Why did Russia invade Ukraine
Executive summary
Vladimir Putin’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was driven by Kremlin aims to seize Ukrainian territory, install a friendly government and to weaken NATO and Western influence — not merely to “protect” Donetsk and Luhansk — according to analyst assessments that cite Kremlin messaging and objectives [1]. Independent trackers show this campaign aimed initially at far more than Donetsk and Luhansk (including Kyiv), and Russian leaders repeatedly frame territorial claims and historic narratives (e.g., “ancestral lands” like Odesa) as justification for continued military action [1] [2].
1. What Moscow says versus what analysts record
The Kremlin publicly describes limited aims — citing Donetsk and Luhansk recognition and protection of Russian speakers — but independent observers and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) conclude Russia’s declared focus masks broader goals: regime change in Kyiv, territorial control of large parts of Ukraine and demands directed at NATO and the West [1]. ISW states Putin’s rhetoric on Donetsk/Luhansk “ignores the way that his full‑scale invasion initially sought to capture far more territory,” including Kyiv, and that Moscow’s original war demands extended beyond Ukraine to NATO [1].
2. Territorial ambitions and historical claims
Russian political figures and media have repeatedly revived narratives that parts of Ukraine — notably Odesa and other Black Sea coast areas — are “ancestral” or historically Russian, framing them as legitimate Russian interests and potential pretexts for future action [2]. ISW warns that such narratives are being reignited to set conditions for justifying aggression and to portray territorial expansion as restoration rather than conquest [2].
3. Military aims and early operational designs
Operationally, Russia’s 2022 invasion sought rapid territorial gains and political control; ISW and related trackers note the initial campaign aimed to seize much more than Donetsk and Luhansk and to impose a Kremlin‑aligned government, not merely to secure separatist regions [1]. Subsequent fighting demonstrated that Russian forces concentrated on several axes — and that Kremlin messaging has at times shifted as battlefield realities forced tactical recalibrations [1] [2].
4. The role of narratives and coercion
Kremlin officials and some Russian lawmakers have amplified messages saying Ukraine is a “pseudo‑state” and that military means can resolve the conflict so Russians can access “ancestral lands,” language that normalizes conquest and delegitimizes Ukrainian sovereignty [2]. ISW highlights Moscow’s cognitive‑warfare efforts intended to portray a Russian victory as imminent and to pressure Ukraine and Western backers into concessions [1].
5. How analysts describe Russia’s broader strategic goals
Experts cited by ISW and allied trackers interpret Russia’s war aims as broader than simple protection of ethnic Russians: ISW assesses Putin sought to “destroy NATO and seize control of all of Ukraine” as part of a grander strategy to reorder the European security architecture and punish Western influence [1]. This reading places the invasion within a geopolitical struggle over spheres of influence rather than a narrow regional dispute [1].
6. Evidence on the ground that complicates Moscow’s justifications
Maps and reporting show Russian forces initially pushed toward Kyiv and other regions beyond Donetsk/Luhansk, undermining claims that the campaign was solely about two oblasts [1]. Russian political statements and frontline actions — including threats against Odesa and ground offensives like those around Huliaipole and Pokrovsk — corroborate an expansionary logic rather than a purely defensive posture [2] [3].
7. Limits and alternate viewpoints in available reporting
Available sources trace Kremlin rhetoric, battlefield aims and analysts’ interpretations but do not provide a comprehensive single document listing every motive or the private deliberations that led to invasion; ISW and related reporting interpret public statements, battlefield movements and political narratives to form their assessments [1] [2]. Some Russian officials publicly present narrower motives (e.g., protecting Russian speakers), but ISW and independent trackers document a wider set of objectives, including regime change and Western pressure [1].
8. Why this matters now
Understanding the invasion as rooted in expansionist strategy and geopolitical aims — not only local protection claims — explains why the conflict has persisted, why Western security dynamics are central to negotiations, and why analysts warn that Kremlin narratives could be used later to justify further territorial claims [1] [2]. That framing also clarifies why ceasefire talks and peace proposals must reckon with both battlefield control and long‑term security guarantees involving NATO and the West [1].
Limitations: this analysis relies on ISW and contemporaneous reporting that synthesize public statements and battlefield evidence; available sources do not include private Kremlin deliberations or every dissenting Russian viewpoint [1] [2].