Intelligence Squared

Is the Russia–Ukraine War a Failure of Strategy? With Lawrence Freedman

March 15, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • Strategy is best understood not as working backward from a fixed objective, but as working forward from the present situation to the next achievable stage, recognizing that it is a continuous process. 
  • Implementation and tactics are critically important to strategic success, as even the greatest strategy will fail if the execution on the ground is flawed or lacks organizational buy-in. 
  • The Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrates that while nuclear deterrence (preventing direct NATO involvement) has largely held, the speed of tactical and technological innovation (like drone warfare) in a protracted war is staggering and fundamentally alters battlefield dynamics. 

Segments

Formative Experiences in Strategy
Copied to clipboard!
(00:02:47)
  • Key Takeaway: Early interest in strategy stemmed from frustration with the gap between radical aspirations and the practicalities of achieving change.
  • Summary: Lawrence Freedman’s initial interest in strategy arose from the student radical movement, driven by a desire to bridge the gap between grand ideas and practical implementation. Later influences included studying high-level policymaking in war and peace, and administrative/management experience. This practical background reinforced theoretical insights about high-level decision-making.
Evolving Definition of Strategy
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:42)
  • Key Takeaway: Strategy evolved from a simple ends-means calculation to a forward-looking process of moving to the next stage from the current reality, rather than working backward from a final objective.
  • Summary: The view of strategy shifted from being a ‘magic ingredient’ that dictated action based on pre-set objectives to a process that starts with the ‘here and now’—the problem and available resources. This perspective views strategy as continuous, like a soap opera rather than a finite three-act play, emphasizing movement to the next stage.
Strategy vs. Tactics and Implementation
Copied to clipboard!
(00:07:34)
  • Key Takeaway: Implementation through correct tactics is critical, as getting tactics wrong will cause any strategy to flounder, regardless of its theoretical greatness.
  • Summary: Strategy has often been overly elevated, leading to the neglect of tactics, which are essential for successful implementation. If tactics are wrong, the strategy fails, echoing the 19th-century focus on tactical innovation. Strategy formulation often fails when planners do not consult those responsible for execution.
Strategy, Policy, and Bureaucracy
Copied to clipboard!
(00:10:52)
  • Key Takeaway: Strategy development must account for internal bureaucracy and competing professional interests, which often create tension with outward-facing objectives.
  • Summary: Developing strategy requires looking inward to gain bureaucratic buy-in and anticipate internal problems, not just looking outward at the adversary. A lack of commitment within the bureaucracy, as seen in the Iraq War’s post-invasion phase, can severely limit the execution of a policy pushed through by a strong leader.
Putin’s Decision-Making and Autocracy
Copied to clipboard!
(00:14:43)
  • Key Takeaway: Authoritarian leaders, like Putin, become convinced of their own judgment, leading them to dismiss dissenting voices and external evidence, which is a major flaw in their strategic process.
  • Summary: When leaders become utterly convinced of their cause’s righteousness, they stop listening to advice, a problem exacerbated in authoritarian systems. Putin dismissed concerns about the invasion’s feasibility, illustrating how a lack of curiosity about contradictory evidence leads to strategic failure.
Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine War
Copied to clipboard!
(00:16:41)
  • Key Takeaway: The war highlights the danger of extrapolation and the necessity of military history to provide questions to ask, even if direct analogies are inapplicable.
  • Summary: The conflict taught the danger of over-optimism based on initial successes, as Putin was prepared to double down via mobilization. Military history provides useful concepts, such as culmination, but these must be adapted because the context (e.g., resource disparity) is not the same as historical precedents.
Rationality in Conflict Analysis
Copied to clipboard!
(00:25:29)
  • Key Takeaway: Rationality in decision-making means consistency within a leader’s framework, not necessarily that their conclusions are reasonable or based on accurate assumptions.
  • Summary: A leader can be perfectly rational within their own system, even if their starting assumptions are fundamentally wrong, leading to poor outcomes. Putin’s actions are rational to him based on his tendentious historical research regarding Ukraine’s legitimacy, whereas Trump’s rationality is more conditional and driven by personal needs.
Managing the Trump Administration
Copied to clipboard!
(00:31:29)
  • Key Takeaway: The current US administration is extraordinarily difficult to manage due to its erratic implementation, lack of intellectual curiosity, and thin staffing structure.
  • Summary: Policymakers found that traditional methods like flattery were inadequate against Trump’s unpredictable nature, forcing allies to speak out publicly against proposals like acquiring Greenland. The administration lacks experienced staff to soften blows or manage bureaucracy, making it an inept and scary operation for foreign counterparts.
Nuclear Deterrence in Modern Conflict
Copied to clipboard!
(00:36:00)
  • Key Takeaway: Nuclear deterrence theory has largely worked in Ukraine by preventing direct NATO involvement, but the ’nuclear taboo’ makes breaking the non-use norm increasingly difficult for any first mover.
  • Summary: The theory predicted that Russia would not attack NATO, and NATO would avoid direct fighting, which has held true despite Russian saber-rattling. The long period without nuclear use has created a ’nuclear taboo,’ making it genuinely hard for a leader to be the first to break the norm, despite the increased danger.
Deterrence vs. Active Response
Copied to clipboard!
(00:44:44)
  • Key Takeaway: Relying solely on a passive deterrence mindset is dangerous because it fails to address disruptive, sub-threshold activities like cyberattacks and sabotage.
  • Summary: Deterrence is passive and works best when nothing happens, but it was ineffective in deterring Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There is a need to think dynamically about activities below the threshold of war, as generalizing deterrence too much leads to situations where it is constantly needing to be ‘restored.’