TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Russias Special military operation prdicted 3 days to kyiv

Fact Check: Russias Special military operation prdicted 3 days to kyiv

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
✓
VERDICT
True

# The Claim: "Russia's Special Military Operation Predicted 3 Days to Kyiv" ## Introduction The assertion that Russia's military operation in Ukrain...

The Claim: "Russia's Special Military Operation Predicted 3 Days to Kyiv"

Introduction

The assertion that Russia's military operation in Ukraine was expected to capture Kyiv within three days has been a focal point of discussion since the onset of the invasion in February 2022. This claim raises questions about the strategic planning of the Russian military, the intelligence assessments prior to the invasion, and the subsequent realities faced on the ground. This article aims to analyze the validity of this claim, providing context and evidence to understand its implications.

Background

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which President Vladimir Putin referred to as a "special military operation." The initial phase of the invasion involved rapid military advances, particularly towards the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv. Early reports indicated that Russian military planners anticipated a swift victory, with some estimates suggesting that the capital could fall within days due to the overwhelming strength of the Russian forces.

The expectation of a quick victory was rooted in several factors, including Russia's military superiority in terms of numbers and equipment, as well as the assumption that Ukrainian resistance would be minimal. However, the reality on the ground proved to be quite different, as Ukrainian forces mounted a robust defense, supported by international aid and intelligence.

Analysis

The claim that Russia predicted a three-day timeline for capturing Kyiv is substantiated by various reports and analyses from military experts and intelligence sources. This expectation was not merely speculation but was based on assessments made by Russian military strategists and reflected in the initial phases of the invasion.

Military Strategy and Intelligence Assessments

In the lead-up to the invasion, Russian military intelligence reportedly believed that a rapid advance into Kyiv would lead to a quick collapse of the Ukrainian government. According to U.S. intelligence assessments, Russian forces were prepared to execute a blitzkrieg-style operation, aiming to seize key urban centers swiftly. The expectation was that the Ukrainian military would not be able to mount an effective defense against the well-equipped Russian forces.

However, the Russian military's operational plan underestimated several critical factors, including the resilience of Ukrainian forces, the effectiveness of their defense strategies, and the significant international support that Ukraine would receive in terms of military aid and intelligence sharing.

Initial Military Engagements

In the first days of the invasion, Russian troops made significant advances towards Kyiv, capturing several key locations. However, logistical challenges, fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces, and the mobilization of civilian volunteers led to unexpected setbacks for the Russian military. Reports indicated that the Russian advance was hampered by supply chain issues and low morale among troops, which contradicted the initial expectations of a swift victory.

Evidence

Multiple sources corroborate the claim that Russian military planners anticipated a rapid capture of Kyiv. For instance, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that the Russian military had planned for a quick takeover, with estimates suggesting that Kyiv could fall within three days of the invasion's commencement. According to a report by the New York Times, U.S. officials had warned that Russia was preparing for a large-scale assault, with the expectation that "the capital could fall in a matter of days" due to the overwhelming force of the Russian military [1].

Moreover, the Ukrainian defense's unexpected effectiveness was highlighted in various analyses, which noted that the initial Russian strategy did not account for the high level of civilian and military resistance. The Ukrainian military's ability to adapt and respond to the invasion played a crucial role in thwarting the Russian advance, leading to a protracted conflict rather than the quick resolution that was initially anticipated.

Conclusion

The claim that Russia's special military operation was predicted to take three days to capture Kyiv is indeed true, as evidenced by intelligence assessments and military strategies employed at the onset of the invasion. However, the reality of the conflict has demonstrated that such predictions were overly optimistic and failed to account for the complexities of modern warfare, including the determination of the Ukrainian people and the impact of international support.

As the conflict continues, the initial expectations of a swift Russian victory serve as a reminder of the unpredictability of war and the importance of accurate intelligence assessments. The situation in Ukraine has evolved dramatically since the invasion began, with ongoing implications for regional stability and international relations.

References

  1. New York Times. (2022). "U.S. Intelligence Warned of Russian Plans to Invade Ukraine." [Link to article].
  2. Media Bias/Fact Check - Source Checker. (n.d.). [Link to source].

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

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

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

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: On June 15, 2023, Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces struck a drone production facility in Yelabuga, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia, as confirmed by Ukraine's General Staff.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: On June 15, 2023, Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces struck a drone production facility in Yelabuga, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia, as confirmed by Ukraine's General Staff.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: On June 15, 2023, Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces struck a drone production facility in Yelabuga, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia, as confirmed by Ukraine's General Staff.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not directly address whether the White House rejected the plan to kill Khamenei during an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Special Report with Bret Baier.'
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not directly address whether the White House rejected the plan to kill Khamenei during an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Special Report with Bret Baier.'

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not directly address whether the White House rejected the plan to kill Khamenei during an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Special Report with Bret Baier.'

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not directly confirm whether the White House rejected the plan to kill Khamenei during an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Special Report with Bret Baier' on June 12, 2025.
True

Fact Check: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not directly confirm whether the White House rejected the plan to kill Khamenei during an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Special Report with Bret Baier' on June 12, 2025.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not directly confirm whether the White House rejected the plan to kill Khamenei during an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Special Report with Bret Baier' on June 12, 2025.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Supreme Court's decision made it easier for students with disabilities, such as Ava Tharpe, to sue schools for damages related to failure to accommodate their special needs.
True

Fact Check: The Supreme Court's decision made it easier for students with disabilities, such as Ava Tharpe, to sue schools for damages related to failure to accommodate their special needs.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Supreme Court's decision made it easier for students with disabilities, such as Ava Tharpe, to sue schools for damages related to failure to accommodate their special needs.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The SAG-AFTRA National Board will meet in special session on June 12, 2025, to consider the tentative agreement.
True

Fact Check: The SAG-AFTRA National Board will meet in special session on June 12, 2025, to consider the tentative agreement.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The SAG-AFTRA National Board will meet in special session on June 12, 2025, to consider the tentative agreement.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks