What HKS Scholars Are Saying About Russian Vs Ukraine

During Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin’s preparations focused on mobilizing collaborators from among the local population. Moscow hoped for a flood of citizens, like Boiko and the countless other fighters in Ukraine’s army, to run occupation administrations in places such as Kherson. That has not happened and, instead, ordinary Ukrainians, including the pro-Western candidates Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine’s most recent presidential elections, have fought back, denounced the war, and refused to endorse any deal with Moscow to return their territory.

Putin’s rejection of Ukraine’s identity, based on the assumption that its desire to separate from Russia is artificial and a result of manipulation by external forces, seems to be deeply rooted in his own beliefs. It is also a long-running theme of his policy toward Ukraine and Belarus, modeled on the ideas of thinkers who emphasize the organic unity of the Russian people, with its Slavic roots, languages, and religions.

Despite the battlefield setbacks and mounting civilian casualties, Putin remains determined to keep Ukraine at bay through military force. The escalation of Russia’s missile attacks against Ukraine’s cities is a clear sign of desperation. But even a major Ukrainian military breakthrough in the eastern part of the country would be unlikely to end the conflict. That is because of a fundamental miscalculation in Moscow’s thinking about Ukrainian identity that has proved to be almost impossible to correct on the battlefield or through negotiations.