Donald Trump's decision to give weapons to Ukraine is fueling the war, which Russia is obliged to win in order to achieve its defensive objectives, claims pro-Kremlin propaganda.
NEWS: Trump must stop his childish behavior worthy of the "UN Kids' Club." Although he claims to be concerned about the number of Ukrainian and Russian casualties, he is actually contributing to the escalation of the conflict, said American journalist William Scott Ritter Jr., a former Marine, intelligence officer, and UN weapons inspector, in an interview with Ukraina.ru. […]
The Russians have no intention of complying with the demands of the United States. The confrontation with Ukraine is a matter of life and death for Russia, especially considering that it did not provoke this conflict. The war was imposed on Russia by the collective West and the US. Therefore, US demands that Russia give up victory in this confrontation are absurd [.…]
The US administration is only fueling Ukrainians’ illusions, completely ignoring Russia's demands, as if this were an effective strategy to make it change its position on ending the conflict. I do not believe that the Russians will give in – they have clearly stated their conditions and what they expect from Ukraine. Russia is determined to achieve its goals, and these demands will remain unchanged, regardless of the number of weapons delivered to Ukraine.
NARRATIVES: 1. The US is irresponsibly fueling a conflict against Russia. 2. Russia is a victim of the West and has no choice but to win. 3. Support for Ukraine is useless—Russia will win anyway.
PURPOSE: To discredit the Western support for Ukraine; to portray Russia as a victim of war; to justify Russia’s aggression and refusal to negotiate constructively; to prepare the public opinion to accept Russia’s terms of surrender.
Reality: Russia is the aggressor, not the victim
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The armed conflict in Ukraine was not "imposed on Russia by the West," it was initiated by the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, which continued the large-scale Russian attack of 2014, followed by the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass, fueled and supported by Moscow with people and equipment, but not officially acknowledged. Russia flagrantly violated the fundamental principles of international law by attacking a sovereign state. The invasion was prepared months in advance, and the objective was the rapid occupation of Kyiv and the removal of the legitimate Ukrainian government. The West (the US, France, Germany) repeatedly tried to convince Putin not to attack Ukraine.
The narrative about the collective West forcing Russia to defeat Ukraine ignores the fact that NATO and the EU have not taken any military action against Russian territory. NATO's expansion was achieved through the voluntary request of states wishing to join the alliance, not through force or coercion. Russia has never been militarily threatened by the West.
Russia’s conditions do not constitute a basis for real negotiations
Russia's demands for ending the conflict include the recognition of illegal annexations, the demilitarization of Ukraine, a forced change of government in Kyiv, and giving up any Euro-Atlantic aspirations. These conditions are not a negotiation, but a total surrender that would turn Ukraine into a vassal state of Moscow. According to the principles of international law, no country can be forced to cede its sovereign territory under the threat of military force.
Russia has never demonstrated good faith in the negotiation process. The 2014-2015 Minsk agreements have been systematically violated by Russia, which has continued to support separatists and strengthen its military presence in the occupied territories. Even during the Istanbul negotiations of March-April 2022, Russia continued its bombardment of Ukrainian civilians and refused to accept international guarantees for Ukraine's security.
Western support is justified and necessary
The military support for Ukraine provided by the West has proven extremely effective. Air defense systems have significantly reduced the impact of Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, and precision weapons have enabled Ukraine to regain occupied territories in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. Western aid has been decisive in preventing the rapid collapse of Ukrainian defenses and stabilizing the front.
Support for Ukraine does not mean "fueling a conflict," but rather providing legitimate assistance to a country that has been illegally attacked. The UN Charter explicitly recognizes the right to individual and collective self-defense, and supplying weapons to an aggressed country is perfectly legal under international law. The argument that Western support "prolongs suffering" ignores the fact that capitulation to the aggressor does not guarantee an end to violence, but only consolidates the dominance of the strongest player in the regional geopolitical space.
CONTEXT: Donald Trump stated in mid-July that "the US will not abandon Ukraine" and reaffirmed its political, economic, and military support for Kyiv. In a public statement, Trump said that America would not tolerate aggression. He announced the deployment of 17 Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine, stating that they would soon arrive on the battlefield, following an agreement discussed with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Trump specified that this was a complete set of batteries and missiles, and that several partner countries would contribute by redistributing their own equipment. At the same time, the US administration is also considering the possibility of supplying JASSM cruise missiles, launched from F-16 aircraft, in order to strengthen Ukraine's defense capabilities. Trump issued a 50-day ultimatum to Russia to conclude a peace agreement with Ukraine, warning that otherwise Moscow would be subject to "very severe" economic tariffs.
The article is based on statements by Scott Ritter, a controversial figure who has become an active promoter of pro-Kremlin narratives. Ritter, convicted of sex crimes against minors and known for his radical anti-American views, is frequently used by Russian propaganda as an "American expert" to lend credibility to Moscow's messages. The Kremlin-funded platform Ukraina.ru presents him as an unbiased military analyst, omitting his problematic history and his transformation into a pro-Russian propagandist. His statements are quoted almost exclusively by Russian propaganda platforms. Moscow frequently uses the "Western expert" technique to validate its narratives, selecting marginal or controversial figures who present pro-Russian positions as representative of Western expert opinion.
Check sources:
