Posted on 03/04/2022 10:16:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The war in Ukraine is still in its early stages, but Russia has likely already lost. The famous war theorist Carl von Clausewitz told us that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” The key word here is “means.” In other words, wars should have a clear political objective on what the use of force is supposed to achieve. Vladimir Putin’s war aims seem muddled. Similarly, the West’s retaliatory economic sanctions attempt to use economic coercion to achieve a political end (Russian policy change). However, in applying violence or economic coercion, humans, even though the stakes are usually high, can get distracted by whose winning the war on the ground or how much economic suffering the sanctions have caused, only to lose sight of whether the policy end is being achieved.
In the case of economic sanctions, historically, no matter how severe a bite they have economically, they are not usually very successful in achieving substantial policy change in the target nation—such as, regime replacement, significant societal change, or a dramatic change in foreign policy--for example, motivating Saddam Hussein to withdraw from his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Thus, the bad news is that any expectations that tough sanctions on Putin or Russia will motivate a withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine probably will be disappointed.
The good news is that Putin has likely already lost the war politically, no matter if he finally subdues Ukraine. Much of human satisfaction or grievance arises from the mismatch of reality with expectations. In this case, the capable Russian military was expected to quickly overpower the much weaker Ukrainian military and territorial defense forces and likely decapitate the Ukrainian government. The Russians may eventually do both, but the operative word here is “quickly” and that did not happen. Days into the invasion, Russian forces have been slowed by more fierce Ukrainian resistance than expected. Also, the vaunted Russian military was not able to rapidly establish air superiority over the battlefield; has not seemingly been able to fight at night; has lost many armored vehicles because its conscripts won’t get out of the vehicles to suppress Ukrainians with shoulder-fired anti-armor missiles; has pursued an overly complicated battle plan of attacking on many fronts, each one of which requires fire support from the ground and air and a separate logistics train; and has had logistical troubles, with stalled vehicles that ran out of fuel or broke down, seemingly because the Russians expected a speedy victory and failed to bring enough supplies.
Thus, Russia’s (at least initially) unexpected subpar military performance and Ukraine’s equally surprising scrappy underdog resistance has elated Ukrainians and the world and made the defenders fight harder, while reportedly infuriating Putin. The Russian military is still expected to triumph in the end, but the degree of Ukrainian societal mobilization may portend a long and vicious guerrilla war ahead—like one conducted by the Afghan Mujahideen, which drove the Soviet Union from that country in the late 1980s. If the war moves into guerrilla phase, the advantage could well turn to the Ukrainians, who are fighting for their homeland and can outwait Putin, who already apparently has an unpopular war on his hands--even before the costs lives and money start to mount the longer it lasts.
But even if the Russians eventually prevail, the Ukrainians have already won the expectations game. This would not be the only time when a great power won the war militarily and lost it politically. The French won a counterinsurgency war in Algeria in the early 1960’s but Algeria got its political independence anyway. Similarly, in South Africa at the turn of the twentieth century, the British used brutal tactics to militarily win a war against Dutch-descended Boers, only to be compelled to grant their independence shortly thereafter. Of the three wars that confounded the British in trying to subdue Afghanistan in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, they won the third one militarily but lost politically—with the Afghans gaining control of their foreign policy. The vaunted Israeli military won the 1973 war against the Arabs, but the Egyptians did better than expected, winning politically. Finally, it can be said that the North won the U.S. Civil War militarily but lost the peace politically, dooming Reconstruction, and relegating African Americans to an entire century of oppression--ameliorated only through the largely peaceful Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Most recently, initial wins in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military, the best in the world, ended in disastrous long warfare against guerrillas—the most political kind of warfare.
Thus, Russia’s (at least initially) unexpected subpar military performance and Ukraine’s equally surprising scrappy underdog resistance has elated Ukrainians and the world and made the defenders fight harder, while reportedly infuriating Putin. The Russian military is still expected to triumph in the end, but the degree of Ukrainian societal mobilization may portend a long and vicious guerrilla war ahead—like one conducted by the Afghan Mujahideen, which drove the Soviet Union from that country in the late 1980s. If the war moves into guerrilla phase, the advantage could well turn to the Ukrainians, who are fighting for their homeland and can outwait Putin, who already apparently has an unpopular war on his hands--even before the costs lives and money start to mount the longer it lasts.
But even if the Russians eventually prevail, the Ukrainians have already won the expectations game. This would not be the only time when a great power won the war militarily and lost it politically. The French won a counterinsurgency war in Algeria in the early 1960’s but Algeria got its political independence anyway. Similarly, in South Africa at the turn of the twentieth century, the British used brutal tactics to militarily win a war against Dutch-descended Boers, only to be compelled to grant their independence shortly thereafter. Of the three wars that confounded the British in trying to subdue Afghanistan in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, they won the third one militarily but lost politically—with the Afghans gaining control of their foreign policy. The vaunted Israeli military won the 1973 war against the Arabs, but the Egyptians did better than expected, winning politically. Finally, it can be said that the North won the U.S. Civil War militarily but lost the peace politically, dooming Reconstruction, and relegating African Americans to an entire century of oppression--ameliorated only through the largely peaceful Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Most recently, initial wins in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military, the best in the world, ended in disastrous long warfare against guerrillas—the most political kind of warfare.
If Putin is smart, he will try to cut his losses and immediately withdraw his forces from Ukraine. However, that probably will not happen. In his rage, if attempts to fully subdue the second largest land mass in Europe containing 44 million Ukrainians, especially by using scorched earth tactics that kill many civilians by shelling cities or employing thermobaric (extremely powerful) bombs, he clearly will face a long guerrilla war with apoplectic Ukrainians and nearly complete isolation from the world. He may even be politically wounded at home or even ousted from power. Therefore, as experienced by many arrogant great powers in the past, even an initial Russian win militarily will be a loss politically.
The prevailing narrative is that Zelenskyy is Churchill. He’s not Churchill; he’s de Gaulle.
Ukraine is going to lose the way France lost in WWII, and Zelenskyy will lead the sabotaging insurgency, as de Gaulle led the Resistance; Putin will die and be remembered as fondly as Hitler, and Zelenskyy will return the triumphant leader.
“why you would care I can’t fathom.”
Care about what? Ukraine? Not really following your point. We’re discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in this thread. Few of us have a direct, personal stake in the situation, but it’s obviously a topic of general interest.
Fair point about “still linger.” Agreed.
Come on, Man! It was a slogan!
Nobody would have cheered for a "War on Certain Disaffected Factions of Religious Extremists in the Middle East!"
Regards,
Figure out the range of a tactical nuke missle on a mobile platform add 150 miles. Then find the line. That’s minimum and remember ICBM’s aren’t in the mix. That’s why they call them Inter-Continental.
Good point about him not having the population to spare. Very true.
Good point about him not having the population to spare. Very true.
The war in Ukraine is still in its early stages, but Russia has likely already lost. ....
Good article.
Yes, the keystone cops jumped off without topping off vehicles, loading rations, doing the basics.
As a young LT I remember we had to keep the soviets from their objective of reaching the Rhine in 7 days. The reds in Kiev have gone 70 miles in 9 days. How the mighty have fallen.
The reds have surrounded Kiev, but do not have the city. They have to bypass to continue their offensive forward to link up with the Crimean contingent. They will have to use secondary roads for their logistics and the Ukrainians in Kiew will have the advantage of interior lines. Not good for the reds.
I believe that putie will press on and level Ukraine with resulting catastrophic casualties, while seeing his economy disintegrate from sanctions.
Anwar Sadat never knew what hit him.
I don’t think Putin is worried about anything but tactical nukes right on his border. My comment was geared toward opinion and how much you cared. I didn’t stay at Holliday Inn and I’m not a Rhodes Scholar.
Irrelevant in several hours like all the rest coming out.
Psalm 2.
Could I perhaps interest you in two "Letters of Transit," signed personally by de Gaulle? Cannot be rescinded - not even questioned!
Regards,
Globalist Putin will win?
There was no possiblr victory un Afghanistan.
I haven’t read it yet, like any good FReeper, but dream on Ivan.
This is a long term issue. The NWO. He’s older than me. Neither of us will ever see it if the arse holes can pull it off. Die on your feet or live on your knees is a true statement. Not mine but True.
Ukraine likely splits with Russia at the river and the western Ukraine as the buffer state that is Putin’s (reasonable) aim as he has identified the past decade or more.
I saw much of the "war on terror" from the "Outer edge of Inside".
What I heard a lot was that young potential terrorists from all over the Eurasian muslim world were flocking to the sand box and rock pile to fight Americans and the other white crusaders.
It was thought better to kill them where our armies were ready and able to oblige, than risk having them come to our own shores.
We’ll always have Paris.
It’s interesting how many big dogs in WWII cut their teeth in WWI: Hitler, Georing, and Rommel on their side, De Gaulle, Churchill, Patton, and Truman on ours. Zhukov also, he fought against the Germans in WWI in, of all places, Kharkiv, then got caught up in the civil war as a Red.
It’s better to editorialize after the armor is taken off…
Prematurely calling a victory over Putin. We have not seen yet the unintended consequences of the West’s declaration of war against Russia economically. Food shortages, supply chain problems, and high energy costs can send us into a global recession or worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.