Three recent major geopolitical confrontations teach a consistent lesson: overwhelming military power alone cannot produce the desired political outcome. Ukraine, Venezuela, and Iran differ vastly in culture, geography, and strategy, but together they illustrate an enduring rule of statecraft: If you intend to force fundamental change on an adversary, you must know how to engage it from both without and within.

Russian President Vladimir Putin learned the first half of this lesson the hard way. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Moscow anticipated a swift collapse, but that didn’t happen. Instead, Putin badly miscalculated on two fronts:

Congress killed surprise bills — or did it? The $15 billion workaround raising your premiums

Anti-vaping hysteria keeps smokers hooked. Trump’s FDA is (finally) embracing reality

Hamas killed the two-state solution. Here’s the only path forward for Israel

First, the Ukrainian military was no longer the fractured force Russia encountered in 2014. By seizing Crimea and backing separatists in the Donbas, Russia unintentionally handed Ukraine eight years to reform, train, and build hard-won combat experience. 

OPINION: NORTH KOREA ISN’T WINNING WITH NUKES. IT’S WINNING WITH OUR BOREDOM

Second, and more critically, Ukraine’s internal political order held fast. President Volodymyr Zelensky stayed in Kyiv, state institutions remained operational, society mobilized, and Western support poured in. Russia struck hard from the outside, but it failed entirely........

© Washington Examiner