As I type these words the Russian invasion of Ukraine is less than a day old. It is not yet clear what Putin’s final goal is (some say he is after Chernobyl for some odd reason). He has said he wants to “de-Nazi” the Ukrainian government but given that there are no actual Nazis in that government, Putin is certainly blowing smoke as to his real intentions.

As a guy who used to target that region with nuclear missiles and who used to teach on US national security interests, I have come to one basic conclusion regarding these horrific events: Putin has made a massive mistake.

But first, of course, the politics. An excellent story in Colorado Politics covered the reaction to the invasion from our elected officials. Not surprisingly, they all thought it was bad. But, of course, some of the GOPers (the strongest Trumpers, I’m guessing) seek to blame President Joe Biden somehow. They claim he showed weakness, but of course do not offer an alternative to massive economic sanctions. As a person who lost former students in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as a career military man, I’d suggest that those rattling sabers consider the implications of their calls for war, but my tirade on that subject must await a future column.

One GOPer’s words does merit a special mention. According to that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal, former President Trump has continued his odd and distinctly un-American love of Putin and his actions. Trump called Putin “smart” for launching an invasion, calling the action “genius.” Given his long standing affection for the brutal dictator of Russia, and having given the Russian foreign minister top secret information, I don’t really think Trump has any credibility on this issue, but I’m sure he will keep blathering.

So what are the actual military implications of the invasion? One aspect of the Putin war plan that is important is the use of troops invading from Belarus. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the many “states” that made up the country became independent nations, such as Ukraine. Some, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined NATO and aligned with the west. Belarus, and a few others, chose to remain deeply tied to the new Russian government, and have, frankly, suffered from that connection. Belarus is little more than a client state of Russia, so it is not unusual for Russian military forces to use that area. But Putin’s decision to also invade from Belarus shows a strong commitment to a complete subjugation of Ukraine.

Much as presidents have little actual control over gas prices (no matter what the pundits shout), short of sending US combat troops, there is nothing President Biden can do that will quickly and dramatically force Putin to withdraw. Frankly, the use of economic sanctions is really the only arrow in the quiver. And sanctions take time to work. Given what has been announced, and the apparent near-universal cooperation of other nations regarding the sanctions, I expect the pain inflicted will eventually bring significant pressure to bear on Putin and his cronies. But that will take time.

But I posit that there is a more dramatic factor that will play on Putin’s ultimate decisions regarding the future of Ukraine, and that is the cost in blood and treasure of occupying a defeated land.

There is no real doubt that Russia has the military might to overwhelm the Ukrainian military. An all-out assault aimed at toppling the legitimate elected government there won’t, frankly, take that long. But there is a very significant difference between defeating and subjugating.

If Putin truly plans on seizing all of Ukraine and re-incorporating that territory into the Russian homeland, he would be wise to remember the example of his nation’s attempts to overpower the resistance in the last place they fully invaded, Afghanistan. You will recall that the then-Soviet Union could easily defeat the formal Afghan military, but the costs of occupying that rather rural country proved so high that ultimately they withdrew, defeated. Can Putin really think that he can occupy, say, Kyiv (which we have all recently learned to properly pronounce as “Key-v,”) a major metropolitan city of nearly 3 million people?

Recall, please, the military strategy of our own George Washington.

As commander of all US forces in the revolution, Washington understood that he could not face the far-superior British forces man for man on an open battlefield. But he could wage a war that tried to bleed England through a thousand cuts rather than a few massive battles. Ultimately, it became too expensive for England to occupy our lands, and a new nation was born. Putin, in occupying modern and major cities, will face far worse guerilla forces who, I’m quite sure, will be fighting with modern and deadly weapons provided by the west, and not farmers with muskets.

It is important to remember that Russia is only a “superpower” in two areas: nuclear weapons and oil and gas production. They are not an economic giant, nor do they supply the world with any other vital resource that they alone control. Take away the nukes and the oil, and Russia is a fourth or fifth rate power. And that realization deeply offends people like Putin who once thought of themselves as a colossal and influential world power.

While it may not seem to be the case right now, I do predict that ultimately the invasion of Ukraine will prove to be a costly, deadly, and failed strategy for Putin. It may take months to years, but Putin may well have, out of his own ego and desire to be a big player on the world stage, committed his own nation to a destructive course that will not end well for him or for Russia.

Time will tell.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.