Clausewitz Russo-Ukraine War

For students of strategy, the fascination with Clausewitz never ceases. His genius lies in providing a general theory of war which identifies it as a political activity with an interplay between the people, army, and the government. Being an extension of policy, war is conducted on the basis of rationality. It is often brutal and destructive yet it retains its strong linkage with rationality. Hence, the belligerents always do careful analysis of cost and benefit before going to war. An unaffordable cost in terms of men, material, honour, etc. curtails the liberty of action of leaders in decisions regarding waging wars and vice versa. Cold war thus, remained confined to the domains of posturing, influencing, and fighting through proxies, despite enormous hostility between USA and erstwhile USSR, because both sides realized the unacceptable costs of a physical conflict.  Even when a war is actually being waged, Clausewitz’s logic stresses that the objectives should be pursued until a point is reached where the price of continuing are not worth the objective being sought.

Finland represents a relevant example of such rationality. It fought two wars with USSR between 1939-40 and 1941-44, in which despite huge numerical disadvantage, it inflicted heavy losses upon the outsized neighbour. However, being a small country, Finland’s own losses though comparatively lower, were simply unbearable. This prompted the Finnish nation to do a realistic appraisal of its potential for its future relations with the Soviet Union. Former Finnish President Kekkonen highlighted the foundation of this relationship in his autobiography in these words, ‘Experience has taught us that small country purely and simply cannot afford to mix emotions – be they feelings of sympathy or antipathy – into its foreign policy. A realistic foreign policy should be based on awareness of the essential factors in international politics, namely national interests and power of relationships between states’. What ensued was a carefully crafted policy which ensured that Finland win the trust of Soviet Union by maintaining good ties with it while also joining European associations like European Economic Community and European Free Trade Association around that time.  Becoming a leading trade partner of both, the Western world and Soviet Union, Finland focused on its economic and social progress. Today, the GDP per capita of Finland is higher than that of Canada, France, and UK.

Present day Ukraine offers a contrasting model. Though much larger than Finland, it is still an undersized country as compared to Russia. Yet, against all odds, it has put up a spirited response to the Russian onslaught since February 2022, albeit with huge moral, material, and financial support from the Western nations. As per the press statement made by the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, on 19 January 2023, the total US military assistance to Ukraine is expected to reach a staggering USD 27.5 billion. The military assistance includes large quantity of offensive and defensive capabilities. The humanitarian and financial aid packages are over and above these figures. Similarly, UK and Germany have also contributed with a combined figure of over USD4.8 billion of military assistance. Contributions have also poured in from other European countries and Canada.

Such massive support by the West has enabled Ukraine to prolong the war and inflict considerable losses to the Russians. As Russia gets embroiled in the conflict, the Western analysts are busy predicting the future trajectory of the war. Writing in Guardian, on 22 December 2022, Olga Chyzh, raised an important point by reminding that ‘Russia has a history of initially failed military campaigns that have succeeded in the second go’. As per her assessment, it is not an option for Ukraine to destroy Russia’s will or have long-time capacity to take its land. Meanwhile, Russia relentlessly continues its destruction campaign of Ukrainian infrastructure, which, according to ‘Statista’ has reached a combined figure of USD 123.9 billion. This includes cost of residential buildings, transportation, industry, education, agriculture, energy, trade etc.

There is yet another view of the massive US support being provided to Ukraine as expressed by US Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, when she asserted that Ukraine has turned into a proxy war conducted by the US against Russia. Stressing the same point, Independent, UK published an opinion piece titled: ‘It’s time to stop pretending what’s happening in Ukraine is anything other than a US proxy war.’

While there are analysts who do not agree with the idea of US waging a proxy war, the fact remains that a prolonged war serves US interests. Ukraine, on the other hand, continues to suffer unparalleled destruction which may not be easy to recover from, in spite of large Western funding.

It remains the responsibility of leadership of each country to look after its national interests.  In complex situations like war, having a clear perspective on one’s interests becomes even more crucial. Finnish leaders were successful in the tight ropewalk of balancing their objectives – how Zelensky would fare, only time will tell.  

Air Marshal Farooq Habib (Retd) is presently working as Senior Director at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in The Nation. He can be contacted at: [email protected]  


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »