Modelling the vulnerability of the russian federation’s military capabilities using TOPSIS

Artiushenko, Oleksandr
Asrorov, Farhod
Tereschenko, Yehor
Tymoshenko, Danylo
Koval, Oles

Military Institute of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 81 Yulii Zdanovska Street, Kyiv, 03189, Ukraine
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 60 Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, 01033, Ukraine

Artiushenko, O., Asrorov, F., Tereschenko, Y., Tymoshenko, D. & Koval, O. Modelling the vulnerability of the russian federation’s military capabilities using TOPSIS. Socio-Economic Problems and the State (electronic journal), Vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 166-180. URL: http://sepd.tntu.edu.ua/images/stories/pdf/2025/25aoocut.pdf

Scientific Journal "Socio-Economic Problems and the State"

2(33)

Dec-2025

Oct-2025

1-Jan-2026

Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University

UA

Ternopil

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-4961
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3917-4724
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0615-8695
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3385-4335
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2696-7204

https://doi.org/10.33108/sepd2025.02.166

331.6

F35
C58

TOPSIS vulnerability modelling
objective weighting methods
military capability
defense budget
Russo-Ukrainian war
методи об'єктивного зважування
військові спроможності
оборонний бюджет
російсько-українська війна
TOPSIS

15

166-180

166

180

The present article proposes a quantitative model for assessing the vulnerability of the russian federation's military potential in 2022–2025, utilising multi-criteria decision-making methods. A comprehensive set of monthly data pertaining to 13 indicators was retrieved from publicly accessible sources. These indicators encompassed 12 categories of weapons and equipment losses, in addition to personnel losses. The retrieved data underwent a rigorous processing procedure, utilising the TOPSIS method within the PyMCDM library. Five objective weighting schemes are applied — uniform, entropy-based, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and statistical dispersion — to reflect alternative views on the importance of indicators and to verify the reliability of the comprehensive vulnerability index. The data obtained using TOPSIS is subsequently scaled by the ratio of military expenditure to GDP to obtain a budget-adjusted vulnerability index that reflects both battlefield losses and financial stability. A sensitivity analysis of key indicators (UAVs, MLRS, missiles) reveals that the index remains stable when indicators are removed for most weighting methods, with only entropy weights demonstrating a more pronounced response to missile losses. The findings of the simulation scenarios for three prospective configurations of UAV stocks and defence budgets demonstrate a clear correlation between increased investment in unmanned systems and a larger share of the budget on the one hand, and significantly lower vulnerability on the other. In contrast, simultaneous reductions in UAVs and the budget lead to the highest levels of vulnerability. It is evident that the proposed index provides a transparent, policy-relevant instrument for the purpose of tracking structural military vulnerability over time. Furthermore, it has the capacity to stress test alternative force structures and funding scenarios, in addition to supporting evidence-based defence planning.

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

http://elartu.tntu.edu.ua/handle/lib/51263

2223-3822

Scientific Journal "Socio-Economic Problems and the State"

http://sepd.tntu.edu.ua/images/stories/pdf/2025/25aoocut.pdf
https://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v22i3.25836
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18371
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.19753
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2025.102696
https://doi.org/10.3390/e27080867
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111383439
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3366-7
https://index.minfin.com.ua/ua/russian-invading/casualties
https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i
https://pymcdm.readthedocs.io/en/v1.3.1/modules/objective_weights.html
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251384785
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01273-7
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2209030

1. Ahuja, H., Kaur, S., Saxena, R., & Narang, S. (2024). Novel intelligent TOPSIS variant to rank regions for disaster preparedness. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control), vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 587–597. https://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v22i3.25836
2. Atenidegbe, O. F., & Mogaji, K. A. (2023). Modeling assessment of groundwater vulnerability to contamination risk in a typical basement terrain using TOPSIS-entropy developed vulnerability data mining technique. Heliyon, vol. 9, issue 7, e18371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18371
3. Babaei, H., Mohammadi, S., & Ghaneai, H. (2025). A New Decision- Making Method Based on Shannon Entropy Analysis (No. arXiv:2504.19753). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.19753
4. Dimitriou, D., Goulas, E., & Kallandranis, C. (2025). Spend on what? Insights on military spending efficiency. European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 88, 102696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2025.102696
5. Erbey, A., Fidan, Ü., & Gündüz, C. (2025). A Robust Hybrid Weighting Scheme Based on IQRBOW and Entropy for MCDM: Stability and Advantage Criteria in the VIKOR Framework. Entropy, 27(8), 867. https://doi.org/10.3390/e27080867
6. Gómez-Castro, F. I., & Rico-Ramírez, V. (2025). Optimization in Chemical Engineering: Deterministic, Meta-Heuristic and Data-Driven Techniques. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111383439
7. Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Sapuan, S. M., Ismail, M. Y., & Bahraminasab, M. (2012). A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 58(1), pp. 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3366-7
8. Minfin (2024), “Losses of the Russian army in Ukraine”, URL: https://index.minfin.com.ua/ua/russian-invading/casualties (Accessed 5 October 2025).
9. Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021). Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76–105. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i
10. Objective weights - Pymcdm documentation. (n.d.). Retrieved 31 October 2025, from https://pymcdm.readthedocs.io/en/v1.3.1/modules/objective_weights.html
11. Ogunnusi, M., Omotayo, T., & Akponeware, A. (2025). TOPSIS Model (TOPMod) Tool Assessment and Validation for the Sustainable Redevelopment of Abandoned Public Office Buildings. Sage Open, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251384785
12. Peng, N., Zhang, C., Zhu, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, B., Wang, F., Huang, J., & Wu, T. (2024). A vulnerability evaluation method of earthen sites based on entropy weight-TOPSIS and K-means clustering. Heritage Science, 12(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01273-7
13. Xu, W., Lu, Y., & Proverbs, D. (2024). An evaluation of factors influencing the vulnerability of emergency logistics supply chains. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, vol. 27(10), pp. 1891–1924. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2209030

Article

Scientific Journal "Socio-Economic Problems and the State", Vol.33, No.2