logo
Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Debunking Putin's ‘root causes' claims

Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Debunking Putin's ‘root causes' claims

Yahoo4 days ago

As Russia continues to bombard cities and towns across Ukraine, Russian officials have hardened their position against a ceasefire, continuing to repeat the obscure demand that the war's "root causes" be addressed before agreeing to any truce.
For months, the phrase "root causes" has become a go-to talking point repeated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his deputies, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, to justify their continued aggression.
"In (Russia's) telling, they ascribe these root causes to an aggressive West," said Robert Person, an expert on Russian foreign policy and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
"The most concrete thing that you'll hear, when they're talking about the root causes that they refer to, is the enlargement of NATO."
Russia has named the alleged threat from NATO in its attempts to justify its invasion of Ukraine, among other reasons, and has demanded that a peace agreement include a ban on Ukraine ever joining the alliance.
But Russia's framing is a red herring, Person and other experts argue.
"What Putin is after in Ukraine and beyond is not just a rollback of the prospect of NATO membership. It's not about securing Ukraine's neutrality," he said. "It's really about turning Ukraine into a subservient vassal state with a puppet government that does his bidding."
The false narratives serve a useful purpose for Russia's government, however, said Mercedes Sapuppo, assistant director in the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
"When Putin discusses the 'root causes' of his war, he is calling up a framework that he claims justifies Russia's aggression in Ukraine by falsely placing blame on Ukraine," said Sapuppo. "Putin and the Kremlin are using these narratives to frame Ukraine as the instigator of the Kremlin's war."
Even U.S. President Donald Trump has bought into the idea, saying as recently as last month, "I think what caused the war to start was when (Ukraine) started talking about joining NATO."
Alongside NATO expansion, Russia has at times named additional reasons for its invasion — including propaganda claims of Nazi extremism, and protecting the status of Russian language speakers or the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church — but it has placed outsized emphasis on NATO.
In 2018, Ukraine enshrined its goal of NATO membership in its constitution and has since argued that membership in the security alliance is needed in the future to deter further Russian aggression.
Yet the idea that NATO is the root cause of this conflict is "nonsensical," said Stephen Hall, assistant professor in Russian and post-Soviet politics at the University of Bath.
"It's a narrative that's pushed by the Kremlin to try and get so-called 'useful idiots' to play it up in the media and elsewhere."
One sign that Putin's concerns go beyond NATO, notes Hall, is the limited resistance that Russia put up when Poland joined NATO in 1999 and when Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia followed in 2004 — four countries that share a border with Russia.
"Then fast forward to when the state with the longest border (in NATO) with Russia, Finland, joins in 2023. There's barely a peep from Moscow," he added.
While NATO is relevant, it is only in highlighting to Putin that Ukraine is slipping away from Russian influence, Hall said. Additionally, if Ukraine were to make independent decisions based on the will of its people, it could send a signal to Russian citizens that democracy is a viable option for them, as well.
"That, obviously, is a problem for Putin's autocracy, or any autocracy for that matter," Hall said.
"It's very clear that the root cause for him, really, is just Ukraine's existence."
Before Russia's 2014 invasion, the idea of NATO membership was deeply unpopular with Ukrainian citizens, with only around 15 to 20% of Ukrainians supporting it at the time.
Since Russia's invasion, however, support has skyrocketed. According to a poll last year by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 84% of Ukrainians would like to see their country join NATO.
Evidence that NATO is a smokescreen for Putin's motivations is seen not just in how Putin treats other NATO members, but also how it has treated Ukraine for decades, Person of CFR said.
"For over twenty years, Putin has very aggressively been targeting Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian democracy," Person said, citing Putin's interference in Ukraine during the 2004 Orange Revolution as an example.
In the lead-up to the Orange Revolution, Putin heavily promoted pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych ahead of the 2004 presidential election, including visiting Ukraine to push his preferred candidate. His attempts to interfere with Ukraine's politics prompted a backlash, helping to spark protests over a rigged election that resulted in Yanukovych's defeat.
"Then in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea, when they invaded the Donbas, membership in NATO was nowhere on the immediate agenda — for NATO or Ukraine. There was a constitutional provision at the time that prohibited it, and required neutrality," Person noted. "How does that somehow spark or cause the Russian invasion of 2014?"
Sapuppo, of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, says understanding Putin's motivation for the war is necessary for informing the West's strategies for negotiations with the Russian leader.
"It's very clear that the root cause for (Putin), really, is just Ukraine's existence. This should make it clear to Western leaders that any agreements to end the war need to be very forward-looking when it comes to security guarantees," she said.
If Western leaders were to fall into the trap of focusing on NATO limitations, this would not only fail to address the true reasons for the invasion, but would also allow Russia to establish a revisionist history, she said.
But recognizing the underlying motives for Russia's invasion also means recognizing that they are far more difficult to solve than a question of neutrality, Person added.
"You could draw lines on a map all day long. No line, unless it incorporates, at least all of Ukraine up to and including Kyiv and its government, is going to satisfy Putin's demands," he said.
"At the end of the day, what Putin cannot tolerate is a sovereign Ukraine that chooses its own foreign policies and partnerships, its own economic relationships."
Hi, this is Andrea. Thank you for reading this article. The Kyiv Independent doesn't have a wealthy owner or a paywall. Instead, we rely on readers like you to keep our journalism funded. We're now aiming to grow our community to 20,000 members — if you liked this article, consider joining our community today.
Read also: What happens to all the guns in Ukraine post-war?
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Attorney General ‘regrets' comparing calls to leave ECHR with 1930s Germany
Attorney General ‘regrets' comparing calls to leave ECHR with 1930s Germany

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Attorney General ‘regrets' comparing calls to leave ECHR with 1930s Germany

The Attorney General 'regrets' remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to leave international courts with 1930s Germany, his spokesman has said. In a statement, Lord Richard Hermer's spokesman said the peer acknowledged his 'choice of words was clumsy' but rejected 'the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives'. Lord Hermer has faced criticism for a speech on Thursday in which he criticised politicians who argued that Britain 'abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power'. Arguing that similar claims had been made 'in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany', Lord Hermer added that abandoning international law would only 'give succour to (Vladimir) Putin'. He also said that because of what happened 'in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law'. That is the year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor. The speech prompted Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who has suggested the UK would have to leave the ECHR if it stops the country from doing 'what is right', to accuse Lord Hermer of 'starting from a position of self loathing, where Britain is always wrong and everyone else is right'. In a post on social media, she said: 'The fact is laws go bad and need changing, institutions get corrupted. Our sovereignty is being eroded by out-of-date treaties and courts acting outside their jurisdiction. 'Pointing this out does not make anyone a Nazi. Labour have embarrassed themselves again with this comparison and unless the Prime Minister demands a retraction from his Attorney General, we can only assume these slurs reflect Keir Starmer's own view.' Lord Hermer's spokesman said: 'The Attorney General gave a speech defending international law which underpins our security, protects against threats from aggressive states like Russia and helps tackle organised immigration crime. 'He rejects the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives. He acknowledges though that his choice of words was clumsy and regrets having used this reference.' In his same speech to the Royal United Services Institute on Thursday, the Attorney General said 'we must not stagnate in our approach to international rules' and that officials should 'look to apply and adapt existing obligations to address new situations'. 'We must be ready to reform where necessary,' he added.

War's unseen isolation: A Ukrainian officer's story of survival and hope
War's unseen isolation: A Ukrainian officer's story of survival and hope

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

War's unseen isolation: A Ukrainian officer's story of survival and hope

A lot depends on the circumstances under which you try to define or feel your own loneliness. Let me begin with my biography — my recent story. I joined the army in the first days of Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, as an officer in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I had never served in the military before, and I never thought I would. In fact, I considered myself an anti-militarist — and still do. Yet, I see no contradiction between that and being proudly a senior lieutenant in the Armed Forces. Within three and a half months of participating in the liberation of the Kyiv Oblast and other operations further east, half of my platoon — eight of my subordinates and I — was captured by Russian forces in Luhansk Oblast. What followed were two years and four months of Russian captivity. I was a prisoner of war, held the entire time in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory — the very region we were defending. For some reason, keeping me as a POW wasn't enough — perhaps because they learned I was a journalist and human rights activist. A few months into my captivity, they fabricated a criminal case against me. The following year, I was sentenced as a 'war criminal' to 13 years in a penal colony for supposed heinous crimes. I felt lonely because of what I had experienced. The only evidence against me was a confession — extracted under duress. I prefer that phrasing, as it avoids the word 'torture.' I was part of a prisoner exchange in October of last year. Naturally, I'm incredibly happy to be free. But it also breaks my heart — almost everyone I spent those years with in captivity, except for two, are still there. And of my own platoon, four remain incarcerated. As a former POW, when you're released and return to your native city — Kyiv, which I've never loved more — you meet hundreds, even thousands, of wonderful people, joyful to see you free. I felt an overwhelming lightness, warmth, and happiness. And yet, at the same time, I understood — and so did many of them — that something fundamental had changed between us. I felt lonely because of what I had experienced. I've been to places and seen things they never have — and I hope they never will. But I also realized that our worldviews had diverged. How we see and feel the world is no longer the same. Most of them, when they thought about it — without any prompting — said, 'No, we don't know what you went through.' And that's true for every former prisoner of war or civilian detainee. This is what distinguishes a war veteran or a civilian under occupation from everyone else. We are shaped by what we live through. It's a strange thing, to feel lonely in such a significant — perhaps even defining — part of your life. But it's a kind of chosen loneliness, because you don't want others to feel what you felt. You don't want them to go through what you endured. In captivity, our guards deliberately tried to inflict another kind of loneliness. They worked to break us — morally, psychologically, and yes, physically. Especially in the first several months, we were held incommunicado, with no contact with the outside world. They repeatedly told us: 'You've been abandoned. Everyone has forgotten you. You are on your own. You're at our mercy. No one can reach you. We can do whatever we want. No one cares.' Read also: 'It's okay, Mom, I'm home' —Ukraine, Russia hold largest prisoner swap of the war I was lucky. I never believed it. Not for a single second — not even in the darkest moments. I placed all my trust in my loved ones — my family, my friends, my colleagues, and just kind people out there — believing they remembered me, remembered us. Other Ukrainian POWs came to hear me say it out loud: 'We are not forgotten.' That kind of destructive loneliness didn't work. Physically, we were isolated — but morally, we were not. 'You don't know what's happening. You don't understand. Wake up.' The loneliness I felt after my release was of a different kind. It wasn't about isolation. It was more complex. At the same time, I knew I was free because of other people. They had written letters, led campaigns, given interviews, and posted on social media. In the final months of my captivity, I learned there was a campaign of solidarity for me — but I couldn't have imagined the scale of it. After my release, I kept meeting strangers who had participated in it. And I know I am free, to the extent possible, because of them. I had plenty of time in captivity to reflect. My first degree is in philosophy — it never fades. I realized I had never treasured people as deeply as I do now. I began to grasp how much I am human — at my best — because of others. I recently returned from an advocacy trip across Europe, specifically within the EU. And I felt something many Ukrainians abroad have shared with me — being in a peaceful country untouched by what we've endured for more than three years now. I felt joy simply observing people. Watching groups of young people rushing through their day-to-day lives. I was so happy to see people living in normalcy. They should not endure what we're living through. That's a good thing. That's human. War is a state of profound dehumanization. People aren't meant to live through it. I was glad to see them. But at the same time, I felt like I knew something they didn't. I had this urge to walk up to someone, shake them, and say, 'You don't know what's happening. You don't understand. Wake up.' It's a kind of loneliness rooted in experience — that of a former prisoner of war. We've lived through something I sincerely hope no other community or country will ever have to experience. And as terrible as it sounds, I want us to be alone in that experience. Because if we're not, it means we failed to defend ourselves, and others had to share this tragedy with us. I would hope we rather remain lonely in that regard. Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. Submit an Opinion We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Ukraine ready for 2nd round of Istanbul talks but seeks Russian draft memo in advance, Yermak says
Ukraine ready for 2nd round of Istanbul talks but seeks Russian draft memo in advance, Yermak says

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Ukraine ready for 2nd round of Istanbul talks but seeks Russian draft memo in advance, Yermak says

Ukraine is ready to attend the second round of peace talks with the Russian delegation in Istanbul on June 2, but seeks to receive a draft of Russia's proposed ceasefire memorandum before the meeting, said Presidential Office Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak on May 29. Ukraine and Russia held peace talks in Istanbul on May 16, where both sides agreed to a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange. The peace negotiations were largely inconclusive, with Moscow reiterating maximalist demands and sending a delegation of lower-level officials. Moscow has proposed June 2 as the date for the next round of talks with Ukraine, despite escalating its attacks on the country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on May 29 that the Russian delegation, led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, is prepared to present the memorandum to the Ukrainian side and provide necessary clarifications during the next Istanbul meeting. Kyiv insists on receiving the memorandum ahead of the new round of talks in order to understand Russia's proposed steps toward a ceasefire. Ukraine has already submitted its own document to the Russian side. "Ukraine is ready to attend the next meeting, but we want to engage in a constructive discussion. This means it is important to receive Russia's draft. There is enough time – four days are sufficient for preparing and sending the documents," Yermak said during a conversation with advisors to the leaders of the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy. Security advisors from the four countries are expected to attend the second round of peace talks in Istanbul, U.S. President Donald Trump's Special Envoy Keith Kellogg said. Russia vowed to present its peace memorandum but has yet to deliver, drawing rebuke from Ukrainian, European, and U.S. officials. Trump has also repeatedly signaled he would exit the peace efforts unless progress is achieved soon. Reuters reported that Putin's conditions for ending Russia's war against Ukraine include a written pledge by NATO not to accept more Eastern European members, lifting of some sanctions, and Ukraine's neutral status, among other demands. Read also: Infighting around EU rearmament undermines grand ambitions for European defense We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store