Putin’s Victory Day speech: An exercise in false justifications for war
Putin stuck to familiar talking points, though references to “de-nazification” and “special military operations” notably absent
By Roman Osadchuk and Givi Gigitashvili
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s May 9, 2022 Victory Day speech, commemorating the end of World War II, relied on many of the same narratives he made before the February 24 invasion of Ukraine. He presented Russian-speaking Ukrainians as Russians needing his protection from Ukrainian “genocide,” and alleged that Ukraine had been attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. He also blamed NATO for provoking the conflict, and that invading Ukraine was a “pre-emptive strike.” And he described Crimea as “belonging” to Russia, and engaged in historical revisionism about World War II.
There were several notable changes in his rhetoric, though. Putin did not mention the term “special military operation,” which he had previously used to avoid framing the invasion as a war, and he avoided using the word “de-nazification,” which Putin had initially declared as a key objective of the invasion, as part of a broader Kremlin narrative that Ukraine was controlled by Nazis. In addition, Putin mentioned Russia’s losses in the war without specifying the exact number of casualties. And despite much of the speech serving as a justification of his war against Ukraine, he did not mention Ukraine by name throughout the entire speech.
The DFRLab reviewed Putin’s Victory Day speech in Russian to analyze the evolution of narratives used by the Kremlin to justify the war.
Defending “our people” in Donbas
During the speech, Putin told Russian troops that they were fighting for “our people in Donbas,” the region comprising eastern Ukraine and bordering Russia. While the Donbas is home to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians, Putin regards them as Russians needing to be liberated and protected against Ukrainian “genocide.” Putin then held a minute of silence for civilians who “were killed in atrocious and barbaric shelling.” The narrative that Russia is defending Donbas from Ukrainian aggression is one of the primary narratives used to justify the invasion, alongside other evolving versions of the claim. However, the narrative is misleading, as it was Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 that first escalated violence in Donbas.
Further, Putin implied the invasion was justified because “another punitive operation in Donbas, an invasion of our historic lands, including Crimea, was openly in the making.” The DFRLab has previously debunked the narrative that Ukraine was planning an imminent invasion of Donbas. Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, has also denied these allegations and insisted that Ukraine is searching for diplomatic solutions.
In recent months, the Kremlin has repeatedly referred to heavy casualties in Donbas and promoted the slogan, “Where have you been for eight years?” The “defending Donbas” narrative relies on the false notion that Donbas was facing a Ukrainian invasion and Ukraine is committing genocide against the civilian population. Both claims have been widely debunked. The notion that Russia is in Ukraine to protect civilians is contradicted by examples of Russian atrocities in Bucha, occupied Kherson, and other parts of Ukraine.
Putin also used the term “historic lands” to refer to Crimea, a phrase intended to suggest that Crimea “belongs” to Russia. While Crimea was a part of the Russian Empire from 1783 until the early 20th century, it has been Ukrainian territory since 1954.
Kyiv could “attain nuclear weapons”
Putin also claimed that Russia was under threat because “Kyiv declared that it could attain nuclear weapons.” This narrative is likely linked to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s February 19 Munich Security Conference speech, in which he said that Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal for security guarantees, but now it had neither. “We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security,” Zelenskyy said. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is the formal agreement that saw Ukraine give up its nuclear arsenal, the world’s third-largest at the time, in exchange for security guarantees. During the Munich conference, Zelenskyy initiated consultations with Budapest Memorandum guarantors. Ukraine “will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working, and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt,” he noted.
One year ago, Andriy Melnyk, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, said that Ukraine had no choice but to join NATO or “to arm by ourselves, and maybe think about nuclear status again. How else can we guarantee our defense?” However, Western experts have cast doubt on Ukraine’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear arsenal.
Moreover, the Ukrainian government has not publicly expressed intentions to pursue nuclear weapons. Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has repeatedly refuted claims that Ukraine is seeking nuclear weapons. Despite this, pro-Kremlin media continue to use unsubstantiated claims to suggest that Ukraine is preparing a “dirty nuclear bomb,” a convoluted reference to both nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction that use conventional explosives to distribute radioactive material.
NATO provoked Russia
Putin mentioned NATO in his speech multiple times, suggesting the organization provoked Russia into escalating the conflict with Ukraine. First, he noted that last December, Russia proposed “a treaty on security guarantees,” which included assurances that Ukraine would never join NATO. While NATO rejected the proposal, it did urge a diplomatic path forward. In his speech, Putin said Russia’s proposal was “all in vain. NATO countries did not want to heed us, which means they had totally different plans. And we saw it.” This claim is misleading as US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and French President Emmanuel Macron personally met or spoke over the phone with Vladimir Putin to prevent the war and negotiate a solution. Ultimately, Russia ignored NATO’s diplomatic efforts and pursued war with Ukraine.
Putin accused NATO of launching “an active military build-up on the territories adjacent to us.” Before Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, no NATO troops were stationed in the region. In 2014, NATO sent 5,000 non-permanent troops to the alliance’s eastern border. NATO said its 5,000 soldiers “do not pose a threat to Russia’s 1,000,000 strong army.” Moreover, the presence of NATO’s 5,000 troops was minimal compared to the nearly 190,000 Russian troops deployed along Ukraine’s borders prior the war. In response to the Russian invasion, NATO has expanded its presence to around 40,000 troops on its eastern border.
Putin also stated, “We saw the military infrastructure being built up, hundreds of foreign advisors starting work, and regular supplies of cutting-edge weaponry being delivered from NATO countries. The threat grew every day.” This narrative is misleading, as NATO was prompted by the threat of Russian aggression to escalate its presence in the area. NATO has accused Russia of “destabilizing and aggressive activities in eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea region.” Due to these activities, NATO “reinforced its support for capability development and capacity-building in Ukraine,” including helping Ukraine improve its defense and security sectors so Ukraine could better defend itself.
After the 2014 annexation of Crimea, much of the backing Ukraine received from the US and European countries focused on non-lethal support, with a limited supply of lethal ammunition. Only after the threat of Russia launching a war against Ukraine became clear did NATO increase military support. The US and UK did supply a limited number of anti-tank missiles before the invasion, but Western weapons deliveries increased dramatically after Russia invaded Ukraine.
The invasion of Ukraine was a ‘pre-emptive strike’
During the Victory Day speech, Putin asserted that “an absolutely unacceptable threat to us was steadily being created right on our borders… Russia launched a pre-emptive strike at the aggression.” This claim is not supported by evidence, yet the Kremlin frequently uses statements about NATO and Ukraine threatening Russia to justify the country’s expansionist foreign policy. Prior to the Russian invasion, NATO leaders repeatedly underlined that NATO is a defensive alliance and does not pose any threat to Russia. Moreover, the alliance supported increased dialogue with Russia. And as noted earlier, Ukrainian leaders had also clarified that Ukraine had no plans to launch an offensive operation in Donbas before the invasion. In view of this, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been assessed as an unprovoked and unjustified war by the US, the European Union, and other Western governments.
Further, the US assessed that the initial objective of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was to overthrow the Ukrainian government, which at the time Putin routinely referred to as “de-nazification.” After the invasion began, Putin urged the Ukrainian military to stage a coup to topple its government, while simultaneously sending in Russian forces to decapitate the Zelenskyy administration. Failing to achieve these goals, Russia has pivoted to a new phase of the war, concentrating on capturing eastern regions of Ukraine in order to create a land corridor from annexed Crimea to the Russian border.
War with Ukraine was “unavoidable”
Putin also stated, “there was every indication that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites — backed by the US and its junior partners — was unavoidable.” The Kremlin uses the term Banderites to describe Ukrainian nationalists, in reference to the World War II era far-right Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera. Putin has frequently pushed claims about neo-Nazis dominating Ukraine. On the day Russia launched its invasion, Putin gave a speech that falsely claimed neo-Nazis had seized power in the country. During Ukraine’s parliamentary election in 2019, far-right candidates received just two percent of the votes and failed to enter Ukrainian parliament. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s ruling Servants of People party, which won an outright majority during the elections, is led Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish and lost family members in the Holocaust. In the Victory Day speech, Putin did not mention “de-nazification,” but he said Ukrainian neo-Nazis barbarically “shelled women and children in Donbas” in 2014. Russian authorities have repeatedly failed to present any evidence to support claims about people in Donbas being targeted and killed by Ukrainian authorities or armed forces.
The West is “falsifying” World War II history
Lastly, Putin accused the West of “cynical falsifications of World War II history” but did not specify what the West was trying to falsify. Yet it was Putin who made several statements distorting facts about WWII and other historical events. Russia has weaponized history to wage hybrid warfare against Ukraine, relying on a selective interpretation of historical facts. For instance, Putin has accused Poland of starting WWII and alleged that the Soviet occupation of Poland helped save lives. In July 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” which contained numerous false statements about the history of Ukraine. By accusing the West of falsifying World War II history, Putin may be trying to divert attention from his own historical revisionism.
Roman Osadchuk is a Research Associate at the DFRLab.
Givi Gigitashvili is a Research Associate at the DFRLab.
Cite this case study:
Roman Osadchuk and Givi Gigitashvili, “Putin’s Victory Day speech: An exercise in false justifications for war,” Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), May 12, 2022, https://medium.com/dfrlab/putins-victory-day-speech-an-exercise-in-false-justifications-for-war-823e16ed78d7.
