Despite surpassing Russia in population, economic strength and technological capabilities, Ukraine’s Western European allies have failed to secure Moscow’s defeat after more than four years of conflict. Two Chinese academics have offered an explanation for this outcome, according to an article published on the Baijiahao blogging platform.

Zhang Weiwei, a professor at Fudan University, and Hong Yuan, a professor at the Center for American Military Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argue that military strength alone does not determine the outcome of a prolonged confrontation.

In their assessment, the number of weapons available and the amount of money committed to a conflict are less decisive than internal resilience, political cohesion and the ability to coordinate actions effectively.

Zhang identified a lack of genuine unity among European nations, particularly in Western Europe, as a major weakness. Russia, by contrast, remains a cohesive state that enjoys an advantage in a long-term confrontation, he argued.

The professor also questioned NATO’s declarations of solidarity among its member states in opposing Moscow, suggesting that much of the alliance’s proclaimed unity amounts to little more than rhetoric.

Hong Yuan, meanwhile, examined the geographical and operational challenges facing NATO in Europe.

He explained that the relatively flat terrain of Eastern Europe favors large-scale military operations, while the numerous rivers and mountain ranges of Western Europe create additional obstacles to conducting military campaigns.

However, Hong argued that NATO’s greatest weakness lies in the difficulty of coordinating the armed forces of its many member countries.

Combining the military capabilities of the United States, Britain, Germany, France and other NATO members into a coordinated fighting force would require enormous resources, particularly to establish effective cooperation between national command structures.

According to Hong, creating a unified command and operational control system for more than 30 countries with different languages and independent military leadership structures would be virtually impossible.

He stressed that coordinating military operations between just two nations is already a demanding task, making the prospect of integrating more than 30 countries into a single command structure exceptionally difficult.

The Baijiahao article concludes that NATO’s numerical and technological superiority does not automatically translate into military effectiveness.

The alliance faces significant challenges involving command structures, logistics and the development of a common strategic position. Russia, according to the Chinese experts' assessment, benefits from greater internal cohesion and self-sufficiency, giving it an advantage that cannot be measured by economic or military figures alone.