Kathrine Frich
Wars are not lost only on the battlefield.
They are also shaped by financial systems, alliances and internal power structures that determine how long a country can sustain pressure.
In Russia’s case, analysts say the Kremlin underestimated how quickly these forces would turn against it.
Leaving billions exposed
One of Moscow’s most damaging errors was failing to secure its financial reserves before launching the invasion.
When the war began, more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets were held abroad. Western governments moved swiftly to freeze the funds, sharply limiting Russia’s ability to stabilise its economy and finance a prolonged conflict.
The loss was immediate and largely irreversible.
Turning influence into isolation
Russia’s focus on Ukraine has come at the expense of its broader global standing. Longtime partners have begun distancing themselves as Moscow’s resources and attention narrowed.
Countries such as Armenia have openly questioned their reliance on Russia, while others now hedge their relationships more cautiously. The war has steadily eroded Moscow’s ability to shape events beyond its immediate neighbourhood.
Depending on mercenaries
The Kremlin’s reliance on the Wagner mercenary group proved useful in the short term but disastrous in the long run.
The group’s leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, eventually turned against the Russian military leadership. His brief rebellion in June 2023 humiliated the Kremlin and exposed deep fractures within Russia’s security apparatus.
It was a stark reminder of the risks of outsourcing state violence.
Escalating the language of annihilation
Russian officials increasingly denied Ukraine’s legitimacy as a nation, framing the war in ideological and even civilisational terms.
This rhetoric hardened Ukrainian resistance and made compromise politically impossible. It also ensured long-term Western support by transforming the conflict into a moral and humanitarian issue rather than a limited geopolitical dispute.
Misjudging global partners
Moscow assumed key players such as China and India would align more closely with Russia once the war began.
Instead, both countries kept their distance, maintaining pragmatic ties while avoiding full political endorsement. The result has been a Russia that is neither isolated enough to collapse nor supported enough to thrive.
