After more than 100 days of war the initial shock has receded but recriminations are flying. One freighted question that more people are asking, particularly at Kyiv, is how a country as big as Ukraine could seemingly be caught unawares by Moscow’s invasion. Could more have been done to avert the present calamity?

In January and February, American and British intelligence clearly pointed to a looming invasion, even if any notion of the precise start date, which turned out to be February 24, was not known. London’s Guardian newspaper asked, “Why did Ukraine’s President Zelensky remain sceptical of the increasingly alarming warnings from US intelligence that Vladimir Putin was planning a full-scale invasion?” 

More intriguingly, the newspaper cites the hunger for an answer. According to the report, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, Volodymyr Ariev, said his European Solidarity party, which is connected to a former president, Petro Poroshenko, had been pushing for weeks in the run-up to the invasion for the government to take the threat of war more seriously.

It is more than idle curiosity: “We don’t want to initiate an investigation for a while, but we cannot avoid it in the future,” Mr. Ariev said. 

The Guardian also reported that in late January Mr. Zelensky called Washington’s frequent warnings of possible war a “mistake,” while on February 6 one of his top advisors, Mykhailo Podolyak, said the chances of resolving the crisis through negotiations were “substantially higher” than the threat of attack. American officials even briefed media outlets that Russia had moved supplies of blood close to the border, seen as a sign of imminent military action, the report continued. Ukraine’s deputy defense minister, Hanna Maliar, denied the report, telling the Guardian at the time, “The purpose of such information is to spread panic and fear in our society.”

On February 11 the American Embassy in Kyiv warned diplomats from many other embassies about the looming threat of invasion. The Guardian said diplomats were brought to a secure part of the embassy, small groups at a time, and handed sheets of paper on which was printed information about the likelihood and possible severity of Russian military action. They were reportedly allowed to take notes but not to take the papers.

“Of course there are a lot of questions, the Russians were already drawing the letter Z on their equipment and everyone was saying something is coming, and our guys here were saying ‘don’t worry,’” the paper quoted another Ukrainian lawmaker, Serhiy Taruta, as saying.

Evicting Russian forces from Ukrainian territory now takes precedence over domestic finger-pointing. The war has thrown President Zelensky’s leadership qualities and courage into sharp relief, and the country is united, possibly like never before. His place in Ukrainian history is secure and his stature as a true servant of the people — which happens to be the name of his party — is untouchable. Yet whatever Mr. Zelensky’s role in Kyivian politics will be once the war winds down, it may not come without some hiccups.

Although it may be cliche, it bears repeating that hindsight is 20/20. After so many months of war, Mr. Podolyak has emerged as one of the most unflappable and clear-headed strategic thinkers not just in Ukraine but in Europe. This weekend he tweeted that “in order to ensure global security, Russia must go through demilitarization (get rid of cruise missiles), denazification (ban on Z-ideology), depropagandization (TV privatization) and international tribunals followed by sentencing war criminals. There is simply no other way.”

Moscow has not shown itself to be very keen on taking notes, but — cliche alert — better late than never.