Category: Geo-politics

Posted on

692: UNFINISHED RUSSIAN OBJECTIVE: REGIME CHANGE IN UKRAINE

 

My article was published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on June 30, 2025.

 

Since Russia launched its special military operation on February 24, 2022, its primary strategic objective was widely understood to be the overthrow of Ukraine’s government and the installation of a pro-Russian regime. This goal has proven elusive, rooted in Moscow’s desire to reassert influence over its neighbour and prevent Ukraine’s integration with the West. Over three years into the conflict, Russia has not been able to achieve regime change. There are possibly multifaceted reasons behind it, encompassing military, political, economic, societal, and informational dimensions.

 

Analytical Perspective

Strategic Miscalculations: Flawed Assumptions. At the heart of Russia’s failure lies a cascade of flawed assumptions.  Before launching the invasion on 24 February 2022, Moscow wrongly believed that the Ukrainian society was deeply fractured along ethnic and linguistic lines. Secondly, the Zelensky government lacked legitimacy and would collapse under pressure. Lastly, NATO and the West would not intervene decisively. These assumptions led Russia to pursue an audacious plan aimed at rapidly occupying Kyiv, decapitating Ukraine’s leadership, and presenting the world with a fait accompli. However, Russian intelligence had gravely underestimated both the unity and the resilience of Ukrainian society. When the war began, the anticipated internal collapse did not materialise; instead, Ukraine mobilised as a unified nation.

Ukrainian Resilience and National Unity. One of the most critical factors thwarting Russia’s ambitions has been the extraordinary resilience of the Ukrainian people and their government. From the outset, Ukraine’s people displayed unwavering resolve. Ukrainian society mobilised rapidly, with civilians joining territorial defence units, volunteering in humanitarian efforts, and supporting the military. The war has forged a stronger national identity, with polls consistently showing overwhelming support for Zelenskyy’s government and rejection of Russian influence. This societal cohesion has made installing a pro-Russia regime more difficult, as any pro-Russian government would face relentless resistance and lack legitimacy.

Russian Military Miscalculation: Collapse of the Hostomel-Kyiv Blitz. Russia’s regime-change ambitions were staked on the success of a swift airborne operation. Russian forces did seize Hostomel Airport, located just outside Kyiv, to establish an air bridge for further troops. However, Ukrainians were able to repel the assault, destroying incoming aircraft and delaying Russian reinforcements. With the Hostomel plan thwarted, Russian ground forces were left advancing slowly on narrow roads with overstretched supply lines and inadequate logistics. Russians had to change their strategy and the plan at an early stage.

Western Support. The unprecedented scale of Western support for Ukraine has been a pivotal factor. NATO countries, led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, have provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in military, financial, and humanitarian aid. Advanced weaponry, including HIMARS rocket systems, ATACMS missiles, Patriot air defences, and Leopard tanks, has enabled Ukraine to counter Russian offensives and launch successful counterattacks. Beyond material support, Western intelligence-sharing and training programs have enhanced Ukraine’s operational effectiveness. On the other hand, sanctions on Russia, targeting its energy exports, financial systems, and military-industrial complex, have dented Moscow’s ability to sustain the tempo of the war.

Geopolitical and Terrain Challenges. Ukraine’s geography has posed significant challenges for Russia’s regime change ambitions. Over 600,000 square kilometers of Ukraine is Europe’s second-largest country, with diverse terrain ranging from open steppes to dense urban centers. Controlling such a vast area requires substantial manpower and resources. Urban warfare, particularly in cities, favours Ukrainian defenders, who benefit from local knowledge and fortified positions. Russia’s territorial gains have been concentrated in eastern and southern regions, such as parts of Donbas, and Crimea, but these areas represent only a fraction of Ukraine. Stretching its forces across multiple fronts has diluted Russia’s ability to consolidate control or advance toward Kyiv, the political heart of Ukraine.

Russian Internal Constraints. Russia’s domestic challenges have further undermined its war effort. The invasion has strained Russia’s economy, with sanctions disrupting trade, freezing foreign reserves, and limiting access to critical technologies. While high energy prices initially cushioned the blow, long-term economic decline and inflation have eroded public support for the war to an large extent. Political dissent, though suppressed, persists among some of Russia’s factions. These internal pressures have constrained Russia’s ability to escalate the war or sustain a long-term occupation of Ukraine.

Alienating the Ukrainian Population. Russia’s offensive and punitive tactics have obliterated any chance of winning Ukrainian support for a pro-Russian regime. Deliberate attacks on infrastructure have fuelled hatred toward Russia and unified Ukrainians against Moscow’s agenda. The Kremlin’s narrative about “denazifaction” of Ukraine has not resonated well with Ukrainians.  The absence of a viable pro-Russian political base in Ukraine has left Russia with no credible allies to prop up a pro-Russian government.

Dominance in the Information War. Ukraine has done well in the information domain, maintaining global sympathy and domestic morale. Russia, by contrast, has maintained a low-key approach to control the narrative. Its state-controlled media dominates domestically but has little sway abroad. This information asymmetry has reinforced Ukraine’s legitimacy while undermining Russia’s ability to justify regime change.

The Evolution of the Conflict. As the war has evolved into a protracted struggle, Russia’s initial goal of regime change has become increasingly unattainable, and Moscow has pivoted to territorial objectives. The limited military operation has evolved into a long-drawn-out slug match, with Ukraine periodically launching counter-offensives and Russia resorting to punitive action with long-range weapons. The prospect of a frozen conflict or negotiated settlement looms, but both sides are sticking to their terms.

 

Conclusion

Russia’s inability to achieve regime change in Ukraine results from a confluence of factors: Ukrainian unity and resolve, Russian strategic miscalculations, continued Western support, geographical challenges, and Moscow’s internal constraints. These elements have transformed the conflict into a grinding stalemate, with Ukraine’s government not only surviving but emerging as a symbol of resistance. As the war continues, Russia’s prospects for overturning Ukraine’s leadership remain dim.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1940
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Unfinished Russian Objective: Regime Change In Ukraine

References:-

  1. Charap, S., & Colton, T. (2022). Everyone loses: The Ukraine crisis and the ruinous contest for post-Soviet Eurasia. Routledge.
  2. D’Anieri, P. (2023). Ukraine and Russia: From civilised divorce to uncivil war (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  3. Galeotti, M. (2023). Russia’s war in Ukraine: The end of the beginning? Foreign Affairs, 102(4), 48–59.
  4. Kofman, M., & Lee, R. (2022). Not built for purpose: The Russian military’s ill-fated force design. War on the Rocks.
  5. Kuzio, T. (2024). Russia’s war against Ukraine: The whole story. Routledge.
  6. Plokhy, S. (2023). The Russo-Ukrainian war: The return of history. W. W. Norton & Company.
  7. Sasse, G., & Lackner, A. (2023). War and identity: The case of Ukraine. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 36(1), 1–19.
  8. The Economist. (2024, December 12). How sanctions are reshaping Russia’s economy.
  9. SIPRI Yearbook 2025. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 2025.
  10. Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Russian Offensive Campaign Assessments, 2022–2025.
  11. RAND Corporation. “The Russian Way of War: Doctrine, Logistics, and Constraints.” RAND Reports, 2023–2024.
  12. BBC News. “Ukraine War: The Battle for Hostomel Airport.” BBC Special Report, March 2022.
  13. European Union External Action Service (EEAS). EU Support to Ukraine: Ukraine Facility and Sanctions Against Russia, 2024–2025.
  14. The Economist. “Why Russia’s Regime Change Strategy in Ukraine Has Failed,” April 2025.
  15. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). Lessons from the Ukraine War: Air Superiority and ISR, 2023.
  16. New York Times. “Inside Ukraine’s Counteroffensives,” October 2022–June 2025 Special Reports.
  17. Jane’s Defence Weekly. Russia-Ukraine Conflict Technical Assessments, 2022–2025.
Posted on

686: CHAT WITH MEHNAAZ NADIADWALA

 

I had an interesting conversation with Mehnaaz Nadiadwala about various subjects related to Defence, Security, Geopolitics and the Indian Air Force.

 

If ever I come across a time machine, I will relive my life in the Indian Air Force.

 

 

 

1940
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Posted on

683: FROM OSIRAK TO NATANZ: OPERATION RISING LION AS A CONTINUATION OF ISRAEL’S BEGIN DOCTRINE OF DENIAL

 

My Article published on “The EurasianTimes” website on 17 Jun 25. 

 

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a bold and sophisticated military campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile bases, and key military personnel. The operation, which struck sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, and killed high-ranking figures such as IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami, was a direct application of the Begin Doctrine—Israel’s strategic policy of pre-emptively denying adversaries the ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Named after Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who authorised the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, the doctrine has shaped Israel’s approach to regional threats for over four decades. This article examines Operation Rising Lion as a continuation of the Begin Doctrine, tracing its evolution from Osirak to Natanz, analysing its strategic execution, and exploring its implications for Israel’s security and regional stability.

 

The Begin Doctrine

The Begin Doctrine is a cornerstone of Israeli strategic policy, centered on the pre-emptive prevention of adversaries, particularly in the Middle East, from acquiring nuclear weapons that could pose an existential threat to Israel. Named after former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the doctrine emerged following Israel’s airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981, known as Operation Opera. It reflects Israel’s commitment to ensuring its survival in a region surrounded by hostile states, some of which have historically pursued nuclear capabilities.

Key Principles of the Begin Doctrine include the following:-

    • Pre-emptive Action. Israel reserves the right to use military force to prevent any hostile state or non-state actor from developing nuclear weapons.
    • Existential Threat Mitigation. The doctrine prioritises neutralising capabilities that could enable adversaries to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), notably nuclear weapons.
    • Unilateral Action. Israel will act independently if necessary, even without international approval or coordination, to safeguard its security.
    • Deterrence and Regional Dominance. By demonstrating its willingness and ability to strike pre-emptively, Israel reinforces its military superiority and deters adversaries. Historical Context and Application.

 

Historical Precedents: Osirak and Orchard

Operation Opera (1981). On June 7, 1981, eight Israeli F-16s, escorted by F-15s, flew 1,100 kilometers to destroy Iraq’s Osirak reactor, a French-built facility suspected of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The strike was meticulously planned, relying on intelligence from Mossad and defectors. Despite international outrage, including a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel, the operation delayed Iraq’s nuclear program significantly. It established the Begin Doctrine as a proactive strategy, emphasising Israel’s willingness to act alone to ensure its survival.

Operation Orchard (2007). On September 6, 2007, Israel struck Syria’s Al-Kibar nuclear reactor in Deir ez-Zor, believed to be a North Korean-designed plutonium facility. The operation, kept secret for months, involved precision airstrikes by F-16s and F-15s, supported by cyberwarfare and Mossad intelligence. Unlike Osirak, Orchard faced minimal international backlash, partly due to Syria’s secrecy and the operation’s surgical nature. It reinforced the Begin Doctrine’s adaptability, incorporating advanced technology and covert tactics to neutralise emerging threats.

Both operations demonstrated Israel’s ability to combine intelligence, air superiority, and strategic surprise, setting the stage for Operation Rising Lion’s complexity.

 

Operation Rising Lion: A Modern Application

Launched on June 13, 2025, Operation Rising Lion targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, reflecting the Begin Doctrine’s evolution in scale, technology, and geopolitical context. Iran’s nuclear program, by 2025, posed an unprecedented challenge, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting enough enriched uranium for up to 15 nuclear bombs. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the operation as a “12th-hour” necessity to prevent a “nuclear holocaust,” echoing Begin’s rhetoric from 1981.

Strategic Execution. Operation Rising Lion was a multi-domain assault, integrating air, cyber, and covert operations. Over 200 Israeli aircraft, including F-35s, struck key nuclear sites, the Natanz Enrichment Complex, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the Arak Heavy Water Facility and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Missile bases like Asfajaabad, IRGC command centers, and air defence systems were hit. Mossad-activated drones and smuggled munitions neutralised launchers and radars, ensuring air superiority. The operation killed key figures, including IRGC leaders Hossein Salami, Mohammad Bagheri, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and nuclear scientists like Fereydoon Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, crippling Iran’s command and expertise. Mossad’s covert operations, including a secret drone base near Tehran and disinformation about diplomatic rifts, misled Iran’s leadership into underestimating the attack.

Scale and Impact.  Operation Rising Lion was unprecedented in scope, targeting over 100 sites with 330 munitions. Iran reported 78–128 deaths, including 20 children, and over 320 injuries, particularly in Tehran’s residential areas, sparking international criticism. The IAEA confirmed no radiation leaks, indicating precise strikes. The operation delayed Iran’s nuclear program, damaged its military infrastructure, and disrupted its chain of command, reinforcing Israel’s regional dominance.

 

Iran’s Response: Operation True Promise III. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “severe punishment,” describing Israel’s actions as a “doomed aggression based on a grave miscalculation.”  Iran retaliated with Operation True Promise III (Persian: Va’de-ye Sādeq III), which began on the evening of June 13, 2025, approximately 18 hours after Israel’s initial strikes. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) led the operation, supported by Iran’s armed forces and possibly proxy groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Iran fired “dozens” to “hundreds” of ballistic missiles and drones, targeting Israeli military centres, airbases, and strategic sites, including the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv. Specific targets included Nevatim, Hatzerim, and Tel Nof airbases, which house advanced Israeli fighter jets like F-35s and F-15s. The operation involved waves of attacks, with ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones aimed at overwhelming Israel’s multilayered air defences, including the Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems. While Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems, aided by U.S., British, and French forces, intercepted most projectiles, some strikes caused damage in Tel Aviv, injuring 21–95 people. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the strikes a “crushing response”.

Analytical Perspectives

Continuity and Evolution of the Begin Doctrine. Operation Rising Lion reflects the Begin Doctrine’s continuity and evolution. Like Osirak and Orchard, Rising Lion was a unilateral, preemptive strike to deny an adversary nuclear capability. Israel acted without U.S. involvement, prioritising national security over international approval, and justified the operation as existential. The operation’s scale—over 200 aircraft and 100 targets—dwarfs previous strikes. It integrated advanced technologies (AI-assisted targeting, drones, cyberwarfare) and Mossad’s covert infrastructure, showcasing Israel’s technological edge. Unlike Osirak’s single-target focus or Orchard’s secrecy, Rising Lion was a broad assault on nuclear, military, and leadership targets, reflecting the complexity of Iran’s threat.

Strategic and Ethical Challenges. The Begin Doctrine’s application in Operation Rising Lion raises significant issues.

    • Strategic Success. The operation delayed Iran’s nuclear program, possibly by years, and weakened its military leadership and missile capabilities. It reinforced Israel’s deterrence, signalling to adversaries like Hezbollah and the Houthis that escalation would be costly.
    • Escalation Risks. Though limited, Iran’s Operation True Promise III underscores the potential for a broader conflict. The Houthis’ missile strike on Hebron and possible proxy involvement from Iraq and Syria highlight the regional ripple effects.
    • Ethical Concerns. Civilian casualties, including 20 children in Tehran, drew condemnation from the UN, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Critics argue the doctrine’s preemptive nature risks disproportionate harm, complicating Israel’s international standing.
    • Limitations. Deeply buried facilities like Fordow remain resistant to conventional strikes, suggesting the doctrine’s reliance on airpower may need adaptation for future threats.

Geopolitical Impact. Operation Rising Lion has transformed the Middle East’s strategic landscape. By eliminating key Iranian leaders and damaging critical infrastructure, Israel has significantly weakened Iran’s regional influence, though its proxy groups, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, remain active. Global oil prices have surged 8% amid fears of supply disruptions, sending ripples through international markets. The United States backed Israel’s defensive measures but called for restraint, while Russia offered to mediate and Saudi Arabia adopted a cautious approach, highlighting the region’s complex dynamics. The breakdown of scheduled U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Oman underscores the diplomatic fallout of Israel’s Begin Doctrine.

Israel’s Strategic Blind Spot: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program.  Israel’s Begin Doctrine prioritises pre-emptive strikes against adversaries developing nuclear weapons, yet Pakistan’s nuclear program, successful by 1998, never prompted Israeli action. This stems from geopolitical and strategic factors. Unlike Iraq, Syria, or Iran, Pakistan lies outside Israel’s immediate Middle Eastern sphere of influence, reducing its perceived threat. Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions were primarily driven by rivalry with India, not hostility toward Israel. Diplomatic relations, though limited, existed indirectly, and Pakistan’s leadership, including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf, avoided framing Israel as a primary enemy. Israel’s intelligence, via Mossad, likely assessed Pakistan’s program as India-focused, not aimed at Tel Aviv. Additionally, U.S. influence, a mutual ally, restrained escalation, as Pakistan’s nuclear development was tacitly accepted to counter India. Thus, Israel conserved resources for proximate threats like Iran, aligning with the Begin Doctrine’s focus on existential risks.

 

Conclusion

From Osirak to Natanz, the Begin Doctrine has guided Israel’s strategy to prevent nuclear proliferation among its adversaries. With its unprecedented scale and technological sophistication, Operation Rising Lion represents the doctrine’s most ambitious application yet. By targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile bases, and leadership, Israel reaffirmed its commitment to existential security, even at the cost of regional escalation and international criticism. However, the operation’s success in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions comes with challenges: fortified sites like Fordow, retaliatory risks, and ethical questions about civilian casualties. As of this date, the Israel-Iran conflict remains volatile, with the Begin Doctrine both a shield for Israel’s survival and a catalyst for regional tensions. The doctrine’s future will depend on Israel’s ability to adapt its pre-emptive strategy to an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1940
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Israel ‘Spares’ Pakistan Under Its Begin Doctrine! Why IDF Bombed Iraq, Syria & Iran’s Nuclear Facilities But Left Pakistan?

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2025, June 12). Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program Compliance. Vienna: IAEA.
  1. United Nations. (2025, June 13). Statement by Secretary-General António Guterres on Israeli Airstrikes in Iran. New York: United Nations Press Office.
  1. Al Jazeera. (2025, June 14). “Iran Vows ‘Harsh Response’ After Israeli Strikes on Nuclear Sites.” Al Jazeera English.
  1. BBC News. (2025, June 13). “Israel Launches Operation Rising Lion: What We Know About the Strikes on Iran.” BBC World Service.
  1. Reuters. (2025, June 15). “Oil Prices Surge as Israel-Iran Tensions Escalate After Operation Rising Lion.” Reuters.
  1. The Jerusalem Post. (2025, June 13). “Netanyahu: Operation Rising Lion Prevented Nuclear Holocaust.” The Jerusalem Post.
  1. The New York Times. (2025, June 14). “Mossad’s Covert Role in Israel’s Strike on Iran Revealed.” The New York Times.
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025, June 14). Operation Rising Lion: Assessing Israel’s Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program. Washington, DC: CSIS.
  1. Institute for National Security Studies. (2025, June 15). The Geopolitical Fallout of Operation Rising Lion. Tel Aviv: INSS.
  1. Israel Defence Forces. (2025, June 13). Official Statement on Operation Rising Lion. Jerusalem: IDF Press Office.
  1. U.S. Department of State. (2025, June 13). Press Briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Israel-Iran Conflict. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
  1. Bergman, Ronen. (2018). Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations. New York: Random House.
  1. Pollack, Kenneth M. (2021). The Persian Puzzle: Iran’s Strategic Challenge. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

English हिंदी