Russia’s War Aims and Europe’s Strategic Missteps: A Deep Dive

This discussion features Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy, a veteran with extensive experience in naval command and strategic roles, including service in the Falklands War and Afghanistan. He shares his insights on Russia’s war objectives and what he sees as Europe’s significant strategic errors in handling the conflict.

• Russia’s Strategy is Security-Focused: Contrary to common Western narratives, Russia’s actions are primarily driven by security concerns, a point highlighted by thinkers like George Kennan decades ago.
• Western Strategic Failures: A series of Western interventions and policies, from Iraq to Ukraine, are attributed to poor strategic thinking and a reliance on political narratives over objective analysis.
• Evolving Russian Military Operations: The conflict has progressed through distinct phases, from an initial diplomatic push to a strategic repositioning and now an attritional offense aimed at demilitarization and securing territorial objectives.
• Europe’s Over-Reliance on the US: There’s a growing need for European nations to develop independent security strategies, as the US focus shifts towards Asia and other priorities.
• The Need for Diplomacy: A lack of direct diplomatic engagement with Russia is seen as a major failing, hindering potential resolutions and exacerbating the conflict.

Commodore Jermy begins by noting a decline in strategic discussion in Europe, replaced by more normative language. He emphasizes that understanding an opponent’s security concerns is vital for effective strategy, a point often missed in Western analysis. He recounts his own disappointment with the teaching of strategy, which led him to write his book, "Strategy for Action: Using Force Wisely in the 21st Century." He believes that Western involvement in conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have largely been defeats or setbacks due to flawed strategic thinking.

Jermy suggests that Russia’s approach to the current conflict has evolved through several phases. Initially, what was termed a "special military operation" was not an invasion aimed at conquering Ukraine, given the limited troop numbers. Instead, he posits it was a diplomatic effort to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table, an effort he believes was close to success in early 2022 before external influences intervened. When it became clear NATO would support Ukraine, Russia shifted to a more military-focused strategy, involving operational withdrawals, strategic repositioning, and building defensive lines like the Surovikin Line. This was followed by an attritional defense, aimed at wearing down Ukrainian forces while Russia mobilized its military-industrial complex. Jermy sees the current phase as an attritional offense, with the objective of continuing to degrade Ukrainian forces and secure territorial goals, likely focusing on the Donbas and potentially expanding to secure the entire Novorossiya region for strategic security and control of Black Sea ports.

Jermy argues that the West is often seduced by its own political narratives, which diverge significantly from the military strategies employed by Russia. He points out that the Western narrative of an "unprovoked invasion" with the objective of taking all of Ukraine, while useful for building consensus, has trapped policymakers. This narrative, he suggests, led to a failure to recognize Russia’s initial diplomatic aims and later, a miscalculation in engaging in a war of attrition without proper strategic depth or preparation.

He highlights that even early on, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy confirmed Russian overtures for talks, suggesting the initial military deployment was intended to force Ukraine to adhere to security agreements. When diplomacy failed, the conflict escalated into a war of attrition. Jermy criticizes the Western approach in such a scenario, suggesting a focus on consolidating forces and destroying the adversary’s military rather than holding extensive territory with vulnerable supply lines.

The discussion turns to Odessa, a city Jermy believes is a key objective for Russia to achieve its maximalist security goals, securing its Black Sea access and potentially connecting to Transnistria. He questions whether European powers like Britain and France would commit forces to defend Odessa, warning that such a move would likely result in heavy casualties against a battle-hardened Russian army, especially without air superiority.

Jermy expresses skepticism about the idea of Russia invading further into Europe, seeing no strategic benefit for Russia and noting that such an action would be politically unfeasible. He believes that significant Russian casualties in a European conflict would likely lead Western powers to accept a stronger Russian military presence.

Jermy asserts that Ukraine never had a realistic chance of defeating Russia due to fundamental imbalances in industrial capacity and energy resources. Russia, as an energy exporter with a robust industrial base capable of outproducing the West in certain munitions, holds a significant advantage. He argues that even with full NATO support, a conventional war against Russia would be a losing proposition for the West, given the diminished capabilities of Western militaries since the Cold War.

He criticizes NATO expansion as a strategic blunder, pointing out that Russia had clearly signaled its red lines regarding Georgia and Ukraine. The failure to prepare for a potential Russian response left NATO unprepared when the conflict erupted. Jermy suggests that NATO, as an organization designed to confront Russia, has become obsolete and suggests a managed decline, transferring its resources and capabilities to a more inclusive organization like the OSCE.

Jermy believes that America’s focus is shifting away from Europe, necessitating that European nations take greater responsibility for their own security. He advocates for a shift from confrontation to cooperation, emphasizing the importance of dialogue with Russia. He notes that while diplomatic conversations are ongoing, they lack direct engagement with Russia, rendering them largely irrelevant to Moscow’s objectives.

He expresses concern about the potential for escalation control to break down, leading to a tit-for-tat conflict, though he deems a direct NATO-Russia war unlikely. Jermy predicts that as the conflict progresses and Russia achieves its military objectives, European nations will face the uncomfortable reality of a strategic defeat, challenging their established political narratives. He also foresees significant economic consequences for Europe due to sanctions, which he describes as "boomerang sanctions" that will likely have a greater negative impact on Europe than on Russia.

Jermy suggests that the EU, lacking a unified political system, may face collapse, particularly if economic downturns, like a recession in Germany, lead to reduced contributions. He believes that in such a scenario, nations would increasingly focus on their own interests rather than maintaining the institution.

He concludes by emphasizing the need for intellectual discussions and a "second enlightenment" in Europe to rethink security in all its aspects – military, economic, and energy. He advocates for dialogue and diplomacy, even with adversaries like Russia and China, rather than a self-imposed wall of silence. He sees a growing audience interested in independent thought, despite the prevalence of dominant political narratives, and stresses the importance of continuing these discussions.