How Ukraine’s “I Want to Live” Project Exposed the Russian Military’s Collapse
The RAND Corporation’s report on the disintegration of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict paints a harrowing portrait of an army in crisis. The comprehensive study, drawn from interviews, surveys, and open-source intelligence, doesn’t just map out the tactical setbacks or the operational missteps that Russia has purportedly faced but delves into the profound systemic dysfunctions that seem to have hollowed out the once-feared military force. The report, published in July 2023, is based on a two-year research project that involved more than 50 experts from various disciplines and countries. It analyzes the factors that have contributed to Russia’s military decline, such as poor leadership, low morale, corruption, desertion, defection, and an unsustainable casualty rate.
The report’s title, “The Collapse of the Russian Military in the Ukraine War,” is an unequivocal assessment of the situation. The allegation of poor leadership is, perhaps, the most critical. Military historians and analysts have long argued that the quality of command is the first casualty in a corrupt system, where ranks and responsibilities can be bought or negotiated, not earned through merit or expertise. If RAND’s claims are accurate, the Russian military’s leadership woes have set a tone for a cascade of failures: low morale, corruption, desertion, defection, and an unsustainable casualty rate. Russia has replaced its top military officer in charge of the Ukraine conflict several times, indicating a lack of clear strategy and coordination. The latest commander, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, was appointed in January 2023, after his predecessor, Gen. Sergei Surovikin, faced criticism for the poor performance of the Russian forces. The US has also expressed uncertainty about who is leading the Russian combat operations in Ukraine, suggesting that the Russian units are acting independently and competing for resources.
The report underscores a sobering reality: that an army’s might is not just a function of its numbers or the sophistication of its weapons, but also the strength of its spirit and the justice of its cause. It is here that Ukraine’s “I Want to Live” project emerges as a masterstroke in what can be termed as the softer aspects of warfare — the fight for hearts and minds. This initiative, by creating a hotline for disaffected Russian servicemen seeking a way out of a conflict they perhaps do not believe in or wish to be part of, effectively turns an enemy’s strength into its vulnerability. The project, which was launched in September 2022, has received over 16,000 requests to surrender from Russian soldiers as of May 2023, according to its spokesperson. The project also offers legal and humanitarian assistance to the surrendering soldiers, as well as the possibility of participating in a prisoner exchange or staying in Ukraine.
The success of such an information operation is measurable not just in the number of soldiers who’ve used the service — over 16,000 by May 2023 — but in the psychological impact it has on those who remain in the ranks. Each soldier surrendering is a testament to the waning confidence in their cause, and each call to the hotline sows seeds of doubt among their comrades. According to a BBC report, some of the calls are from Russian soldiers who were mobilized from occupied Crimea and forced to fight against their own country.
Furthermore, the RAND report draws an implicit comparison between the leadership styles and public support in Ukraine and Russia. The contrast could not be more stark: On one hand, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s efforts to rally his nation have been marked by a palpable sincerity and resolve, embodying a form of patriotism steeped in resilience and a fight for self-determination. According to a recent poll, more than 90 percent of Ukrainians approve of his actions as the president. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is depicted as being beleaguered by authoritarianism, repression, and a lack of genuine public support, evident from the mounting anti-war protests and the country’s growing international isolation. Putin’s approval ratings have plummeted to below 20 percent in the past year, and he has decided to stay in power until at least 2030.
This analysis speaks to a broader strategic narrative. Ukraine’s apparent underdog story is one where voluntarism, patriotism, and a united front seem to have compensated for disparities in military expenditure and equipment. It is a narrative that challenges the traditional calculus of military might, suggesting that the moral arc bends not just towards justice but also towards victory in modern warfare. This narrative is reinforced by Ukraine’s use of drone warfare and information operations to outfox and demoralize the Russian forces. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has also been touring western parliaments to garner support and sympathy for his country’s cause. Ukraine’s underdog success story now looks more truthful and inspiring than the Kremlin’s denazification narrative.
As the RAND report circulates and its findings are debated in public and private forums, the central question remains not just whether the Russian military has indeed collapsed, but whether the strategy that purportedly led to this collapse is replicable and sustainable. Can a hotline like “I Want to Live” have a strategic impact beyond the immediate context of this conflict? Is it possible that what we’re witnessing is a new doctrine in warfare where information operations can neutralize conventional military advantages? According to some experts, the “I Want to Live” project is an example of a technologically enabled surrender mechanism that leverages the power of communication and persuasion to influence the enemy’s will and behavior. Such mechanisms may have a significant effect on the outcome of a war, especially when combined with other forms of psychological warfare, such as propaganda, deception, and cyberattacks.
While readers and policymakers ponder the validity and implications of RAND’s conclusions, the mere existence of such a report — and the conversations it spawns — is a reflection of the evolving nature of conflict in the 21st century. In an age where information is as powerful a weapon as artillery, the battlefield extends into the minds and wills of soldiers and civilians alike. It’s here, in the intangible theatre of human belief and morale, that wars may increasingly be won or lost, a reality that the “I Want to Live” project has perhaps tapped into with resounding effect.
