TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Did Ukraine attack Russia first?

Fact Check: Did Ukraine attack Russia first?

Published March 11, 2025•Updated June 18, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
✗
VERDICT
False

# Fact Check: Did Ukraine Attack Russia First? ## What We Know The claim that Ukraine attacked Russia first is misleading and lacks substantial evide...

Fact Check: Did Ukraine Attack Russia First?

What We Know

The claim that Ukraine attacked Russia first is misleading and lacks substantial evidence. The current conflict, often referred to as the Russo-Ukrainian War, escalated significantly when Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. This invasion followed a prolonged period of military buildup by Russia along the Ukrainian border, which began as early as 2021 (Wikipedia). Prior to the invasion, tensions had been escalating due to Russia's demands regarding Ukraine's NATO membership and the recognition of separatist regions in eastern Ukraine (Defense.gov).

In the lead-up to the invasion, on February 21, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, which he recognized as independent republics (The Guardian). This action was a clear indication of Russia's aggressive posture towards Ukraine, rather than a response to any Ukrainian military action.

Analysis

The assertion that Ukraine attacked Russia first often stems from the complex history of the conflict, particularly the events in eastern Ukraine since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatist movements. However, the timeline of events leading up to the 2022 invasion shows that Russia was the aggressor. The military buildup and subsequent invasion were preemptive actions by Russia, not reactions to Ukrainian aggression (Wikipedia).

Moreover, credible sources such as the BBC and Politico have documented the sequence of events leading to the invasion, emphasizing that Russia's actions were not provoked by Ukraine but were part of a broader strategy to exert control over Ukraine and prevent its alignment with Western institutions (BBC, Politico).

The reliability of sources that claim Ukraine attacked first is often questionable, as they may be influenced by pro-Russian narratives or lack comprehensive context. In contrast, established news organizations and academic analyses provide a more nuanced understanding of the events, reinforcing the conclusion that Russia initiated the conflict (New York Times).

Conclusion

The claim that Ukraine attacked Russia first is False. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Russia was the aggressor in the conflict, initiating military action against Ukraine without provocation. The timeline of events clearly indicates that the invasion was part of a long-standing strategy by Russia to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Sources

  1. Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia
  2. Russian War in Ukraine: Timeline - Defense.gov
  3. The Guardian - Putin orders troops into eastern Ukraine on 'peacekeeping duties'
  4. BBC News - Why is Russia invading Ukraine and what does Putin want?
  5. New York Times - Key Moments in the Russia-Ukraine War: A Timeline

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Did Donald Trump make America great in his first term?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Did Donald Trump make America great in his first term?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Did Donald Trump make America great in his first term?

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks