Strategy and Outcomes of Russia’s War in Ukraine: Pavel Baev’s Assessment

The topic of Russia’s war in Ukraine has drawn significant international attention, and for good reason. One of the most intriguing assessments of the ongoing conflict comes from Pavel Baev, an eminent research professor at the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), and an associate research fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri). In his document “Russia’s War in Ukraine: Misleading Doctrine, Misguided Strategy,” published in October 2022, Baev delves deep into the strategic mishaps and the doomed framework Russia has allegedly been operating under.

In this blog, we will dissect Baev’s arguments, look at the four key sections of the document, and explore the implications and recommendations that he outlines.

Origins and Evolution of the Conflict

Baev starts by tracing the journey of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. He argues that Russia’s actions, starting with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 are less guided by rational calculations of national interest and more by President Vladimir Putin’s personal ambitions. In Baev’s view, the genesis of the conflict reflects poorly on Russia’s geopolitical calculus.

While this is a compelling argument, one can also raise questions about the role of Western involvement, especially that of NATO and the EU. Although Baev touches on their responses, there’s a lack of critical evaluation of how Western actors might have catalyzed tensions. In international politics, motivations and reactions are often mutual and multi-layered, and this viewpoint merits a more nuanced analysis.

The Fallacy of “Hybrid Warfare”

The second section is an evaluation of the so-called “hybrid warfare” that Russia has been accused of using. Baev takes a critical stance against the term itself, labeling it as vague and misleading. He posits that the Russian approach, which includes a mix of covert operations, proxy forces, information warfare, and cyberattacks, has failed to bring about desired outcomes. Instead, it has invited international condemnation and has fortified Ukrainian resistance.

What is striking here is Baev’s dismissal of “hybrid warfare” as an effective doctrine. In doing so, he challenges a notion that has, for years, been considered a hallmark of modern conflicts. While he may be correct in his assessment of its effectiveness in this particular conflict, the discourse on hybrid warfare and its global implications warrants a broader discussion.

“Escalation Dominance”: A Failed Strategy?

Baev’s third section scrutinizes Russia’s supposed strategy of “escalation dominance.” This strategy aims to intimidate and deter adversaries by flaunting military might. Baev convincingly argues that this approach has been counterproductive for Russia in the context of Ukraine. Its acts of aggression have neither scared Ukraine into submission nor deterred Western powers from supporting Ukraine.

Baev’s skepticism about the feasibility of “escalation dominance” as a strategy in today’s world is compelling, given the growing diplomatic and economic costs that nations incur for military aggression. However, one should consider whether the strategy itself is flawed or if its unsuccessful implementation was a result of Russia’s own limitations.

Implications and Consequences

The final section of Baev’s document spells out the implications of Russia’s actions. The author categorically states that Russia’s military adventure has been self-destructive, undermining its own geopolitical interests while setting a perilous precedent that challenges international norms and laws. This viewpoint is undeniably salient, given the current geopolitics where respect for international law appears to be diminishing.

Recommendations and Concluding Thoughts

Baev concludes with policy recommendations, chiefly among them the need for a political resolution that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He also calls for a comprehensive security dialogue involving all stakeholders to address the root causes of the crisis.

The emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy is not just a practical solution but a normative ideal that resonates in a world fatigued by conflict. As we look ahead, the essence of Baev’s recommendations should serve as guiding principles for stakeholders and policymakers globally.

In sum, Pavel Baev’s document offers a rich and insightful critique of Russia’s strategies in Ukraine. While some aspects, such as the role of Western powers and the effectiveness of “hybrid warfare,” may require more nuanced discussions, his work serves as a foundational text for understanding the multiple dimensions of this complex conflict.