I taught a course called 20th Century Conflicts back in the day. The last time I taught it was 19 years ago, so it's possible that you might conclude that I might be ineligible, or at least outdated, to recall it.
I don't think so. I used to teach something that I had thought up all by myself--hadn't read it in any book as such, hadn't heard it in any college lecture. But in all the wars we studied in that course, it was consistently true.
I gathered the relevant facts together and concocted a theory. I think it still works, and the war in Ukraine verifies it.
To wit: to win a war, a country facing another country must be superior in four areas: Technology, production, strategy, and morale. If it wins all four, it will win. If it loses just one, that one may have an adverse effect upon the other three, and it may easily lose. If there is no clear advantage, the war may easily grind into a stalemate.
The only variable is time. Over time, things a country may have in advantage might turn against it. A country might have a good strategy starting out, but that might prove to be too costly in men and materials. It might have the advantage in men and materials to start, but its strategy might prove to drain that advantage as things move along. It might also build that advantage through a spike in production, as the U.S. did in both world wars. And all countries who engage in war have plenty of morale starting out, but often that morale wanes.
When Russia first attacked Ukraine, it gained ground fast, partly because Ukraine's government tried to remain calm and panic-free right up until invasion time. So Ukraine's overall preparation was poor--bad strategy.
Ukraine was also frightfully undersupplied. It had weaponry, true, but not nearly enough to handle Russian tanks and planes. But it has gained enormous ground in that regard, since American President Joe Biden made a strong stand against the invasion, did a great job organizing NATO behind Ukraine's defense, and began shipments of both American offensive and defensive weapons. Technologically, then, Ukraine is catching up after being clearly outgunned at the start. By year's end, it will have the benefits of another $12B in American military aid, too.
Russia, led by the fascist monster Vladimir Putin, propagandized its troops into believing that somehow, Ukraine represented a threat to their borders (which it never did and never wants to), and that its claims for that land were legitimate (they never were). That provided sufficient morale boosts for them to invade and try to conquer the whole nation, reaching the outskirts of the capital, Kyiv, as well as destroying parts of the city itself.
In the meantime, though, Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelenskyy rallied his country's defenses. Not only enlisted solders responded, but also the population at large, which certainly did not agree with Putin's insistence that certain lands naturally belonged to Russia. There is no more powerful defensive force than national reverence and pride. Russia's experience in the Second World War ought to have been enough evidence of that, since it sacrificed a great deal of life to the Nazi invasion, which got to the outskirts of Moscow.
The war has now lasted seven months. In that time, Russian casualties have been enormous. Russia has felt the need to call up reserves and then to institute a draft. Nothing rare about that.
But just as some Americans decided to flee their country during a war in Vietnam they had real issues with, so too are thousands of Russians now fleeing that country to avoid being called into service to put their lives on the line for a war they are no longer sure of. That's a sure sign that, regardless of the horribly misleading propaganda that the Russian government is trying to guarantee that its citizens absorb, hopefully (but not absolutely by any means) divorced from what news is coming in from the West, people have concluded that getting killed for Ukraine just ain't worth it.
Ukrainian forces have been reported to have pushed the Russians back in more than one area. Whatever strategy the Russians employed at the start of the war has now been thrown back in their faces. Calls back home, recorded surreptitiously, indicate that Russian soldiers are getting nervous and cynical about that strategy. Morale is weakening.
Putin has hinted of the use of nuclear weapons if things continue to go badly. But that may be a standstill as well, since the U.S., as a member of NATO, has warned Putin about going off the deep end. We will have to see about that.
So let's go over my theory's parts again:
- Technology--Ukraine's defenses have seemed to catch up to Russia's assault.
- Production--As long as NATO and U.S. aid continues, Ukraine should benefit. But providing soldiers is part of production, too. Right now, Ukraine doesn't seem to need any. That may change.
- Strategy--Russia seemed to assume that showing up would be enough, and that throwing superior numbers at Ukraine would prove decisive. But it has lost more than 50,000 killed. We lost 58,000 killed in Vietnam, true. But that took eight years. And Ukraine has counterattacked successfully in places.
- Morale--It doesn't look as if Ukraine's men are leaving the country. They're making a brave stand. Their president is leading the way. Russian men are trying to escape the new draft.
As time flows, these things may change, of course. They may get worse for Ukraine. But they may also get much worse for Russia. And gains recently made on the battlefield by Ukraine will assist in the will to resist and absorb what for them have been frightful casualties, including the slaughter of innocent civilians--except that slaughter may well increase the will to resist, not diminish it.
To try to make things "official," Russia has claimed that it has annexed four parts of Ukraine--as if the besieged country will now accept that. That's kind of like the American colonies declaring themselves to be free from Great Britain; bold gesture, but it had to be backed up with military force (which it was, or just enough of it to wear down the British). Russia might not be so lucky, though. Diplomatically, it seems to be an effort for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine while claiming victory.
As such, it may be an effort, too, to bolster morale within Russia. National pride is now at stake there. Russia is now stuck with justifying all those dead soldiers, all those families now without their sons. As in America with Vietnam, that will linger through the decades and serve to wear away national loyalty.
America responded by making wars it had no right to make. That is the pushback that results from defeat: register a victory, or try to, to even the scales. Doesn't always work. Yup--Russia will not go away if it loses. War begets more war. And Russia is losing this one.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment