Volodymyr Zelensky could not hide his distress as he surveyed the rubble of Bucha. "Every day, you understand, there are people found in barrels and cellars, strangled," he said, struggling to hold back the tears. "Indeed, this is a genocideThe annihilation of a people, either through killing of its members, or through the suppression of its culture.."

The Ukrainian president's stark words and pained face are splashed across newspaper front pages around the world, insisting that a spotlight remains fixed on atrocities committed by the Russian army.

As Ukrainian forces recapture areas of the country that were recently occupied, they have found horrifying evidence of war crimes. Civilian corpses strewn across the streets showed signs of summary executionsSystematic killings without a trial.. Satellite images appeared to show a mass grave. In the city of Bucha, roughly 300 people were killed.

What do these grim discoveries mean for the Russia-Ukraine war? For one thing, they are strong evidence of crimes against humanity.

On top of this, some argue that the treatment of ordinary Ukrainians may reveal a bleak truth about the way that Russian president Vladimir Putin understands the war. It may suggest that the invasion is not simply a limited campaign to gain control of disputed territories. Instead, it is an attack on the very idea of Ukraine - and Ukrainians. 

An article published this week in the Russian state news agency gives an insight into how Russian leaders justify the war. It falsely states that Ukraine has become "Nazified". Calls for "European development" and "independence", the article says, are in fact an attack on Russians and Russian speakers living in Ukraine.

The article's solution to this imaginary situation? A merciless war to instil lasting lessons, followed by 25 years of occupation and the erasure of Ukraine from the map.

This is a particularly extreme expression of anti-Ukrainian sentiment. But it carries echoes of statements that Putin himself has made.

Shortly before ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Putin gave a speech in which he outlined his understanding of the relationship between the two countries. "Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us," he said. "It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space."

Putin believes that Ukraine became a separate country as a result is a historical accident. He grants the country no legitimacy and argues that those who believe in it are infected with the "virus of nationalism".

Even if Putin's interpretation of history was valid, it would of course not justify war and massacre. And historian Timothy Snyder points out that there are major errors in his account. "Ukraine has its own distinct and fascinating history," he says, "and Ukrainians have as much a right to a future as anyone else."

But while it is factually and morally wrong, Putin's account may explain Russia's pitiless treatment of Ukrainians: he sees them as a threat to the idea of Russia and simply does not accept that the country has a right to exist.

"There is no Ukraine," as he said in 2020 - and some experts believe he will continue the violence until this assertion becomes a political reality.

Yes: Putin's beliefs and ambitions cannot survive contact with hard realities, however uncompromising they are. This war is costing Russia heavily in military and economic terms, and at some point, he will have to seek peace.

No: An absolutist worldview like Putin's permits no compromise. Russia's aggressive and expansionist behaviour will only end once he is removed from power.

Or... No war lasts forever and there are too many variables to confidently predict what path this one will take. But whether or not there is a peace settlement, Putin's aggression has already undermined peace and stability in Ukraine and beyond.