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.
Little dogs, too.
E.g., Capt. Renault was with the Americans when they "stumbled" into Berlin in 1918 - then later joined the Free French garrison in Brazzaville.
Regards,
Kyiv existed as a cosmopolitan center of commerce 1000 years before Moscow was even a village. Putin is an authoritarian KGB thug, a Soviet era reject, with delusions of “Tsarhood” dancing in his head. He is so caught up in Russian history - the past - that he ignores the ancient history of Ukraine.
Despite all the East European political intrigue and chicanery of the Western powers, conducted over the last 3 decades, The Ukrainian people are not going to sit back and let Putin just “take” their country.
The “Putinistas” here will make their arguments against corruption, western interference, neocon war mongering, etc. However valid those arguments, they change not the fact that Vladimir Putin invaded a sovereign nation, based on a mindset that perceives only historic fears, and is hell-bent on a return to pre-1914 “Greater Russia.”
Nope, it will just make them fight harder.
Casablanca, IIRC.
Who is profiting from this conflict? Think Russia could turn and stop China from taking Siberia? Think Zelensky can hold the Ukraine? Who’s getting weaker and where will it lead? It’s an honest question, just wish I could see the answers and stop it.
So the new world order has won?
This is why we have to let the past go sometimes, refighting the second world war every so often seems like a pointless ambition to me, once was enough. You can recreate a shadow of the dynamics of that war but involving the 99% who have no real part in that recreation is basically a war crime.
Putin should go to the Hague like Milosevic.
And so probably should a bunch of globalists but we all know that’s not going to happen in this world. But it probably will in equivalent terms in the next world so there’s that to hope for anyway.
It seems to me that the over-arching danger is that Putin perceives “The West” as sustaining the Ukrainians. Given the popularity of “pre-emptive strikes” in recent decades, things might go nuclear unexpectedly.
Response capabilities are a beotch. You launch they see it and launch back. In my day we had 42 with multiple missiles with multiple warheads. Couldn’t get us all. Video games ain’t real, what’s out there is.
Sorry 41 not 42. Finger stutter.
Idiot author makes some valid points all the while quoting a famous military strategist and ignoring the obvious: Russian forces have the Ukrainians in a pocket and all the Russians have to do is close it.......
Geez journolistas write a lot and say very little.
It will be a pyrrhic victory at best.
“Do you know me, soldier?”
“No, sir.”
“Then why are you admitting me to this station?”
“I saw it was a staff car, sir.”
“Goering could have been in it!”
—”Twelve O’Clock High”
Do you bother reading the article? Quote: 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.
Starting in the 1970’s we took a long look at the Soviet buildup in eastern Europe and decided that we needed to counter their methods of fighting wars in a very fundamental way. In the following decades, through a lot of time, effort, and money, we followed through on this strategy. Hence the advent of dedicated tankbusters, high-tech MANPAD’s, stealth, advanced all-weather avionics, GPS, and drones. We spent all of this effort changing the rules of the game and now we’re seeing the fruits. The Russians are currently learning a hard lesson: 20th-century methods of fighting wars are obsolete.
I like how you just randomly repeat some BS you heard from whatever shitty Russian blog you're reading without bothering to do any confirmation of it. Zelensky is doing daily videos from Kyiv with journalists at the scene. If he's in Poland, they're using CGI and theres a massive conspiracy to keep that hidden.
And if you believe that that is in any way possible, you have the IQ lower than Koko the Gorilla.
Saving.
“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.”
1. Putin already has no victory end game.
2. The Russian military facade of strength is over, forever.
3. Russia is isolate, nearly in full, politically/diplomatically
4. Weak NATO is strengthened in dramatically increasing military spending.
5. The jig is up with knowing there is no rational PutinRussia.
6. Russian economic failure comings. Euros have a scheduled meeting to plan energy independence from Russia.
4 March: Rumble: 25m48s: Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government
The Jimmy Dore Show with The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal discuss, reports of neo-Nazis in Ukraine are not at all exaggerated...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfaAyiP8Wuc
4 March: Rumble: 25m48s: Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government
The Jimmy Dore Show with The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal discuss, reports of neo-Nazis in Ukraine are not at all exaggerated...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfaAyiP8Wuc
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.