The Western world was gripped by hysteria over an invasion that did not exist
Em fevereiro de 2022, Joe Biden e Vladimir Putin falaram por telefone sobre a crise que se acumulava em torno da Ucrânia, onde mais de 100 mil soldados russos estavam posicionados na fronteira. Biden reafirmou que a diplomacia permanecia aberta, mas que uma invasão traria consequências imediatas e severas; Putin, por sua vez, rejeitou os alertas ocidentais como histeria fabricada e acusou Washington de ignorar as demandas legítimas de segurança da Rússia. O telefonema foi mais um capítulo numa longa disputa sobre onde termina a soberania de uma nação e onde começa a esfera de influência de outra — uma questão que a história raramente resolve com facilidade.
- Com mais de 100 mil soldados russos na fronteira ucraniana, o risco de uma invasão em larga escala pairava sobre cada palavra trocada entre as duas potências.
- Biden advertiu Putin diretamente: uma invasão desencadearia sanções imediatas e severas, coordenadas com aliados ocidentais — uma ameaça repetida, mas agora pronunciada no mais alto nível.
- Moscou respondeu com desdém, chamando os alertas americanos e europeus de 'histeria' e propaganda, enquanto Lavrov acusou Washington de fabricar uma crise inexistente.
- As negociações multilaterais — incluindo a visita de Macron a Moscou e as conversas em Berlim com Rússia, Ucrânia, Alemanha e França — não produziram avanços concretos, com as posições permanecendo travadas.
- Os Estados Unidos ordenaram a retirada de funcionários não essenciais da embaixada em Kyiv, sinalizando que a diplomacia, por si só, pode não ser suficiente para conter o que está por vir.
No sábado, 12 de fevereiro de 2022, Joe Biden e Vladimir Putin falaram por telefone por quase uma hora sobre a crise ucraniana. Era uma conversa carregada de meses de tensão crescente: tropas russas em número superior a 100 mil estavam posicionadas ao longo da fronteira com a Ucrânia, e as tentativas diplomáticas anteriores não haviam produzido resultados.
Biden foi direto. Os Estados Unidos continuavam abertos à diplomacia, mas estavam igualmente preparados para outras possibilidades. Uma invasão russa, deixou claro a Casa Branca, provocaria uma resposta imediata e decisiva, coordenada com aliados e parceiros. Putin, por sua vez, reiterou que Washington havia ignorado as preocupações centrais de segurança da Rússia — e o Kremlin foi ainda mais longe, classificando toda a mobilização de alarme ocidental como 'histeria', uma crise inventada para fins de propaganda.
Antes do telefonema entre os presidentes, os chanceleres já haviam conversado. Sergei Lavrov acusou os Estados Unidos de conduzir uma campanha coordenada de desinformação sobre uma suposta agressão russa. A divergência era fundamental: onde Washington via uma ameaça militar iminente, Moscou via uma resposta defensiva à expansão da OTAN.
A engrenagem diplomática girava sem avançar. Macron havia viajado a Moscou no início da semana e voltou a falar com Putin por quase duas horas no sábado. As conversas em Berlim, reunindo Rússia, Ucrânia, Alemanha e França, não produziram nenhum progresso. As posições permaneciam bloqueadas.
Enquanto isso, os Estados Unidos tomavam precauções reveladoras: o Departamento de Estado ordenou a saída de funcionários não essenciais da embaixada americana em Kyiv. Em território ucraniano, o governo apelou à população para manter a calma, enquanto as forças armadas declaravam estar prontas para repelir qualquer invasão. O telefonema havia acontecido. O que viria a seguir permanecia incerto.
On Saturday, February 12th, the leaders of the United States and Russia picked up the phone to discuss a crisis that had consumed the week's diplomatic calendar. Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin spoke for nearly an hour about the gathering storm around Ukraine, where Russian troops had massed in numbers exceeding 100,000 along the border. The conversation carried the weight of months of escalating tension and the failure of previous attempts to find common ground.
Biden's message was direct: the United States remained willing to pursue diplomatic channels, but it was also prepared for other possibilities. If Russia moved to invade Ukraine, the White House made clear, the response would be swift and severe. The United States, working in coordination with its allies and partners, would impose immediate and decisive consequences on Moscow. The warning was not new—Biden had made similar statements before—but hearing it directly from the president carried a different gravity. At the same time, Biden emphasized that diplomacy remained on the table, provided it happened in full alignment with American allies.
Putin's response, conveyed through the Kremlin, struck a different note entirely. He reiterated a position he had held throughout the crisis: that the United States had failed to take seriously Russia's core security concerns in its previous responses to Moscow's demands. Russia, he indicated, would respond to this dismissal soon. But more striking than his substantive reply was the framing the Kremlin attached to the entire situation. The Western world, according to Moscow's account, was gripped by "hysteria" over an invasion that the Kremlin characterized as absurd. The alerts, the warnings, the mobilization of concern—all of it, in Russia's telling, amounted to propaganda designed to manufacture a crisis that did not exist.
Before Biden and Putin spoke, their foreign ministers had already been on the line. Sergei Lavrov, Russia's top diplomat, accused Washington of running a coordinated propaganda campaign about a potential Russian aggression. The charge reflected a fundamental disagreement about what was actually happening on the ground. Where the United States saw a military buildup that could erupt into invasion at any moment, Russia saw a defensive posture against NATO expansion and Western encroachment on its sphere of influence.
The diplomatic machinery had been grinding for weeks without producing results. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, had traveled to Moscow earlier in the week as part of the European Union's effort to prevent escalation. On Saturday, he and Putin spoke for roughly an hour and forty minutes. Yet even as these conversations continued, the four-way talks held in Berlin on Thursday—bringing together Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France—had yielded no progress. The positions remained locked.
Meanwhile, the United States was taking precautions that suggested it did not believe diplomacy alone would hold. The State Department ordered non-essential staff to leave the American embassy in Kyiv. The embassy announced on Twitter that despite the reduction in personnel, diplomatic and assistance efforts would continue in support of Ukraine's security, democracy, and prosperity. It was a careful formulation, one that tried to signal both concern and continued commitment.
In Kyiv itself, the Ukrainian government appealed to its citizens to remain calm and unified. The armed forces, officials said, were monitoring developments and stood ready to repel any invasion of Ukrainian territory and sovereignty. The message was meant to steady nerves, but it also acknowledged the reality that an attack could come with little warning.
Two previous phone calls between Biden and Putin in December had produced no breakthroughs, though they had laid groundwork for lower-level diplomatic work. Since then, the two leaders had not spoken directly. Now, with Russian forces positioned along the border and American warnings growing more urgent, the question was whether this conversation might break the deadlock or simply confirm that the two sides remained too far apart. Biden had promised severe economic sanctions if Russia invaded, coordinated with international allies. Putin had dismissed the warnings as hysteria. The phone call had happened. What came next remained uncertain.
Citas Notables
If Russia conducts a new invasion of Ukraine, the United States, together with our allies and partners, will respond decisively and impose severe and immediate consequences on Russia— White House statement on Biden's warning to Putin
The Armed Forces of Ukraine are constantly monitoring developments and are ready to repel any invasion of the country's territorial integrity and sovereignty— Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Biden and Putin bother speaking at all if their positions were already so far apart?
Because at this point, direct communication between the two leaders was the only channel left that hadn't been exhausted. Their foreign ministers had already talked. Macron had been to Moscow. The four-way talks in Berlin had gone nowhere. Sometimes you speak not because you expect to change minds, but because the alternative—silence—feels more dangerous.
Russia called the warnings "hysteria." Do you think Moscow genuinely believed there was no invasion threat, or was that just rhetoric?
That's the question, isn't it. The Kremlin's framing suggests they saw the Western response as manufactured panic designed to delegitimize Russia's security concerns. Whether they actually believed an invasion was off the table or were simply denying their own intentions—that's harder to know from a phone call.
The US evacuated non-essential embassy staff. That's a concrete action. What does that signal?
It signals that despite the diplomatic language about remaining open to negotiation, the American government was preparing for the possibility that diplomacy would fail. You don't order people out of an embassy unless you're genuinely worried about what might happen next.
Biden said the US was "prepared for other scenarios." What does that mean in practical terms?
Economic sanctions, primarily. Biden had already promised severe, coordinated sanctions with allies if Russia invaded. That was the teeth behind the warning. But "other scenarios" could also mean military support to Ukraine, humanitarian assistance, or other forms of response. The vagueness was intentional—it kept Moscow guessing about the full scope of consequences.
Why did Macron's involvement matter if the talks weren't producing results?
Because France represented a different diplomatic voice than the United States. Macron had been pushing for dialogue and stability in the region. Having him in the mix suggested that Europe wasn't simply following Washington's lead, even if the outcome was the same: no breakthrough, but continued engagement.