The world watched in horror on February 24, 2022, as Russian tanks rolled across the border into Ukraine and missiles began to rain down on its cities. It was the largest conventional military assault on a European state since World War II, an event that seemed to many to erupt from a clear blue sky. But to historians, analysts, and observers of the region, the invasion was not a sudden explosion but the violent climax of a slow-burning fuse, lit years, and even decades, earlier.
Understanding why Russia invaded Ukraine requires moving beyond a single, simple explanation. It is a story woven from multiple threads: deep-seated historical grievances, the cold calculus of geopolitics, the ambitions of a single man, and the perceived shifting of a world order. It is a perfect storm of factors that converged to create a cataclysm.
1. The Historical Lens: The Myth of “One People”
To comprehend Vladimir Putin’s motivations, one must first step into his historical worldview. At the core of his justification for the war is the concept that Ukrainians and Russians are not distinct nations but “one people” — a single historical and spiritual community.
This narrative hinges on the idea of Kievan Rus’, a loose federation of East Slavic tribes centered around Kyiv from the 9th to the 13th centuries. Both modern Russia and Ukraine claim it as their cultural progenitor. For Putin, this means Ukraine is not a legitimate, sovereign nation but an artificial construct, a historical mistake carved out of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union by arbitrary borders. His now-infamous essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” published in July 2021, laid this ideological groundwork, essentially denying Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent state.
This historical revisionism directly fuels the notion of Novorossiya (New Russia)—a term from the tsarist era referring to lands along the Black Sea that Catherine the Great conquered from the Ottoman Empire. This area includes major Ukrainian cities like Odesa, Kherson, and Mariupol. In Putin’s eyes, these are historically Russian lands unjustly “gifted” to Ukraine during the Soviet period.
Coupled with this is the deep trauma of NATO expansion. From the Kremlin’s perspective, the West’s promise in the early 1990s not to expand the alliance “one inch eastward” (a point of historical contention) was broken repeatedly. The inclusion of former Warsaw Pact states like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and later Baltic states that were once Soviet republics, was seen as an aggressive encirclement, moving a hostile military alliance right up to Russia’s doorstep.
2. The Immediate Trigger: NATO and the “Red Line”
While historical grievance set the stage, the immediate trigger was Ukraine’s perceived westward drift. For Putin, Ukraine is not just a neighboring country; it is a strategic buffer zone of existential importance. The idea of Ukraine, with its massive size and shared 1,200-mile border with Russia, joining NATO was an absolute red line.
The 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, which declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO,” was a pivotal moment, ringing alarm bells in Moscow. The subsequent events—the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (Maidan Revolution), which ousted the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, and Russia’s immediate annexation of Crimea and fomenting of war in the Donbas—were the first violent acts in this unfolding drama.
By 2021, Ukraine was closer than ever to the West. Its military was receiving advanced training and equipment from NATO members. The prospect of U.S. missile defenses or NATO troops stationed in Ukraine was, for the Kremlin, an unacceptable security threat, bringing the potential for a first strike devastatingly close. From this paranoid but calculated viewpoint, the invasion was a “preemptive” act to forestall a future, more dangerous confrontation.
3. The Domestic Calculus: Putin’s Political Survival
Beyond foreign policy, the invasion serves a crucial domestic purpose for Vladimir Putin. His rule has been built on a promise to restore Russia’s greatness and stability after the chaotic and humiliating 1990s. A victorious war is a powerful tool for consolidating power.
- Nationalist Rallying Cry: Conflict has historically been used to unite a population behind a leader. By framing the war as a struggle against a “neo-Nazi” regime in Kyiv (a blatant falsehood given Ukraine’s democratically elected Jewish president) and its Western “puppet masters,” Putin taps into deep wells of Russian patriotism and historical grievance.
- Distraction from Domestic Issues: Prior to the invasion, Putin’s government was facing growing domestic discontent over economic stagnation, crumbling infrastructure, corruption, and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. A “short, victorious war” was intended to divert public attention and crush any nascent opposition under a wave of nationalist fervor.
- The Legacy Factor: Putin, who has been in power for over two decades, is increasingly concerned with his legacy. Securing his place in history as the leader who reassembled the historical Russian lands and stood up to a declining West is a powerful personal motivator.
4. The Economic and Energy Gambit
Ukraine is not just geopolitically significant; it is economically vital. It is a breadbasket with some of the most fertile land on earth and possesses significant natural resources.
Most importantly, it was the key transit route for Russian gas to Europe. Pipelines like Nord Stream 1 and the (then-unfinished) Nord Stream 2 were designed to bypass Ukraine, giving Moscow immense leverage over both Kyiv and European customers. By controlling Ukraine, Russia would have monopolistic control over energy flows to Europe, its primary source of revenue and geopolitical influence. The invasion can be seen as the ultimate escalation of this energy war.
5. The Miscalculation: Why 2022?
All these factors had been simmering for years. So why invade in February 2022?
- Perceived Western Weakness: The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 likely convinced Putin that the West, and particularly the United States under President Biden, lacked the resolve for a prolonged conflict. He perceived a divided Europe, dependent on Russian energy and reluctant to fight.
- The Belief in a Quick Victory: The Kremlin’s plan was clearly for a lightning strike to decapitate the Ukrainian government in Kyiv, install a puppet regime, and present the world with a fait accompli within days. They utterly underestimated Ukrainian resistance and overestimated their own military’s capabilities.
- Ukraine’s Growing Strength: Every year, the Ukrainian army was becoming better trained and equipped. For Putin, it was a case of “now or never.” Waiting longer would only make conquering Ukraine a more difficult and costly endeavor.
Conclusion: A War of Choice, Not Necessity
In the final analysis, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not inevitable. It was a war of choice—overwhelmingly, the choice of one man, Vladimir Putin, who is the ultimate architect of this catastrophe.
He synthesized historical myth, geopolitical paranoia, domestic political strategy, and economic ambition into a single, brutal decision. He was enabled by a corrupt and sycophantic inner circle and a political system that concentrated absolute power in his hands.
While the threads of NATO expansion and historical context are crucial to understanding the context of his grievances, they do not justify the unprovoked aggression, the mass war crimes, and the attempt to erase a sovereign nation and its identity. The invasion is a stark reminder that the post-Cold War order is fragile, that imperial ambitions did not die in the 20th century, and that the price of sovereignty is eternal vigilance. The story of this war is still being written, but its origins will be studied for generations as a cautionary tale of how history, ambition, and miscalculation can combine to unleash hell on earth.