When Vladimir Putin initiated a large-scale military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, deploying an estimated 200,000 troops, his calculations were drastically misjudged. The initial expectation was a swift takeover of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, and the removal of its government within days. However, facing unexpected resistance and strategic setbacks, Russia’s original invasion plan has demonstrably failed, though the conflict is far from resolution.
Unveiling Putin’s Motives for Invasion
Even amidst the extensive devastation and displacement caused by what is unequivocally the largest European invasion since World War II, Russia’s leadership continues to frame the conflict as a “special military operation,” deliberately avoiding the term “war.” This euphemism downplays the reality of widespread bombing of Ukrainian civilian areas and the displacement of over 13 million Ukrainians, either as refugees in other countries or internally displaced within Ukraine.
On the day of the invasion, Putin articulated Russia’s objectives as the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, while paradoxically denying any intention to occupy the country. This declaration came shortly after Russia recognized the independence of eastern Ukrainian territories that had been under the control of Russian-backed separatists since 2014.
Putin’s justifications included the protection of people he claimed were victims of “Ukrainian bullying and genocide” over eight years – a baseless propaganda narrative. He also cited preventing NATO’s expansion into Ukraine as a key goal, and further aimed to ensure Ukraine’s neutral status.
While not explicitly stated, a primary objective was undoubtedly the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Volodymyr Zelensky. According to Zelensky, he was designated “target number one,” and his family “target number two.” Reports from his advisor indicated that Russian forces made at least two attempts to storm the presidential compound in Kyiv.
The Russian narrative of “Ukrainian Nazis” and genocide was unsubstantiated. However, Russian state news agency Ria Novosti clarified that “denazification is inevitably also de-Ukrainisation,” revealing a deeper agenda to dismantle the modern Ukrainian state.
President Putin has long contested Ukraine’s legitimacy as a sovereign nation. In a lengthy essay published in 2021, he asserted that “Russians and Ukrainians were one people” with shared roots dating back to the 9th century. This historical revisionism underpins Russia’s broader geopolitical ambitions in the region.
Shifting War Aims and Strategic Adjustments
A month into the invasion, following significant military setbacks and withdrawals from regions around Kyiv and Chernihiv, Russia drastically revised its war objectives. The revised primary goal became the “liberation of Donbas,” referring broadly to Ukraine’s eastern industrial regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.
Despite subsequent forced retreats from Kharkiv in the northeast and Kherson in the south, this objective officially remains. However, progress towards achieving even this scaled-back goal has been minimal.
These battlefield reversals prompted Putin to proceed with the annexation of four Ukrainian provinces in September 2022, a move condemned internationally as illegal. Remarkably, Russia did not have full military control over any of these regions – neither Luhansk nor Donetsk in the east, nor Kherson or Zaporizhzhia in the south.
President Putin addresses a rally in Moscow celebrating the annexation of Ukrainian territories, with a screen displaying “Together forever.”
To reinforce depleted troop numbers, President Putin announced Russia’s first mobilization since World War II. This “partial” mobilization aimed to recruit approximately 300,000 reservists.
The conflict has evolved into a war of attrition along an extensive 850km (530 miles) front line. Russian military advances have become incremental and infrequent. What was envisioned as a rapid operation has transformed into a protracted war, with Western nations increasingly committed to supporting Ukraine until it achieves victory. The prospect of Ukraine adopting a neutral stance, once potentially negotiable, is now highly improbable.
In December, President Putin acknowledged that the war “could be a lengthy process,” yet paradoxically stated that Russia’s aim was “not to spin the flywheel of military conflict, but to end it.” However, concrete steps towards de-escalation or peace remain elusive.
As the war enters its second year, Putin’s rhetoric has shifted to framing the conflict as a defense of Russia’s “historical frontiers” and a project of “rebuilding peaceful life in Donbas and Novorossiya.” This signals an expanded ambition to incorporate Ukraine’s southern territories into Russia’s sphere of influence, alongside the eastern regions.
Russia’s Territorial Gains: A Pyrrhic Victory?
President Putin’s most significant achievement to date is the establishment of a land bridge connecting Russia’s territory to Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. This land corridor eliminates Russia’s reliance on the Kerch Strait bridge for access to Crimea.
He has touted the capture of this territory, encompassing key cities like Mariupol and Melitopol, as a “significant result for Russia.” He has also declared the Sea of Azov, accessed via the Kerch Strait, as “Russia’s internal sea,” boasting that this was an accomplishment even Russian Tsar Peter the Great could not achieve.
A visual timeline illustrating the shifting territorial control in Ukraine from the invasion’s outset in February 2022 to February 2023.
However, beyond this territorial gain, Russia’s invasion, characterized by its brutality and lack of provocation, has been largely catastrophic for both Russia and Ukraine. It has exposed critical weaknesses within the Russian military and yielded limited strategic success.
While cities like Mariupol have been reduced to ruins, evidence of widespread war crimes against civilians, notably in Bucha near Kyiv, has emerged. An independent report has even accused Russia of state-orchestrated incitement to genocide.
Russia’s military performance has been marred by a series of demonstrable failures:
- The retreat of approximately 30,000 Russian soldiers from Kherson across the Dnipro River in November marked a significant strategic defeat.
- A 56km (35-mile) armored convoy that stalled near Kyiv in the early stages of the war exposed critical logistical shortcomings.
- The deaths of a substantial number of newly mobilized Russian troops in a Ukrainian missile strike on Makiivka during the New Year highlighted intelligence failures.
- The sinking of the Black Sea fleet flagship, the Moskva, and the successful Ukrainian attack on the Kerch Strait bridge in October 2022, which temporarily disabled it, underscored defensive vulnerabilities.
Russia’s repeated warnings to the West against supplying arms to Ukraine have been ignored. Western nations have consistently affirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” emphasizing NATO’s unified stance.
The provision of advanced weaponry, particularly US-supplied HIMARS missile systems, has been instrumental in shifting the battlefield dynamics. Commitments to supply German Leopard 2 tanks further bolster Ukraine’s military capabilities, although the provision of Western fighter jets remains a contentious issue. High-profile visits from Western leaders, including US President Joe Biden, to Kyiv symbolize unwavering international support for Ukraine.
A bar chart depicting the scale of international aid provided to Ukraine as of February 21, 2023.
Despite these setbacks, the war persists. Intense fighting continues in the Donbas region. Russia claimed to have captured the town of Soledar in early 2023 and is focused on seizing Bakhmut, a strategically important city on the path to larger western Ukrainian cities. Russia also aims to regain territory lost in the autumn of 2022.
Analysts of Putin’s strategy believe his objectives include expanding control over the four annexed regions, not only in Donbas but also towards Zaporizhzhia.
President Putin retains the option to escalate the conflict through further mobilization, potentially prolonging the war indefinitely. As the leader of a nuclear power, he has alluded to a willingness to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia and retain control over occupied Ukrainian territory, stating, “We will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”
Ukrainian soldiers maintain defensive positions in Bakhmut amidst relentless Russian assaults.
Kyiv also believes that Russia harbors ambitions to destabilize Moldova, potentially seeking to depose its pro-European government, leveraging the presence of Russian troops in Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region, which borders Ukraine.
The Devastating Human Cost: Casualties of the Conflict
Accurate casualty figures for both sides remain closely guarded secrets. Neither Russia nor Ukraine releases detailed accounts of their own losses, making independent verification extremely challenging. However, it is clear that Russian forces have suffered particularly heavy casualties in recent months, with reports of hundreds of deaths daily in the eastern battle zones.
BBC Russian has independently verified the deaths of over 15,000 Russian soldiers in the first year of the war. Conservative estimates suggest the actual figure is at least double this, with potentially over 100,000 additional Russian soldiers wounded or missing.
UK defense intelligence assessments indicate that total Russian casualties, including killed and wounded, may range from 175,000 to 200,000, with 40,000 to 60,000 fatalities. These figures have risen significantly since Russia’s partial mobilization.
Ukraine, at the end of 2022, reported that 10,000 to 13,000 of its soldiers had been killed since the war’s start. While this figure is difficult to confirm independently, it aligns with a US estimate of approximately 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed or wounded by November 2022. Prior to the arrival of Western artillery, Ukrainian officials reported losing 100 to 200 soldiers daily.
The UN Human Rights Commissioner reports at least 8,006 civilian deaths and 13,287 injuries in the first year of the war. However, the UN acknowledges that the true number is likely to be substantially higher, as data collection in active conflict zones is severely limited.
Has Putin’s Power Been Diminished?
President Putin, now 70, has attempted to distance himself publicly from military setbacks. However, his international standing has been significantly damaged. His international travel has become limited, primarily confined to within Russia’s borders and allied nations.
Domestically, the Russian economy has shown surprising resilience to Western sanctions in the short term. However, Russia’s budget deficit has grown substantially, and revenues from oil and gas exports, a key source of income, have declined sharply.
Assessing Putin’s domestic popularity is inherently complex in an authoritarian environment. Dissent within Russia is heavily suppressed, with severe penalties, including imprisonment, for disseminating “fake news” about the military. Opposition figures have either fled the country or, like prominent opposition leader Alexei Navalny, are imprisoned.
Ukraine’s Geopolitical Reorientation Towards the West
The roots of the current conflict can be traced back to 2013, when Moscow pressured Ukraine’s then pro-Russian government to abandon a planned association agreement with the European Union. This decision sparked widespread protests in Ukraine, ultimately leading to the government’s collapse and Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea and instigation of conflict in eastern Ukraine.
In a decisive shift, the EU granted Ukraine candidate status just four months after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Kyiv is actively pursuing full EU membership as rapidly as possible, signaling a definitive pivot towards the West.
Preventing Ukraine’s integration into NATO has been a long-standing strategic objective for Russia under Putin. However, Russia’s attempt to blame NATO expansion for the war is a distortion of reality.
Reports indicate that Ukraine was willing to consider a neutral status outside of NATO prior to the invasion. In March 2022, President Zelensky publicly offered to maintain Ukraine as a non-aligned, non-nuclear state, acknowledging, “It’s a truth and it must be recognised.” This offer, however, was insufficient to deter Russia’s aggression.
Prospects for Resolution: An Uncertain Path to Peace
As of now, there is no clear end to the war in sight.
Ukraine’s stated position for peace is the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory within its internationally recognized borders. This stance is supported by multiple UN resolutions, passed shortly after the invasion and again on the eve of the war’s first anniversary.
By unilaterally annexing four Ukrainian regions, even without full military control, Vladimir Putin has created a significant obstacle to any negotiated settlement requiring territorial concessions.
Currently, the prospects for a ceasefire or meaningful peace negotiations are dim. Turkey, in conjunction with the UN, facilitated an agreement in the summer of 2022 to resume Ukrainian grain exports via the Black Sea. However, subsequent diplomatic efforts have yielded no breakthroughs. China has expressed interest in playing a role in brokering a political resolution, but its close alignment with Russia raises questions about its impartiality as a mediator.
NATO’s Role: Defense, Not Provocation
NATO member states have progressively increased their military aid to Ukraine, providing crucial air defense systems, missile systems, artillery, and drones that have significantly bolstered Ukraine’s defense capabilities against the Russian invasion.
However, NATO is not responsible for initiating the war and has no troops deployed on the ground in Ukraine. NATO’s eastward expansion is a consequence of, rather than a cause of, Russian aggression. Sweden and Finland, for instance, applied to join NATO directly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
A map illustrating NATO expansion since 1997, highlighting the countries that have joined the alliance.
The Russian narrative blaming NATO’s eastward expansion for the conflict has gained some traction in certain European circles. Prior to the war, President Putin demanded that NATO reverse its expansion to pre-1997 borders, effectively requiring the removal of NATO forces and infrastructure from Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states.
Putin argues that the West reneged on a promise made in 1990 that NATO would not expand “an inch to the east.” However, this alleged promise, made to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, pertained specifically to East Germany in the context of German reunification and pre-dated the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Mikhail Gorbachev himself later stated that “the topic of Nato expansion was never discussed” during those negotiations.
NATO maintains that it had no plans to deploy combat forces on its eastern flank until after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, underscoring that NATO’s posture is defensive and reactive, not aggressive or provocative.
