Opinion | Russia's war has not gone to plan, but it's naive to think they're losing

By Tom Fowdy

A quick look at history sends a clear message: Wars never go to plan. In just the past century alone, almost every major conflict was opened on the premise of a large-scale miscalculation by the invading side. The story is usually same: the attacker becomes overconfident that they have a "master plan" and can in a rapid space of time, deliver a crushing blow to a seemingly weak enemy and end the ordeal very quickly. However, it never goes according to plan, the defending side is often underestimated, the initial attack fails to deliver, and a longer and more protracted conflict emerges which proves to be immensely costly.

As a few examples, as World War I opened up, German military planners feared a two-front conflict between France and Russia. Although hostilities with France had not yet commenced, they had premised that if they struck first by surprise and pre-emptively swept through Belgium, they could quickly capture Paris and bring France to heel, locking out the British Empire and then turning to conquer Russia. The commonly named "Schlieffen Plan" failed, and Germany found itself locked in a 4-year war stagnant of attrition which ultimately ended in defeat.

Just over 2 decades later, Adolf Hitler may have been successful this time in defeating France, but then calculated he could destroy the Soviet Union in a decisive overwhelming invasion and seize their natural resources. "Operation Barbarossa" as it was called in 1941, failed in its bid to take Moscow and left Nazi Germany in a longstanding conflict against the USSR which ultimately accumulated in its own demise. Similarly, in 1980 and 1991, Saddam Hussein led Iraq into two disastrous wars, first against revolutionary Iran, and then secondly against Kuwait and by extension, the US and its allies, completely underestimating his opponents, of which economically and militarily crippled his state.

Now, as the war in Ukraine reaches which some military analysts have described as a "stalemate" it has been persistently argued that Vladimir Putin miscalculated in starting the war, underestimating the scale of resistance by the Ukrainians and in turn the response to the west and its tough sanctions. It has been claimed, albeit never confirmed, that Moscow believed they could end the operation in mere days and topple the government in Kyiv. This however, is also floating in a sea of war propaganda from the Ukrainians which has also deliberately exaggerated Russia's woes, making the reality on the ground difficult to decipher. Irrespectively, it seems evident the world is in for a longer, as opposed to a shorter conflict.

It is however, naïve to assume to Russia faces "defeat" as many voices on twitter have hoped for. But for "defeat" to be defined, it might be first questioned "what does Russia hope to achieve?" Moscow stated that its own respective goals in the conflict were the "demilitarization" and "denazifaction" of Ukraine, as well as forcing Ukraine to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, Crimea as Russian territory. In addition, Russia demands Ukraine accept military neutrality and drops plans to join NATO, well as possibly the EU too. Russia has in terms of rhetoric at least denied from the beginning they hope to "occupy" the entire country, leading some sources to conclude Moscow aims to install its own government as part of effectively politically subjugating the country.

Taking these goals into account, "defeat" for Russia would involve the war ending on terms which are favorable to Ukraine, and failing to change the status quo in their favor. This would not of course involve "defeat" in the sense of completely destroying Russia's army, but merely Moscow being forced to capitulate to outcomes it didn't want, i.e accepting Ukraine in NATO. When one takes this more nuanced reality into account, it may seem evident that whilst Russia is paying a higher price than it anticipated in pursuing the war, it isn't facing defeat in any sense. First of all, Ukraine has largely publicly conceded it will drop aspirations to join NATO. Secondly, whilst Ukraine has stated it will not recognize the DPR, LPR or Crimea as Russian, Russia's forces have nonetheless gained initiative in this part of the country which has seen it occupy most of the LPR's territory, along with the entire South East Coast (with Mariupol under siege).

Whilst Russia's attempts to encircle Kyiv have not made progress of late, a positive point for Ukraine, otherwise objective analysis of war maps shows that Russia has continued to gain ground in the South and East of the country, making it unlikely that Moscow's war effort will "stall here". It likewise remains true that the more territory Russia gains, the stronger its negotiating table hand will be. It should be obvious that irrespective of the costs Russia faces in the medium to long term, it will not be able to compel Russia to abandon all of its pre-war goals, even if it does not have to "formally concede" them in a peace treaty so to speak.

This raises the probability of the war potentially concluding in an armistice-like fashion as did the Korean War in 1953, where a ceasefire is merely formalized but there is no breakthrough for either side to submit completely to the will of the other. A post-war Ukraine is likely to be divided in some shape or form by a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The two breakaway Republics will assume their full territory and will continue to exist whether Kyiv accepts them or not, and Moscow to strengthen its hand may even create more new states in turn in the occupied territories. So, to conclude, whilst the war is longer, costlier and deadlier than Moscow expected, it's misleading to assume they are "losing". A divided Ukraine, rather than a Russian client state, or an emboldened victor, may well be the outcome.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | The Biden administration has no capacity to reason with China

Opinion | Xi owes Biden no favours, China must drive a hard bargain

Opinion | America is trying to use Russia to humiliate China