Introduction
This article examines why the Russian Federation made the decision to launch the Special Military Operation on 23rd February 2022. Given that the Russian Federation launched this specific operation, I focus almost entirely on Russian motives and considerations. Nothing in here should be interpreted as a justification for said operation, but purely an examination of Russian perspectives.
Note that Russia has not "declared war" on Ukraine, which has a specific meaning under international law. Instead, Russia has recognised the indepedence of Donetsk and Luhansk and then invoked the legal concept of collective self-defense to engage the Ukranian army in east Ukraine. More on this distinction in my previous note.
Sequence of events
In March 2021, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy vowed to retake Crimea and started sending troops to the south and east of Ukraine. Russian Federation forces reacted by "mirroring" Ukranian troops movements on the Russian side of the border. Over the course of the year, the posture of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border decreased after a hopeful Putin-Biden summit, then increased again as the potential for a diplomatic solution seemed to recede.
In November 2021, US officials started issuing warnings that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was imminent. Towards the end of November, Putin and Biden met in an unsuccessful "virtual summit".
In December 2021, Russia issued a written list of demands to NATO in order to defuse the crisis. NATO flatly rejected all terms in early January 2022.
In mid January 2022, US officials stated that Russia would invade Ukraine, triggered by a false flag attack. Press Secretary John Kirby stated that President Putin had ordered or acquiesced to a "fake attack by Ukrainian military or intelligence forces against Russian sovereign territory or against Russian-speaking people" in order to justify a Russian invasion. This assertion was supported by National Security Adviser John Sullivan who alluded to classified intelligence confirming this. US officials further engaged in a hitherto unprecedented development whereby they described in very detailed terms the nature of the suspected forthcoming false flag:
"As part of this fake attack, we believe that Russia would produce a very graphic propaganda video which would include corpses and actors that would be depicting mourners and images of destroyed locations, as well as military equipment at the hands of Ukraine or the West, even to the point where some of this equipment would be made to look like it was Western supplied ... to Ukraine equipment,"
US officials further alleged that NATO military equipment, specifically Turkish made Bayraktar drones, would feature in this attack. When questioned by reporters how they could no such fine details about the impending false flag attack, US officials alluded to having seen such a video but also conceded that "the US does not have the video nor does it have evidence that it has actually been made".
Additionally, a senior US administration official foresaw another path to war:
In late January, American officials reiterated the threat of an imminent invasion. Curiously, President Zelenskyy flatly denied the risk of a Russian invasion.
Over February 2022, a pattern emerged whereby US officials insisted an invasion was imminent, only for Zelenskyy to dismiss this. On February 19th, Zelenskyy gave a rambling speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he hinted strongly at acquiring nuclear weapons. Western media coverage adopted a distinctly critical tone towards Zelesnkyy.
Throughout this entire period, Russian officials strongly denied an invasion had been planned, with Russia's UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya accusing the United States of drumming up war due to their repeated warnings of an imminent invasion:
“The discussions about a threat of war is provocative in and of itself. You are almost calling for this. You want it to happen”
On 18th February, authorities in the Donbas ordered civilians to evacuate to Russia. As illustrated in my prior note, OSCE data indicates that war was close to breaking out, and the observations on shelling impact locations suggests most shelling came from Ukranian forces. Amongst the pro-Russian population of east Ukraine, fears had spread of a massive offensive, inspired by Operation Storm, to militarily defeat the rebels and/or ethnically cleanse the civilian population. These fears were heightened by the Ukranian army's increased use of the aformentioned Turkish Bayraktar drones, which had been decisive in Azerbaijan's successful offensive to capture Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenian forces and the subsequent displacement of approximately 100k Armenian civilians.
It was also on 18th February that President Biden declared, after warning of an imminent invasion since October 2021, that now Russia had definitely decided to invade.
President Putin recognised the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk on February 21st and subsequently authorised a "Special Military Operation" on February 23rd.
What had likely motivated this decision, apart from the alleged imminent assault, was the ever deepening military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO, and the outright militarisation of Ukraine, a process Russia has termed "NATO-isation". For example in June 2021, the UK and Ukraine signed a naval agreement which would see Ukraine purchase four British battle ships, the British construction to NATO standards of a naval base in Odesa and further elements of cooperation. Pursuant to this was the staging of Ukraine-NATO Black Sea naval exercises in July 2021, which were the largest ever.
In November 2021, the US and Ukraine signed a Strategic Partnership, which at times almost read like a US declaration of war on Russia, including statements such as:
Emphasize unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order
Lest their be any doubt at which state this Partnership was directed, Section II was labelled "Security and Countering Russian Aggression".
Additionally, it emerged in January 2022 that the CIA had been training Ukrainian forces in counterinsurgency tactics since 2015.
The Russian Federation likely observed the increasing military cooperation and integration and concluded this was a potential threat; in the words of Rob Lee, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute:
“Russia is seeing a trend where all of these NATO countries are delivering more and more weaponry to Ukraine. It’s not necessarily that significant yet, but I think they see the trend line, and they don’t like where that trend line is going.”
This assertion has been supported by George Beebe, the former CIA head of Russia analysis similarly argued that Russia was seeking to act while it still possessed a military advantage:
"That [military] relationship will be far stronger and deeper, and the United States military will be more firmly entrenched inside Ukraine two to three years from now. So inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky."
One final esoteric element related once more to the issue of false flag attacks, this time with respect to chemical weapons. Russian officials had accused the United States of possessing what they termed bio-weapon laboratories in Ukraine. US officials originally scoffed at these suggestions, however, in Senate testimony, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland conceded, seemingly reluctantly, that "Ukraine has biological research facilities". Senator Marco Rubio, appearing flustered, asked if Russia would engage in a false flag chemical weapons attack, to which Nuland replied in the affirmative:
Rubio: I'm sure you're aware that the Russian propaganda groups are
already putting out there all kinds of information about how they've
uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the
country with NATO's coordination.
If there is a
biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is
there any doubt in your mind that 100 percent, it would be the Russians
that would be behind it?
Nuland: There is no doubt in
my mind, Senator. And it is classic Russian technique to blame on the
other guy what they're planning to do themselves.
Throughout March 2022, US officials, including President Biden, alleged that President Putin would use chemical weapons. With no chemical weapons attack forthcoming, US officials changed tack on April 6, and declared that they "released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions" as part of a strategy of "information war against Russia".
In mid March, US intelligence officials conceded that Russia had not had long-held invasion plans, revealing that:
“The CIA was saying through January that Putin had not made a decision to invade, but he was putting in place pieces for an invasion,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be identified in order to discuss sensitive matters. “I think Putin was still keeping his options open.” It wasn’t until February that the agency and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade, the senior official added.
Conclusion
At this early stage, two ideas clearly emerge based on an analysis of statements from US intelligence officials. Firstly, the primary motivation for the Russian operation in Ukraine was security concerns, with a keen eye on the long term trend towards militarisation in Ukraine. Secondly, the decision to engage in military action was made late.
Bearing these factors in mind, it thus appears that persistent statements from US officials since Novemeber 2021 that a Russian invasion was imminent were untrue. In fact, they seem to have encouraged the Russian military operation, instead of deterred, as Russian envoy Vasily Nebenzya argued.
Additionally, the frequent US instigated talk of false flag attacks, both conventional and chemical, must have appeared to Russian officials as a means to pre-emptively dismiss attacks the Ukrainian forces planned to execute by passing them off as a Russian false flag. This would only have heightened the perceived need in Russia to strike first.
Furthermore, the CIA led training of Ukrainian forces in counter-insurgency tactics since 2015, indicates long held plans to defeat any Russian incursion through bleeding out an occupation force. What is unclear is whether or not a Russian incursion was desired or expected, or whether the training was just in case Russia should occupy Ukraine.
Lastly, at no point in the months long run up to war did US officials ever engage in serious diplomatic efforts to avert war, despite their constant reassurances that war was imminent. In fact, at times it appears that President Biden had a better grasp of the Ukrainian army's operations than President Zelenskyy, specifically with respect to the increased shelling in the east of Ukraine starting on February 16. It is also worth bearing in mind that so far that the only statement from US officials that turned out to be accurate was the prediction that President Putin would recognise the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics if he deemed their security to be threatened.
Bearing all these points in mind, it appears that Biden's knowledge that an invasion was imminent was rooted more in his knowledge that a Ukrainian offensive in the east was imminent and how President Putin would react to such an event, rather than any real intelligence suggestion Russia had plans to invade Ukraine.
Thus Biden's rhetoric served to talk President Putin into the path he adopted instead of fulfilling the publicly stated aims of deterring him from such action.
No comments:
Post a Comment