The Warning Signs We Ignored: How 2021 Telegraphed Putin’s Invasion and What It Means for Future Threats
In December 2021, as President Biden hosted the first Summit for Democracy, declaring America’s commitment to “defending against authoritarianism,” Vladimir Putin was already finalizing plans for the largest military invasion in Europe since World War II.
The tragic irony is that Putin had spent the entire year of 2021 telegraphing his intentions through a series of escalating provocations that Western leaders either missed, misunderstood, or chose to ignore.
The failure to recognize and respond to these warning signs represents one of the most significant intelligence and policy failures of the post-Cold War era.
More troubling still, it reveals fundamental weaknesses in how democratic nations assess and respond to authoritarian threats — weaknesses that have profound implications as we face rising challenges from China, Iran, and other hostile powers.
June 2021: Military Provocations in the Pacific
The first major warning sign came in June 2021, when Russian naval forces conducted unprecedented exercises off the coast of Hawaii. Russian ships operated just 20-30 nautical miles from Hawaiian shores while practicing “destroying the aircraft carrier strike group of the mock enemy” and delivering simulated cruise missile strikes against “critically important” military infrastructure.
This wasn’t routine naval maneuvering. Russian bombers participated in the exercise, spending more than 14 hours in the air and covering 10,000 kilometers during simulated attacks on American positions. As one defense analyst noted, the political signaling was “very clear indeed”—Russia was demonstrating its ability to threaten the American homeland while testing U.S. responses to direct provocation.
The Pentagon’s reaction was telling: complete silence. No public acknowledgment, no counter-exercises, no diplomatic protest. As military analyst Thomas Newdick observed, “the service’s lack of candor regarding what is a fairly unprecedented threat, at least in recent years, near Hawaii is baffling.” The silence reflected what experts called “the atrophy of U.S. nuclear warfighting and crisis management skills.”
Putin learned a crucial lesson from this episode: America under Biden would not respond to direct military provocations, even near the homeland. This emboldened him to escalate further.
July 2021: Russia Declares Permanent War with the West
On July 2, 2021—ironically, the actual date the U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed—Putin’s administration published a new Russian military doctrine that fundamentally redefined Russia’s relationship with the West. The document declared permanent cultural and political conflict with Western nations, portraying Russia as morally superior to a decaying West that couldn’t even distinguish between men and women.
This wasn’t subtle diplomatic positioning. The doctrine explicitly described Russia and the West as engaged in ongoing conflict across all domains—economic, cultural, informational, and military. It identified Western multinational corporations and information firms as direct threats to Russian values and way of life.
Remarkably, when defense analysts inquired whether Western decision-makers had read this critical document, the typical response was: “What document do you mean?” A document that would have been mandatory reading during the Cold War was completely ignored by the current generation of policymakers.
That same month, Putin published his essay on “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” declaring that Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians were all descendants of Ancient Rus and rejecting the concept that “Ukraine is not Russia.” Putin explicitly stated there was now “a need for the ‘anti-Russia’ concept which we will never accept,” signaling that Ukraine’s drift toward the West had become intolerable.
The combination of the military doctrine and historical essay should have triggered alarm bells across Western capitals. Instead, they were largely ignored.
Summer 2021: Information Warfare in the Black Sea
During the annual Sea Breeze naval exercise in the Black Sea—a multinational exercise that had included Russian participation in previous years—Putin escalated to actual confrontation. Russian forces fired warning shots at the British destroyer HMS Defender as it conducted a freedom of navigation operation near Crimea.
But the physical confrontation was only part of a sophisticated information warfare campaign that revealed Putin’s evolved approach to 21st-century conflict. Russian intelligence agencies coordinated a complex operation targeting multiple audiences through official statements, media manipulation, social networks, and cyber attacks on Ukrainian military websites.
Putin himself participated in the information campaign, boasting during a televised call-in show that “even if we would have sunk that ship, this would not have provoked a world war, because the other side knows they cannot win such a war.” This wasn’t mere bluster—it was Putin testing whether he could make nuclear threats without consequences.
Ukrainian analysts recognized the significance of these actions, warning that “at a time when Russia still seeks to divide the world into zones of influence and argues that it has the right to decide our fate for us and without us,” such provocations were testing Western resolve. But their warnings went largely unheeded in Washington and European capitals.
August 2021: The Afghanistan Withdrawal Accelerates Putin’s Timeline
The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 provided Putin with a critical piece of intelligence about American resolve. Here was a superpower that had invested $2.3 trillion and over 2,300 lives in a 20-year mission, only to abandon it abruptly without achieving any of its stated objectives.
For Putin, already planning some form of action against Ukraine, the Afghanistan debacle answered a crucial question about American staying power. As one analyst observed, the withdrawal demonstrated America’s “readiness to walk away from an investment of unimaginable sums” and would “cause a loss of confidence in U.S. assurances of fidelity.”
The withdrawal had immediate geopolitical consequences that fed Putin’s imperial ambitions. Russia quickly moved into Central Asian states in the wake of American departure, reasserting influence in a region that had been cooperating with NATO for two decades. For someone interested in rebuilding a Russian empire, the Central Asian reopening facilitated by Biden’s withdrawal was an appetizer for larger ambitions.
October 2021: Putin’s Public Ultimatum
At the October 2021 Valdai Discussion Club, Putin delivered what amounted to a public ultimatum about Ukraine, though few Western observers recognized it as such. Speaking to an international audience, Putin explicitly outlined his grievances about NATO expansion and declared that Ukraine’s movement toward the West posed “a serious threat to the Russian state” that might be “fraught with Ukraine losing its statehood.”
When asked directly about Ukraine by a Ukrainian participant who noted that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had just promised Ukraine a “bright future as a NATO member,” Putin’s response was unambiguous. He detailed how NATO had repeatedly lied about eastward expansion, how Western missile defense systems in Poland and Romania could easily be converted to offensive weapons, and how Ukraine’s drift toward NATO was unacceptable.
Putin’s conclusion was ominous: “we are naturally concerned.” For those familiar with Russian diplomatic language, this was a clear warning that military action was being considered.
Fall 2021: The Migrant Battering Ram
Throughout the fall of 2021, Putin orchestrated a “migrant crisis” on the Belarus-Poland border that served as both a test of European resolve and a preview of hybrid warfare tactics he would later use in Ukraine. This wasn’t a humanitarian crisis—it was what Polish officials correctly identified as hybrid warfare using migrants as a “battering ram” against European unity.
The operation followed Putin’s established pattern of using refugee flows as a weapon. Just as Russian bombing of Aleppo had driven Syrian refugees toward Europe, the manufactured crisis on the Polish border tested whether European nations would maintain border security under humanitarian pressure.
The parallels to historical provocations were chilling. The last time similar border incidents had targeted Poland was in 1939, when German forces staged fake Polish attacks to justify Hitler’s invasion. Polish officials understood the historical echoes and responded accordingly, but other European leaders treated it as a migration issue rather than a security threat.
The Fatal Misreading
Despite this cascade of warning signs throughout 2021, the Biden Administration not only failed to deter Putin but actively encouraged Ukrainian actions that made conflict more likely. In September 2021, President Biden hosted Ukrainian President Zelensky at the White House and announced increased military aid. In November, the two countries signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership that explicitly supported Ukraine’s NATO aspirations.
As historian Robert Service later observed, this Charter was “the last straw” that triggered Putin’s final invasion preparations. The Biden Administration was essentially telling Putin that Ukraine would eventually join NATO while simultaneously demonstrating through Afghanistan that America lacked the resolve to defend distant partners against determined adversaries.
The timing was catastrophic. Even as Putin spent 2021 signaling his red lines and testing Western responses, the Biden Administration was embracing Ukraine more closely than ever before—creating the worst possible combination of provocation without deterrence.
Lessons for Future Threats
The failure to recognize Putin’s 2021 warning signs offers crucial lessons for detecting and responding to future authoritarian threats, particularly from China regarding Taiwan.
First, authoritarian leaders telegraph their intentions through escalating provocations. Putin’s progression from Pacific exercises to doctrinal declarations to direct military confrontations followed a clear pattern. China’s increasing military exercises around Taiwan, wolf warrior diplomacy, and territorial assertions in the South China Sea should be viewed through this lens.
Second, silence in response to provocations is interpreted as permission. America’s non-response to Russian exercises near Hawaii emboldened Putin to escalate further. Similarly, weak responses to Chinese provocations in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea will be seen as green lights for further aggression.
Third, authoritarian leaders exploit perceived moments of democratic weakness. Putin’s timeline accelerated after the Afghanistan withdrawal, seeing an opportunity when American credibility was at its lowest. China is similarly watching for moments of American distraction or division.
Fourth, information warfare and hybrid tactics are integral to modern authoritarian strategy. Putin’s sophisticated information campaign during Sea Breeze 2021 demonstrated how 21st-century aggression combines traditional military force with cyber attacks, disinformation, and refugee manipulation. Democratic nations must recognize and respond to these hybrid tactics as acts of war, not mere annoyances.
Fifth, public ultimatums should be taken seriously. When authoritarian leaders publicly outline their red lines and grievances, they are often preparing domestic and international opinion for military action. Putin’s Valdai speech was essentially a declaration of intent that went unrecognized.
The China Test
These lessons are immediately relevant as China’s provocations around Taiwan intensify. Chinese military exercises have become increasingly aggressive, with aircraft regularly crossing into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone and naval forces conducting “island encirclement” drills. Chinese officials have made increasingly explicit statements about “reunification” being inevitable and have outlined scenarios under which military force would be justified.
The parallels to Putin’s 2021 escalation are unmistakable. Like Putin, Chinese leaders are testing American responses through military provocations. Like Putin, they are using information warfare to shape international opinion about Taiwan’s status. Like Putin, they are watching for signs of American weakness or distraction.
The pattern that emboldened Putin is being repeated with China.
The Iran Dimension
Iran presents another test case for recognizing authoritarian warning signs. Iranian-backed forces have attacked American bases in Iraq and Syria, Iranian naval forces have harassed shipping in the Persian Gulf, and Iranian proxies have launched unprecedented attacks on Saudi oil facilities. Each escalation tests American resolve and receives responses that Iran interprets as weakness.
Like Putin in 2021, Iranian leaders are openly declaring their intentions. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei regularly calls for the destruction of Israel and American withdrawal from the Middle East. Iranian military commanders openly threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and target American forces. These aren’t empty threats—they are warnings of intended actions.
A New Framework for Early Warning
Preventing future catastrophes requires developing better systems for recognizing and responding to authoritarian warning signs. This means:
Treating military provocations as deliberate tests rather than isolated incidents. When authoritarian powers conduct unprecedented exercises or deploy forces in provocative ways, democratic nations must respond with counter-exercises and clear consequences.
Taking ideological declarations seriously. When authoritarian leaders publish new military doctrines or make historical claims about neighboring territories, these documents should receive the same attention that Soviet pronouncements received during the Cold War.
Recognizing information warfare as a prelude to military action. Sophisticated disinformation campaigns, cyber attacks, and hybrid operations are not separate from military planning—they are the opening phases of modern warfare.
Understanding the escalation cycle. Authoritarian powers typically follow predictable patterns of escalation, from probing actions to public ultimatums to actual aggression. Interrupting this cycle early is far easier than responding after military action begins.
Maintaining credible deterrence. The most important lesson from 2021 is that unclear commitments invite miscalculation. If democratic nations cannot credibly commit to defending a partner, they should not encourage provocative actions that invite retaliation.
The Stakes of Recognition
The warning signs from 2021 were clear for those willing to see them. Putin spent an entire year telegraphing his intentions through military provocations, doctrinal declarations, information warfare, and public ultimatums. The tragedy is not that these signals were too subtle to detect—it’s that they were ignored or misunderstood by leaders who should have known better.
As we face rising threats from China, Iran, and other authoritarian powers, the cost of similar blindness could be catastrophic. The next time an authoritarian leader spends a year testing Western resolve and declaring his intentions, democratic nations must be prepared to recognize the warning signs and respond before aggression becomes inevitable.
The alternative is to repeat the failures of 2021 on an even larger and more dangerous scale.
This material is taken from one of the chapter of our latest book, one focused on the Biden Administration and its approach and policies in our global change series.
The Biden Administration Confronts Global Change: Déjà vu All Over Again
The Biden Administration Confronts Global Change: When Good Intentions Meet Geopolitical Reality