What the Ukraine war is and isn’t: A narrative reassessment

Home > Opinion > Columns

What the Ukraine war is and isn’t: A narrative reassessment

Published: 25 Mar. 2025, 00:01 Updated: 26 Mar. 2025, 17:36

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Jae-seung

The author is a professor international studies at Korea University and head of the Ilmin International Relations Institute.

As the war in Ukraine moves toward a potential endgame, its dynamics have shifted markedly from the previous three years. What is proving just as fierce as the battles on the ground is the war of narratives. Russia’s attempts to justify its invasion have clashed with the international legal norms and values championed by the West. That balance has begun to falter with the return of the Trump administration.

The narrative that “truth is hidden and mainstream media cannot be trusted” is a classic form of wartime skepticism — and is increasingly gaining traction in domestic discourse. This trend, largely driven by YouTube and alternative media outlets, uses Russian statistics, battlefield accounts, and selectively edited footage to assert the existence of a hidden truth.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during a briefing in Kyiv on March 15. [AP/YONHAP]

But when such narratives take shape without critical scrutiny of what is factual and what is distorted, they can skew political direction and diplomatic strategy. What we need now is a clear-eyed analysis of the structural nature of this war — and the conflicts of narrative that surround it.

The following are claims that fringe commentators have made, followed by the facts.

Is NATO expansion the cause of the war?
— Focus on Russian Expansionism Instead

One of Russia’s main justifications for the invasion is the argument that NATO’s eastward expansion posed a grave threat to its security, leaving military action as an unavoidable response. However, NATO is a defensive alliance based on voluntary membership and unanimous consent among its members. While Ukraine was promised eventual NATO membership at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, progress stalled due to opposition from France and Germany, who feared antagonizing Russia.

In essence, NATO did not “pull” Ukraine in — Ukraine sought NATO membership in response to growing threats from Russia. That was a sovereign decision. More importantly, Russia’s invasion reflects an active strategy to reassert its sphere of influence. Its 2008 invasion of Georgia and 2014 annexation of Crimea were pre-emptive actions against non-NATO states. These incidents demonstrate that Russia has long pursued an expansionist agenda aimed at reclaiming dominance of former Soviet territories. The 2022 invasion is a violation of international law — framing it as the West’s fault reverses the roles of aggressor and victim.

Is this a U.S.-Russia proxy war in which Ukraine is being used?
— The war is the result of a choice by the Ukrainian people

This narrative casts Ukraine as a passive pawn caught between great powers, ignoring the agency and sacrifices of the Ukrainian people. A generation born after the country’s 1991 independence has embraced European integration and democratic values. The Euromaidan Revolution of 2013–14 was a defining moment of this shift.

Russia’s invasion is a reactionary attempt to block this transformation. Despite diplomatic isolation and military disadvantage, Ukrainians have chosen to fight a “nearly unwinnable war” to defend their sovereignty and future — a decision born of existential resistance.

Are the two countries one people, and is this a war to overcome division?
— Ukraine aspires to be a fully independent nation

In a 2021 essay, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia and Ukraine were “one people,” and that their separation was an artificial result of external manipulation. But this reflects a typical distortion of historical continuity into present political subjugation.

Ukraine’s history includes periods under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire — fostering diverse political cultures and identities. Soviet-era policies, including forced relocations and the 1932–33 manufactured famine (Holodomor), caused millions of deaths and left deep anti-Russian sentiment. Ukraine’s modern push for independence has only grown stronger. Ethnic or linguistic ties do not justify military aggression or political interference.

Soldiers of Ukraine's 5th brigade hold a poster thanking the U.S. for support at the front line near Toretsk, Donetsk region, Ukraine, on March 11. [AP/YONHAP]

Did Western misjudgment and failed early negotiations cause needless bloodshed?
— Russia’s conditions were effectively demands for surrender

At the onset of the war, Russia proposed negotiations contingent on Ukraine’s demilitarization, abandonment of NATO ambitions, and protection for Russian speakers. Though framed as peace terms, these demands would have fundamentally compromised Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.

The April 2022 Istanbul talks are often cited as a “missed opportunity.” However, even as negotiations were underway, Russian forces continued military operations near Kyiv, and atrocities in Bucha shattered any remaining trust. The security guarantees Russia offered lacked credibility and posed existential threats to Ukraine’s political system. The talks amounted to little more than a temporary patch — not a viable basis for lasting peace.

Is Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator?
— Wartime governance should not be equated with dictatorship

Critics point to the cancellation of the 2024 election and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's declining approval ratings as evidence of authoritarianism. Yet under Ukraine’s constitution, elections cannot take place during martial law — a status approved by the parliament. Elections are also impossible in occupied territories, and national security threats remain serious.

This photograph shows residential buildings heavily damaged by air attacks, in Kostyantynivka, eastern Donetsk region, on March 17, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. [AFP/YONHAP]

U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that Zelensky’s approval rating has fallen to 4 percent is unsubstantiated. Excluding surveys limited to refugees, most polls show his support dipping to around 50 percent before rebounding due to a domestic rally effect following his meeting with Trump. It's worth noting that Zelensky and Trump have a troubled history: The infamous 2019 phone call about the Hunter Biden scandal led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.