A short-term occupation for one and a longer-term one for the other
In Ukraine, the popular uprising of 2013 and 2014 was facilitated by aid provided by the United States (tents, buses, food, entertainment). The coup d’état of February 22, 2014, was carried out by the neo-Nazi group Right Sector, led by Dmitry Yarosh, and by Maidan commander Andriy Parubiy, a great admirer of Adolf Hitler.
The day after the coup, a government composed of several members belonging to the neo-Nazi Freedom party, led by the anti-Semite Oleh Tyahnybok adopted Russophobic laws. The populations of Donetsk and Luhansk reacted by proclaiming their sovereignty. A civil war, started by the neo-Nazi group Azov led by Andriy Biletsky, was launched to neutralize the autonomist aspirations of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. Thousands of Russian-speaking civilians lost their lives due to Ukrainian army bombardments. From 2014 to 2022, Russia provided the region with military and logistical support. It did not recognize the oblasts’ independence, hoping for a solution that would preserve the Ukrainian state. Russia intervened by annexing Crimea for strategic reasons (its naval base in Sevastopol on the Black Sea), following a referendum that overwhelmingly approved the annexation. It then launched a special military operation on February 24, 2022, and occupied four oblasts for seven months. By the end of September, these territories were annexed.
In Palestine, the massive presence of foreign settlers brought into the Palestinian territory amounted to a full-fledged occupation that paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. It began with the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians and the appropriation of large chunks of Palestinian land. This annexation has continued since 1948 and constitutes the first step in the implementation of the expansionist ambitions of the State of Israel.
A legitimate annexation by one and an illegal annexation by the other
Some claim that Russia’s special military intervention in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, was also illegal. However, from a legal standpoint, the Russian presence in Donbas was carried out in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which authorizes a state that is the victim of aggression to request assistance from another state. In the days preceding the invasion, Russia had recognized the sovereignty of the self-proclaimed states of Luhansk and Donetsk and concluded mutual assistance agreements with these two entities. Russia then intervened at the request of these two states, in accordance with Article 51.
The coup, anti-Russian laws, civil war and refusal to implement the Minsk agreements led to the referendum votes in September 2022, which overwhelmingly favored the integration of the four oblasts into Russia. This annexation was formalized by the Duma at the end of September.
The occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights, are illegal and unjustifiable acts. In addition to violating UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, the annexation of Palestinian territories has been declared illegal under international law since the International Court of Justice ruling of July 19, 2024. [12] It constitutes a forced incorporation, imposed on the Palestinian people against its will.
A real danger for one and an imaginary danger for the other
The expansion of NATO, an anti-Russian military organization kept alive despite the end of the Cold War, led to the establishment of military bases encircling Russia. The inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO would have completed this encirclement in the Black Sea. The 2002 US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty on missile defense systems paved the way for the deployment of hybrid systems in Poland and Romania. Would the 2019 US withdrawal from the INF Treaty on intermediate-range nuclear missiles also lead to the deployment of such missiles near Russia, particularly in Ukraine, which had become a de facto member of NATO?
Russia’s proposals in December 2021 to ensure the security of all countries in Europe were rejected by the United States. Biden’s promise not to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles, made at the very end of December 2021, was withdrawn a few weeks later. On February 19, 2022, Zelensky asserted that, without Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO, he would have the right to be exempt from the Budapest Memorandum [13].
Russia risked living constantly with the sword of Damocles hanging over its head, having only minutes to react in the event of an attack. Faced with broken promises, torn-up treaties, and unenforced agreements, the breakdown of trust was complete. Russia was already threatened by the presence of American hybrid systems deployed in Poland and Romania. It could now once again legitimately feel threatened by Washington. The danger was real, even existential. Action had to be taken before it was too late.
Is Israel facing threats of this kind? The dangers it cites could easily be neutralized. It would simply need to comply with international law: renounce its occupation of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon; withdraw settlers; end the blockade of Gaza; and accept the creation of a Palestinian state in accordance with UN and General Assembly resolutions and with the 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice. It should recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of this new state, not obstruct access to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, and consent to the return of refugees on the territory of this new state. Israel claims to be the target of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas, but these are attacks caused by the illegal occupation. Israel claims it has the right to defend itself, but an occupier is not in a position of legitimate self-defense. Under international law, Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against an occupying power. While some Hamas members may have committed war crimes in Israel on October 7, 2023 (this can only be determined by an impartial investigation), these accusations cannot be used to deny Palestinians the right to defend themselves against Israel’s illegal presence on their territory.
The “existential” threat that Israel claims to face is, in essence, the result of its own illegal colonial occupation. It is a threat that Israel itself created and uses as an alibi to pursue the quest for Greater Israel.
The right to self-determination respected by one and trampled underfoot by the other
The Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is violated not only because of the ongoing genocide, but also more generally because of the illegal occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory. The rights of the Palestinian people are clearly being flagrantly violated, and this is acknowledged in the 2025 ruling of the International Court of Justice.
But what about the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people? Did not the 1994 Budapest Memoranda oblige all signatories to respect Ukraine’s independence, as well as its sovereignty and existing borders? Here is the wording:
” The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind “[14]
While Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, recognized the sovereign state of Ukraine in 1994 and accepted the Minsk Agreements, can the other signatories of the memorandum truly be described as having respected its principles? The United States financed Ukraine to the tune of $5 billion, starting in 1991. It orchestrated the uprising, supported the coup and contributed to the appointment of its representatives. It is difficult to be more disrespectful of Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. Ukraine found itself under American tutelage.
What about respect for the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which guarantee the inviolability of borders, respect for territorial integrity and the promise of non-interference? Do they not confirm the existence of the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination? By opposing Ukraine’s integration into NATO to the point of invading the country, is Russia not responsible for an equally flagrant violation of the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination?
First, it is important to note that the Ukrainian people revolted in 2013-2014 because of President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to join the European Union. Estimates suggest that a majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU, but only a minority wanted to join NATO. Nevertheless, the United States, NATO leaders and Ukrainian leaders decided to move forward with the plan to integrate Ukraine into NATO.
Furthermore, in the presidential elections of May 2014 following the coup, the population voted in favor of Petro Poroshenko, his peace program and the restoration of linguistic rights for the Russian-speaking minority. This did not prevent the neo-Nazi group Azov from instigating a civil war, nor did it prevent the ruling minority from convincing the Constitutional Court that the 2012 laws aimed at protecting Russian speakers were unconstitutional. Similarly, in 2019, 73% of the Ukrainian population voted for Volodymyr Zelensky’s peace program and his stated commitment to implementing the Minsk Agreements. Unfortunately, NATO countries had other priorities than peace with Russia and disregarded the Minsk Agreements. Finally, in 2025, the Ukrainian population expressed a desire for renewed negotiations and favored a swift agreement leading to peace.
Respecting the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination required, on each of these occasions, respecting the will of the population. Was there not American and Western interference with Ukraine’s right to self-determination? Despite the repeated expression of the popular will, the United States, NATO and the Bandera minority continue their confrontation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian population was thus held hostage and forced against its will into a merciless war in which it could only end up defeated. It would be difficult to demonstrate more interference in Ukrainian affairs than this. The Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination has indeed been violated, but it is by the Bandera minority and the leaders of NATO.
One is on the defensive and the other is on the offensive
Perhaps the most significant difference is this: Israel’s expansionist aims are explicit. The creation of Greater Israel is envisioned. Netanyahu openly brandished a map at the United Nations depicting a state of Israel without a Palestinian state. The West Bank was instead referred to as Judea and Samaria. Israel seized northern Gaza and applied the same strategy to the West Bank, to southern Lebanon, and to Syria. The leaders claimed to be fulfilling a biblical project. Israel is on the offensive.
Can it be claimed that Russia has similar ambitions? The annexation of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts would not have occurred if Ukraine, sponsored by France and Germany, had not abandoned the Minsk agreements and if NATO envoy Boris Johnson had not intervened as an envoy for the United States to halt the progress made in the 2022 Istanbul talks between Russia and Ukraine. Recognition of the autonomy of Luhansk and Donetsk would have been enshrined and been a solution similar to the one adopted in 2008 for South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the conflict with Georgia.
It was in Russia’s interest to keep these two oblasts within Ukraine, as the Russian speakers living there could partially influence the policies adopted by Kiev. This is why we must take at face value the Russian position at the time, which favored the Minsk agreements, including the creation of autonomous governments, rather than the recognition of their sovereignty.
Moreover, there would not have been any autonomist reactions from these two oblasts if the government in power had not, as early as February 23, 2014, repealed the 2012 law protecting the linguistic rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens.
Finally, there would not have been an annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 if the neo-Nazi minority (Right Sector, the Svoboda Party) financed, supported and guided by the United States had not instrumentalized the legitimate demonstrations of Ukrainian citizens and carried out a coup. Crimea had already voted in favor of annexation to Russia in 1991, and Russia had refused to acknowledge this vote. On the contrary, it had recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty as early as 1994. It was therefore only in reaction to the coup d’état of February 2014 that Russia finally decided, with the agreement of the population of this oblast, to annex Crimea.
These facts undermine the interpretation that Russia is also on the offensive. It is rather on the defensive.
Ukraine, Israel: two types of relations for the same imperialism
One final asymmetry can be highlighted. The United States supports Ukraine, more specifically the 2014 regime in Kiev. This support is not due to a desire to help the Ukrainian people, but rather to the policy of using them to weaken Russia, even if it means killing every last Ukrainian. This intention can be documented (see Rand Corporation, “Expanding Russia” 2019) [15]. So much the worse for the Ukrainian nation, which is being made a sacrificial victim. The US’s “ally” is, in reality, a people it is exploiting for imperialist purposes.
American support for Israel stems from a desire to dominate the Middle East and subjugate Iran (see Brookings Institution, “Which Way to Persia?” 2009 [16], and in particular the section entitled “Leave it to Bibi”). The objective is always imperialist, but here the country the US supports is not a victim. It is itself an oppressor, a partaker in imperialism and its bridgehead in the region. If Ukraine is manipulated and led to its downfall, Israel is a zealous accomplice ready to take the lead.
[12] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-jud-01-00-en.pdf
[13] https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference/
[14] https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_1994_1399.pdf
[15] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
[16] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/which-path-to-persia-options-for-a-new-american-strategy-toward-iran/
