From the start of the war in Ukraine, Financial Times has had the best and clearest maps. Here’s another excellent example of FT’s visual storytelling talent…..

The snarled up 65km Russian convoy that was stuck for days outside Kyiv neatly illustrated Moscow’s misplaced belief that it could achieve a lightning-fast victory in Ukraine.

Western military analysts say Russia’s leadership initially thought its “special military operation” would reach the capital and other big Ukrainian cities in days, forcing Volodymyr Zelensky’s government to capitulate and allow a puppet administration to be installed.

“It’s clear that Russia was pursuing regime change in Ukraine,” said Michael Kofman, Russia studies director at CNA, a US think-tank. “Regime change operations are often derived of hubris and bad assumptions — and they usually go terribly wrong.”

Russia’s invasion has not gone to plan, but it has made significant territorial gains, notably in southern Ukraine where its forces have reportedly created a land corridor linking the Crimean peninsula to the Donbas region held pre-war by Russia-backed separatists.

The initial failures have ushered in a new phase of the conflict characterised by heavy bombardments of densely populated areas such as Kharkiv and Mariupol — a tactic Russia used previously in Chechnya and Syria. Ukrainian civilians have borne the brunt of these assaults.

Military experts say Russia’s problems stem from its own disorganisation, underperformance and overconfidence; and the Ukrainian army’s preparedness, supported by weapons and advice from members of the Nato military alliance.

This is an anatomy of the first phase of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s war: how an invasion on three fronts foundered in the face of fierce Ukrainian resistance and Russian shortcomings.

Russia’s approach in the war’s first 48 hours suggested a plan to move rapidly towards key urban centres, where it would force local mayors and officials into submission. But in multiple locations, notably in northern Ukraine, these units quickly outran their supply lines.

The Russians not only left logistics units behind, they also failed to protect them with infantry or air cover, creating opportunities for the Ukrainians to take them out and cut off the units out front.

“The Ukrainian forces were able to absorb the initial psychological shock of the attack . . . organise themselves, generate reserves, distribute weapons and quickly stymie Russian momentum,” said Kofman.

Ukraine’s tactics have included taking up positions in forests and villages alongside major transport routes used by the Russians, where they can target troops and vehicles via gaps in their convoys.

Ukraine’s defence has been aided by a complete overhaul of its military culture since 2014, from a Soviet-style top-down command to one where junior leaders are empowered to take decisions in the field, according to Liam Collins, a former US colonel.

“After eight years of fighting in the Donbas, their junior leaders figured out, ‘We can’t wait for the general to tell us everything, we have to go out and just do it on our own’,” said Collins, who was part of an international task force sent to help Ukraine’s military after the loss of Crimea. “In the speed of war, you have to do that.”

Russia’s military, by contrast, is characterised by top-down decision-making, emanating from Putin himself. The invasion’s first days show what happens when a military tries to enact the will of just one man, according to Kofman.

“People expected Putin would have these assumptions but that the Russian military would push back,” he said. “Instead, it’s clear somebody told him, ‘Yeah, this completely absurd operation that you think we can conduct in Ukraine in the opening days will work’.”

“The Russian forces on the border, some of them had no idea what they were doing. Some thought they were going to do exercises,” said Breedlove. “When they arrived, and they found out what they were actually doing, there was surprise, dismay.”

Kofman added: “Russia’s military was organisationally and psychologically unprepared for this war, and the planning choices made compounded those deficits.”

Overconfidence was another damaging result of Moscow’s top-down system. “Russia was listening to its own propaganda, that Ukraine is really not Ukraine, it’s just Russia,” said Breedlove, adding that the leadership thought its neighbours would receive the Russian army as liberators.

In fact, Ukraine had been preparing for years to fight back in the event of a Russian attack. Everyone, from the president and chief of defence to the troops on the ground, was “worried 100 per cent about a full-scale invasion”, said Collins.

The expectation that Ukrainian resistance would be minimal can be seen in Russia’s early moves. Scott Boston, senior defence analyst at Rand Corporation, said an invading army would only rush into a city if it believed surrender was imminent and the priority was confiscating weapons from potential insurgents. “It turns out that getting there really fast is a good way to get shot in the face,” he said.