China’s Success ≈ Propaganda × (Military attrition + time-sustained pressure + economic leverage) ÷ Western cohesion

Russia’s Success ≈ Propaganda × (Hybrid hits + time-sustained deniable coercion + local territorial moves) ÷ NATO credible threat.

What are you looking at here? This is the formula for China’s success in Taiwan and Russia’s success in the Baltics. There has been a lot of ink spilled on NATO wargames recently. Sadly, even with Russia’s playbook wide open, war gamers still miss the point. The point isn’t for adversaries to go toe to toe with the west in full spectrum multi domain warfare. The point for China and Russia is to avoid it. To deter it. So yes, it is still very valuable to game-out what an Arleigh Burke destroyer can do to an inland ground launched surface to surface missile battery. But that’s not the “game” our adversaries are playing.

What is Chinese success? What are the “win conditions”?

What is Russian success? What are the “win conditions”?

What is Chinese “success” — operational definition
Chinese success (vis-à-vis Taiwan) = the set of outcomes that, together, achieve Beijing’s political objectives without necessarily defeating the U.S. military outright. Practically, success means Beijing has compelled Taipei (and/or the U.S. political leadership) to accept a durable change in the status quo that advances PRC control or influence over Taiwan while avoiding catastrophic escalation.

Readers searching for high-quality information - such as yourself - might prefer to support my work with a one time contribution vs a subscription. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine

Concrete win-conditions (China): Territorial/physical foothold — seize or neutralize a portion of territory or key islands/ports that materially constrain Taiwan’s defenses or international access (e.g., capture of outlying islands, blockade of ports).

Political capitulation or accommodation — Taipei adopts political measures that reduce de facto independence (e.g., restrictions on international representation, a negotiated “neutral” status), or U.S. policy shifts away from immediate military intervention.

U.S. restraint or delay — Washington declines to escalate (no high-rate conventional reinforcement or no sustained kinetic retaliation) because political costs at home (casualties, economic shocks, contested public opinion) have become too high.

Normalization of coercion — international businesses, states, and institutions treat the new reality as the baseline (trade flows, recognition, choke-point control), reducing the incentive for reversal over time.

What is Russian “success” — operational definition
Russian success (vis-à-vis the Baltics) = achieving durable strategic advantages (political control, reduced NATO responsiveness, or territorial gain) in NATO’s northeastern flank through a combination of deniable military moves, hybrid operations, and information warfare that prevent effective collective defense responses.

Concrete win-conditions (Russia):
Political paralysis or hesitation in NATO capitals — partners publicly question or delay Article-5 style responses, reduce troop commitments, or limit the scale/speed of reinforcement.

Localized territorial control — seizing small border areas, ports, or critical infrastructure that create bargaining leverage and complicate NATO military logistics. (Even limited occupation changes strategic geography.)

Sustained hybrid damage with plausible deniability — cyber intrusions, sabotage, covert strikes, and proxy actions that degrade critical infrastructure and civic trust without triggering a unified military counter-attack.

Domestic polarization in NATO states — electoral or social fissures amplified so public demand for risky engagements drops and leaders retreat from guarantees.

How propaganda enters the picture: information operations exploit social cleavages, seed doubt about the necessity/legality of intervention, and delegitimize allies’ commitments, increasing the political cost denominator in your formula.

China and Russia both define success not as outright military victory but as achieving political effects through limited gains amplified by propaganda. For China, success in Taiwan means securing a territorial foothold, forcing U.S. restraint through sustained pressure and casualties, and normalizing a new status quo. For Russia, success in the Baltics means paralyzing NATO decision-making, creating “facts on the ground” with deniable moves, and fueling domestic polarization that erodes allied resolve. In both cases, propaganda magnifies relatively small military or hybrid actions into larger political wins, while time and sustained pressure steadily raise the cost of resistance.

Benjamin Cook continues to travel to, often lives in, and works in Ukraine, a connection spanning more than 14 years. He holds an MA in International Security and Conflict Studies from Dublin City University and has consulted with journalists and intelligence professionals on AI in drones, U.S. military technology, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) related to the war in Ukraine. He is co-founder of the nonprofit UAO, working in southern Ukraine. You can find Mr. Cook between Odesa, Ukraine; Charleston, South Carolina; and Tucson, Arizona.

Hate Subscriptions? Me too! You can support me with a one time contribution to my research at Buy Me a Coffee. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine

‍

This text is published with the permission of the author. First published here.