The arithmetic is the argument. Ukrainian official language counts twelve years of war, not four: Crimea in February 2014, the Donbas that spring, and the full-scale invasion of February 2022 as the opening of what is called here the Great War inside a longer one. Ukrinform's fourth-anniversary piece puts both numbers in the same sentence — four years since the full-scale invasion, in a war that has now spanned twelve. Dating the war to 2022 is not a rounding error. It concedes, before the conversation starts, that the annexation of a peninsula and eight years of directed fighting in the east were something other than a war.
What follows from the longer count is that the war has never been about where the line runs. Read the terms that have actually been tabled. Recognition of the occupied territories, withdrawal from the unoccupied Donbas, a permanent bar on NATO membership and on bilateral security arrangements with anyone, limits on the size of the army — and, in the memorandum put on the table in 2025, official status for Russian, restored privileges for the Russian Orthodox Church, an agreed version of Ukrainian history, and a ban on parties Moscow considers nationalist.
A demand about another country's language, church, history and legal parties is not a security demand. It is a demand about whether that country continues.
That is why the phrase Moscow uses in the talks — that a settlement must address the war's root causes — reads from Kyiv as the plainest thing anybody has said. The root cause named is not a missile range. It is an independent Ukraine, and specialists cited by the state agency have argued the conduct of the war evidences an intent to end Ukraine as a nation, not to take ground from it.
The rest of the record follows. Modern statehood here is argued as a long constitutional line running back to the Central Rada of 1918, not as a leftover of Soviet collapse; the resistance is argued as popular rather than commanded, which is a claim about who owns the war's meaning and therefore about who is entitled to trade it away. The historian Yaroslav Hrytsak, quoted in that same anniversary piece, put the change plainly: "We were a nation — and we remain a nation. The only difference is that before February 24, 2022, somewhere deep down, we still doubted it. Today, that doubt is gone." Territory ceded to end this buys nothing, because territory was never what was being asked for.
The arithmetic is the argument. Ukrainian official language counts twelve years of war, not four: Crimea in February 2014, the Donbas that spring, and the full-scale invasion of February 2022 as the opening of what is called here the Great War inside a longer one. Ukrinform's fourth-anniversary piece puts both numbers in the same sentence — four years since the full-scale invasion, in a war that has now spanned twelve. Dating the war to 2022 is not a rounding error. It concedes, before the conversation starts, that the annexation of a peninsula and eight years of directed fighting in the east were something other than a war, and it makes the invasion look like a rupture rather than an escalation.
The count matters because it decides what a settlement would have to settle. If the war began in 2022, then 2014 is background and the file is a line on a map. If it began in 2014, then the file is a policy that has been running for twelve years and has already survived two attempts to close it — Minsk, and Istanbul — and a third that leaves the policy intact is a pause with a signature on it.
What follows from the longer count is that the war has never been about where the line runs. Read the terms that have actually been tabled. Recognition of the occupied territories, withdrawal from the unoccupied Donbas including the fortified belt in the east, a permanent bar on NATO membership and on bilateral security arrangements with anyone at all, limits on the size and equipment of the army — and, in the memorandum put on the table at the 2025 talks, official status for Russian, restored privileges for the Russian Orthodox Church, an agreed version of Ukrainian history, and a ban on parties Moscow considers nationalist.
A demand about another country's language, church, history and legal parties is not a security demand. It is a demand about whether that country continues.
That is why the phrase Moscow uses in the talks — that a settlement must address the war's root causes — reads from Kyiv as the plainest thing anybody has said. The root cause named is not a missile range and not an alliance's eastern boundary. It is an independent Ukraine. Specialists cited by the state agency have argued that the conduct of the war evidences an intent to end Ukraine as a nation rather than to take ground from it, and the same agency has published the reading of Putin's historical writing not as a mistaken account of the past but as an instrument written for the purpose of justifying what came after it.
None of that requires the flattering version of ourselves. The most interesting Ukrainian writing on the subject is not nationalist at all: Ukrainska Pravda's long essay on how Moscow governed this country by co-opting Ukrainian elites with promises of social mobility is a story about collaboration as much as about coercion, and it is being published here, in wartime, by a mainstream paper. A country that can argue about that in public is not the fabrication the invasion assumed it was.
The rest of the record follows. Modern statehood here is argued as a long constitutional line running back to the Central Rada of 1918, not as a leftover of Soviet collapse; the resistance is argued as popular rather than commanded, which is a claim about who owns the war's meaning and therefore about who is entitled to trade it away. The historian Yaroslav Hrytsak, quoted in that anniversary piece, put the change plainly: "We were a nation — and we remain a nation. The only difference is that before February 24, 2022, somewhere deep down, we still doubted it. Today, that doubt is gone." Territory ceded to end this buys nothing, because territory was never what was being asked for.
Related
America And Iran Fight For Control Of The Strait Of Hormuz
