As Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy argues with increasing confidence, responsibility for Russia’s mounting military casualties and the destruction of Russian infrastructure rests not with Kyiv, nor with the West, but with one individual: Vladimir Putin.
That assertion is not merely political rhetoric. It is rooted in the simple chronology of events. Russia crossed Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders in February 2022, launching the largest military invasion Europe had witnessed since the Second World War. Everything that has followed—the enormous loss of life, repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure, international sanctions, and now the increasingly frequent strikes on Russian military and logistical targets—flows from that original decision.
The Kremlin continues to frame the conflict as an existential struggle forced upon Russia by NATO expansion and Western hostility. It is an argument that resonates with some audiences, particularly within Russia itself. Yet it struggles under scrutiny. NATO did not invade Russia. Ukraine did not attack Moscow. The decision to initiate a full-scale war belonged exclusively to the Russian leadership.
.
That distinction matters because it frames every subsequent development. Military campaigns inevitably generate consequences beyond the battlefield. Supply depots become targets. Railways transporting weapons become legitimate military objectives. Fuel storage facilities supporting military operations become vulnerable. Air bases, ammunition factories and command centres all become part of the theatre of war.
Russia is now experiencing precisely these consequences.
Ukraine’s growing ability to strike military infrastructure deep inside Russian territory has altered the strategic balance. Facilities once assumed to be safely beyond the front line are now exposed to drones, missiles and increasingly sophisticated long-range capabilities. The psychological effect inside Russia may ultimately prove as significant as the physical damage.
Critics occasionally portray these developments as reckless escalation. Yet they overlook a fundamental point of military strategy: nations defending themselves have long sought to degrade the logistical systems sustaining an invading army. The principle is hardly new. Throughout history, commanders have recognised that disrupting supply chains often proves more effective than attacking heavily fortified positions directly.
From Kyiv’s perspective military infrastructure supporting Russian operations is a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict, provided attacks comply with the principles of distinction and proportionality. Whether individual strikes meet those legal standards is a matter for careful assessment, but the broader strategic logic is hardly controversial.
Zelenskyy’s broader political message, however, extends beyond battlefield tactics. He is making a case about responsibility.
The Russian public increasingly confronts realities that official propaganda struggles to conceal. Casualty estimates remain fiercely contested, but there is little doubt that Russian losses have reached levels unimaginable before the invasion. Thousands of families have seen sons, fathers and husbands disappear into a conflict initially presented as a swift “special military operation.” Economic pressures, labour shortages and mounting defence expenditure are reshaping Russian society in ways likely to persist long after the guns eventually fall silent.
Infrastructure tells a similar story. Oil depots have burned. Airfields have been damaged. Railway operations have periodically been disrupted. Industrial facilities linked to military production have faced repeated attack. These developments impose real economic costs on a country already adapting to unprecedented sanctions and growing technological isolation.
None of this would have occurred without the decision to invade Ukraine.
That observation should not be mistaken for celebrating Russia’s losses. Quite the opposite. Every destroyed bridge, damaged refinery or military casualty represents another reminder of the extraordinary costs of modern warfare. The objective should never be destruction for its own sake, but rather the restoration of a peace founded on respect for sovereignty and international law.
Yet accountability remains indispensable. Too often, governments seek to distribute blame across a fog of competing narratives, implying that history somehow unfolded without agency. It did not.
Putin possessed alternatives. Diplomatic negotiations remained available throughout 2021. International mediation mechanisms existed. Economic engagement with Europe continued to generate substantial revenues. Russia faced no imminent military invasion threatening its territorial integrity. War was a policy choice, not an unavoidable necessity.
Once that choice was made, reciprocal military action became inevitable. Ukraine could scarcely be expected to absorb attacks indefinitely without seeking ways to reduce Russia’s capacity to wage war. As Western military assistance gradually expanded, Kyiv acquired increasingly sophisticated tools to do precisely that.
The Kremlin now finds itself confronting a paradox of its own making. By initiating a war designed to enhance Russia’s security and geopolitical influence, it has instead brought conflict onto Russian territory, accelerated European rearmament, strengthened NATO cohesion and deepened Moscow’s economic dependence on a narrower circle of international partners.
These outcomes were not imposed upon Russia by external forces. They emerged from strategic miscalculation at the highest level of government.
History offers numerous examples of leaders who assumed military force could rapidly resolve political disputes, only to discover that wars develop their own momentum. Initial confidence frequently gives way to attrition, unexpected technological adaptation and steadily rising domestic costs. Russia’s experience increasingly resembles that familiar pattern.
For Europe, the lesson extends beyond Ukraine. Security depends not merely upon military capability but upon preserving the international principle that borders cannot be altered through force. Accepting otherwise would invite instability far beyond Eastern Europe.
Zelensky therefore advances an argument that deserves careful consideration, not because it is politically convenient, but because it aligns with the sequence of decisions that produced the present conflict. Russia’s military losses, economic disruption and damaged infrastructure are not random misfortunes detached from political responsibility. They are the foreseeable consequences of a war initiated by the Kremlin.
When historians eventually examine this conflict, they will undoubtedly debate tactics, alliances and diplomatic failures. But on one question there is likely to be considerably less ambiguity than today’s competing narratives suggest.
The chain of causation begins with a single decision taken in Moscow. Responsibility for the consequences begins there as well.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
Click here to check out EU TODAY’S SPORTS PAGE!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
