Eminent British historian Sir Hew Strachan described strategy as a word "used by governments to describe peacetime policies more than by armies to shape wars" that has "gained in breadth but has forfeited conceptual clarity".
The past six weeks of war in Ukraine have been a masterclass on the importance of strategy. Importantly, they have shown how military strategy and military means must align with desired political outcomes.
What Sir Lawrence Freedman described as Vladimir Putin's "delusional strategy" has proved a terrible guide for military and information operations in Ukraine.
Russian strategic assumptions — Ukraine as a non-state, that Ukraine would rapidly surrender and that the West would not intervene — have all been proven wrong.
As the Russians have rediscovered in the past six weeks, getting strategy (and its underpinning assumptions) right is critical to effective military operations.
Strategic mistakes endure
Effective strategic thinking is more important than tactical excellence.
Historians Alan Millett and Williamson Murray have written: "It is more important to make correct decisions at the political and strategic level than it is at the operational or tactical level. Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but strategic mistakes live forever."
Now, because of their bad strategic assumptions, the Russians have been defeated in the battle for Kyiv and are reorienting for a renewed offensive in eastern Ukraine.
The heart of the Ukrainian challenge now is to decide what their strategic objectives are. Each will have different implications for their military campaign in the east.
The Ukrainians do not have a lot of time. There is already a race by both sides to build up their forces in the east of the country. Both the Russians and Ukrainians know that the more rapidly they reinforce in the east, the quicker they can launch operations.
So, what are the strategic options open to the Ukrainians that might guide their eastern front campaign?
Source: ABC.net