[This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.]
Because Russia has a US$62 billion [£50.9 billion] defence budget and holds numerical advantages in weapon systems such as tanks, artillery, attack helicopters and planes, many analysts asked not whether Russia would win but rather how quickly it would do so.
What these observers and less experienced analysts are not taking into account is that wartime performance is influenced by more than how weapon systems function.
Ukraine’s military competence goes a long way to explain why Russia failed to seize Kyiv and Kharkiv and why Russia’s attempts to seize the entirety of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in its latest offensive in the east will likely fail.
Ukraine’s military reforms
Following its miserable performance in 2014 against Russia, when demonstrations by pro-Russian groups in the Donbas region of Ukraine escalated into a war between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists, Ukraine conducted a comprehensive review of its security and defence establishment.
Over the next six years, Ukraine reformed its military with the help of western advisers, trainers and equipment. From 2016 to 2018, I served as the executive officer to the US senior defence adviser to Ukraine and was able to witness some of these reforms.
In that position I met with dozens of members of Ukraine’s security establishment, including then-President Poroshenko and then-Defence Minister Stepan Poltorak.
It was clear that Ukrainian leaders feared a large-scale Russian invasion, and they knew they had little time to make difficult reforms in five categories: command and control, planning, operations, medical and logistics, and professional development of the force.
These initiatives occur when original battlefield orders are no longer relevant or fit the changing situation.
Before reforms were enacted, the lieutenants and captains who were conducting the fighting on the ground were unable to make decisions and were required to seek permission before they could act.
In fact, it was far superior to Russia’s military in nearly every measure but size.
As a result, Russia’s latest invasion pitted a large but poorly trained force against a much smaller but well-trained, well-led and motivated force.
As the war moves east, Ukrainian levels of proficiency, training, leadership, culture and motivation remain constant.
Russian levels of troops and equipment also remain constant – and their poorly led forces cannot be fixed in weeks or months. It took Ukraine six years to reform its military.
Deploying combat troops
Many media reports have focused on the fact that Russian forces’ moving from the north of Ukraine to support operations in the east will increase Russia’s likelihood of success of occupying Ukraine’s eastern region.
Yet, what is often ignored is that Ukraine is also able to move forces east. Sure, a small element of Ukrainian forces will remain to defend Kyiv.
But others will move east, meaning the overall ratio between Russian and Ukrainian forces is unlikely to change much unless Russia decides to ship in even more troops.
Likewise, Russia does not seem capable of changing how it employs its troops when they meet stiff Ukrainian resistance.
Although much was made of the appointment of General Alexander Dvornikov to command Russian operations in Ukraine, his promotion seems to have changed little on the ground.
Operations over the past few weeks have demonstrated that Russia is still incapable of executing large-scale attacks that result in Russian control over Ukrainian territory.
The only real change that gives hope to Russia is the geographic terrain.
The terrain in the east contains more open space and would enable Russia to move its troops and tanks along multiple routes instead of one.
Critical military aid
A key to Ukraine’s holding off this much larger force is the ability to rapidly replace military equipment that gets depleted or destroyed.