Putin tinkering directly with the engine of war betrays a lack of trust

When it comes to military operations, political leaders should be looking outwards: explaining the action to maintain support from domestic society and international allies.

But on Monday, we were told Vladimir Putin is personally intervening in the tactical direction of the war in Ukraine.

“We think Putin and Gerasimov are involved in tactical decision-making at a level we would normally expect to be taken by a colonel or a brigadier,” a military source said.

Gen Valery Gerasimov is the head of the Russian armed forces, but he, too, should primarily be focussed on the politicians: garnering resources and top cover in case things go wrong. And things have gone badly wrong.

Few leaders are able to run a country and a military campaign at the same time. It requires deep trust in the men and women throughout the chain of command for a politician to cede the running of a war to those in uniform.

The actions of Mr Putin and his senior officers since this war started have shown that a marked absence of trust runs through the Russian military. The head of Britain’s Army, Gen Sir Mark Carleton-smith, says the most important task of military leaders at the start of any action, is to put in place an appropriate system of command and control (C2, in military parlance): who is in charge of what, where and when. Get that wrong and the whole thing falls apart, as we saw in the first few weeks of the war in Ukraine.

Back then, Russia attempted to fight separate wars in the north, the Donbas and the south – each entirely disconnected from the others, with nobody in overall command. Hence the disastrous consequences.

After retreating from the north, the Russians appear to have addressed these C2 issues with the appointment of Gen Aleksandr Dvornikov as overall commander and the adoption of the Donbas as their main objective. Small tactical gains have followed, but Moscow’s forces are advancing slowly and paying a very heavy price for every mile.

Failing to trust subordinate commands to act on initiative and instead insisting that all decisions should be made only at very senior levels, or even by the president himself, cedes drive, imagination and, often, opportunities to Ukraine.

Gen Dvornikov should be concentrating on the whole theatre of Ukraine, not having to second guess what his boss back in Moscow might be directing beneath him.

Instead Mr Putin, convinced of his own tactical brilliance and not willing to respect and trust the military commanders below him in the chain of command, prefers to lean in and tinker directly with the engine of this war.

The British military had a pejorative term for it: the long-handled screwdriver. Troops cannot stand it when senior officers – or worse, politicians – wield such a device.

Digital technology means it is possible for commanders to know the exact location of individual soldiers and vehicles. The temptation for those well away from the action to lean in and use that information to direct battles is strong.

However, that way leads to disaster with orders sent too often and before troops on the ground can make sense of what they are being told. A sensible, mature, professional, confident and trusting military and political leadership knows this.

Which is probably the reason why we are seeing Mr Putin do it in Ukraine.