Geoffrey Roberts – Why Putin Went to War

INTERVIEW, 8 May 2023

Brave New Europe - TRANSCEND Media Service

Interview with Historian Geoffrey Roberts by Flemming Rose, Editorinchief of Frihedsbrevet

4 May 2023 – For this week’s Free Thought, I have spoken with the British historian Geoffrey
Roberts about an article he recently published in the Journal of Military and Strategic
Studies under the title “Now or Never: The Immediate Origins of Putin’s Preventive
War on Ukraine”. We also talked about the historical craft, how the war in Ukraine
will be viewed in 50 years, and what secret documents Roberts would like to see if he
could get access to the Russian archives.

Geoffrey Roberts has researched and written about the history of diplomacy for
many decades. In particular, he has dealt with the processes leading up to the
outbreak of the Second World War and to the HitlerStalin Pact of 1939, which
involved the division of Eastern Europe into spheres of interest between Germany
and the Soviet Union. He is the author a voluminous work entitled Stalin’s Wars:
From World War to Cold War 19391953, which was based on his studies in the
Russian archives. Roberts is also coauthor of a book on the wartime relationship
between Churchill and Stalin and has written a biography of Georgy Zhukov, Stalin’s
most important general during World War II. Most recently, Roberts has written a
book entitled Stalin’s Library: A Dictator and His Books.

Reasons for War

Frihedsbrevet: Why did Vladimir Putin decide in February 2022 to invade Ukraine and start the biggest land war in Europe since World War II? And when did he make that fateful

Geoffrey Roberts: There are many opinions about that. It is one of those events that historians will write thousands of articles and books about for decades to come.

Some believe that Putin is driven by the ambition to restore the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire.

Others point out that Putin is motivated by the desire to gain control of what is called “the Russian world”, which includes regions where the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian language and culture dominate.

Still others point to Putin launching the war to consolidate his power at home and save his regime from internal threats and opposition.

A fourth claim is that the decision to go to war was the work of an isolated, maniacal dictator. A dictator surrounded by puppets who was convinced the Russian army would be welcomed by a majority of the Ukrainian population.

A fifth explanation says that Putin feared a democratic Ukraine with a political order alternative to his authoritarian regime in Russia, which could lead disaffected Russians to rebel against the Kremlin.

Geoffrey Roberts rejects all these explanations. He believes that Putin went to war to prevent Ukraine from developing into an increasingly strong and threatening military bridgehead for NATO on the border with Russia.

According to Roberts, for Putin the decision to invade Ukraine was not only about the immediate situation; it was about a future in which he feared Russia would face an existential threat from the West. In that context, Roberts states, it is not decisive whether Putin is morbidly paranoid or whether his fantasies have no root in the real world. The key is what Putin actually thought and on what basis he made the decision to go to war; for Roberts as a historian, it is about uncovering the logic and inner dynamics of Putin’s reasoning that preceded the war.

Roberts does this by reviewing Putin’s public comments and statements from spring 2021 until the invasion in February 2022, comparing them with what he has said since.

His method is empirical, meaning that he reconstructs the story based on what Putin says and does. Roberts identifies a common thread of elements and talking points that recur all the way through the narrative the fear of NATO expansion, concern about NATO missile defense in Poland and Romania, the transformation of Ukraine into an antiRussia and a NATO armed outpost on the border with Russia, criticism of Ukraine for discrimination against proRussians and not implementing the socalled Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, which were an attempt to regulate the conflict between the Ukrainian central government and the Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

According to Roberts, throughout the run up to the February 2022 invasion, Putin maintained that the Minsk agreements were the only mechanism available to deal with the dispute between Kiev and the Donbass rebels. Roberts also cites Putin’s ‘infamous’ summer 2021 essay on the historical unity of Russia and Ukraine, in which he laments alleged discrimination against Russians in Ukraine, declaring: “We will never allow our historic lands and people close to us to be used against Russia.”

In autumn 2021, the rhetoric sharpened, and on November 18, i.e. a month before Moscow submitted its formal security demands to NATO, Putin proposed legally binding security guarantees from NATO in relation to Ukraine. When his demands were published, they went even further and were not only about Ukraine, but also about the infrastructure NATO had built in its new member states. Russia’s demands were rejected by the West at the end of January 2022. A few days later, Putin said at a press conference in the Kremlin:

“It is stated in Ukraine’s doctrines that they will take Crimea back, if necessary
by force. It’s not just something Ukrainian representatives say publicly, it’s
written down in their documents. Imagine then that Ukraine becomes a
member of NATO. It is being loaded with weapons and more offensive
weapons will be deployed on its territory, just like in Poland and Romania –
who is going to stop it? Imagine Ukraine launching an operation against
Crimea or Donbass. Crimea is Russian territory. We see that case as settled.
Imagine that Ukraine is a member of NATO and begins a military operation. So
what should we do? Fight against NATO? Has anyone even thought about
that? Apparently not.”

Roberts hypothesizes that it was the fear of a nuclear-armed Ukraine that prompted Putin to attack at the last minute. The historian refers to Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech at the security conference in Munich five days before the invasion, in which the Ukrainian president aired the idea that Ukraine should acquire tactical nuclear weapons in order to defend itself. None of the Western leaders present objected, according to Roberts, even though such an initiative would have been a violation of the international agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Three days later, Putin was asked whether he considered Zelensky’s words to be bluster or a real statement of intent.

Putin replied:

“We reckon that his words were primarily directed at us. I would like to say
that we have heard them. Ever since Soviet times, Ukraine has had broad
nuclear capabilities. They have several nuclear power plants and a nuclear
industry which is quite developed and they have a school to educate people.
They have everything to be able to solve that problem much faster than the
countries that are starting from scratch.”

He added:

“The only thing they lack is systems for enriching uranium. It’s just a matter of
technology. It is not an insurmountable task for Ukraine. It can be done quite
easily, and the presence of tactical nukes in Ukraine and missiles with a range
of 300–500 kilometres means they can hit Moscow. It is a strategic threat to
us and that is how we perceive it. We have to and will take it extremely

Roberts summarizes:

“On the eve of the invasion, many astute and well-informed commentators convinced themselves that the supposedly realistic and pragmatic Putin would not risk such an attack. What they missed was the crystallization of Putin’s apocalyptic vision of a future, nuclear-armed Ukraine embedded in NATO and intent on provoking a Russian-Western war. Arguably, it was that long-term nuclear threat that finally prompted Putin to go to war.


Originally posted in Danish at Frihedsbrevet

Go to Original –

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.