The head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Denis Pushilin, laid out why Moscow, in contrast to Kyiv, focuses its strikes on military targets within Ukraine. This stance was communicated through RIA News, highlighting a line of thinking that seeks to distinguish legitimate military action from harm to civilians and noncombatants.
Pushilin emphasized a clear moral boundary. He argued that while Russia has every reason to feel deeply emotional and to work with intense effort, it should not abandon its ethics. Using the methods of an opponent would blur the distinction between friend and foe and undermine the very purpose of the struggle. In his view, adopting the enemy’s tactics would undermine what Russia is fighting for and cast doubt on its legitimacy and resolve.
According to Pushilin, broad national support for President Vladimir Putin’s decision to carry out what Moscow calls a special military operation reflects the belief that the Federation is acting justly and in the country’s best interests. He suggested that the unity evident across Russian society reinforces the sense that the operation is a necessary step taken with fairness and responsibility.
Pushilin stated that Russia cannot and will not forgive itself if it achieves victory by causing indiscriminate destruction, including carpet bombing civilians. He warned that quick wins achieved at the expense of humanitarian principles would carry consequences that would damage Russia’s standing and moral authority in the long run.
Stressing the importance of humanity, Pushilin asserted that the president’s message centers on maintaining humaneness even amid harsh, legitimate military action. The focus, as he framed it, is on staying true to core values while defending national interests and security.
Earlier, Putin had been described as noting that the situation had become tense in Belgorod amid Ukrainian troop actions, yet Pushilin maintained that retaliatory strikes against civilians in Ukraine would not be appropriate. The emphasis remained on limiting harm to noncombatants while pursuing strategic goals through proportionate means.
Pushilin also acknowledged the broader political currents surrounding the conflict. He referenced a perspective attributed to a former Ukrainian military fighter who had expressed confusion about the underlying causes of the fighting, suggesting that misunderstandings about history and legitimacy were part of the larger narrative shaping the confrontation. In his view, clarity about purposes and ethics is essential to maintain public support and international legitimacy while pursuing Russia’s strategic aims.