How inefficient is the Russian military?

The might of the modern Russian military was supposed to show the world that President Vladimir Putin had restored the country to its former greatness after the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead, poor progress and heavy losses in Ukraine highlighted deep problems within Russia. For those threatened by Putin’s aggression, a belittled army is a relief. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that pushes a nuclear-armed power into the position of wanting to prove something.

So far the invasion of Ukraine has been a disaster for the Russian military. According to the British government, around 15,000 Russian soldiers were killed in more than two months of fighting. At least 1,600 armored vehicles were destroyed, along with dozens of aircraft and the flagship of its fleet in the Black Sea. The assault on the capital, Kiev, was a chaotic failure.

Lev Trotsky wrote that “the army is a copy of society and suffers from all its diseases, usually at a higher temperature”. The fighting in eastern and southern Ukraine will determine not only the course of the war, but also how much the Russian military can save its reputation. And that of the society of which it is an expression.

Lack of confidence
An in-depth study published by The Economist illustrated how inefficient the military is. Russia’s defense budget, with more than $ 250 billion in purchasing power parity, is roughly three times that of the UK or France, but most of this is wasted or stolen. Putin and his senior commanders have kept senior officers in the dark about their invasion plans, evidence of a paralyzing lack of confidence. Disgruntled troops, and with overdue food rations, deserted their military vehicles. Army units tortured, raped and killed only to be praised by the Kremlin. Russia has failed to gain control of the skies or to match tanks, artillery and infantry with its air power. Deeply corrupt, unable to promote self-initiative or learn from their mistakes, its frustrated generals have given up on advanced military doctrine and plunged back into activities such as razing cities and terrorizing civilians.

The highly motivated forces of Ukraine are a direct slap in the face of these failures of Russia. Despite being fewer in number and less well-armed, they resisted the invading army by transferring the decision-making process to small, versatile local units with up-to-date information. Even if the Russian military offensive, now under a single command, should gain ground in the Donbass, it will do so mainly thanks to the high numbers of its soldiers. Its claim to be a sophisticated modern force is as compelling as a rusting tank turret in a Ukrainian field.

For Putin, this is a bitter setback. This is also because, while controlling a formidable propaganda machine that helps stifle critical voices, the bad impression he is making is weakening his position at home. Especially since the use of military force is central to its strategy to give Russia a leading role in the world.

Even though Russia is a large country, it is a medium-sized political entity that still wishes to be a superpower. Its population lies between Bangladesh and Mexico, its economy between Brazil and South Korea, and its share of global exports between Taiwan and Switzerland. While enjoying some sympathy in non-aligned countries like South Africa and India, his soft power it is in decline, accelerated by its display of incompetence and brutality in Ukraine.

To bridge the gap between his power and aspirations – and to resist what he sees as an undue encroachment by the United States – Putin has repeatedly turned to the one sphere where Russia can still claim to be a world-class player. : military strength. For the past 14 years he has invaded Georgia and Ukraine (twice) and fought in Syria. His mercenaries have fought in Libya, the Central African Republic, Sudan and now Ukraine. Putin is a global bully obsessed with his country’s inadequacies. A position that contrasts with that of China, which itself has ambitions, but which has so far been able to achieve results using its growing economic and diplomatic strength.

Humiliation in Ukraine undermines Russia’s latest claim to aim for superpower status. The war may still drag on, and in the meantime Russia will not be able to organize large operations elsewhere. Equipment, ammo, and personnel are running out fast. Restoring the full power of Russian troops, training them to avoid mistakes in Ukraine, could take years. If sanctions remain in place, because Putin is still in power, this task will take even longer. Russian missiles are chock full of Western components. The flight abroad of talented and open-minded Russians will weigh on the economy. And in the meantime, the less Russia can assert its military might, the less it will be able to harm the rest of the world.

Weakness and brutality
All of these elements are positive. However, the invasion of Ukraine also contains less reassuring lessons. First, it shows that in the pursuit of this strategy Putin is willing to take risks that for many others – including many Russians – make no sense. A further decline in Russian power could lead to even more reckless aggression.

What is happening in Ukraine also shows that in future wars Russian forces will commit atrocities if they cannot prevail on the battlefield. A weaker Russian army could be even more brutal. For those who find themselves in a world where Russian aggression has to be dealt with, this is a terrifying prospect.

Ultimately, weakness could push Russia towards the last area in which it is still indisputably a superpower: chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Since the start of this war, Putin and his government have repeatedly brandished the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Putin is rational in the sense that he wants his regime to survive, and therefore the possibility of their use probably remains slim. But as the Russian military runs out of conventional options, the temptation to escalate will only grow.

The message to the whole world is that Putin’s military opportunism in Ukraine must fail in the eyes of his own officers and strategists so that they can temper his next and stubborn plans. A stalemate in the Donbass would only set the stage for an upcoming battle, which could be even more threatening than today.

However, even if Putin were defeated, he would remain dangerous. The message for NATO is that he needs to update his so-called defense doctrine tripwire (or deployment of deterrent troops). This doctrine is based on the idea that Moscow’s attempt, for example, to seize a portion of the Baltic states’ territory might be successful at first, but would unleash a larger war that NATO would eventually win.

This defense carries the risk of miscalculations and escalation, more serious than ever when Russia’s conventional forces are weak. Better to have a great frontline force from the start, which Russia would struggle to defeat. The best way to be safe from Putin and his rotten army is to totally dissuade him from fighting.

(Translation by Federico Ferrone)