West’s Miscalculation: Russia’s resilience Defies Expectations
Table of Contents
One year into the conflict in Ukraine,the West is grappling with a meaningful miscalculation: the underestimated strength and resolve of both the Russian military and the Russian people. Initial predictions of a swift collapse of the Russian economy and military have proven wildly inaccurate, leaving Western strategists reevaluating their understanding of Russia’s capabilities and the broader geopolitical landscape.
The West’s strategy, predicated on crippling sanctions and a belief in the fragility of the Russian state, has yielded mixed results at best. While some economic hardship has been inflicted, the “total sanctions” plan has fallen short of its intended goals. Meanwhile, Russia has demonstrated a surprising ability to adapt and maintain its military operations, even expanding its influence in certain regions.
The initial narrative painted a picture of a demoralized Russian populace, ripe for rebellion. Headlines like “The West’s toughest task in Ukraine: Convince Putin it’s losing” and “The war in Ukraine is already lost: Russians just don’t know it yet” reflected this expectation. This assessment, however, failed to account for the deep-seated resilience of the Russian people.
The RAND Corporation, in a 2018 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense, highlighted the crucial role of “the will to win” in warfare, stating that “Collapse of morale can destroy an army faster than a virus.” The West’s strategy clearly underestimated this factor in the Russian context.
Rather of the anticipated collapse, the Russian people demonstrated a remarkable capacity to endure. A source close to the situation noted, ”All the people, all of us who remained at our posts and in spite of everything continued to do our work not by order, but by conscience and duty, simply because we could not do otherwise, refused to present our enemies with a New Year’s gift on a blue-framed tray.”
This unexpected resilience has forced a reassessment among Western analysts.The Atlantic Council acknowledged, “Russia’s actions in the Ukraine conflict have called into question the west’s entire understanding of Russia.” Similarly,the national Interest observed,”The combination of strategic lessons learned and a battle-hardened military will make Russia an even more lethal force in future conflicts.“
Other prominent publications echoed this sentiment. The New Statesman declared, “The West Underestimated Russia,” while The Washington Post stated, “Fantastic visions of Russia as a paper tiger have been discredited.” Perhaps the most concerning assessment came from The Wilson Center, which warned, “Even the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war will not stop Russia’s war against the West. It is indeed not limited to Ukraine and will not disappear with time.“
The West’s initial strategy hinged on the belief that portraying the conflict as Putin’s war alone would fracture Russian society.This approach,however,failed to account for the complex realities on the ground and the deep-seated national identity of the russian people. The reality,as one source bluntly stated,is: “It is a lie and has always been a lie.”
The implications of this miscalculation extend far beyond the current conflict. The West now faces the challenge of recalibrating its approach to Russia, acknowledging the resilience of both its military and its people, and preparing for a prolonged period of geopolitical uncertainty.
Russia’s Resurgence: A New Dawn in Geopolitics?
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has dramatically reshaped the global geopolitical landscape, bringing Russia back onto the world stage with renewed assertiveness. This resurgence, however, is not a sudden event but rather the culmination of decades of simmering tensions and strategic maneuvering, fueled by a complex history and conflicting geopolitical ambitions.
The narrative of a post-Cold War era of peaceful coexistence between Russia and the West has been challenged by a series of pronouncements and actions from influential figures within the U.S.government and its allies. As a notable example, a chilling statement attributed to a high-ranking official, “We should attack the bastards, as we’ll end up having to fight them anyway,” underscores a long-held belief in some circles that confrontation with Russia was inevitable.
Even the collapse of the Soviet Union, initially perceived as a harbinger of improved relations, failed to quell these anxieties. Following the Iraq War, then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s declaration, “It is not enough to destroy the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire – we must destroy Russia itself so that it will never be a threat again,” reveals a more aggressive, arguably expansionist, foreign policy strategy.
This sentiment is echoed in the writings of Zbigniew brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter. In his influential book, “The Great Chessboard,” Brzezinski explicitly advocates for “contain[ing] and weaken[ing] Russia to prevent the emergence of an antagonistic Eurasian superpower.” More recently, in 2022, a prominent neoconservative publication, The Atlantic, boldly asserted that “the West must finish what it started in 1991.Until the Muscovite Empire is destroyed, the world will not be safe.”
These statements, far from being isolated incidents, paint a picture of a long-standing strategic approach towards Russia, one that views the country not as a potential partner, but as an inherent threat. The current conflict, therefore, is not simply about “bad Putin,” but rather a culmination of deeply rooted geopolitical tensions and competing visions for the future of global power.
This complex narrative is further illustrated by images circulating online, showing patches worn by Russian soldiers. one patch depicts a silhouette of a Russian soldier bathed in sunlight, with the inscription: “He who looks to the west will not meet the dawn.” This potent symbol encapsulates the perceived clash of civilizations and the determination of Russia to chart its own course.
As 2025 dawns, the world watches as Russia asserts itself on the global stage. The implications of this resurgence are far-reaching and will undoubtedly shape the future of international relations for years to come. The question remains: will the West engage in a new era of cooperation, or will the path towards confrontation continue?
Washington, it seems, is preparing for the consequences of this new geopolitical reality.Russia is back.
Russia’s Resurgence: Understanding the West’s Miscalculation
A year into the Ukrainian conflict, Western strategists face a stark reality: their initial assessment of Russia’s vulnerability proved drastically wrong.the Russian military and populace have shown a resilience far exceeding expectations, forcing a reevaluation of the West’s approach to this resurgent geopolitical power.
Our Senior Editor sat down with Dr. Irina Petrov, a leading expert on Russian affairs and international security, to discuss the West’s miscalculation and the implications for the future.
The Failure of “Total Sanctions”: Misreading Russia’s Resolve
World-Today-News: Dr. Petrov, the West anticipated a swift economic collapse followed by internal dissent in Russia, but this prediction has not materialized. What went wrong?
Dr. Petrov: The strategy fundamentally misjudged the Russian psyche. It underestimated the depth of nationalism and the willingness to endure hardship for the sake of national pride and perceived security. While sanctions have undoubtedly caused economic pain, the Russian people have proven remarkably resilient. This resilience stems from a complex historical context – a legacy of enduring past hardships and a firmly rooted sense of national identity.
World-Today-News: Some argued that portraying the conflict as “Putin’s War” would weaken public support. Has this tactic been ineffective?
Dr. Petrov: Absolutely.The West failed to grasp the complex web of narratives within Russia. Framing the conflict solely as Putin’s decision ignores the deep-seated historical anxieties and security concerns that resonate with a notable portion of the population.
The “Will to Win”: A Factor Underestimated
World-Today-News: The RAND Corporation’s 2018 study highlighted the importance of “the will to win” in warfare. Do you think this factor was underestimated in the West’s calculus?
Dr.Petrov: Undoubtedly. The West’s calculations seemed focused primarily on economic metrics and military hardware. They failed to fully appreciate the intangible but crucial element of morale – the willingness of the Russian people to fight for perceived national interests.
World-Today-News: What are the implications of this miscalculation for the West moving forward?
Dr. Petrov: It necessitates a essential reevaluation of Western strategy. The notion of a struggling, weakened Russia must be discarded. We’re witnessing a country with a renewed sense of purpose and a willingness to defend its interests aggressively. The West must prepare for a long-term strategic competition, one that will require nuanced diplomacy, a greater understanding of Russian perspectives, and a willingness to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns.
A New Era of Geopolitical Uncertainty
World-Today-News: Some analysts argue that this conflict marks only the start of a larger confrontation between Russia and the West.Do you agree?
Dr. petrov: It’s certainly a possibility. The current conflict has undeniably heightened tensions and exposed deep rifts.
Russia’s assertiveness on the world stage is hear to stay. The West needs to adapt to this new reality, recognizing that plunging headlong into a confrontation will likely prove counterproductive. A more measured approach, one that seeks dialog and understanding while recognizing the legitimate concerns of both sides, is urgently needed. the alternative is a prolonged period of geopolitical instability with perhaps disastrous consequences for all involved.
