The Russian military, infamous for its operations and strategies, is currently under the microscope for its dual roles: one on the harsh, frozen grounds of Ukraine, and the other amid the ruins of Syria. Analysts suggest both arenas are pivotal not just for the Kremlin's geopolitical ambitions, but also for the reputations of its top brass. Recent months have illustrated how the skills and tactics developed through the Syrian conflict have been rehashed and directed toward the Ukrainian Front as Russia emphasizes its military doctrine's resilience.
Looking at Ukraine first, the Russian Aerospace Forces have had to adapt dramatically since the onset of the conflict. Early on, they faced heavy criticism for failing to establish air superiority over Ukraine, which allowed Ukrainian defenses to remain intact longer than expected. Tactics have since shifted; Moscow’s air operations have seen notable efficiency increases as Western-supplied military technology to Ukraine continues to evolve. The introduction of glide bomb tactics has significantly reduced aircraft losses during engagements. Defenders of Ukraine have also redirected their air defenses on the back foot, prompting Russian planes to alter their approaches to attacking vulnerable ground forces.
Despite suffering about 10% attrition of total aircraft early on, Russian command structures and logistics have showcased resilience, managing to sustain operations throughout the adversarial engagement. These forces have contributed to both defensive postures against Ukrainian advances and significant ground operability, particularly during Ukrainian counteroffenses. Historically, outcomes have been mixed, but recent developments suggest the Russian air forces still maintain the capacity to engage and adapt.
Transitioning focus to Syria—here, Russia's military objectives have proven equally complicated but illustrative of contemporary warfare dynamics. Since 2015, the Kremlin deployed airstrikes alongside ground forces, primarily aiming to bolster President Bashar al-Assad's regime against various insurgent groups and rebels. This military intervention served as Russia's first foray outside the post-Soviet space and has seen disastrous human costs: reports suggest thousands of civilian casualties resulting from extensive bombing campaigns.
Interestingly, this conflict became ground zero for the testing of Russia's latest military hardware—equipment and tactics employed against Syrian rebels have now resurfaced on the battlegrounds of Ukraine, such as the use of the Su-34 and Su-35 fighter jets paired with precision-guided munitions. The stark reality is portrayed by some analysts, who view this dual conflict approach as more of an exploitative 'sandbox' rather than strategic warfare.
Generals and military figures have surged through the ranks based on their successes or failures across these two very different theaters of conflict. Take General Sergei Kisel, for example, recently dismissed after the Russian setbacks around Kharkiv which tarnished his military reputation. Now stationed in Syria, he was ostensibly provided with another opportunity to reinstate his credibility. Reports indicate the Kremlin anticipated impressive results from Kisel’s command, aiming for significant territorial gains and consolidations by leveraging Russian military might.
Conversely, some generals such as Alexander Chaiko have thrived amid this tumult, garnering accolades for their ruthless efficiency with civilian casualties sometimes overshadowed by technical military reports of success. His prior successes during the bombings of Aleppo led to assume command roles, culminating in promotions and recognitions from President Putin. Disturbingly, tragedy has often accompanied the praise, with Chaiko implicated in ordering strikes against hospitals and schools where innocents fell victim.
Such patterns raise ethical concerns about military accountability within the Russian narrative. The Kremlin has frequently veiled its operations under the notion of 'national interest', disingenuously labeling its airstrikes as necessary protection against terrorism. Yet as operatives become more familiar with urban warfare, it's evident how convoluted the narrative spins. During the Syrian campaign, propaganda stressed the dichotomy between the Assad-led government and so-called terrorist factions, effectively masking the civilian toll's historical reality.
Experts assert this deconstruction of moral justification extends to the media portrayal of civilian losses, illustrating effective state propaganda strategies honed over years of warfare. Remarkably, reports estimate around 7,000 civilians, including many children, lost their lives due to Russian airpower during operations across Syria. Discourse surrounding these civilians often lacks the urgency present when discussing Ukrainian casualties before Western audiences, highlighting selective empathy across media portrayals.
Russia's military legacy hinges greatly upon this duality of conflict strategy. The robustness of the military-industrial complex remains debatable, with continued sanctions raising questions about long-term operational viability. Nevertheless, the operational blend of Ukraine and Syria provides Moscow with learning opportunities, albeit through brutal methodologies.
At the same time, as Western nations prepare to furnish Ukraine with more advanced weaponry, including F-16 jets, Russia may face new challenges. The skies above Ukraine may become increasingly perilous for Russian assets, putting their existing air superiority—however fragile—at risk. With the pace of military adaptation slowing down amid international scrutiny and sanctions complicate supply chains, Russia's future efficacy remains uncertain.
The horror of this military adaptability complicates the narrative—a dance between obligation, occupation, and reputational salvaging has ensconced Russia within two battlegrounds where human suffering continues to mount. Now more than ever, the global community watches closely as Russia balances the need to emerge triumphantly and its forces' ethical responsibilities. The ability to showcase military prowess against the backdrop of civilian areas underlines the grim reality of contemporary warfare dominated by geopolitical maneuvers at the expense of human lives.
