27 June 2025 speech by Vladimir Putin is a perfect example of the most prevalent fallacies and manipulations in the "Russian security concerns" narrative gathered in one place, so let's dissect it piece by piece. Please note that Putin routinely says very different things depending on whether he's talking to Russian or Western audience, and this speech is directed to Russian audience, so it's constructed accordingly, mostly using the "mirror image" trick (accuse your enemy exactly of what you're actually doing).

First, Putin accuses NATO and European Union of "military frenzy", saying it's "all based on one thesis, which is Russia's aggressiveness". And then his whole speech is about proving that it's not Russia who is "aggressive", which involves an endless chain of fallacies and outright lies.

Putin admits that yes, in 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine. And he sets the cut-off date exactly at 2022, as if nothing happened before. Invasion of Georgia in 2008? Annexation of Crimea? Russian forces covertly operating in Donbas? Downing of MH17? Czech ammunition depot in Vrbětice blown up by GRU? Putin ridiculing "absurd idea of invasion on Ukraine" weeks before the invasion? Nothing of that happened. In Putin's narrative, Russia was calm and patient, and then snapped.

Then he moves to another myth that Russia was "screwed simply about the non-expansion of NATO to the east (...) Not a single inch to the East." Except **there was no treaty or any agreement signed between NATO and Russia that would make such promise. The whole "not a single inch to the East" story is based on off-the-record discussions between US and Russian diplomats from early 1990's taken out-of-context and not binding for any side. Because if they were binding, then let's remember that in the same chat Russia's president actually had declared intentions of non-intervention in former Eastern Bloc countries. Which Russia of course did, in all forms, through all 1990's and 2000's. But most importantly, Russia did sign a number of binding agreements - including Budapest Memorandum, in which it assured Ukraine's security in exchange for return of nuclear weapons, and subsequently dozens of bilateral treaties with Ukraine, where it guaranteed its borders. And Russia had broken all these binding agreements after 2014.

Putin then makes a series of remarks that are generally true, except, in a favourite Russian style, he considers them exclusively applicable to Russia, nobody else. He says "security of one country or group of countries cannot be secured at the expense of the security of another", meaning that Russia's neighbours can't join NATO because it violates Russia's security. Of course, in Putin's world this does not work the other way around, so Eastern European neighbours of Russia don't enjoy the same protection. Most notably, according to Putin Russia actually can assure its security at the expense of other countries, including invading them, as it did in Georgia or Ukraine, while they cannot assure it even by joining defensive alliances. As a matter of fact, they cannot even build up their defensive capabilities on their own - things that Russia contested as "hostile and aggressive" included Polish air defense "Patriot" batteries and Ukraine's static fortifications on the border with Russia.

He also says "it is our right to determine our security and the level of threats that may be approaching us from one side or the other", which, in Putin's world, also applies asymmetrically. That is, Russia has the right to "determine its security", but nobody else does. This, of course, is not something that is actually enshrined in international law as UN Charter gives all countries equal level of sovereignty in this aspect.

And here lies the secret to "one [NATO] expansion after another" that Putin complains about - Eastern European countries were not forced into NATO, they applied to join NATO specifically in response to Russia's aggressive posture throughout the whole 1990's - Russia's extremely violent invasion on Chechnya (100'000 civilians killed), annexation of parts of its neighbours (Moldova, Georgia), violent 1991 KGB coup in Russia, all accompanied by continued threats to "restore USSR" by Russian nationalist politicians, such as the infamous Zhirinovsky. Even the latest "NATO expansion" - joining of Finland and Sweden - was exclusively triggered by Russia's invasion on Ukraine, nothing else.

If all of this looks like a simple hypocrisy of Putin, that's one explanation but it's a simplistic one. The key to understanding Russian imperialism and its application of international law is to recognise that Russia simply believes in its natural right to intervene in other countries, not enshrined in any laws but granted to Russia by itself "just because".

If you recognise this, everything else is just a logical consequence: if Russia has the right to meddle with say Ukraine, Poland or Estonia, from telling them how to name their streets up to nominating their leaders and eventually military intervention, then, in this mental framework, these countries increasing their defense capability violate that right of Russia because they make its invasion more difficult.

Objectively, this is of course nonsense, because UN Charter is not a menu from which you can pick up one items while ignoring others; you can't only pick up your entitlements while pretending you have no obligations; and finally you can't just make up such rules out of thin air. But when we're casually listening to Putin's speeches that's precisely what is happening - we pick up separate phrases which "make sense", we only forget they make sense for everyone, not exclusively for Russia.