A long simmering dispute between one of your states and your federal government causes political unrest in that state. Armed militias arise, (..). Eventually, they are assisted by foreign adventurers with their own agenda who use that troubled region as a base to launch violent raids against a neighboring state. Lives and property are destroyed -- as a means of expanding the chaos.

They forcibly occupied several communities, terrorizing the inhabitants. The stated goal was to establish a "(..) republic," an idea thoroughly alien to the vast majority of local citizens.

No government can stand idly by when terrorism strikes. It is the solemn duty of all governments to protect their citizens from danger.

Reluctantly, we have intervened. Our immediate aim is to rid of those who threaten the safety of (..) and Russians. We also seek to restore civil society to the (..) people, who have been victims of deprivation, living in the grip of armed criminal gangs for years.

Our commanders have clear instructions to avoid casualties among the general population. We have nothing to gain by doing otherwise. [They], after all, are our citizens too. Our land and air forces strive to target only opposing armed forces. The whole reason we chose accurately targeted strikes on specifically identified terrorist bases was to avoid direct attacks on (..) communities.

Yet in the midst of war, even the most carefully planned military operations occasionally cause civilian casualties, and we deeply regret that.

Refugees fleeing the violence -- many of whom feared that the terrorists would try to use them as ''human shields'' -- have experienced hardship. (..) In brief, we are striving to replace strife and chaos with peace and normal life.

The antiterrorist campaign was forced upon us. Sadly, decisive armed intervention was the only way to prevent further casualties both within and far outside the borders of (..), further suffering by so many people enslaved by terrorists.

But when a society's core interests are besieged by violent elements, responsible leaders must respond. That is our purpose in (..), and we are determined to see it through. The understanding of our friends abroad would be helpful.

Pēc satura var likties, ka teksts ir par Ukrainu un tās īstenoto pretterorisma operāciju valsts austrumos.

Patiesībā tie ir izvilkumi no Vladimira Putina 1999. gada op-ed "Why We Must Act" The New York Times, lai attaisnotu karu Čečenijā.
Viss, par ko Krievija tagad apvaino Ukrainu, bija ļoti pieņemami, kad pati Krievija uzsāka karu pret terorismu, separātismu un mierīgajiem iedzīvotājiem. Starp citu, tā soda ekspedīcijas vēl joprojām turpina Dagestānā.