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.
Ivan Eland is a NeverTrump cuck.
Uh-huh.
Possession is 9/10s of the law, dork.
Indeed. Putin will still likely prevail in conquering Ukraine, but there is no way he can hold it. His war was premised on the Ukrainians not being a real nation and not being willing to fight for their country. He was very wrong on that.
Writer is confusing "means" with "ends."
The objectives which one wishes to achieve are the "ends."
The ways and methods of achieving that objective are the "means."
Clausewitz's quote says nothing about the particular objectives which one wishes to achieve.
Of course, having clear objectives is advisable - however, the quote cited here does not deal with that.
Regards,
The Russians are able to conquer Ukraine. The catch is that there may be no one left and all the buildings would be reduced to rubble in that scenario. The Romans did it too Carthage. Kyiv is a special city and I would say that the Russians wouldn't want to destroy the city completely.
If they can just get Zelensky to flee to exile that might break their will to fight.
This is three level chess. A game of wits ( watch the princess bride). The world is being played by Globalist for their own gain. Putin will win in the end and the world will lose. He is a pawn, how long he last doesn’t matter. The Ideal lives on. Good against Evil are the players.
Word is Zelensky’s fled to Poland. Who knows?
Only if the ccp doesn’t help him, he can’t fight the whole world alone.
He wouldn’t surrender so that’s why the Russians are looking for him. He should think about leading from behind the front lines in Poland. He’s a symbol. So he should keep himself safe. He’s much bigger than himself. As long as the Ukrainians know he’s alive, they’ll be motivated to fight for their country.
“but there is no way he can hold it.”
It’s certainly hard to imagine him successfully holding a country as big as this one with a population of 40+ million most of whom who hate him and don’t want the Russians there. The only way I can imagine him possibly pulling it off is if he succeeds in running maybe 20-30 million Ukrainians out (i.e., depopulating the country and “cleansing” it of pretty everyone willing and able to fight him)... and then replacing them with cooperative folks willing to relocate from Russia.
An analogy on a much, much smaller scale would be the “settlement” of Ulster (Northern Ireland) in the 17th century where the English basically ran the native Irish out (forcing them west and south) and replaced them with English and Scottish settlers. Did it work? Well, sort of, though the fallout and hard feelings from that obviously lingered for centuries.
Wow what claptrap….
A week old war is lost because it didn’t end in a week?
What stupidity.
The headline said nothing about this "politically" qualifier. The headline was a lie.
Is there not some old saying
Nothing ventured, nothing gained?
And In the interests of disclosure and transparency I certify that I have and have had no financial interests in this conflict within the last 40 days.
I’m not sure I totally agree with your post and why you would care I can’t fathom. However, I think the” lingered” should be changed to “still linger”. I’m sure they still do. IMO. Regards
But the author quoted von Clausewitz (though inappropriately), so he must be right!
Regards,
Yeah, but there’s not enough Russians to do that. The birth rate has been lousy.
And Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe. It’s gonna be hard times in Europe, good times for American farmers and expensive times for US citizens.
True. I was saying over 15 years ago that the U.S. has no clear objective in its "War on Terror." Nobody could tell me what victory was supposed to look like, or how invading Afghanistan, then Iraq, was supposed to "end Terror."
I still think the question is how much of Ukraine will Putin settle for to leave the rest of Ukraine alone. How much for a win and how much for a loss?
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.