Russia, weighing the gains and losses of a limited invasion of the Donbas and Luhansk regions in the face of a generalized invasion, believed in the first case that costing sanctions would not prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
On the contrary, with the generalized invasion he chose, Russia would prevent the expansion of NATO in Ukraine, but at the same time creating new balances, which in the long run the West would be forced to accept in one way or another.
After two weeks of Russian invasion of Ukraine, we see some key mistakes in the Russian strategy made by Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Specifically:
1. Russia and its President, underestimated the level of resistance that the Ukrainians expected to put forward. Maybe he believed that they would soon recede or disintegrate. Rather in conjunction with an operation to arrest or assassinate President Zelensky of Ukraine and the Ukrainian leadership in Kyiv. That did not happen. On the contrary, it turned out that there is a strong national feeling in the Ukrainians. It is obvious that in the years of existence of the Ukrainian state, this feeling was strengthened even in areas that did not have it before to the same degree, in the south and in the east.
Of course this conclusion comes from the images we receive. We do not know how many people see things differently. Because we see those who fight and those who react. But it is striking that in rallies against the Russian military presence, we see citizens protesting holding Ukrainian flags and speaking Russian. Thus, there is an opposition to the centralism of Moscow, which unites Ukrainian patriotism. To this we must add the surprise from the positive image transmitted by the President of Ukraine Zelensky.
2. He overestimated the capabilities of the Russian military machine. However, it seemed that this has serious shortcomings, although, it should be noted, that it has to face a smart tactic on the part of the Ukrainians, namely the defense in the cities, where there is also a civilian population, so the offensive movements are de facto limited.
3. It had not fully assessed the US ability to impose itself in Europe, especially on the extent of sanctions. Which is unprecedented, and certainly causes serious problems within Russia.
At the moment Russia can not back down. Of course, he has set some conditions that at first glance do not seem excessive to be accepted by Kyiv and to stop the bloodshed. Crimea is permanently lost. As well as Lugansk and Donetsk. Even the neutrality of the country is something that has already been announced.
Open issues between Ukraine and Russia that are difficult to bridge to end the war
1. It is the administrative boundaries of these areas in Donbass, but also the status they will have. Autonomy within Ukraine or independent states? The limits, too, for Russia are the ones defined constitutionally. Opera means, among others, Mariupol and the entire north coast of the Azov. Hence the fierce battles for the occupation of the city.
2. The degree of demilitarization that will accompany neutrality. For example. Another is not to install Patriot systems and another is not to have any anti-aircraft defense in Ukraine.
3. And last but not least, the goal of de-Nazification, which is to arrest and prosecute people whom Russia considers to be far-right and who have committed crimes against Russian-speakers or Russians or others. Persons who today may belong to the system of power of Kiev.
Probably, it is difficult to agree on all the above issues.
4. What will be the fate of Odessa, which will exclude Ukraine from the Black Sea and if there will be a Russian corridor that will extend to Transnistria.
5. And the main thing is what the next day will be like. After the agreement. What will the Russian army do? Will it remain as an occupying power in the south and in the east? Facing popular protests, sabotage, and even guerrilla warfare. And also how will the country be governed? A country that after what has happened anti-Russianism will be dominant. A permanent wound in Ukraine would certainly become a gangrene for Russia itself. Which would probably lead to a controllable situation.
As has happened in the past in Russian history, it is very likely that in order to maintain control of the situation we will see the intensity of authoritarianism. This will depend on how the Ukrainian is managed, on the duration and intensity of sanctions from Europe, the process of restoring the balance of losses through the development of Russia’s relations with the region. There, most states do not ally with the West but are distancing themselves, perhaps looking to their own gains from the conflict, which they see as essentially a US-Russia conflict.
Why so far the winner of this invasion is primarily the United States
The invasion succeeded in achieving a number of important US goals. Analytically:
- Cut Russia off from Europe. We are no longer talking only about Nord Stream 2, but about the almost universal rupture of relations, which cuts Russia off from the European continent. It pushes it even more decisively in an Eurasian choice, which however without the European aspect alone is too problematic to withstand, without internal shocks.
- It forms Europe with its policy, it limits any differences, deviations, dispositions for an autonomous course. The announcement of Germany’s rearmament must not deceive us. 100 billion euros is definitely a colossal amount. The question, however, is whether these weapons give some autonomy to German foreign policy, or even more so whether they facilitate the emergence of an emancipated Europe. Because if the weapons are in the service of the North Atlantic agenda, then it does not appear what they will offer.
- It is clear that developments are benefiting the US economy, which is taking advantage of Europe’s energy insecurity, and boosting its own energy supplies.
- Atlanticism unexpectedly wins the ideological battle in the West. He is cleansed of his past sins, even the most recent ones, and appears as a force of freedom, democracy, and humanity. Something that had been received decades ago. In the face of the bombed-out hospitals, the refugee armies, the refugee drama in central Europe, it makes sense for impressions from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan to fade.
- It causes a huge economic problem in Russia, which despite the reassuring assurances of Putin and Lavrov, if it lasts, will undoubtedly cause social discontent, perhaps even political unrest.
- It is possible to develop an agenda of objectives at various levels and regions that could not have been achieved in the past, for example the accession of Sweden, Finland, Kosovo to NATO.
