiv altered the situation. However, the text of the document does not condition the guarantees on Ukraine remaining outside Western alliances or on particular internal political constellations.

NATO Membership Aspirations

Ukraine’s interest in NATO and EU integration dates back decades, with formal expressions of interest in the 2000s and a constitutional commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration after 2014. NATO is a defensive alliance whose Article 5 collective-defense clause has never been invoked for an offensive war of territorial conquest. NATO has conducted military operations (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya) that Russia and others have criticized as aggressive or illegal, but these were not campaigns of territorial expansion or annexation of neighboring states’ land.

Russia has long opposed Ukrainian NATO membership. Putin and Russian officials have described it as an existential threat and a red line, citing the alliance’s eastward enlargement after the Cold War, the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members,” and the post-2014 intensification of Ukrainian-NATO cooperation. From Russia’s perspective, a NATO-aligned Ukraine would place Western military and potential Article 5 commitments directly on Russia’s border and undermine what Russia sees as its historical sphere of influence. Russia was invaded eight times from the West. Only twice from the East. This makes it psychologically understandable that Russia sees NATO expansion to the East as a strategic threat.

However, these security concerns do not create a veto right under international law over a sovereign state’s foreign policy choices. No treaty prohibits Ukraine from seeking NATO membership, and NATO’s open-door policy is based on the voluntary decisions of applicants and existing members. Also: Several other former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states that joined NATO have not been invaded by Russia.

Dugin, Eurasianism, and Broader Russian Motives

Alexander Dugin, a Russian geopolitical theorist who developed the doctrine of Neo-Eurasianism, has long argued that Russia, as a “Tellurocracy” (land-based power), should lead a multipolar bloc opposing Western influence and the USA as a “Thalassocracy” (water-based power). He further argues that Ukraine is not a fully legitimate separate nation, and that Russia has a “civilizational right” to dominate the post-Soviet space. Some of these themes appear in official Russian rhetoric with emphasis on the “historical unity” of Russians and Ukrainians, opposition to “color revolutions,” (popular uprisings), and promotion of a multipolar world order. While Dugin is not a formal Kremlin strategist with direct decision-making power, his arguments and concepts can be found in Putin’s speeches and geostrategic arguments, which placate Russia as a global land-based power competing with the USA as a global ocean-based power. There are, of course, other more pragmatic Russian motives for occupying Ukraine, mainly:

• Post-Soviet elite nostalgia for great-power status.
• Control over Ukraine’s resources, mainly grain.
• Ukraine occupies only 1% of the world’s land mass but has 6% of its mineral resources!
• Domestic political consolidation inside Russia.
• Concern over democratic or pro-Western political changes on Russia’s borders.
• Energy, transit, and economic leverage.

Russian state media and official statements have also framed the 2022 invasion in terms of “denazification,” protection of Russian speakers, and prevention of NATO expansion rather than as an explicit implementation of Dugin’s imperial doctrine.

Ukraine’s sovereign right to pursue alliances of its choice is standard under the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act principles of sovereign equality and free choice of security arrangements. Russia’s response – annexation, recognition of breakaway entities, and large-scale conventional war – has been rejected as illegal aggression by the large majority of UN member states, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court. Russian security concerns about NATO proximity may be a legitimate topic of diplomacy and arms-control negotiations, but they do not override the prohibition on the use of force to redraw borders or prevent a neighbor’s foreign-policy orientation.

The Budapest Memorandum remains a documented instance in which Russia accepted security assurances in exchange for Ukraine’s denuclearization and later acted contrary to those assurances.

Defenders of the Russian perspective often claim that Zelenzky is a Nazi and that his rule is dictatorial, because he suspended elections. The “Zelensky is a Nazi” claim is a core piece of Russian wartime propaganda that collapses under scrutiny. Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish, his family lost relatives in the Holocaust. He won the 2019 presidential election with roughly 73% of the vote as the candidate of a newly formed centrist party, defeating the incumbent on a platform that was neither ultranationalist nor far right or racist. And no convincing evidence has as yet been presented that he won by election fraud.

Russian officials and state media have repeatedly labeled him and his government “Nazis” or “Neo-Nazis,” tying this rhetoric to the “denazification” justification for the 2022 invasion. This framing actually predates Zelensky and was applied to earlier Ukrainian governments, as well. It relies on selective highlighting of far-right groups, e.g. the Azov group, which has a documented history of neo-Nazi symbolism and personnel, while ignoring that these groups have never controlled the Ukrainian state, that Zelensky has not used their symbolism or endorsed their program, and that Ukraine’s wartime government included a Jewish president and a Jewish defense minister (Reznikov), and its broad political support is not defined by ethnic or ideological extremism of any type.

Elections and Martial Law

Ukraine has been under continuous martial law since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Ukrainian law, including the Constitution and the Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law, explicitly provides that presidential and parliamentary elections be not held while martial law is in effect.

This is a standard provision in many countries’ emergency legislation; it is not an ad-hoc personal decree by Zelensky. Elections were last held on schedule in 2019. The next ones were due in 2024 but have been postponed for the duration of the invasion and martial law. Polling consistently shows that a large majority of Ukrainians support continuing the current wartime leadership until the fighting ends rather than holding elections under bombardment, occupation of territory, and mass displacement of voters.

Comparable practices exist elsewhere. The United Kingdom postponed general elections during World War I and II. Canada postponed elections in WW I. Israel postponed elections in 1949 and 2023. New Zealand postponed elections during WW II. Many other states have suspended or delayed elections under active invasion or martial law. The alternative – holding competitive national elections while large parts of the country are occupied, infrastructure is under attack, and millions of citizens are refugees, active soldiers, or internally displaced – raises practical and fairness problems that most legal systems address by temporary postponement.

Dictatorship and Corruptness Claims

Zelensky’s government has restricted some media, opposition parties (particularly those with pro-Russian ties), and political activity under martial law, as is common in wartime (Lincoln did that during the Civil War, as well). These measures have drawn criticism from domestic opponents and some international observers for overreach or lack of transparency. They do not, however, amount to the abolition of the constitutional order or the conversion of Ukraine into a personal dictatorship in the sense usually meant by the claim. Parliament continues to function, the presidency remains an elected office whose term has been extended by law rather than seized indefinitely, and public opinion data still show substantial support for the wartime leadership’s basic legitimacy.

The “Nazi dictator” framing originates in Russian official messaging designed to delegitimize Ukrainian statehood and justify Russian territorial claims, rather than from the internal evidence of Zelensky’s biography, electoral record, or the legal basis for postponing elections.

Ukraine’s pre-war democracy had well-known flaws (corruption, oligarchic influence, uneven rule of law), and wartime centralization has added new ones, but those facts do not validate the specific Nazi or permanent-dictatorship allegations. Pro-Russian agitators often stress that Zelensky himself is a corrupt politician and that therefore the Russians have a right to intervene in Ukraine. Now, look around! Where are political leaders not corrupt? Russia itself is a major example for corrupt governance. And if corruptness of political leadership constituted a right to invade and occupy a country, everybody could rightfully be invaded by anybody.

So, yes Russia is an aggressor and invader and Ukraine is in its full right to resist and fight back. But all this considered, the war in Ukraine must end asap! Based on various estimates, between 500,000 and 700,000 combined Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have died in that war so far. And the killing continues. The war is now in its fourth year – remember WWII lasted five years. NATO and the EU are supporting Ukraine. That, too, is understandable. Western Europe does not want Russia to become the Eurasian hegemon. But by supporting Ukraine with money and weapons, NATO becomes Russia’s adversary and Russia is a nuclear power. And in a desperate situation Putin or somebody else might be tempted to use nuclear weapons – a disaster for mankind with unpredictable consequences. Geostrategically, it is not in the best interest of either Europe or the USA to push Russia into military and economic collapse. If Russia becomes too weak, China might be tempted to invade Siberia, which it has long claimed as its legitimate property. For the West, that would be trading the Devil for Satan.

On the other hand, is seems unacceptable to sacrifice an entire sovereign nation to Russian anxiety or megalomania. The solution lies somewhere in the middle between total annexation of Ukraine and the total demise of Russia.

A classical situation for a deal. Maybe Trump can make it happen. Because if not Trump, who else?

A resident of Columbia, Dr. Florian Deltgen speaks six languages fluently, and six more languages less fluently. He has published several scientific books and articles in English, Spanish, and German. His hobbies are motorcycle riding, hunting, fishing, boating, and shooting.