Russia-Ukraine War | To win a war, does ‘strategic neighbourhood’ always matter?

(Image: AP)

All along in contemporary international relations, wars have been determined to a great extent by distances and/or concurrent proximity with rival party. While great powers mostly win wars close to their territories or strategic neighbourhood, they would often lose out to rival parties, including rival great powers, in distant wars. Very rarely, great powers would let go of influence and control over strategic neighbourhood. However, in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, many factors are in coalition against Russia’s strategic neighbourhood advantage. Therefore, it is debatable if Russia will emerge victorious so easily and maintain the generic war rule.

In the past, many wars and conflicts went in favour of great powers by virtue of ‘strategic neighbourhood’. An early example is of China interfering in the Korean War in the 1950s and holding out against the United States’ military might. Similarly, the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s was resolved in US’ favour when the then Soviet Union backed off under pressure. In 1979, the Soviet Union launched a successful military campaign in Afghanistan. Russia had some successful military missions in its strategic neighbourhood, including the one against Ukraine in 2014. In 1971, India clinched probably the best war victory of the twentieth century in a fast and furious mode against increasing odds in the Bay of Bengal. However, the same analogy of ‘distance’ made the US lose the Vietnam War and, more recently, the long war in Afghanistan. There are few exceptions to this rule like the Falklands War of 1982, and the 1991 Gulf War.

Therefore, when Russia attacked Ukraine more than two months ago, the ubiquitous conclusion was that Russia would emerge, sooner than later, triumphant. Besides Ukraine constituting Russia’s strategic neighbourhood, there were other factors being touted in Russia’s favour.

First, the Russian military power is quite disproportionate to Ukraine’s. For instance, the 2022 Military Strength Ranking by www.globalfire.com ranks Russia as the second strongest military power after the US, and places Ukraine at a lowly 22nd position. Russia has the fifth-largest active military manpower (850,000) on its payroll as against Ukraine’s 20th-largest military manpower (200,000). The defence expenditure is similarly asymmetrical. But more shocking are the statistics regarding military arsenal: aircraft (4173 vs 318), helicopters (1543 vs 112), tanks (12,420 vs 2596), and fleet strength (605 vs 38). Probably, the only place where Russia has less asymmetry against Ukraine in the rankings is the number of armoured vehicles (30,122 vs 12,303).

Second, Russia had clear intentions and leadership resolve to go into this war. As early as last year, many military experts as well as some NATO members had doubted Russia’s war-denial moves. Russia, to most of them, was a war-mongering nation, looking for some excuses to aggravate conflict with Ukraine to a point of no-return. Russia, it seems, also had a grand strategy to pursue strategic aggression against Ukraine, evidenced by the surprise attack after being in constant war-denial mode, and even making strategic retreat.

Third, Russia had diagnosed the international situation rather correctly where no other military power would enter the war on Ukraine’s behalf, and proliferate the war to new theatres. The West, despite all condemnation calls, did not commit itself to military manpower contribution, and Ukraine was left to fend for itself against a powerful Leviathan. The UN Security Council remained as ineffective as it was in past, and global public opinion was not unanimous.

Yet, after more than two-and-a-half months, Russia is far from clinching a victory. Despite suffering heavy losses in terms of men, military weapons, and colossal damages to physical infrastructure, Ukraine’s military morale is outstanding, and commendable. Material help from NATO countries has bolstered its combat capabilities vis-à-vis Russian forces, forcing them to even retreat in some cases!

Russia has suffered comparable losses in terms of military men and arsenals. It is debatable if Russia has long-term resources, military wherewithal, and leadership resolve to clinch a decisive war victory.

Even if victory comes eventually to Russia through annexation of Ukraine’s disputed portions, and wide-ranging destruction of its military, it would be a moth-eaten victory that will hurt Russia in long term. Economically, Russia would still lose out due to international sanctions. On the other hand, Russia may not like to undergo the humiliation of loss since that would damage its great power prestige on permanent basis. A negotiated compromise does not seem to be a near future reality since both parties are overconfident about winning.

The war is fast metamorphosing into a protracted war with stalemate, mutual destruction, and calamities. We are already witnessing changing war fortunes of the two parties in different sectors of Ukraine.

‘Strategic neighbourhood’, therefore, may not be a guarantee card for Russian victory this time, as it has been in past. Probably, we may have to wait for actual war outcome after few months for affirming this new reality-bite in contemporary warfare.

Bhartendu Kumar Singh is in the Indian Defence Accounts Service. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.