Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Is the Invasion of Ukraine a Strategic Failure for Russia?
BACKGROUND
Experts in the international community have been quick to denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a strategic defeat, both in security and economic terms. However, some members within the foreign policy arena claim it is still premature to draw any definitive conclusions as the war continues its course. Whether or not Russia’s war in Ukraine can be determined as a conclusive strategic defeat remains to be seen.
ABOUT THE STUDY GROUP
Over the course of six sessions, this study group, led by Dr. Karen Donfried, is examining key foreign policy debates flowing from Russia’s war against Ukraine. The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the geopolitics of the war in Ukraine and the implications for U.S. interests. Two teams of four students each debate the weekly topic as the rest of the study group observes.
A Bleak Economic Outlook
AGREE
Investigative journalists believe more than one million people have fled Russia following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The exodus of young, educated Russians has created a brain drain and damaged the economic future of the country. Moreover, Russia’s complete loss of the European energy market, despite claims that the European Union still tacitly purchases Russian oil and gas, is a massive hit to the Russian economy, both in the short-term and long-term. While sanctions might not have gone as far as originally intended, they still have had significant implications for Russia’s ability to import vital dual-use technology and export energy resources. Simply put, Russia’s economy will continue to deteriorate and will find it increasingly difficult to continue to finance this war. In turn, this will prove just how much of a strategic failure this invasion has been.
DISAGREE
While many predictions painted a worrying picture for the Russian economy following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, most of those predictions did not prove to be true nor nearly as severe as predicted. The IMF raised Russia’s 2023 growth forecast to 2.2%, up from the 1.5% growth it predicted in July, due to fiscal stimulus, robust investment, and resilient consumption. While nearly 1200 firms had scaled back their operations or left the Russian market entirely, a majority of international firms decided to remain, and some firms, particularly Asian companies, reinforced their efforts to expand and consolidate larger shares of the Russian market. Lastly, while Russia’s common economic architecture with Europe is collapsing, Russia has instead turned to the Global East and South to compensate for its economic losses on the European continent. All of these markers point to a positive outlook and demonstrate that the war has not been a strategic failure for Russia.
Russia’s Standing International Relations Have Been Damaged
AGREE
Not only is Europe more united than ever in reimagining its security architecture, but it is also taking concrete steps to realize a new security apparatus that includes, as its very first steps, the incorporation and full induction of Sweden and Finland into NATO. Russia’s invasion has galvanized the West and has disproved the notion that the West would simply sit by and watch as it previously did in 2008 and 2014. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has even distanced near-abroad allies such as Kazakhstan and Armenia which have since the invasion voiced a desire to diversify their strategic partnerships, particularly within the realm of collective security—a worrying sign for the future of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Based on this, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proven to be a clear strategic failure.
DISAGREE
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened new strategic partnerships and opportunities with China and countries in the Global South, where it has been able to secure new energy markets and political support. The European energy market was not viable in the long run given Europe’s green energy transition goals and therefore it makes perfect sense that Russia will continue to invest in its partnerships and alliances elsewhere. In particular, Russia has managed to avoid international isolation to some degree with much of the Global South continuing business as usual.
Political-Military Developments: Cause for Concern?
AGREE
The present military situation is the most glaring example of a Russian strategic defeat. The Russian military export market has all but been decimated with few international partners willing to purchase Russian military equipment. Furthermore, Russia’s military has been significantly degraded on its own with a concerning amount of its equipment damaged or destroyed in the war. Consequently, Russia is now in a weaker position than it was before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine which demonstrates that it is less capable of properly protecting its borders and continuing to project its power both internationally and regionally.
DISAGREE
Russian leadership understands strategic success differently from the West and is able to rationalize short-term setbacks for long-term strategic gains. Despite initial losses and failures on the battlefield, claims that Russia is outright losing this war are simply inaccurate as Russia continues to consolidate gains in some areas and is receiving operational experience from the invasion. The crux of the argument here is that Russia has the benefit of time while the United States and the European Union do not. Global issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict are demanding greater attention and domestic political divides are leading to fractures within the Western coalition whose support is a lifeline for Ukraine. Additionally, NATO is not as united as initially believed due to political disputes between NATO members. The admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO also does not signify a strategic defeat as these states were already well integrated into the NATO security architecture.
Russian Domestic Opposition Remains Viable
AGREE
Due to the vertical structure of power within the Putin regime, much of the state is left in limbo in which police and security forces do not act unless given clear instructions. This is most recently evidenced by the events in Dagestan, where an airport was raided by an antisemitic mob in search of Jews from Israel. The delay in responses highlights that Putin has not entirely consolidated power across Russia as one may be led to believe. Even more, Prigozhin’s march on Moscow, a rare attempt at a coup, demonstrated just how fragile the Russian regime is. While some may believe there is no longer any formidable challenge to mount against Putin domestically following Prigozhin’s death, leaders such as Ramzan Kadyrov still pose a threat to the regime’s legitimacy as do ‘far right’ groups. All of which points to a strategic defeat not just outside of Russia’s borders but also a potential one at home.
DISAGREE
Most of the domestic opposition that once existed fled at the onset of the full-scale invasion, which has allowed Putin to further consolidate power within Russia. With Navalny in prison and major protests squashed for the foreseeable future, Putin will continue to maintain his hold on power and extinguish any potential domestic threats—such as in the case of Prigozhin who led an attempted coup. The sporadic development of meager opposition does not give cause for concern for a potential regime collapse but rather demonstrates that Putin is in control and understands his long-term strategic objectives very well. Thus, Russia’s invasion is far from an absolute strategic failure.
Are Lessons Being Learned?
AGREE
The sheer fact that Russia keeps firing military generals demonstrates that Russia is not extracting any valuable strategic lessons from its operations on the battlefield or elsewhere. Rather, Russia is regularly failing, and it is therefore conceptually hard to believe that the regime is drawing any lessons from high levels of turnover that have become all too commonplace within the Russian military. In addition, the ‘no limits’ partnership between Russia and China that is celebrated as a strategic win for Russia does in fact have limits: China is not willing to provide Russia weapons; China is not purchasing Russian gas on Russian terms; China is not helping Russia evade sanctions. Such a ‘strategic’ partnership is very much one-sided with Beijing at the center of gravity in the relationship. Therefore, Russia cannot possibly be drawing valuable lessons from its failures in Ukraine and is certainly facing a strategic defeat.
DISAGREE
We should not worry ourselves with questions around whether Russian soldiers are motivated to fight and instead should focus on the strategic point, which is that Russia is adapting its military doctrine, as is shown with its routine military leadership replacements, and extracting higher strategic outcomes from its invasion of Ukraine. Russia is now in a much stronger position to fight similar wars in the future thanks to the tactical and operational experience gained, whereas its Western counterparts might not be. This experience and its routine application demonstrate that Russia is extracting strategic lessons from its invasion of Ukraine and using them to modify its military strategies, none of which points to a strategic failure.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
“Is the Invasion of Ukraine a Strategic Failure for Russia?.” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, November 9, 2023.
Related
Dr. Karen Donfried
- Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Vladyslav Wallace
- Belfer Young Leader Student Fellow
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
Was Henry Kissinger Really a Realist?
Analysis & Opinions
- The New Republic
The Cost of Overcorrecting on Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam
Analysis & Opinions
- Politico
'My Mother Told Me Not to Speak Ill of the Dead': Political Experts on Henry Kissinger's Legacy
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
Oil, Conflict, and U.S. National Interests
Journal Article
- Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
Was Henry Kissinger Really a Realist?
BACKGROUND
Experts in the international community have been quick to denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a strategic defeat, both in security and economic terms. However, some members within the foreign policy arena claim it is still premature to draw any definitive conclusions as the war continues its course. Whether or not Russia’s war in Ukraine can be determined as a conclusive strategic defeat remains to be seen.
ABOUT THE STUDY GROUP
Over the course of six sessions, this study group, led by Dr. Karen Donfried, is examining key foreign policy debates flowing from Russia’s war against Ukraine. The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the geopolitics of the war in Ukraine and the implications for U.S. interests. Two teams of four students each debate the weekly topic as the rest of the study group observes.
A Bleak Economic Outlook
AGREE
Investigative journalists believe more than one million people have fled Russia following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The exodus of young, educated Russians has created a brain drain and damaged the economic future of the country. Moreover, Russia’s complete loss of the European energy market, despite claims that the European Union still tacitly purchases Russian oil and gas, is a massive hit to the Russian economy, both in the short-term and long-term. While sanctions might not have gone as far as originally intended, they still have had significant implications for Russia’s ability to import vital dual-use technology and export energy resources. Simply put, Russia’s economy will continue to deteriorate and will find it increasingly difficult to continue to finance this war. In turn, this will prove just how much of a strategic failure this invasion has been.
DISAGREE
While many predictions painted a worrying picture for the Russian economy following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, most of those predictions did not prove to be true nor nearly as severe as predicted. The IMF raised Russia’s 2023 growth forecast to 2.2%, up from the 1.5% growth it predicted in July, due to fiscal stimulus, robust investment, and resilient consumption. While nearly 1200 firms had scaled back their operations or left the Russian market entirely, a majority of international firms decided to remain, and some firms, particularly Asian companies, reinforced their efforts to expand and consolidate larger shares of the Russian market. Lastly, while Russia’s common economic architecture with Europe is collapsing, Russia has instead turned to the Global East and South to compensate for its economic losses on the European continent. All of these markers point to a positive outlook and demonstrate that the war has not been a strategic failure for Russia.
Russia’s Standing International Relations Have Been Damaged
AGREE
Not only is Europe more united than ever in reimagining its security architecture, but it is also taking concrete steps to realize a new security apparatus that includes, as its very first steps, the incorporation and full induction of Sweden and Finland into NATO. Russia’s invasion has galvanized the West and has disproved the notion that the West would simply sit by and watch as it previously did in 2008 and 2014. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has even distanced near-abroad allies such as Kazakhstan and Armenia which have since the invasion voiced a desire to diversify their strategic partnerships, particularly within the realm of collective security—a worrying sign for the future of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Based on this, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proven to be a clear strategic failure.
DISAGREE
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened new strategic partnerships and opportunities with China and countries in the Global South, where it has been able to secure new energy markets and political support. The European energy market was not viable in the long run given Europe’s green energy transition goals and therefore it makes perfect sense that Russia will continue to invest in its partnerships and alliances elsewhere. In particular, Russia has managed to avoid international isolation to some degree with much of the Global South continuing business as usual.
Political-Military Developments: Cause for Concern?
AGREE
The present military situation is the most glaring example of a Russian strategic defeat. The Russian military export market has all but been decimated with few international partners willing to purchase Russian military equipment. Furthermore, Russia’s military has been significantly degraded on its own with a concerning amount of its equipment damaged or destroyed in the war. Consequently, Russia is now in a weaker position than it was before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine which demonstrates that it is less capable of properly protecting its borders and continuing to project its power both internationally and regionally.
DISAGREE
Russian leadership understands strategic success differently from the West and is able to rationalize short-term setbacks for long-term strategic gains. Despite initial losses and failures on the battlefield, claims that Russia is outright losing this war are simply inaccurate as Russia continues to consolidate gains in some areas and is receiving operational experience from the invasion. The crux of the argument here is that Russia has the benefit of time while the United States and the European Union do not. Global issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict are demanding greater attention and domestic political divides are leading to fractures within the Western coalition whose support is a lifeline for Ukraine. Additionally, NATO is not as united as initially believed due to political disputes between NATO members. The admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO also does not signify a strategic defeat as these states were already well integrated into the NATO security architecture.
Russian Domestic Opposition Remains Viable
AGREE
Due to the vertical structure of power within the Putin regime, much of the state is left in limbo in which police and security forces do not act unless given clear instructions. This is most recently evidenced by the events in Dagestan, where an airport was raided by an antisemitic mob in search of Jews from Israel. The delay in responses highlights that Putin has not entirely consolidated power across Russia as one may be led to believe. Even more, Prigozhin’s march on Moscow, a rare attempt at a coup, demonstrated just how fragile the Russian regime is. While some may believe there is no longer any formidable challenge to mount against Putin domestically following Prigozhin’s death, leaders such as Ramzan Kadyrov still pose a threat to the regime’s legitimacy as do ‘far right’ groups. All of which points to a strategic defeat not just outside of Russia’s borders but also a potential one at home.
DISAGREE
Most of the domestic opposition that once existed fled at the onset of the full-scale invasion, which has allowed Putin to further consolidate power within Russia. With Navalny in prison and major protests squashed for the foreseeable future, Putin will continue to maintain his hold on power and extinguish any potential domestic threats—such as in the case of Prigozhin who led an attempted coup. The sporadic development of meager opposition does not give cause for concern for a potential regime collapse but rather demonstrates that Putin is in control and understands his long-term strategic objectives very well. Thus, Russia’s invasion is far from an absolute strategic failure.
Are Lessons Being Learned?
AGREE
The sheer fact that Russia keeps firing military generals demonstrates that Russia is not extracting any valuable strategic lessons from its operations on the battlefield or elsewhere. Rather, Russia is regularly failing, and it is therefore conceptually hard to believe that the regime is drawing any lessons from high levels of turnover that have become all too commonplace within the Russian military. In addition, the ‘no limits’ partnership between Russia and China that is celebrated as a strategic win for Russia does in fact have limits: China is not willing to provide Russia weapons; China is not purchasing Russian gas on Russian terms; China is not helping Russia evade sanctions. Such a ‘strategic’ partnership is very much one-sided with Beijing at the center of gravity in the relationship. Therefore, Russia cannot possibly be drawing valuable lessons from its failures in Ukraine and is certainly facing a strategic defeat.
DISAGREE
We should not worry ourselves with questions around whether Russian soldiers are motivated to fight and instead should focus on the strategic point, which is that Russia is adapting its military doctrine, as is shown with its routine military leadership replacements, and extracting higher strategic outcomes from its invasion of Ukraine. Russia is now in a much stronger position to fight similar wars in the future thanks to the tactical and operational experience gained, whereas its Western counterparts might not be. This experience and its routine application demonstrate that Russia is extracting strategic lessons from its invasion of Ukraine and using them to modify its military strategies, none of which points to a strategic failure.
Related
Dr. Karen Donfried
- Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Vladyslav Wallace
- Belfer Young Leader Student Fellow
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
Was Henry Kissinger Really a Realist?
Analysis & Opinions - The New Republic
The Cost of Overcorrecting on Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam
Analysis & Opinions - Politico
'My Mother Told Me Not to Speak Ill of the Dead': Political Experts on Henry Kissinger's Legacy
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
Oil, Conflict, and U.S. National Interests
Journal Article - Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
Was Henry Kissinger Really a Realist?
