If you told me a year ago that the Russian army would be performing as incompetently in Ukraine as it is today, I would have responded with a sarcastic chuckle. And yet, 12 months into Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II, this is precisely what has occurred. The Ukrainians have made mincemeat of the Russians, evident in last year’s successful counteroffensives south of Kharkiv and in Kherson. The United Kingdom Defense Ministry estimates that as many as 60,000 Russian troops have been killed, more than four times what the Soviet Army lost during its decadeslong misadventure in Afghanistan.
The war in Ukraine, which reaches its one-year mark on Friday, has surprised in more ways than one. Two in particular stand out.
First and foremost, we’ve learned that Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t some superhuman with unbounded leadership qualities or an unlimited capacity to throw his opponents off-kilter. This has become blazingly clear over the past 12 months, but it wasn’t always so obvious. Before he plunged Russia into a war of choice, Putin was as much vilified in the West as he was envied for his ability to keep rivals in check, exploit situations as they come and enhance Russia’s power. Longtime Russia experts in Washington warned U.S. policymakers not to underestimate Putin’s craftiness, while senior lawmakers at the time talked him up as a man who was “running circles” around the United States with the niftiness and patience of the judo master Putin claims to be.
This narrative, however, has totally fallen apart over the last year. Putin isn’t some grand chess master without fault, but rather a mortal who isn’t immune from exhibiting poor judgment and making terrible decisions. In the lead-up to the war, for instance, Putin failed to question his strong biases about the stiffness of Ukrainian resolve, grossly underestimated the fighting capacity of the enemy and grossly overestimated what the Russian military could accomplish.
Whether due to his isolation, stubbornness or delusions of grandeur, Putin has placed the country he loves so much into an extremely difficult position. The Russian army is heavily strained, with undisciplined, demoralized, inexperienced troops being used as cannon fodder to crawl a few yards ahead — if they advance at all. The Russian economy, powered by gas and oil sales, is increasingly cut off from Europe, its main cash cow since the Soviet days. Perhaps as many as 1 million Russians have fled the country, either in principled opposition to the war or to escape fighting in it. Some of Russia’s most highly educated, who would ordinarily become productive members of Russian society, no longer see a reason to stay.
To be fair, Russia still has time to turn the war around. The Russian army still has a lot of men in reserve, is churning out munitions 24 hours a day, and possesses an air force even U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin admits is largely intact. The Ukrainians are putting out a very high rate of artillery fire on a daily basis, and their supporters in the West publicly acknowledge that replacing those munitions is a heavy lift.
But the idea of “Putin the grand strategist” is now fundamentally over.
The other surprise, albeit more to Russia’s advantage, is how the international community as a whole has responded to the war. At the outset, there was a strong assumption that Russia would not only be castigated for its aggression but also turned into a pariah. To some extent, this has happened — at least in the West.
The Europe-Russia trade relationship is dwindling, most notably on energy: The European Union’s imports of Russian natural gas have declined from more than 40% before the war to near single digits today. The Russians are under the strongest sanctions regime in modern history, with nations that have large economies such as the U.S., those in the EU, Australia, Japan and South Korea all participating. Diplomatically, Russia was suspended from the United Nations Human Rights Council last April, and Russian airlines can’t even fly over European airspace anymore.
Yet the West doesn’t make up the entire planet. The adage, “Where you stand depends on where you sit,” is very much in operation. Developing, middle-tier and rising powers in the Global South want to keep themselves at arm’s length from the war and don’t want to choose sides one way or the other. This is less a reflection of Putin’s international support than it is a desire to maintain productive relationships with as many major powers as possible. Business as usual is still the name of the game.
It’s quite clear from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements that he would have preferred the war didn’t happen in the first place. Moral scruples aside, India’s economic relations with Moscow have deepened as a result. U.S. and European sanctions on Russia’s crude oil imports are rallying to India’s advantage; New Delhi has spent the last year exploiting Russia’s huge discounts to scoop up as much Russian oil as it can to power its own economy. According to traders, around 70% of Russian crude in the month of January went to India.
The Indians are hardly alone. Latin American governments have opposed U.S. entreaties to donate their Russian-made military equipment to Ukraine in exchange for more advanced U.S. defense platforms. The region is more interested in an immediate cease-fire, however unrealistic that is, than following the U.S. playbook. The same goes for much of the African continent; South Africa, to name one, began joint military exercises off its coast with the Russian navy last week.
The war’s first year has defied predictions. We will soon find out whether the second year will be as dizzying for the prognosticators.
