On February 24, 2022, the world witnessed a seismic event as Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Deploying nearly 200,000 troops, Putin’s initial calculations presumed a swift takeover of Kyiv and the swift removal of the Ukrainian government. However, facing fierce Ukrainian resistance and global condemnation, Russia’s initial plan crumbled, marked by a series of humiliating withdrawals. While the early ambitions of the invasion have clearly failed, the war in Ukraine is far from over, evolving into a protracted and complex conflict with far-reaching global consequences. This article, drawing on expert analysis from BBC News, delves into the critical question: why did Russia invade Ukraine, exploring the motivations, shifting objectives, and the wider impact of this ongoing war.
Decoding Putin’s War: False Pretexts and Real Objectives
Even amidst widespread devastation and global outcry, Russia’s leadership continues to frame the largest European conflict since World War II as a “special military operation,” deliberately avoiding the term “war.” This carefully constructed narrative attempts to mask the brutal reality of bombings targeting Ukrainian civilians and the displacement of over 13 million people.
Putin’s publicly stated justifications for the invasion, declared on February 24, 2022, centered around the “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine, while paradoxically denying any intention to occupy the country. This came just days after Russia recognized the independence of eastern Ukrainian territories controlled by Russian-backed separatists since 2014. He alleged the need to protect people from eight years of “Ukrainian bullying and genocide,” a baseless propaganda claim repeatedly debunked by international observers. Preventing NATO expansion into Ukraine and ensuring Ukraine’s neutral status were also cited as key objectives, further detailed in a subsequent address (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67880).
However, beneath these publicly stated reasons lay a more profound and disturbing agenda: regime change in Kyiv. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated, “The enemy has designated me as target number one; my family is target number two.” Reports from Zelensky’s advisor confirmed two attempted Russian assaults on the presidential compound in the early days of the invasion, underscoring the aim to depose the elected Ukrainian government.
The absurd claims of “Ukrainian Nazis” committing genocide, a cornerstone of Russian propaganda, were exposed as utterly unfounded. Further revealing Russia’s true intentions, state-run news agency Ria Novosti clarified that “denazification is inevitably also de-Ukrainisation” – effectively aiming to erase the modern Ukrainian state and its distinct identity.
President Putin’s long-held denial of Ukrainian statehood provides crucial context. In a lengthy 2021 essay, he asserted that “Russians and Ukrainians were one people” tracing back to the 9th century. This historical revisionism serves to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and justify Russia’s aggressive actions as a reclamation of its supposed historical territory.
Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing a rally in Moscow celebrating the annexation of Ukrainian territories, with a large screen behind him proclaiming “Together Forever,” highlighting Russia’s territorial ambitions in Ukraine.
Evolving Objectives: From Kyiv Blitz to Donbas Consolidation and Expansion
The initial weeks of the invasion revealed a stark miscalculation of Ukrainian resolve and military capabilities. By March 2022, a month into the offensive, Russia was forced to drastically scale back its campaign goals following significant setbacks and retreats from key northern cities like Kyiv and Chernihiv. The revised primary objective became the “liberation of Donbas,” focusing on Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland encompassing the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
Despite this narrowed focus, further Ukrainian counter-offensives forced Russian withdrawals from Kharkiv in the northeast and Kherson in the south. However, the stated aim of seizing the entirety of Donbas remains, albeit with limited tangible progress.
Facing battlefield reversals, Putin escalated the conflict by unilaterally annexing four Ukrainian provinces in September 2022: Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. This annexation occurred despite Russia not having full military control over any of these regions, underscoring a disconnect between political ambition and military reality.
To reinforce depleted ranks, President Putin announced Russia’s first mobilization since World War II, a “partial” mobilization aiming to recruit approximately 300,000 reservists. The conflict has morphed into a grinding war of attrition along an extensive 850km (530 miles) front line. Russian advances are now incremental and infrequent, a far cry from the envisioned swift victory. What began as a “special operation” has transformed into a protracted war, with Western powers firmly committed to supporting Ukraine until victory. The prospect of Ukraine adopting a neutral status, once potentially negotiable, has become increasingly remote.
In December, Putin himself acknowledged that the war “could be a lengthy process,” yet paradoxically claimed Russia’s goal was “not to spin the flywheel of military conflict,” but to end it. However, with neither side willing to concede fundamental demands, a peaceful resolution remains elusive. A year into the war, Putin’s rhetoric has shifted to emphasize defending Russia’s “historical frontiers” and “rebuilding peaceful life in Donbas and Novorossiya,” signaling an expansion of territorial ambitions to include Ukraine’s southern regions alongside the east.
Limited Gains, Significant Setbacks: Russia’s Military Performance
Amidst the ongoing conflict, President Putin points to the establishment of a land bridge to Crimea, annexed illegally by Russia in 2014, as Russia’s primary success. This land corridor eliminates Crimea’s reliance on the Kerch Strait bridge for supplies and access. The capture of territory encompassing key cities like Mariupol and Melitopol is touted as a “significant result for Russia.” Putin has declared the Sea of Azov, accessed via the Kerch Strait, as “Russia’s internal sea,” boasting that even Tsar Peter the Great did not achieve this.
Image: A map illustrating the shifting territorial control in Ukraine from February 2022 to February 2023, highlighting the areas initially targeted by Russia and the subsequent Ukrainian counter-offensives and areas of ongoing conflict.
However, beyond this territorial corridor to Crimea, Russia’s invasion has largely been a strategic and military disaster. The war has exposed profound weaknesses within the Russian military and inflicted immense damage on both Russia and Ukraine. The brutality of the conflict, particularly against civilian populations, has been widely documented and condemned.
Cities like Mariupol have been reduced to rubble, and evidence of war crimes against civilians in areas like Bucha, near Kyiv, has emerged, leading to an independent report accusing Russia of state-orchestrated incitement to genocide.
Military failures have further underscored Russia’s vulnerabilities:
- The strategic retreat of 30,000 Russian troops from Kherson across the Dnipro River in November 2022.
- The infamous 56km (35-mile) armored convoy that stalled near Kyiv in the early stages of the war, highlighting logistical deficiencies.
- The catastrophic loss of a large number of newly mobilized Russian troops in a Ukrainian missile strike on Makiivka during New Year’s, revealing 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, demonstrating defensive vulnerabilities.
Despite Russia’s warnings against Western arms supplies to Ukraine, Western nations have significantly increased military aid. Assurances of unwavering support “for as long as it takes” and pledges of NATO unity have been consistently reiterated. Advanced weaponry, including US Himars missiles, have been instrumental in altering the course of the war, and commitments of German Leopard 2 tanks further bolster Ukraine’s defense capabilities, even as fighter jets remain a contentious issue. High-level Western leaders, including US President Joe Biden, have made symbolic visits to Kyiv, demonstrating solidarity and continued support.
Image: A stacked bar chart illustrating the escalating military and financial aid provided to Ukraine by various nations, emphasizing the international support Ukraine has received since the start of the conflict.
However, the war persists. Fierce fighting continues in Donbas, with Russia capturing the town of Soledar in early 2023 and focusing efforts on seizing Bakhmut, a strategic city on the path to larger western urban centers. Russia also aims to regain territories lost in the autumn of 2022. Analysts believe Putin’s objective remains to expand control over the four annexed regions, including areas beyond Donbas, potentially targeting the strategically important city of Zaporizhzhia.
President Putin retains the option of further mobilization and prolonging the conflict. Russia’s nuclear arsenal adds a dangerous dimension, with Putin hinting at a willingness to use nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory, including annexed Ukrainian land. “We will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff,” he asserted, raising global anxieties about escalation.
Kyiv also believes Russia harbors ambitions beyond Ukraine, seeking to destabilize Moldova and potentially depose its pro-European government, leveraging the presence of Russian troops in Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region bordering Ukraine.
Devastating Casualties: The Human Cost of War
Reliable casualty figures from both Russia and Ukraine are scarce, as neither side releases comprehensive data on their own losses. However, it is clear that Russian forces have suffered particularly heavy casualties, especially in recent months, with estimates of hundreds of deaths daily in eastern battlefields.
BBC Russian, through open-source intelligence, has identified over 15,000 Russian soldiers killed in the first year of the war, suggesting a conservative estimate would be at least double that figure, with potentially over 100,000 wounded or missing. UK defense intelligence estimates even higher Russian casualties, reaching 175,000-200,000 in total, with 40,000-60,000 fatalities.
Ukraine, at the end of 2022, reported 10,000-13,000 military deaths since the war’s outset. While this figure is unconfirmed, 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 daily losses of 100 to 200 troops.
The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner reports at least 8,006 civilian deaths and 13,287 injuries in the first 12 months of the war, acknowledging that the actual number is likely considerably higher. These figures underscore the immense human cost of the conflict, with both military and civilian populations suffering devastating losses.
Putin’s Damaged Authority and Ukraine’s Western Pivot
President Putin, now in his 70s, has attempted to distance himself from military setbacks, but his international standing has been severely damaged, with limited travel beyond Russia’s borders. Domestically, while the Russian economy initially appeared resilient to Western sanctions, a soaring budget deficit and a sharp decline in oil and gas revenues indicate growing economic strain.
Assessing Putin’s domestic popularity is complex due to the suppression of dissent. Russia has implemented harsh penalties for “fake news” about the military, effectively silencing opposition. Many critics have fled the country, and prominent opposition figures like Alexei Navalny remain imprisoned.
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 sparked widespread protests, ultimately leading to the government’s collapse and Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea and instigation of conflict in eastern Ukraine.
In the aftermath of the 2022 invasion, Ukraine’s trajectory has decisively shifted westward. The EU granted Ukraine candidate status in June 2022, and Kyiv is actively pursuing full membership. Putin’s long-standing objective of preventing Ukraine from aligning with NATO has also backfired. While attempting to blame NATO expansion for the war, this narrative is demonstrably false.
Reports indicate that Ukraine had agreed to provisional neutrality before the invasion. In March 2022, President Zelensky even offered to maintain Ukraine as a non-aligned, non-nuclear state, stating, “It’s a truth and it must be recognised.” However, Russia’s aggression has solidified Ukraine’s determination to integrate with the West, making NATO membership a more likely prospect in the long term.
No End in Sight: The Protracted Conflict
Currently, there is no clear path to ending the war. Ukraine’s position, supported by multiple UN resolutions, demands the complete withdrawal of Russian troops to Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders as a prerequisite for peace. However, Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian regions makes territorial concessions extremely difficult for him politically.
The prospects for a ceasefire or peace negotiations are currently dim. Turkey and the UN brokered a deal in the summer of 2022 to resume Ukrainian grain exports via the Black Sea, but subsequent mediation efforts have failed. China has expressed interest in facilitating a political settlement, but its close ties to Russia raise questions about its impartiality as a mediator.
NATO’s Role: Response, Not Cause of the Conflict
NATO member states have significantly increased their military assistance to Ukraine, providing air defense systems, missile systems, artillery, and drones that have been crucial in slowing and reversing Russia’s advances. However, NATO is not responsible for the war and has no troops deployed on the ground in Ukraine. NATO’s eastward expansion is a consequence of, not a cause of, Russian aggression. Sweden and Finland’s applications to join NATO are direct results of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating the unintended consequences of Putin’s actions.
Image: A map illustrating the eastward expansion of NATO since 1997, demonstrating the alliance’s growth in response to perceived threats and security concerns in Europe, particularly related to Russia.
Russia’s narrative blaming NATO expansion for the war has gained some traction in certain circles in Europe. Prior to the invasion, Putin demanded NATO roll back its presence to 1997 borders, removing forces and infrastructure from Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. He claims that the West promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand “an inch to the east,” yet proceeded to do so. However, this alleged promise, made to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, pertained specifically to East Germany within the context of German reunification.
Mr. Gorbachev himself later clarified that “the topic of Nato expansion was never discussed” at the time. NATO maintains that it had no plans to deploy combat troops on its eastern flank until Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, highlighting that NATO’s posture is reactive and defensive, not provocative.
The war in Ukraine is a complex and multifaceted conflict with deep historical roots and far-reaching global implications. Understanding the reasons behind Russia’s invasion requires analyzing Putin’s stated justifications, his underlying motivations, and the evolving dynamics of the conflict on the ground. While the initial aims of a swift Russian victory have failed, the war continues to rage, with no immediate end in sight, leaving a trail of destruction and reshaping the geopolitical landscape of Europe and beyond.
