Russian lies before invading ukraine february
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In the months and weeks before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the Kremlin and pro‑Kremlin media repeatedly denied any intent to invade while simultaneously running coordinated narratives that justified potential intervention and sought to shift blame onto Kyiv and the West [1] [2]. Analyses from think tanks, media investigations, and fact‑checking bodies show a purposeful campaign of denial, narrative framing (e.g., “denazification,” claims of Ukrainian provocations), and the seeding of false or misleading stories to create pretexts and soften domestic and international audiences for military action [2] [3] [1].
1. Public denials while forces were being positioned: the classic duplicity
Russian officials insisted publicly that no invasion was planned even as troops and materiel were massed near Ukraine’s borders, a pattern documented by monitoring groups and media observers who noted Russian statements of partial withdrawal or de‑escalation contradicted by continued deployments [4] [1]. This mismatch between rhetoric and action—announcements of “partial pullbacks” paired with additional movements—undermined the credibility of official denials and fit a playbook of strategic obfuscation outlined by the Atlantic Council and other analysts [4] [1] [2].
2. Pretext narratives: “denazification,” genocide claims, and manufactured provocations
For years and intensifying before February 2022, Kremlin messaging framed Ukraine as a Nazi‑dominated, dangerous actor allegedly committing atrocities in Donbas, a line Russia used to justify intervention and rally domestic support [3] [2]. Official channels and state media promoted claims that Kyiv was preparing provocations or attacks—narratives later described by RAND and the Atlantic Council as part of Russia’s effort to manufacture a casus belli or at least moral justification for military action [5] [2]. These stories ranged from broader claims of genocide to more specific allegations of imminent Ukrainian aggression that lacked independent corroboration in many instances [3] [2].
3. Information operations to mask operational intent and shape international opinion
Kremlin information operations sought both to hide the scale and intent of Russian operational planning and to erode international support for Ukraine, employing state outlets (RT, Sputnik), social media networks, and proxy sites to push tailored disinformation across regions including Latin America, Africa, and Europe [2] [6] [7]. Research into digital platforms shows coordinated efforts—fake accounts, fabricated videos, and manipulated imagery—aimed at undermining Western narratives and amplifying skepticism about Ukrainian victimhood after the invasion began, but these methods were active already in the build‑up to February 2022 [8] [9] [7].
4. Fabricated stories and recurring tropes: the crucified boy, sniper safaris, and other myths
The Kremlin ecosystem recycled and reinvented emotional fabrications that had appeared since 2014—such as the “crucified boy” report and claims of “sniper safaris”—and revived similar tropes in early 2022 to demonize Ukrainians and justify intervention, with EU fact‑checking noting these were demonstrably false or unproven [3]. These recurring myths function not only to mislead foreign audiences but to harden domestic consent by appealing to fear and historical narratives, an effect documented by the EEAS and other monitors [3] [1].
5. Counterclaims, “prebunking,” and the contested information environment
Ukraine and Western agencies anticipated many Russian lines and pursued “prebunk” strategies—public intelligence releases and rapid debunking—to warn audiences about likely falsifications and to undermine Russia’s ability to manufacture an immediately convincing pretext [5] [10]. Analysts caution, however, that information warfare is reciprocal and messy: there were also instances of misleading Ukrainian or Western messaging noted by researchers, and some disinformation ecosystems exploited both sides’ outputs to sow confusion [11] [12].
6. Motives and agendas: why the lies mattered before the guns moved
The documented pattern—denials of intent, creation of moral pretexts, and global narrative campaigns—served distinct Kremlin objectives: to conceal operational preparations, to secure domestic acquiescence, to fracture international solidarity for Ukraine, and to create plausible deniability or alternative explanations for acts that would follow [2] [1] [7]. Independent reporting and institutional studies converge on the conclusion that these information operations were an integral part of the broader campaign surrounding the February 2022 invasion rather than incidental background noise [2] [5].