Two years of war in Ukraine see tides shift in Putin's favour

Huge miscalculation

As the conflict marks its second anniversary, it is clear that Putin badly miscalculated all his pre-war calculations regarding Russia's ability to deliver a quick and decisive victory.

The Russian military — far from being the elite institution Putin believed it to be — turned out to be a disorganised and inept rabble whose assault on the capital, Kyiv, was quickly routed by Ukraine's more resilient and better-equipped forces.

And, far from persuading the Ukrainian people to throw their lot in with Moscow, the barbaric behaviour of Russia's invading forces during the early stages of the conflict — with Ukrainian women raped and murdered and captured soldiers subjected to torture and summary execution — had the opposite effect of uniting the entire Ukrainian nation against the Russian invaders.

Putin also badly underestimated the resolve of major Western powers, such as the US and the UK, to rally to Ukraine's support. Advanced weaponry supplied by Washington and London — in particular anti-tank missiles and long-range artillery — proved decisive in thwarting the Russian advance.

Indeed, for a short spell towards the end of 2022, the Ukrainian forces achieved a sequence of notable battlefield successes, including the recapture of the northern city of Kharkiv and the southern city of Kherson, regarded as the gateway to Crimea.

The Crimean peninsula — historically home to Russia's powerful Black Sea fleet — has remained one of Kyiv's major objectives, with Ukrainian forces regularly attacking Russian naval vessels to the extent that their operations in the Black Sea have become severely limited.

Read more: Ukraine offensive makes waves in the Black Sea

NATO revival

Russia's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine and its role in provoking the biggest conflict Europe has experienced since the Second World War has also had a salutary impact on the NATO alliance.

Prior to the invasion, the commitment of many European member states to the alliance was lukewarm, to say the least, with only a handful bothering to meet the NATO requirement of spending 2% of their GDP on defence.

This shortcoming created tensions with the US, with politicians like former US President Donald Trump threatening to withdraw US support for the alliance if European powers such as Germany failed to meet their financial obligations.

The Russian invasion has prompted a radical rethink among Western leaders — especially in Germany — about their attitude towards NATO.

This time last year, only a paltry seven out of 31 alliance members met the 2% minimum spending requirement.

Today, that figure is 18, with other member states under pressure to increase their spending to the required level ahead of July's 75th Anniversary summit of the alliance's foundation, which is due to be held in Washington DC.

In addition, NATO membership has increased to include two new members, Finland and Sweden, which were prompted to abandon their long-standing neutrality in response to the Russian invasion.

Read more: Are fears of a Russian attack on Sweden warranted?

Consequently, one of the more negative outcomes of the conflict so far as the Kremlin is concerned is that Putin's actions in Ukraine — far from exposing the West's perceived weakness — have had the opposite effect of strengthening Western resolve.

Turning tides

That said, a combination of factors in recent months suggests that, for all the setbacks Moscow has suffered during the past two years, there are encouraging signs for Putin that the tide of the conflict is about to turn in his favour.

While the West has provided much-needed military and financial support, divisions have also arisen, especially in Washington, over how long the US should continue supporting the Ukraine war effort, resulting in Congress seeking to block the Biden administration's latest $60bn aid budget.

Read more: Russian resilience tests Western patience for Ukraine war

Meanwhile, European powers, such as the UK, that have previously supplied Kyiv with vital military supplies are struggling to maintain their support owing to arms production difficulties.

This resulted in the European Union recently conceding that it would not be able to provide Ukraine with the one million artillery shells it had promised to supply next month.

The difficulties the West is having in maintaining its military support for Ukraine are certainly having a negative impact on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders citing a lack of ammunition for their decision to withdraw from the strategically important town of Avdiivka last weekend.

By contrast, Putin has managed to breathe new life into Russia's military effort.

Generals and intelligence chiefs have been dismissed, fresh conscripts have been brought in to replace the heavy casualties Russian forces have suffered on the battleground, and the Russian economy has been moved to a war footing, with Moscow now spending an estimated 7.5% of its GDP on defence.

With an estimated 300,000-strong Russian force now based in Ukraine, the mood in the Kremlin appears to be buoyant, with Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, suggesting that, after the recent successes Russian troops have achieved in the bitterly-contested Donetsk region, they may soon be marching on Kyiv.

Certainly, without a much-needed boost in military support to Ukraine, there is every possibility that Putin may yet be able to achieve the key objectives of his "special military operation", even if it takes him far longer than he originally envisaged.