Going to war isn't about rights. Rights are a soft power thing while war is purely about hard power. What is he even trying to say here? Like if there was a right and lack of a right to war, what would they look like? What would the functional difference between the two be?
It's psyops, nothing more. They perceive it as "playing the west's game" in a double bid to stoke their own citizens and trip up NATO counterparts by using "western" language against them.
The right in this context is invented: A projection of hard power through the lip service of soft power.