Why Russia Attacked Ukraine in 2022

An in-depth analysis of geopolitical, historical, and strategic motivations

Russian military vehicles and Eastern European landscape

Key Highlights

Geopolitical Ambitions and NATO Concerns: Russia's long-standing opposition to NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's potential integration into Western alliances formed a central part of its strategic calculus.
Historical and Cultural Narrative: The Russian leadership, notably President Vladimir Putin, has consistently framed Ukraine as part of a shared historical and cultural sphere with Russia, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Security and Domestic Political Dynamics: The invasion also sought to mitigate perceived security threats and bolster internal political legitimacy by casting Ukraine and Western influence as existential challenges.

Background Context

The Russian military intervention in Ukraine in 2022 is the culmination of decades of tension, conflicting historical narratives, and broader geopolitical rivalries that have shaped the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This event did not occur in isolation but is deeply rooted in historical disputes, a shared cultural legacy, and Russia's desire to reclaim influence in its near abroad. The situation escalated after years of dissatisfaction with Ukraine's growing ties to Western institutions and increasing aspirations toward European integration, which Russian leadership viewed as a direct challenge to its regional hegemony.

Historical Underpinnings

Shared Past and Divergent Futures

Russia’s narrative about Ukraine is intricately tied to historical claims. The idea of a common heritage between Russians and Ukrainians has been a recurring theme in Russian political discourse. For many years, particularly under President Vladimir Putin, there was a persistent emphasis on the notion that Russians and Ukrainians are essentially “one people” with overlapping cultural, historical, and spiritual roots. This narrative traces the origins of these ties back to the medieval period, where the emergence of Kievan Rus is often cited as a foundational moment for both nations. However, while Russia embraces this viewpoint, it effectively delegitimizes the notion of a distinct and sovereign Ukrainian identity.

In the Soviet era, these shared histories were used to forge a collective identity. Nevertheless, after the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine began to assert its independence not only politically but also in terms of establishing a separate national identity. This divergence has since been at the heart of much of the ideological and political conflict between the two nations. Russia’s efforts to maintain influence over Ukraine, and its insistence that Ukraine remains within its sphere of influence, are thus as much about preserving a perceived historical continuum as they are about asserting contemporary power.

Reassertion of Historical Narratives

Russian leadership has regularly referenced historical narratives to justify territorial ambitions. The intertwining of history with current state policies explains why Russia was reluctant to accept Ukraine's complete independence and western drift. The narrative of historical unity and shared destiny is a powerful tool that has been used to bolster domestic support and to challenge the legitimacy of Ukraine's statehood on the international stage. This historical justification, although criticized and largely discredited by many scholars and international observers, remains a cornerstone of Russia’s ideological framework.

Geopolitical and Security Concerns

One of the most immediate and frequently cited factors in the lead-up to the conflict was Russia’s deep-seated security apprehensions regarding the expansion of Western institutions, notably NATO. Over the course of the post-Cold War era, NATO's steady eastward expansion has triggered a strategic and psychological response from Moscow, which has long regarded the alliance as a direct threat to its national security.

NATO and Western Influence

The NATO Conundrum

Russia's security concerns are heavily influenced by the steady increase in NATO’s footprint in Eastern Europe, a development that Moscow perceives not simply as a defensive alliance for European nations but as an encroachment on its historical geopolitical sphere. The potential for Ukraine to join NATO represented a significant red line for Russia. Beyond the obvious military implications—such as the positioning of NATO forces closer to Russian borders—this possibility threatened to undermine Moscow's strategic depth, potentially shifting regional military balances.

From Moscow’s perspective, the expansion of NATO into territories that were once part of its buffer zone could destabilize the delicate balance of power in the region. Historically, Russia has remained wary of any foreign military presence near its borders, as the memory of past invasions has left an indelible mark on its national psyche. This profound sensitivity explains why any move, such as Ukraine’s overtures toward Western alliances, is perceived as a direct provocation and challenge to its influence.

Security and Strategic Considerations

In addition to NATO’s expansion, the broader geopolitical dynamics involve concerns over Ukraine's growing relationships with the European Union and other Western powers. As Ukraine sought modernizing reforms and deeper integration with Western economies, it increasingly aligned itself with Western strategic interests. This alignment was seen as a deliberate reorientation away from the Russian sphere of influence, with significant implications for military and security policies in the region. Moscow viewed such a shift as a loss not just of political influence but of strategic advantage, particularly with Ukraine’s geographic importance in corridors of energy transit and regional connectivity.

Strategic Objectives and Broader Ambitions

Beyond the immediate security concerns, the invasion of Ukraine fits within a broader pattern of Russian geopolitical strategy aimed at reestablishing influence over former Soviet territories. This aspect of the conflict is not merely reactive; it reflects a proactive strategy to reshape the regional order in Eastern Europe. At its core, the Russian strategy in Ukraine involves both containment of Western influence and reassertion of Russia’s rightful place as the dominant power in its near abroad.

Geopolitical Reassertion

Reclaiming Spheres of Influence

The idea of reclaiming or maintaining spheres of influence is critical to understanding Russia’s strategic thinking. Since the dissolution of the USSR, Russia has seen the loss of significant territories and influence as a deep national wound. Many in Russia, including its leadership, perceive the post-Soviet space as a natural area for Russian influence, where historical, cultural, and economic bonds should ideally bind the states within this sphere. This standpoint has driven Russia to intervene in neighboring regions that seem to veer away from its influence, using a mix of political, economic, and military instruments.

The Russian intervention in Ukraine should therefore be seen as part of a broader ambition: to reverse the trajectory which has led many former Soviet republics to embrace Western political and economic models. This reassertion of influence seeks not only to prevent Ukraine from joining Western alliances but also to signal to other neighboring states the potential consequences of distancing themselves from Moscow’s orbit.

Consolidating Regional Power

The conflict also served to consolidate Russia’s regional power by establishing control over a strategically significant area. Ukraine’s role as a bridge between Eastern and Western Europe means that control over its political orientation directly affects regional dynamics, from energy transit routes to military deployments. By intervening in Ukraine, Russia aimed to present itself as the ultimate arbiter of stability in its periphery, one capable of setting the terms of engagement with the West. This strategic posturing is essential for Russia’s long-term regional ambitions.

Domestic Politics and Ideological Justifications

Domestic political fundamentals have also played a significant role in Russia’s decision to attack Ukraine. The Russian leadership under Putin has long leveraged external conflicts to bolster national unity and distract the populace from internal challenges. The narrative of an external threat—whether from NATO encroachment or a Western-backed Ukrainian government—serves to rally domestic support and legitimize the government’s broader political agenda.

Domestic Consolidation and Ideological Narratives

Cultivation of Nationalism

Nationalistic sentiment has been an important element in the Kremlin's domestic strategy. The portrayal of Ukraine as not fully independent, along with the assertion that it is an inseparable part of the historical Russian domain, is both a means of rallying domestic support and a justification for military actions abroad. By depicting the conflict in terms of protecting ethnic Russians or Russian-speaking populations, the government reinforces a narrative that external threats must be met with strong and decisive action. This narrative serves to unify the population against a common adversary, consolidating power domestically while projecting strength on the international stage.

Distraction from Domestic Issues

Another dimension of domestic politics was the desire to distract from internal problems. Economic challenges, political dissent, and a range of social issues within Russia have periodically put pressure on Putin’s regime. The invasion of Ukraine, framed as a defensive necessity against Western expansion and a protectant of national identity, diverted attention from these domestic issues. By shifting the narrative toward national security and historical destiny, the regime could consolidate political power and diminish internal criticism.

Strategic and Economic Dimensions

While ideological and security concerns have rightly captured much scholarly and media attention, practical strategic and economic dimensions also underpin Russia's actions. The war in Ukraine is not only about narratives and history; it is also a struggle for tangible strategic advantages that affect Russia's long-term economic and geopolitical prospects.

Economic and Strategic Interests

Control of Resources and Trade Routes

Ukraine occupies a significant position in terms of energy transit routes and regional trade. Its fertile agricultural lands and access to the Black Sea make it an economically valuable region. By attempting to secure or even control parts of Ukraine, Russia could potentially consolidate its economic leverage in Eastern Europe. Control over key territories would not only provide direct economic benefits through resource extraction and trade but would also enhance Russia’s bargaining position in broader geopolitical negotiations.

This strategic calculus, in which economic benefit is intertwined with geopolitical influence, is crucial to understanding Russia’s rationale. While Western narratives often focus on ideological motives, the pragmatic desire to secure economic resources and maintain control over important trade channels cannot be understated.

Perceived Western Weakness

A further contributing factor was Russia's calculation that the international response, particularly from Western democracies, might be limited or fragmented. The prolonged and relatively muted reaction to earlier actions, such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014, may have emboldened the Kremlin. This perception of a divided and distracted West, preoccupied with other global challenges, played a role in shaping Russia’s expectation that the military campaign would face limited centralized opposition. Such calculations, however, underestimated the resilience and eventual coordinated responses from NATO members and other global powers, which contributed to a deeply protracted conflict.

Synthesis in a Comparative Table

Aspect	Russian Perspective	Strategic Implication
Historical and Cultural Ties	Ukraine as an inseparable part of the Russian historical and cultural space	Justifies intervention based on a shared past and cultural destiny
NATO and Western Influence	Expansion of NATO seen as a direct threat to Russian security	Aims to prevent Ukraine’s integration into Western military alliances
Geopolitical Ambitions	Restoration of Russian influence over the former Soviet space	Reasserts control in Eastern Europe and secures strategic depth
Domestic Politics	Use of nationalism to consolidate power and distract from internal issues	Strengthens regime stability by rallying public sentiment against perceived external threats
Economic Interests	Control of resources and key transit routes	Enhances economic leverage and ensures long-term strategic benefits

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022 was not the result of a single factor but rather a combination of historical grievances, geopolitical strategies, and security concerns. Central to the conflict were long-standing historical narratives that view Ukraine as intrinsically linked with Russia—an idea that underpinned Putin’s claim over the territory. Such ideologies, however, collided with the modern aspirations of Ukraine to assert its independence and align more closely with Western institutions like NATO and the European Union.

Security concerns related specifically to NATO’s encroachment on what Moscow perceives as its sphere of influence provided a tangible and immediate justification for the military intervention. The potential for Ukraine to integrate further with Western military structures was seen as a direct existential threat to Russia’s national security. At the same time, strategic and economic considerations involving control over valuable resources and critical trade routes gave the operation additional weight beyond ideological ambitions.

Domestically, the Russian government further utilized the conflict to consolidate national power by fostering a narrative of external threats while diverting attention from internal issues. This combination of historical, security, economic, and domestic factors created a complex matrix of motives that propelled Russia into a conflict with far-reaching humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The invasion thus reflects a broader attempt to reassert control over the post-Soviet space and challenge the prevailing Western order, realigning regional dynamics in a manner that resonates deeply within both historical memory and contemporary geopolitical strategy.

References

KyivPost - KyivPost
U.S. News & World Report - U.S. News & World Report
Business Insider - Business Insider
Britannica - Britannica
Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Council on Foreign Relations - CFR