This paper examines the interpretations of the EU and Russia of the events in Kosovo (1999/2008) and the Caucasus (2008) and how they were presented to the public. Although the parties’ perspectives were diametrically opposed in each of the cases, we will argue that across both of the cases, Russia and the EU were following the same ‘scenarios’. They were either professing the ‘responsibility to protect’ or the ‘obligation to refrain’, using essentially the same logics of argumentation to legitimate their behaviour. Concomitant to such behaviour is the blurring of the common understanding of these norms and their application in practice. In this light it seems that the confl ict between Russia and the EU in these cases was not so much between principally opposed neighbours over the meaning and nature of international norms, but between similar neighbours over each-other’s behaviour in their backyards.