Putin's theory of victory

The war between Russia and Ukraine is more likely to end with a negotiated ceasefire than with a sweeping military victory though neither seems close. Donald Trump’s peace process has petered out but, perhaps flush with the praise he’s getting over Gaza, he might try again.

At any rate both sides discuss their strategy in terms of getting to the best possible position for an eventual negotiation. They tell Trump they appreciate his endeavours and share his desire for an early peace. Their military efforts, they insist, are directed towards this end. Rather than a bloody fight to finish they want their enemy to realise that it is time to make the vital concessions to get a deal.

A Bloomberg article of 20 September described the conclusions Vladimir Putin drew from his meeting with Trump at Anchorage in mid-August:

‘military escalation is the best way to force Ukraine into talks on his terms and that Donald Trump is unlikely to do much to bolster Kyiv’s defences, according to people close to the Kremlin.’

The key element in Putin’s strategy according to this account was to continue targeting ‘Kyiv’s energy network and other infrastructure.’ It also reported that Putin left Alaska convinced that however hard Russia hit Ukraine, ‘Trump has no interest in intervening in the conflict.’

For his part Volodymyr Zelenskyy is working to prove him wrong. He reports conversations with Trump about how to bolster Ukraine, adding ‘There needs to be readiness on the Russian side to engage in real diplomacy—this can be achieved through strength.’ He can claim some success. More American systems are starting to reach Ukraine, albeit paid for by Europe, and Trump is even discussing, though not yet committing to, the provision of Tomahawk cruise missiles.

This is in part a response to those Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities and energy. These have been stepped up since Anchorage, although the new attacks may simply reflect the availability of large numbers of missiles and drones and the nearness of winter. More on this below. Yet when Putin talks about his special military operation he rarely talks about this feature of the Russian campaign. He focuses instead on the battle for territory, and when he does so he exudes confidence in a coming Russian victory. He has yet to give even a hint of concern that the war cannot be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.

The imminence of Ukraine’s defeat has been a constant theme of his comments on the war since 2022. Confidence was particularly high in late 2023 after the failure of Ukraine’s counter-offensive, when Kyiv’s disarray was compounded by Congress’s refusal to pay for more assistance, and Russia enjoyed significant advantages in both manpower and artillery. One question for later military historians will be to explain why Russia failed to take more advantage of its superior position at this point. It has advanced in the past two years of the war, but compared to Putin’s ambitions, and the huge cost in men and materiel, the gains have been meagre.

So why should he be more optimistic now that victory will come soon? He gave his reasons at a speech at the Valdai Discussion Club at the start of the month, backed by a lot of detail on what is happening at the front lines. This came straight from the senior military leadership, and in particular Commander-in-Chief General Valery Gerasimov. As noted in an earlier post, Gerasimov consistently exaggerates Russia’s position. Many of his specific claims have been challenged not only by Ukrainians but also Russian military bloggers. The exaggerations have consequences. As the Moscow Times puts it:

‘The gap between the Russian military’s upbeat reports and the battlefield reality helps feed into President Vladimir Putin’s conviction that Russia is winning the war, analysts say. That perception, they argue, undercuts any incentive for the Kremlin to engage in serious peace talks.‘

In 2024 the thesis was that Ukraine lacked sufficient weapons; now it is sufficient men. According to Gerasimov and Putin the losses are so severe that the Ukrainian army is on the brink of collapse.

In this post I want to look closely at this claim. The fighting at the front is undoubtedly tough so perhaps there are new grounds for Russian optimism. And if they cannot succeed on land might they push Ukraine to the brink through their remorseless strikes against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure?