The Kremlin has formulated a new version of the “justification” for Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to Russian leader's advisor Anton Kobyakov, Russian forces allegedly “preempted an attack” by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on Russian territory, getting ahead of a supposed Kyiv-planned assault. This was reported by RBC-Ukraine, citing TASS. The statement came against the backdrop of ongoing strikes and mutual accusations by both sides, as well as recent threats from the Russian embassy in London.
A New “Justification” from the Kremlin
“This has largely been forgotten now, so it is high time to remind everyone: documents found by our military back at the start of the ‘special military operation’ in an abandoned headquarters of one of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' special operations brigades specified a concrete date for the invasion of Russia — March 8, 2022,” Kobyakov stated. According to him, the start of the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, allegedly preceded the planned offensive by Ukrainian military forces on Russian territory by two weeks. Thus, the Kremlin is once again trying to present the aggression as a “preventive” measure.
A “Gift” for March 8
“Symbolically — they wanted to present war to us as a ‘gift’ for the women's holiday. And they got, thanks to the foresight of the Russian leadership, a ‘black mark’ on our, once shared, military holiday,” the advisor added. Moreover, he repeated the propagandist cliché that the West allegedly merely “posed as a supporter of the Minsk agreements” while in fact preparing Ukraine for war. None of the arguments presented is backed by publicly verifiable evidence.
Contradictory Data
The Kremlin's version directly contradicts the position of the other side and publicly available facts. The Russian side insists that documents about a “plan for Ukraine's invasion of Russia on March 8, 2022” were found in the “abandoned headquarters,” and uses this as proof of the “preventive” nature of its actions. At the same time, neither these documents nor their authenticity have been publicly presented or confirmed by independent sources; Ukraine and its Western partners have consistently rejected the narrative of a “planned Ukrainian invasion.” Thus, we are faced with two incompatible versions: the Kremlin's propagandist construction and the absence of any public evidence on which it would be based.
Context: Threats to London and Britain's Response
Kobyakov's statement came against the backdrop of sharp rhetoric surrounding weapons supplies. The day before, the Russian embassy in London threatened Britain with “consequences” following reports of Ukraine's use of British drones to strike targets on Russian territory. In response, London stated that it would continue supplying Kyiv with the weapons and equipment necessary to defend against Russian aggression, and that it does not intend to scale back military support for Ukraine.
Thus, the new “justification” from the Kremlin looks less like an argument and more like an element of an information campaign aimed at shifting responsibility for the war onto Ukraine and the West. For the reader, it is important to distinguish between two levels: the fact that such a statement was made (confirmed), and the content of the statement itself (disputed, evidence-unconfirmed propaganda).
