Putin Has Already Lost the War

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.

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.

Vasko Kohlmayer of the American Thinker proposed a solution to this crisis:

It hard not to be deeply shaken by the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine. Terrible though it may be, it was not, however, unexpected. By taking matters into his own hands, Vladimir Putin did what he had warned he would do in the years leading up to this crisis.

Putin has always made it clear that NATO in Ukraine was a red line for Russia. Having realized that his concerns would never be properly addressed by his western counterparts, Putin decided to take radical action to stop the alliance’s expansion.

The Ukrainian people have already paid a heavy price, which will almost certainly grow much greater if this conflict is allowed to continue. And even though there is now no intention among the players involved to broaden the field of military operations, there is always a very real danger of escalation as these kinds of contingencies tend to be highly unpredictable.

There is, however, an easy way to put an end to this calamitous situation. This can be done by western guarantee that Ukraine will stay militarily neutral for the foreseeable future.

This is the only reasonable and moral course to take under present circumstances.

It is important to acknowledge the hard reality that Ukraine will not become part of NATO anytime soon. Vladimir Putin has made it sufficiently clear that he is not going to allow this to happen, and he is willing to fight to the death over this issue.

It is not a fight we want to get pulled into, not least because America does not have a vital national interest in Ukraine as such, much less in Ukraine being part of NATO. That by itself should suffice to keep us from confronting Putin over this matter.

Ukraine has never been part of NATO. Have we suffered some hardship, danger, distress, disadvantage, or loss because of it? Things were just fine for us – as well as the rest of the world – with Ukraine not being in NATO. Why should we now suddenly risk a conflict with Russia over Ukraine’s entry into that organization?

We also need to keep in mind that if we should foolishly engage Putin in some kind of military fashion, such a clash could easily escalate into a nuclear exchange which would almost certainly end in mutual annihilation or something close to it.

By guaranteeing Ukraine’s military neutrality, we would not lose anything we did not have before. The fact is that for much of their history Ukrainian territories have either been part of Russia or within Russian sphere of influence. Ukraine has never been an integral part of the western military apparatus. To insist that it becomes part of it at this point in time is irresponsible and reckless.

By agreeing to Ukraine not being part of NATO, nothing would be taken away from us. We would neither be militarily weakened, nor would we be impoverished economically. Ukraine’s absence from NATO does not put us in any worse position than we were a week ago, a year ago or a decade ago. Has Ukraine not being in NATO ever been a serious problem for us?

We must understand that the Russians feel the same about NATO in Ukraine as we would feel about a Russian base in Cuba.

The world is on the edge now and the Ukrainian people are experiencing the agony of suffering and death. They stand no chance against the onslaught of the much superior Russian forces, which have been so far acting with relative restraint. Contrary to what we have been hearing from the media, Putin has been trying to minimize the loss of life. Once the Russians switch into full fire mode, however, the Ukrainian people will be dying by tens of thousands.

This can be prevented by granting Ukraine military neutrality.

There is, however, an easy way to put an end to this calamitous situation. This can be done by western guarantee that Ukraine will stay militarily neutral for the foreseeable future. This is the only reasonable and moral course to take under present circumstances.

If our people had two brain cells to rub together this would be an attempted negotiation with Putin NOW. Now before Ukraine become the hill the world dies on. And for nothing.

Russia has an economy a little larger than Italy's. Imagine 30 nations Organization - many if tee most powerful countries in the world - making a treaty to stand together against Italy.

The Ukrainian people are heroic - I'm sure the Russian people are too - as are our people... but this issue has to do with power elites - and has to be settled with that in mind.

Well at least he isn't in charge of anything except his keyboard.

i love the way the neo-con and chicken hawks try to make everyone think that Putin has to "run for reelection" or gives a crap about what the people say or want. The opinion polls and popularity memes are high school thinking.

This guy (Putin) understands a boot on his face. He saw Afghanistan, he saw the feminization of our armed forces and the "silliness" of social justice and sexual politics divide military focus and command structure. A small canary in the coal mine would be to look at the retention rate of Navy SEALs or 0311 in the Marines.

I'll listen when their sons are 11-bravo or 0311... not some POG or JAG REMF like Biden's son he keeps dragging out of the grave and flopping him around to show "his family's sacrifice"....

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.