Photo: EPA
An analysis published by the Financial Times argues that both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump underestimated their opponents, expecting quick and decisive victories — but instead became entangled in prolonged conflicts with heavy strategic costs.
The commentary claims that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, launched under the assumption of a weak adversary, has turned into one of the most costly strategic failures in modern Russian history. Similarly, it suggests that Trump’s recent foreign policy actions, including what the article describes as “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran, reflect a similar misreading of opponent strength and geopolitical complexity.
According to the analysis:
- Both leaders assumed their adversaries would collapse quickly.
- Instead, both conflicts have become prolonged and resource-intensive.
- The unintended beneficiary of this global confrontation is China, which gains strategic advantage from Western-Russian and US-Iranian tensions.
The article argues that neither Russia nor the United States can easily reverse the consequences of their decisions. For Putin, the war in Ukraine has become tied to regime survival, making withdrawal politically impossible. For Trump, the situation is framed more as a political and reputational constraint, where reversing course would contradict earlier public positions.
The analysis also highlights Ukraine’s growing strategic resilience, noting that the country has transformed the battlefield into a prolonged war of attrition and developed increasingly effective asymmetric capabilities, including long-range strikes and cost-efficient air defense solutions.
At a broader level, the FT commentary concludes that middle powers — rather than traditional superpowers — are gaining relative influence in the evolving global order shaped by these conflicts.
