Russian lies before invading ukraine february 2022
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The run-up to Russia’s February 24, 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine was accompanied by a sustained Kremlin disinformation campaign that pushed a set of coordinated false narratives—claims of NATO encirclement, a fabricated genocide in Donbas, the need to “denazify” Ukraine, and imminent Ukrainian aggression—designed to create a pretext for military action and shape domestic and international perceptions [1] [2] [3]. Western governments and multiple media investigations documented both the content and tactics of these lies, including a U.S. intelligence warning that Moscow planned to use staged footage as a false pretext for invasion [4] [5] [6].
1. The core false narratives Moscow amplified
In the months before the invasion the Kremlin repeatedly claimed Russia was existentially threatened by NATO expansion and western hostility—an “encirclement” argument that Moscow used to frame its operation as defensive rather than aggressive [1]. Parallel threads accused Kyiv of committing “genocide” against Russian speakers in Donbas and presented Ukraine as controlled by neo-Nazis in need of “denazification,” themes elevated across state media and official statements despite debunking by independent analysts [1] [2] [3]. Russian officials also floated claims that Ukrainian forces were preparing immediate attacks, sometimes alleging the use or preparation of chemical weapons, narratives amplified to justify pre-emptive action [1] [5].
2. Fabricated incidents and the planned “false flag” video
U.S. officials warned publicly in early February 2022 that Russian intelligence was preparing fabricated incidents—specifically a staged video purporting to show Ukrainian atrocities—as a pretext for invasion, a plot the Biden administration said it had intelligence on and pre-bunked before the February offensive [4] [5]. Western reporting and government briefings said Moscow’s propaganda ecosystem was readying staged scenes, recycled footage and other falsifications to manufacture consent for military escalation, and early post-invasion analyses documented attempts to pass off doctored material as evidence [1] [4].
3. Tools of deception: state media, social platforms and deepfakes
Russian state-controlled outlets and allied social-media accounts coordinated messaging and amplified recycled or manipulated content to reach domestic and international audiences, with multiple outlets repeating the same talking points and images in English and other languages [7] [6]. The information operations employed classic tropes—misattributed photos, recycled protest footage, accusations of crisis-acting victims—and by spring 2022 had added deepfakes and doctored clips to sow doubt and confusion, tactics documented by fact-checkers and media researchers [8] [9] [10].
4. How the lies were meant to work—and how they actually performed
Analysts and government reports argue these narratives were intended to provide legal and moral cover for invasion, to mobilize Russian domestic support, and to muddy the waters internationally so Moscow could cite “evidence” of Ukrainian aggression [1] [6]. In practice the strategy had mixed results: it found traction among sympathetic foreign audiences and within Russia, but was repeatedly contradicted by on-the-ground reporting, independent verification, and public exposure of staged material—prompting Western governments to publicly counter the false claims and issue warnings [7] [8] [5].
5. Denials, alternative claims and limits of available reporting
Russian officials publicly denied plans to invade and accused the West of hysteria in the run-up to February 2022, a position cited in contemporaneous Reuters and New York Times reporting documenting Moscow’s public posture even as disinformation campaigns unfolded [5] [7]. Reporting to date documents the coordinated narratives and many specific fabrications, but public sources cannot fully reveal internal Kremlin intent beyond what intelligence disclosures and propaganda content show; available records establish the lies’ content, dissemination channels and effects on information environments, while definitive access to Moscow’s decision calculus remains in the purview of classified archives and insider testimony not present in these sources [4] [6].