Despite widespread expectations of a swift Russian victory when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the conflict soon defied early predictions. Ukraine’s unexpected resilience on the battlefield shifted assumptions, leading many analysts to argue that Russia’s campaign would eventually collapse under the strain of its own strategic missteps. Sanctions were expected to cripple the Russian economy, public discontent to grow, and political pressures to mount until Russia was compelled to scale back its ambitions. Yet, more than nearing four years on, Russia has demonstrated a capacity to absorb shocks, adapt, and sustain its war effort in ways that few anticipated.
Over three years, those predictions have largely failed. Russia’s economy has adapted, domestic dissent remains tightly contained, arms production has surged, and the country has demonstrated far more endurance than many analysts believed possible. This persistence is not a mystery—and it is not a product of Vladimir Putin alone. Rather, Russia’s ability to sustain the war flows from two deep currents within its Political Culture and National Psyche: state-driven Nationalism and an Enduring culture of Resilience.

Resilience and Endurance

Shaped by a complex and often harsh history (including World War II, or the "Great Patriotic War") and climate, resilience is a key characteristic.
Understanding the Russian character requires appreciating a people who are deeply influenced by their rich history, vast geography, and complex intellectual traditions. Russian character, culture, and national psyche are a complex blend of resilience, a deep spiritual and intellectual tradition, strong social bonds, and a history shaped by vast geography and diverse political influences. This multifaceted identity balances deep historical roots. Russians can be straightforward in communication, openly expressing like or dislike, which some may misinterpret as aggression.
These forces are not new; they stretch back centuries. But in the crucible of the war in Ukraine, they have converged in ways that shape Russian society, bolster the Kremlin’s legitimacy, and enable prolonged conflict at great national cost.

Russian Nationalism

Russian Nationalism has evolved with the state and has frequently been shaped, amplified, and weaponized by political leaders. From the Tsars to the Soviets to the present-day Russian Federation, rulers have repeatedly used ‘National Identity as a Tool for Consolidating Power and Mobilizing Society’.
Russian nationalism rests on three enduring pillars: Firstly Orthodoxy-Not merely a faith tradition but a source of cultural continuity and a symbol of Russian spiritual distinctiveness. Secondly Autocracy-The belief that political stability requires centralized, strong leadership and Thirdly Nationality-The idea of a unique civilizational mission rooted in Russian history and culture.
These principles, codified in the 19th century popularly helped cement the idea that Russia followed its own civilizational path, separate from Western Europe. The narrative persisted through the Soviet period, albeit under a different ideological banner. While communism offered a universalist doctrine, the Soviet state still relied heavily on Russian history, symbolism, and sacrifice to justify its authority, particularly during and after World War II.

Post-Soviet Identity

The collapse of the Soviet Union shattered this unifying narrative. The 1990s brought political chaos, economic collapse, and a profound identity crisis. Millions of Russians experienced the decade not as a moment of liberation but as a period of humiliation—internationally marginalized, internally unstable, and uncertain of their place in the world.
Vladimir Putin’s political rise coincided with this vacuum. He offered something that many Russians craved: “A Coherent National Purpose”. Through carefully constructed narratives—emphasizing pride in Russian history, resentment toward perceived Western betrayal, and the restoration of national dignity—Russia rebuilt an identity framework that remains central to today’s political culture.

The Russian World

Ideological backbone of the war in Ukraine: The Russian World, the belief that Russian cultural and spiritual space extends beyond current borders and includes Russian speakers and ethnic Russians abroad. Claiming that Russia is not a mere nation-state but a multiethnic civilization with historical, moral, and geopolitical authority. The insistence that Russia has the right—and obligation—to shape regional and global events as a Great Power Status. These ideas appear in presidential speeches, school curricula, state television, and the Russian Orthodox Church’s public rhetoric. The Kremlin presents the conflict not as an invasion but as a defensive, restorative mission to protect the Russian world from Western encroachment and to reclaim historically significant lands.

Resilience as Cultural Bedrock

If nationalism provides the ideological justification for the war, resilience is the cultural mechanism that allows Russia to endure it. This stoical form of Russian resilience is attributed to motivational leadership rooted in long-standing historical and cultural traditions deeply embedded in the collective Russian memory and is not the product of propaganda as believed by the West.

A History Forged in Adversity

Russia’s past is marked by cycles of hardship, conflict, and rebuilding. The Mongol invasions, serfdom, the Time of Troubles, Napoleon’s march on Moscow, Stalin’s purges, and the catastrophic suffering of World War II all play outsized roles in Russian historical consciousness. These experiences have produced a narrative in which suffering is normalized and endurance is valorized.
‘Nevalyashka’ is the cultural metaphor often invoked of the roly-poly doll that raises itself no matter how often it is pushed down. This image appears in children’s toys, folk sayings, and political speeches. It embodies an idea widely embraced in Russia: that hardship is inevitable, collapse is temporary, and survival is a collective virtue.

Resilience in Contemporary Context

This historical memory has practical consequences for the present

Economic sacrifices are viewed as expected, not catastrophic. Casualty numbers, while devastating, do not automatically delegitimize the war. Hardships are framed as patriotic duty. Centralized authority is trusted—especially in crises.
Throughout Russian history, periods of severe stress—whether external invasion or internal turmoil—have often produced a “Rally around the State” effect. The Kremlin’s current messaging explicitly taps into this instinct, casting dissent as betrayal and perseverance as loyalty to the nation.
Russian resilience has become a structural advantage for the Kremlin. It reduces the pressure for rapid results, cushions the political system against internal dissent, and enables prolonged conflict despite economic constraints or international isolation. It also provides the emotional logic that supports sacrifice: “If Russia has always survived, then it must survive now”.
The intersection of nationalism and resilience explains why predictions of Russia’s rapid collapse have repeatedly failed. Nationalism gives Russians a reason to fight, and resilience gives them the capacity to endure the costs. Together, they create a narrative framing the war as the latest chapter in Russia’s long struggle against hostile forces.
This does not imply universal enthusiasm for the conflict. Russian society contains a spectrum of views—from fervent support to quiet skepticism to outright opposition. But public sentiment is shaped by the structural realities of authoritarianism Leadership, propaganda, and cultural inertia. And within that environment, nationalism and resilience serve as stabilizing pillars.

Why the West Misread Russia

Many Western governments and analysts underestimated the Russian staying power because they projected their own political assumptions onto Russia. Few Western societies could sustain a costly, open-ended war with high casualties, economic disruption, and deep international isolation. But Russia is not the West, and its historical experience has conditioned its society to tolerate far greater adversity.
Moreover, Western expectations focused heavily on material indicators—GDP contraction, sanctions impact, military losses—without fully appreciating the psychological and cultural frameworks that shape Russian public endurance.
What This Means for the Future of the War
Understanding the forces sustaining Russia is crucial for shaping realistic policy. The war will not end simply because Russia suffers. The Kremlin’s ability to frame suffering as patriotic, justified, and historically necessary remains strong. Attempts to pressure Russia through economic pain or expectation of societal collapse are unlikely to succeed on their own.
Ultimately, the war will recede only when one of the decisive thresholds is reached—when the economic strain becomes unbearable even for Russia’s vast reserves of resilience, (All countries stop importing Russian oil and gas including China and India) when a profound shift reshapes the political landscape within the Russian elite, or when Ukraine’s security posture changes in ways that defuse Moscow’s core strategic anxieties (Ukraine says it will not join NATO and not allow western forces and weapon platforms on its soil). Until then, Russia’s fusion of nationalism, historical identity, and societal endurance will continue to fuel its war effort. This blend of myth, memory, and mobilization ensures that the conflict is sustained not just by current policies, but by deeper forces embedded in Russia’s past—and by a national resolve that has proven difficult to exhaust.

Email:-------------------------------rcpat311@gmail.com