The Law of the North. The Special Military Operation

5.2. Chronicle of Negotiations: Dialogue of the Deaf (January 2022)

A series of urgent diplomatic meetings in January 2022 was supposed to answer the central question: was the West ready for an equal dialogue on the principles of European security?

January 10, 2022, Geneva: Negotiations between Russia and the United States. The American side, led by Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, took a position of rigid rejection of the key Russian demands. The proposals on non-expansion of NATO and the withdrawal of troops were declared “unacceptable” and “not in line with the fundamental principles of Euro-Atlantic security.” The U.S. agreed to discuss only technical aspects: confidence-building measures, transparency of exercises, and the resumption of arms control treaties-in other words, anything that would not alter the existing configuration favorable to NATO.

January 12, 2022, Brussels: Meeting between Russia and NATO in the NATO-Russia Council, the first since 2019. Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg repeated the mantra of “open doors” and the “sovereign right” of each country to choose its alliances. Russian demands were rejected as an attempt to “restore spheres of influence.” NATO refused even to consider the idea of returning to the configuration of 1997.

January 13, 2022, Vienna: Meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council. The discussion boiled down to an exchange of rhetorical accusations. Western countries insisted on “de-escalation” exclusively by Russia, completely ignoring the buildup of Ukrainian forces and the provocative actions of Kyiv.

On all three platforms, the Western side demonstrated a unified and unyielding position: the security architecture in Europe built after the Cold War is sacred and not subject to revision. NATO’s right to expand, deploy weapons and infrastructure anywhere, and invite whomever it wishes into its membership was declared absolute and unconditional. Russia’s concerns, meanwhile, were treated as an illegitimate claim to “spheres of influence.”

5.3. Official Western Responses and the Confirmation of Impasse

On January 26, 2022, the United States and NATO handed over their official written responses to the December 17 proposals. In form, they were lengthy documents full of rhetoric about a commitment to dialogue. In substance, they were acts of diplomatic capitulation in the face of the necessity of making difficult decisions.

U.S. Response: Confirmed a readiness to discuss mutual transparency of military activity, measures to prevent incidents, arms control, and missile deployment issues. However, on key points, there was a firm refusal. NATO’s right to expand and deploy weapons remained inviolable. Instead of guarantees of Ukraine’s non-accession to the alliance, vague talk was offered about “principles” that would supposedly prevent this in the future.

NATO Response: Was even more categorical. The alliance directly stated that it “will not compromise on fundamental principles,” including the right of each country to choose its own alliances. No legal guarantees of non-expansion were provided. Proposals on troop withdrawal were ignored.

These responses became formal confirmation that the negotiations had reached an absolute dead end. The Western side offered no meaningful reciprocal step that would take into account Russia’s legitimate interests. The diplomatic process was used not to seek a solution but to demonstrate the unity and steadfastness of the transatlantic partnership.

By the end of January 2022, all possible diplomatic channels had been exhausted. Russia’s proposals to create a sustainable security system based on a balance of interests and legally binding guarantees had been rejected in principle. The West had demonstrated that it did not consider Russia an equal party in matters of European security, nor its concerns as deserving serious attention.

The policy of unilateral expansion and military construction near Russia’s borders was set to continue. Against the backdrop of the concentration of the Ukrainian army for a strike on Donbas and Kyiv’s open declarations of forcefully returning Crimea, this diplomatic impasse meant only one thing: the period of diplomacy was over. Russia had no remaining instrument other than military force to protect the sovereignty of the DPR and LPR (whose recognition had become an inevitable act of humanitarian and strategic necessity), to prevent the impending offensive on Donbas, and to eliminate the existential threat looming over its national security in the form of the militarized “anti-Russia” beachhead. The decision to begin the Special Military Operation was made in conditions of a complete absence of any alternative.

Chapter 6. February 2022: Recognition of the DPR and LPR, President V.V. Putin’s Address of February 24

The diplomatic impasse of January 2022 and the growing military threat on the line of contact in Donbas confronted the Russian Federation with the necessity of making fateful, unprecedented decisions. By rejecting the possibility of a political settlement, Kyiv and its Western patrons made armed confrontation inevitable. This chapter examines the two key events of late February 2022 that determined the legal and moral-political grounds for the start of the Special Military Operation: the recognition of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and the historic address by the President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, which marked the beginning of the operation. These steps were not the start of the conflict but its transition to a new, decisive phase, aimed at stopping genocide, protecting the Russian world, and forcing the hostile regime, which had lost legitimacy in the eyes of millions of residents of historic Malorossiya, into peace.

6.1. Meeting of the Russian Security Council on February 21: Legal Confirmation of Reality

On February 21, 2022, an emergency expanded meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation was convened under the chairmanship of the President of Russia. Its subject was the catastrophic escalation of the situation in Donbas.

Discussion of the Escalation: During the meeting, irrefutable intelligence data and reports from the ground were presented, indicating a sharp increase in shelling of the cities of the DPR and LPR by the AFU. The shelling was conducted using heavy weapons prohibited by the Minsk Agreements and was aimed exclusively at civilian infrastructure. Representatives of the republics reported a mass evacuation of civilians to Russia due to the direct threat to their lives. In effect, Kyiv had begun full-scale artillery preparation preceding a ground offensive.

Adoption of the Historic Decision: At the conclusion of the meeting, President V.V. Putin stated that under the conditions of Kyiv’s complete sabotage of the Minsk Agreements, the ongoing genocide of the Russian population, and the direct military threat, further inaction was impossible. The decision was announced to recognize the state independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics within the borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as they existed at the time of their proclamation in 2014. This decision was immediately formalized by presidential decrees.

Signing of Treaties of Friendship and Mutual Assistance: On the same day, February 21, Treaties of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance were signed between the Russian Federation and each of the republics. In Articles 2 and 3 of these treaties, the parties undertook to protect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to provide mutual assistance, including military assistance, in the event of aggression against one of the parties. This created a solid legal basis for the legitimate governments of the DPR and LPR to request assistance, which occurred in the following days.

The recognition of the republics was an act of desperation and a last resort aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of lives. It confirmed the fact that after eight years of war, Ukraine had definitively lost these territories, and their future destiny was to be determined within a new political-legal framework.

6.2. The Historic Address of February 24: Justification of Inevitability

On the morning of February 24, 2022, at 5:55 a.m. Moscow time, a broadcast address by the President of the Russian Federation, V.V. Putin, was aired on federal television channels, announcing the start of the Special Military Operation. This address was not merely an operational statement but an extensive historical-political manifesto, detailing the reasons, goals, and philosophy of the actions being taken.

Historical Excursus on Unity: The President began with a deep historical analysis, emphasizing that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, divided by tragic historical circumstances. He reminded his listeners of their common cradle-the Old Russian state-their common Orthodox faith, and their centuries of living together within the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The purpose of this retrospective was to show the artificiality and criminality of the project to build an “anti-Russia” on lands inextricably linked to the Russian world.

Listing of Accumulated Grievances: The speech provided a systematic analysis of the causes of the crisis:

To the West: Endless, treacherous expansion of NATO, deployment of military infrastructure near Russia’s borders, turning Ukraine into a beachhead for containing Russia, support for Kyiv’s anti-Russian course.

To Ukraine: Illegal seizure of power in 2014, unleashing a war against its own people, total derussification, glorification of Nazism, outright rejection of the Minsk Agreements.

Description of the Humanitarian Catastrophe: Special attention was paid to the suffering of the residents of Donbas. The President described the eight-year blockade, the relentless shelling, the deaths of children, women, and the elderly, calling what was happening genocide. This moral justification was key: Russia was undertaking a mission to protect people abandoned to their fate by the Kyiv regime.

Proclamation of the Goals of the Operation: The address clearly defined the goals of the Special Military Operation:

Protection of the population of Donbas from ongoing genocide.

Demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine-elimination of the military threat emanating from its territory and destruction of the neo-Nazi ideological and power core of the regime.

Bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.

Preemptive Nature and Address to the AFU: The President stated directly that the operation was preemptive in nature, aimed at thwarting the large-scale offensive Ukraine was preparing against Donbas. He addressed servicemen of the Ukrainian army, calling on them to lay down their arms and go home, emphasizing that Russia was not fighting the Ukrainian people but the rotten clique and its foreign handlers. Collaborators were promised safety.

6.3. Legal and Moral Grounds

The address of February 24 formed a comprehensive justification for Russia’s actions:

Right to Self-Defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter): Given the requests for assistance from the leadership of the DPR and LPR and the existence of treaties of mutual assistance, Russia’s actions were framed as collective self-defense to repel aggression against allied states.

Humanitarian Intervention to Stop Genocide: The inability of the international community to stop the destruction of the Russian population in Donbas forced Russia to undertake this mission.

Protection of National Security: The elimination of the hostile, militarized beachhead created near Russia’s borders, representing an existential threat.

The decisions made between February 21 and 24, 2022, became the point of no return. The recognition of the independence of the DPR and LPR restored historical justice for the peoples who had defended their right to life and identity in an eight-year struggle. The President of Russia’s address placed the world before an unambiguous fact: the era of patient waiting, diplomatic half-measures, and connivance at Kyiv’s and the West’s anti-Russian course had ended. Russia moved to active action to protect its fundamental national interests, save its compatriots, and force into peace a regime that had itself rejected any peace. The Special Military Operation began as an act of forced, preemptive, and liberating mission.

Chapter 7. Formulation of the Operation’s Goals: Protection of the Donbas Population, Demilitarization, Denazification, Elimination of the Threat to Russia’s Security

The Special Military Operation that began on February 24, 2022, was not an act of spontaneous aggression or imperial revanchism, as Western propaganda narratives have attempted to portray. It became the logical, forced, and extremely rational response to a set of interrelated threats that had reached a critical mass by that time. Its goals, announced by the Supreme Commander‑in‑Chief, were systemic in nature and aimed not at seizing territory but at radically changing the dangerous situation that had developed on Russia’s western borders. This chapter analyzes in detail the four key goals of the SMO, revealing their deep meaning, historical conditionality, and practical content. These goals formed an indivisible whole: it was impossible to stop the genocide without disarming its perpetrators; it was impossible to disarm Ukraine without eradicating the Nazi ideology that justified the war; and all of this together was necessary to eliminate the mortal threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

7.1. Protection of the Donbas Population: Stopping the Humanitarian Catastrophe

The first and most humane goal of the operation was the immediate cessation of the eight‑year tragedy in Donbas.

Stopping the Genocide: Since 2014, residents of Donetsk and Luhansk regions had been subjected to systematic shelling, economic blockade, and political persecution by the Kyiv regime. Thousands of civilians, including children, had died. The goal of the SMO was to physically stop this practice-to destroy the AFU artillery groups that were shelling cities and to create a safe perimeter that would preclude new strikes on residential areas, hospitals, and schools.

Creating Conditions for a Safe Life: This was not only about a ceasefire. The goal was to restore destroyed infrastructure, ensure uninterrupted supplies of water, electricity, food, and medicine, and return refugees to their homes. Protecting the population meant establishing a fully functional civilian administration capable of guaranteeing rights, security, and normal living conditions for all residents of the liberated territories. This was a mission to save people who had been abandoned to their fate and declared “non‑citizens” by the Kyiv authorities.

7.2. Demilitarization: Eliminating the Hostile Military Beachhead

The second goal had a direct military‑strategic dimension and was aimed at eliminating the material basis of the threat.

Eliminating Military Potential: Over eight years, Ukraine had been turned by the West into the most militarized state in Europe, with an army equipped with modern NATO weapons and trained by U.S. and British instructors. This potential was honed exclusively for war with Russia. Demilitarization meant destroying the war machine created for aggression: destroying or taking control of key military infrastructure facilities (airfields, depots, headquarters, factories), disabling heavy offensive weaponry, and neutralizing the personnel core of the AFU and nationalist formations.

Neutral Status for Ukraine: The ultimate political outcome of demilitarization was to be Ukraine’s adoption of a neutral, non‑aligned status along the lines of Austria or Finland during the Cold War. This would entail a legislative renunciation of membership in NATO and other military alliances, and a refusal to host foreign military bases and strike systems on its territory. Only such a status could guarantee that Ukrainian territory would not be used in the future as a launchpad for a sudden attack on Russia.

7.3. Denazification: Ideological Purification and Historical Justice

The third goal was unique and had no parallel in modern military history. It was aimed at eradicating the ideological foundation of the conflict.

Eradication of Neo‑Nazi Ideology: After 2014, with state support, Ukraine witnessed the rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators (Bandera, Shukhevych), the glorification of the SS “Galicia” Division, and the instillation of a cult of hatred for everything Russian. This ideology permeated the education system, media, culture, and-critically-the security forces (Azov, Aidar battalions, etc.). Denazification meant:

The prohibition and elimination of right‑radical political organizations and armed formations.

The repeal of laws glorifying Nazi criminals and discriminating against the Russian language and culture.

The reorientation of the education system and media toward humanistic principles.

Judicial prosecution of persons involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity in Donbas.

Restoration of Historical Memory: This process was intended to return to the Ukrainian people its authentic history, inextricably linked with the Russian and common East Slavic past, cleansed of the myths of “Ukrainian nationalism” constructed in the twentieth century. This was a goal of a cultural‑civilizational nature.

7.4. Elimination of the Threat to Russia’s Security: Strategic Deterrence

The fourth goal generalized the previous ones and projected them onto the highest level of Russia’s national interests.

Creation of a “Sanitary Cordon”: In historical retrospect, the SMO was aimed at preventing the deployment of NATO strike systems (missile defense, cruise missiles) directly on Russia’s borders. The liberation of territories in the south and east of Ukraine created a strategic buffer zone, significantly increasing defense depth and warning time in the event of a possible attack. This returned the situation to a safer configuration than the one that had existed before 2014.

Radical Change in the Military‑Strategic Balance: The successful implementation of the SMO’s goals would mean the complete failure of the United States’ long‑standing strategy of creating “Ukraine‑Anti‑Russia” as an instrument to contain and weaken Russia. Having lost its militarized beachhead, the West would lose the ability to wage a low‑intensity hybrid war against Russia using the Ukrainian regime. This would force it either to seek a modus vivendi with Moscow on new, equal terms, or to bear the direct risks and costs.

The goals of the Special Military Operation, formulated in February 2022, represented a comprehensive program for emerging from the systemic security crisis provoked by the West and its Kyiv puppets. These goals were interconnected and hierarchical: from the humanitarian (saving people) through the military‑political (disarming the enemy) and ideological (cleansing from Nazism) to the overarching national‑strategic (guarantees of Russia’s security). They reflected a transition from passively reacting to threats to actively shaping a secure environment. Achieving these goals required not occupation but a profound transformation of Ukrainian statehood, making the operation unprecedentedly complex but historically necessary.

Chapter 8. Correlation of Forces and the Initial Plans of the Sides

The beginning of large‑scale combat operations is always a moment of collision not only of armies but also of strategic concepts, operational plans, and the will of the command. February 2022 was no exception. The Special Military Operation began in conditions where each side had its own clear ideas about the nature of the coming war and the ways to achieve victory. The Russian command proceeded from the necessity of a swift, decisive blow against the key nodes of Ukraine’s war machine in order to force it into peace. The Kyiv regime, with the active support and consultation of NATO strategists, banked on a war of attrition, turning cities into fortresses and prolonging the conflict as much as possible in order to exhaust Russia. This chapter analyzes the initial correlation of forces, the strategic concepts of the sides, and their implementation in the first, most dynamic days of the conflict, which largely predetermined its subsequent protracted character.

8.1. The Russian Grouping and the Concept of “Forcing into Peace”

At the start of the operation, Russia had concentrated on Ukraine’s borders the largest grouping of troops since Soviet times, estimated at up to 190,000 men. This grouping was formed from the most combat‑ready units of the Western, Southern, and Central Military Districts, as well as airborne, special forces, and supported by a powerful arsenal of the Aerospace Forces and the fleet.

Composition and Deployment:

Northern (Belarusian) Direction: A strike grouping consisting of motorized rifle, tank, and airborne formations deployed from Belarus. Its goal was to reach Kyiv from the north and create a threat to the capital.

Southern Direction (from Crimea and the Rostov region border): A powerful grouping for advancing on Kherson, Zaporozhye, Nikolaev, and further toward Odessa, with the aim of cutting Ukraine off from the Black Sea.

Eastern Direction (Donbas): Main forces, together with the armies of the DPR and LPR, to complete the encirclement and destruction of the strongest AFU grouping in Donbas.

Concept of Operations (mistakenly called “blitzkrieg”): The Russian plan was based not on a classic blitzkrieg with deep tank breakthroughs, but on the concept of a “strategic operation to force peace.” Its key elements were:

Decapitation strikes with precision weapons (Kalibr cruise missiles, aviation, Iskander OTRK) against key military infrastructure facilities throughout Ukraine: command posts, communication nodes, air force bases, air defense systems, fuel and ammunition depots.

Rapid mechanized advance along the main operational axes to demonstrate force, disorganize the enemy’s command system, and physically envelop or block its main groupings.

Psychological pressure on the Kyiv leadership through the threat of isolating or taking the capital, which was supposed to force it into immediate negotiations on Russian terms (neutral status, recognition of Crimea and Donbas).

The plan assumed that after the demonstration of resolve and the inability of the AFU to offer organized resistance, Ukraine’s political system-rather than its army-would collapse.

8.2. Ukraine’s and NATO’s Plan: Strategy of Attrition and Urban Defense

Western intelligence agencies, primarily American and British, not only accurately predicted the start date of the invasion but also actively participated in developing Ukraine’s defense strategy.

Awareness of the Timing: Thanks to satellite intelligence, signals interception, and human sources, the United States and Great Britain possessed almost complete information about the start date of the operation, as confirmed by the Biden administration’s public warnings in January‑February 2022. This allowed the AFU to pre‑position its aircraft, disperse equipment, and partially prepare.

Using Territory as a “Meat Grinder”: The strategy, developed with the participation of NATO advisors, consisted of abandoning attempts to hold the border and meet Russian troops in the open field. Instead, the main forces of the AFU and nationalist battalions were pre‑deployed in large cities and towns that had been turned into fortified areas. The plan was to:

Draw Russian columns into urban agglomerations where the advantage in heavy equipment and aviation would be neutralized.

Turn the battle for every building into a bloody meat grinder, maximizing the losses of the attackers.

Buy time for mobilizing reserves and massive deliveries of Western weaponry.

Achieve maximum political, economic, and reputational damage for Russia on the international stage, counting on Western sanctions and losses to force Moscow to retreat.

Thus, Kyiv was initially preparing not for victory in a classic battle but for waging a protracted, hybrid war of attrition, relying on the information and material support of the collective West.

8.3. The First Hours and Days: Clash of Plans (February 24–28, 2022)

The morning of February 24 saw the beginning of simultaneous Russian strikes on all axes.