Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

The Guardian and the CIA: Putin approved a plan for a full‑scale war as early as 2020 — even Lavrov didn't know

CIA assessments cited by The Guardian show: the decision to launch a large-scale war was made centrally and concealed from a portion of the Kremlin elite. Why this matters for Ukrainian security and international politics — briefly and to the point.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 21, 2026 · 2 min read

The Guardian and the CIA: Putin approved a plan for a full‑scale war as early as 2020 — even Lavrov didn't know
Сергій Лавров (Фото: Maxim Shipenkov / EPA)

Quiet centralization of decisions in the Kremlin

The Guardian, citing assessments by the CIA, reports that Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion was made as early as the first half of 2020. At the same time, only a few non-military officials knew the details of the plans — other key figures in the regime were kept in the dark.

Contacts and information channels

According to the outlet, Andriy Yermak was one of the few Ukrainian officials who regularly made contact with the Russian administration. He, in particular, communicated with Putin’s deputy chief of staff, Dmitry Kozak. The Guardian notes that Kozak, like some others, viewed U.S. warnings as an exaggeration — which likely affected how Moscow itself processed information about the preparations.

"Someone high-ranking from the Kremlin called me and said: 'There are a lot of military people around Putin, the atmosphere is tense, something is happening, but we don’t know what it is.'"

— One interlocutor familiar with the situation

Who was truly kept in the dark

According to two interlocutors familiar with the matter (quoted by The Guardian), even Sergey Lavrov and Putin’s long-time press secretary Dmitry Peskov were kept in the dark. This points to a high degree of secrecy and centralization of the decision-making process within a narrow circle.

Consequences and significance for Ukraine

Several conclusions follow from this information: first, such a level of secrecy makes forecasting more difficult and places an additional premium on high-quality intelligence and diplomacy. Second, the Kremlin’s mistaken belief that only 10% of Ukrainians would resist is an indicator of a systemic underestimation of Ukrainian society and military resilience. Third, factors of informational isolation among the Kremlin elite may explain inconsistent reactions and the risk of unexpected escalations.

What’s next

This publication confirms that for Ukraine, not only operational intelligence but also the maintenance of diplomatic channels and transparent explanations to partners are important. Western assessments (such as the CIA’s) helped discard false scenarios — now the key task is for these assessments to be translated into concrete political and defense steps to support Ukraine’s security.

Experts note that understanding the internal logic of Kremlin decisions is important not to justify them, but to anticipate and neutralize future threats. The questions remain simple: will the international community learn from these conclusions, and will this lead to strengthened security guarantees for Ukraine?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026