ARMIES AND AUTOCRATS: WHY PUTIN’S MILITARY FAILED

5Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This essay analyzes the failure of Vladimir Putin's military in Ukraine in terms of five key factors. The first of these is Putin's monopolization of control over the armed forces, which has driven critical voices and honest debates out of military and defense matters. Second is the failure of reform: Efforts to overhaul the bloated, ill-equipped post-Soviet military have not produced a twenty-first–century fighting force that can match the world's best armies or counter their capabilities. Third, Russia's military has been unable to attract talented young people. Fourth, Russia's mammoth defense industry produces too few weapons, and those it does turn out cannot match sophisticated Western arms. Finally, the operations in Georgia, Crimea, and Syria were conducted against feeble adversaries and said zero about how Russian forces would perform in a conventional land war against a resolute, well-armed enemy. In short, the Russian military is a reflection of the state that created it: Autocratic, security-obsessed, and teeming with hypercentralized decisionmaking, dysfunctional relations between civilian and military authorities, inefficiency, corruption, and brutality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barany, Z. (2023). ARMIES AND AUTOCRATS: WHY PUTIN’S MILITARY FAILED. Journal of Democracy, 34(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2023.0005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free