Putin's Strategic Failure: Why Time Is No Longer on Russia's Side

By Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (Page 4 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page. 3 comments

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

Become a Fan
(6 fans)

11. Atlantic Council. Ukraine's logistics blockade strategy.

12. Institute for the Study of War. Assessments of Russian logistics and fuel transport across the Kerch Strait.

(Article changed on Jul 01, 2026 at 2:18 AM EDT)

Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

1
Rate It | View Ratings

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. Social Media Pages:

I was born and raised in Tehran, Iran, and came to the United States in 1976 to study psychology. Over time, America became my home, and I later became a U.S. citizen. My professional career has centered on clinical neuropsychology, particularly (more...)

Related Topic(s): Failure; Government; Invasion; Kremlin; Putin And Ukraine; Resistance; Russia; Russian Diplomacy; Russian Propaganda; Ukraine; (more...) Ukrainian, Add Tags (less...)

Add to My Group(s)

Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Authors' Articles

OpEdNews ~~depends upon~~ can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.

Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.

Comment Here:

You can enter 2000 characters.

Would you like to be able to enter longer comments? You can enter 10,000 characters with Leader Membership. Simply sign up for your Premium Membership and you can say much more. Plus you'll be able to do a lot more, too.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.

Username
Password
Show Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.

First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

(Member since Dec 13, 2006), 6 fans, 132 articles, 166 quicklinks, 1027 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)

The Drone Revolution Has Reached Moscow

The publication of this article coincides with yet another development that reinforces its central argument. Reports indicate that Ukraine has launched another large-scale drone operation deep inside Russian territory, striking a major satellite communications facility in the Moscow region while simultaneously conducting coordinated attacks across numerous Russian regions. Whether every operational objective was achieved is ultimately less important than the strategic implications of these repeated penetrations.

Military historians often identify certain conflicts as turning points in the evolution of warfare. The American Civil War demonstrated the devastating power of industrialized weapons. World War I rendered nineteenth-century battlefield tactics obsolete. World War II established air power and aircraft carriers as decisive strategic instruments. The 1991 Gulf War introduced the era of precision-guided munitions. The war in Ukraine may eventually be remembered as the conflict that demonstrated how inexpensive unmanned systems can fundamentally alter the balance between offense and defense.

Classical military doctrine has always emphasized strategic depth. Nations sought to protect their capitals, industries, command centers, and logistical networks by placing them far from the battlefield. Geography itself functioned as a defensive asset. Today's battlefield increasingly challenges that assumption. A relatively inexpensive drone, guided by satellite navigation and real-time intelligence, can threaten facilities hundreds of miles beyond the front line. The distinction between the "front" and the "rear" is steadily disappearing.

The repeated targeting of Russian communications facilities illustrates this transformation. Modern wars are not won solely by destroying armored formations or occupying territory. They are also fought through the gradual degradation of an opponent's command, communications, intelligence, transportation, fuel distribution, and industrial infrastructure. A military that cannot communicate efficiently, protect its logistical networks, or maintain secure rear areas eventually faces increasing operational constraints regardless of its numerical strength.

Equally significant is the psychological dimension. Authoritarian governments often derive political legitimacy from projecting competence, control, and security. Repeated successful strikes against infrastructure deep inside Russian territory challenge that image, forcing the Kremlin to devote growing resources to homeland defense while simultaneously attempting to reassure its own population. Strategic pressure is therefore being exerted not only on military capabilities but also on political perceptions.

This observation should not be interpreted as a prediction of imminent Russian defeat. Russia remains one of the world's largest military powers, possessing substantial industrial capacity, significant manpower, and formidable strategic capabilities. However, the nature of military competition is changing. The relevant question is no longer simply who possesses more tanks or aircraft, but who adapts more rapidly to an evolving technological environment.

In many respects, Ukraine has transformed necessity into innovation. Unable to match Russia in conventional military resources, it has increasingly relied upon technological asymmetry-- leveraging drones, intelligence, and precision strikes to impose disproportionate costs on a much larger adversary. History repeatedly demonstrates that military innovation often originates not with the strongest power, but with the side most compelled to adapt.

For military strategists, defense analysts, and political leaders worldwide, Ukraine has become more than a regional conflict. It has become a laboratory for twenty-first-century warfare. The lessons being learned in this conflict will almost certainly influence military doctrine, defense procurement, and strategic planning for decades to come.

If that assessment proves correct, historians may ultimately conclude that the most enduring legacy of this war was not merely the redrawing of territorial boundaries, but the fundamental redefinition of how modern wars are fought.

Submitted on Tuesday, Jun 30, 2026 at 11:17:10 PM

(1+)

Share Comment

Scott Baker

Managing Editor

(Member since Oct 25, 2008), 77 fans, 390 articles, 1494 quicklinks, 4015 comments, 41 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)

This is a brilliant analysis.

Far less brilliant was/is the West's, and particularly America's, failure to anticipate the rise of drones as a war-changing technology, perhaps the greatest since the development of air power itself. And it's not like there was no warning. Even I was telling anyone who would listen back in the early 2010s when drones were only used clumsily for reconnaissance, that war would never be fought the same way again. America actually had a slight lead in drone technology back then, but squandered it because:

A. The leaders of both parties were ossified and in love or in thrall to Big Iron war-fighting instruments - from massive and already impractical 60 ton tanks to aircraft carriers that needed their own fleets of billion dollar battleships just to protect them, not to necessarily attack the enemy on their own. Strangely, even today drones are rarely launched from nations that can afford aircraft carriers, despite the advantage of having a navy that can close the gap short range drones are limited to, especially when it's America doing the attacks. America has the world's best navy by far yet it relies on "top gun" manned aircraft even now.

B. The failure of American weapons makers to pivot to cheaper and simpler drones. Our industrial war capacity was deliberately reduced to a few mega-manufacturers in the 1990s when the Soviet Union fell. The planners in Washington were having their budgets cut and the thinking was that it would be easier and cheaper to just have a few merged major weapons makers instead of a lot of smaller players. From the manufacturer's POV it made sense to distribute manufacturing inefficiently to as many states as possible, to ensure congressional support from individual representatives. This kind of self-promoting loop worked to ensure a steady supply of funding and Big Iron development. It did not meet the moment when the threat became rogue actors from the Middle East, let alone a revanchist Russia over-reliant on an America too far away and too preoccupied with its own problems to rapidly defend EU territory, even while carelessly pushing NATO borders ever closer to Russia, despite warnings from that country that it would not stand for it much longer. Russia didn't, and an argument could even be made that protecting Sevastopol in Crimea from a raging revolutionary mob in Ukraine was the right thing to do, 2 weeks after the Sochi Olympics.

But that was then. Now, another change may be about to surprise both the EU and America, though not Ukraine, perhaps. The Russians fleeing Crimea with near empty gas tanks are driving fancy cars and are not the average Russians. They are richer, better connected, unused to war and until very recently mostly insulated from it. They are seeing and will talk about the devastation that has fallen well behind the increasingly tenuous front lines where Russia has sent men to die in the meat grinder. That, plus those men themselves becoming increasingly resistant to dying for nothing, or even threatening mutiny as a decorated soldier dared to do on video last week (something that would be a sure death sentence any other time) may mean that Ukraine may only have to apply enough pressure until Russia collapses from pressure from within itself.

Under authoritarian regimes, rigid control of the state works...until it doesn't. And when it doesn't, the end can be startling and swift. That's what happened to the old Soviet Union, which our own CIA failed to predict. It may happen again. At the very least, Putin has had to divert important resources he is running critically short of, just to defend Moscow and the Kremlin within it. Not only is that proving inadequate, it's also obvious that every other region and even its second largest city, St. Petersburg, has been deprived of air defenses just to reroute them, and the dwindling supply of fuel for them, to the capitol. This is becoming obvious to even Russian commentators normally supportive of Putin. Putin's support is waning to levels not seen since the start of the war in 2022, maybe even worse in this rapidly changing environment. It's hard to get accurate information on the censored Russian population's support for Putin now. A destabilized Russia, even if not about to undergo a coup, is obviously a boon to Ukraine, where president Zalinskyy remains popular, despite having to suspend democratic elections due to the war. Things may be changing yet again in ways that almost no one is prepared for.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 1, 2026 at 2:26:42 AM

(1+)

Share Comment

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

(Member since Dec 13, 2006), 6 fans, 132 articles, 166 quicklinks, 1027 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)

The Human Cost No One Can Ignore

Whatever one's political position on this war, one fact is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss: the human cost has reached a historic scale. Independent estimates from organizations such as CSIS, along with analyses by BBC Russian and the independent Russian outlet Mediazona, suggest that Russia has lost roughly 400,000 to 450,000 soldiers killed, with total casualties-- including wounded and missing-- approaching 1.4 million since the invasion began in February 2022. Even the most conservative independent estimates point to losses unprecedented in Russia's post-World War II history.

No territorial gain can compensate for the loss of an entire generation of young men. Every casualty represents a son, a husband, a father, or a brother whose absence will be felt for decades. Russia's demographic challenges were already serious before the war; the long-term social and economic consequences of these losses will likely extend far beyond the battlefield.

Ukraine has also paid a devastating price in lives, injuries, destroyed cities, and displaced families. This is not a conflict with true winners. The longer it continues, the greater the burden on both societies.

History rarely remembers wars only by the territory gained or lost. It remembers the human cost. When future generations study this conflict, they may conclude that its greatest tragedy was not merely the destruction of cities, but the destruction of so many lives that can never be replaced.

Submitted on Friday, Jul 3, 2026 at 3:27:09 AM

(0+)

Share Comment

Want to post your own comment on this Article?