Russia’s weakness laid bare in just two days of internal turmoil

 A significant moment early in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed deep-seated weaknesses within Moscow’s military and strategic planning — a period that lasted roughly 48 hours and offered a stark illustration of the challenges facing the Russian war effort. Analysts and observers say this brief window highlighted issues that would reverberate for years thereafter, shaping how both Ukraine and its allies perceive Russia’s capabilities.

How a Sudden Rebellion Unmasked Russian Fault Lines

One of the most striking events that revealed these vulnerabilities occurred in June 2023, when the Wagner Group — the private military company once closely tied to the Kremlin — launched an armed rebellion against elements of the Russian military and command structure. Led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, Wagner’s forces advanced toward Moscow, sparking political and security chaos inside Russia itself.

The uprising lasted just a short time, with Prigozhin’s forces ultimately turning back following negotiations, but the episode demonstrated more about the state of Russian military cohesion than its duration. Western analysts noted that the Russian security apparatus — which relies on a mix of formal army units, intelligence forces and private mercenaries — struggled to respond decisively within those crucial first 48 hours.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessed that the rebellion exposed weaknesses in Putin’s control over security forces and highlighted the Russian state’s dependence on competing power centres, rather than a unified chain of command. That structural brittleness was laid bare as units hesitated, command directives were unclear and Prigozhin’s communications sowed further confusion.

What the Wagner Uprising Revealed

Several key problems came into focus during that brief period:

Weak command and control: The Russian military and security services appeared unable to coordinate a unified response, with reports of delayed or contradictory orders.

Competing power centres: The prominence of a private force acting independently of the regular army underscored persistent divisions within Russia’s security architecture.

Political fragility: That Moscow was compelled to negotiate with Prigozhin instead of crushing the rebellion outright suggested limits to President Vladimir Putin’s control, something observers said could embolden internal critics.

For Western analysts, these 48 hours offered a rare glimpse into fissures behind Russia’s outward posture of military strength. Although the rebellion was quickly defused and Wagner eventually reintegrated — only to see Prigozhin killed in a plane crash later in 2023 — the episode has been cited as a symbolic demonstration of systemic frictions in Russia’s war machine.

Broader Military Weaknesses in the Ukraine Conflict

The discovery of those vulnerabilities did not occur in isolation. Across the battlefield in Ukraine, Western defence experts have repeatedly pointed to logistical and morale problems within Russian ranks — such as supply chain breakdowns, command coordination issues and uneven frontline readiness — all of which Russia has struggled to address consistently over years of conflict.

For example, assessments of Russian infantry units have highlighted low morale and poor cohesion among some forces, a challenge that undermines combat effectiveness and strategic execution.

Likewise, operations relying on older or inefficient logistics networks have made it difficult for Moscow to sustain offensives or reposition heavy equipment rapidly in response to Ukrainian counter-attacks — underscoring that Russia’s vast landmass and military might still contain structural limitations.

The 48-Hour Window in Context

While such weaknesses haven’t translated into a wholesale collapse of Russian military capability, they have had a strategic impact on how the war is fought. Ukrainian forces and their Western partners have capitalised on these gaps, using agile tactics, long-range strikes and real-time intelligence to exploit moments when Russian units are disorganised or overstretched. These patterns — emerging not just in one flashpoint but repeatedly across years of fighting — illustrate how initial shock events like the Wagner incident fit into a broader narrative.

In addition, the stark public nature of the rebellion renewed Western confidence in the value of allied support for Ukraine, reinforcing the belief that Russian power is not monolithic or invulnerable — even if it remains a serious military force.

What Comes Next

More than just a historical footnote, the 48-hour window that exposed weaknesses in Russia’s command and security apparatus continues to influence strategic assessments of the broader conflict. Analysts warn that Russia’s military will evolve and adapt, seeking to close operational gaps even as Western nations support Ukraine with training, weapons and intelligence. However, understanding where and how vulnerabilities emerge remains essential for both defence planners and policymakers.

The lessons from those intense two days highlight how military strength is not only about equipment and numbers, but also about cohesion, command discipline and political stability — areas where Russia’s performance has occasionally fallen short even as the conflict grinds on.