Ukraine: a Test for Russian Military Reforms
In the recent years Russia has made a significant effort in favor of modernizing its armed forces which allowed it to execute the swift annexation of Crimea in March 2014.
Nevertheless, the deteriorating economic situation casts doubts on Russia’s ability to continue these ambitious reforms. This is especially true for the Strategic Forces which will have to face a reevaluation of the priority they were given in 2010. Uncertainties still linger over the future missions and capabilities of both the Navy and the Air Force. In the meantime, the ground forces, and especially the Special Forces (Spetsnaz) components, have to adapt to “hybrid warfare” in Eastern Ukraine while maintaining their own modernization process.
This Focus stratégique was produced in cooperation with the Russia/NIS Center.
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Ukraine: a Test for Russian Military Reforms
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programsFind out more
Discover all our analysesFury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.