1 Institute for the Study of War and AEI’s Critical Threats Project 2022
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, February 21, 2023
Karolina Hird, Grace Mappes, George Barros, Nicole Wolkov, Angela Howard, and Frederick W. Kagan
February 21, 8pm ET
Click here to see ISW’s interactive map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily
alongside the static maps present in this report.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February 21 address to the Russian Federal Assembly did not articulate
specific goals or intentions for the war in Ukraine, instead reinforcing several long-standing rhetorical
lines in an effort to buy Putin more space and time for a protracted war. Putin claimed that Russia began the
“special military operation” in Ukraine a year ago in order to protect people in Russia’s “historical lands,” ensure Russian
domestic security, remedy the threat posed by the Ukrainian “neo-Nazi” regime that he claims has been in place since 2014,
and protect the people of Donbas.[1] Putin virulently accused the collective West of arming Ukraine and deploying bases
and biolabs close to Russian borders, thereby unleashing the war on Russia.[2] Putin falsely analogized the Ukrainian
Armed Forces with various Nazi divisions and thanked the Russian Armed Forces for their efforts in fighting the Nazi
threat.[3] The emphasis of a significant portion of the speech was on the supposed resilience of the Russian economic, social,
and cultural spheres, and Putin made several recommendations for the development of occupied territories of
Ukraine.[4] Putin's speech notably re-engaged with several long-standing Russian information operations regarding the
justifications of the war and did not present an inflection in Russia’s rhetorical positioning on the war. Putin could have
used this event to articulate new objectives and means for achieving them, such as announcing another formal wave of
partial mobilization, redefining the “special military operation” as an official war, or taking additional steps to mobilize the
Russian defense industrial base (DIB) in a more concrete way. Instead, Putin said very little of actual substance, likely in
order to set continued information conditions for a protracted war in Ukraine by not articulating specific temporal goals
and framing the war as existential to the Russian domestic population.
Putin announcement of Russia’s suspension of participation in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START) captured more attention than the relatively boilerplate content of the rest of the speech. Towards
the end of his speech, Putin claimed that the collective West has used START to try to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and
that Russia is therefore suspending its participation in START, although Putin did emphasize that suspension is not a full
withdrawal.[5] Putin called on the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Russian nuclear energy agency Rosatom to
ensure readiness for testing nuclear weapons.[6] Putin may have made this announcement in order to re-introduce nuclear
rhetoric into the information space, thereby distracting from the overall lack of substance in the rest of his speech. ISW has
previously reported on the Russian use of nuclear rhetoric as an information operation to discourage Ukraine and the West
and compensate for Russian battlefield failures.[7] ISW continues to assess that Russia will not employ a nuclear weapon
in Ukraine or against NATO, however.
US President Joe Biden gave a speech in Warsaw, Poland on February 21 to reaffirm US and NATO support
for Ukraine after his trip to Kyiv. Biden emphasized the unity among NATO countries and stated “our support for
Ukraine will not waver, NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire.”[8] Biden also directly addressed Putin’s February
21 speech stating, “the West was not plotting to attack Russia” and “[Putin] could end this war with a word.”[9]
Many Russian milbloggers condemned Putin’s failure to use his speech to forward new war aims, outline
new measures to support the war, or hold Russian authorities accountable for their many military
failures. Some milbloggers with prior Kremlin affiliation as well as occupation officials attended the speech in person and
expressed positive or neutral support for Putin’s framing of the war as a conflict against the West, suspension of Russia’s
participation in START, and support of the Donbas separatist republics.[10] Other milbloggers criticized Putin’s address as
boilerplate and without meaningful action. Russian milblogger Igor Girkin notably claimed that Putin did not say anything
meaningful for 40 minutes; omitted Russia’s military defeats, military failures, and economic downturn; and failed to hold
Russian officials accountable.[11] Girkin also expressed frustration at Putin’s failure to use the address to formally recognize
the war, announce next objectives, or counter Western sanctions. Another milblogger claimed that the suspension of
Russia’s participation in START is politically symbolic but complained that the suspension will not improve Russia’s
situation on the battlefield, instead calling on Russia to hinder Western military aid deliveries to Ukraine.[12] A third
milblogger compared Putin to a corpse and echoed many of Girkin’s complaints about accountability and action.[13] Other
milbloggers similarly noted the need for decisive action and called for Russia to foster the growth of and promote military
leaders with a demonstrated history of taking decisive action on the battlefield.[14] Wagner Group financier Yevgeny
Prigozhin claimed that he did not watch Putin’s speech live because he was too busy working to supply Wagner forces with
ammunition necessary to continue effective combat operations in Ukraine.[15]
