An adviser to the head of Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Andrei Ilnitsky, argues that Western powers attempted a psychological and economic blitz on Russia in 2022, but the effort did not succeed. The claim appears in discussions surrounding the so‑called Motherland Armory.
He contends that February and March 2022 saw the United States and allied countries attempting to wage a blitz in both economic and mental arenas, yet their strategy reportedly miscalculated the response they would provoke.
According to Ilnitsky, armed actions unfold over a span of 40 to 100 days, while a mental campaign requires a longer horizon, often one to two years to unfold fully.
He states that the initial phase of the struggle did not yield the West’s desired outcomes but did lead to the loss of strategic initiative, considerable personnel costs, and damage to the reputation of the domestic political opposition within the country’s framework.
Formerly an adviser to the president of Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Ilnitsky has described the emergence of a new form of warfare centered on psychological influence and information dynamics.
On February 24, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would conduct a military operation in response to requests for aid from the heads of the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, with the stated aim of protecting the Donbass region.
The decision to initiate the operation was followed by the imposition of new sanctions by the United States and its allies, a sequence of policy actions that affected international relations and the global political economy.
Analysts note that the situation has been the subject of ongoing media coverage and official statements, with different actors presenting varying interpretations of the strategic calculus behind the events and their broader implications for regional security and international diplomacy . If the discussion shifts toward strategic communication in modern conflict, observers would look at how information campaigns interact with economic pressures and military decisions . This framing helps explain why leaders label certain actions as a new category of warfare and how those labels influence policy and public perception . The ongoing dialogue emphasizes the importance of understanding credible narratives and the potential for misinterpretation in high-stakes geopolitics . The topic remains dynamic as nations recalibrate their responses to evolving threats and opportunities in the region .)