There are disturbing parallels to the US Civil war, where a more massive but initially inept Union Army ground down the Confederacy.
Parallels are just parallels, not an exact replication. Ukraine does not have an economy dependent on human bondage, and Mr. Putin is not Abraham Lincoln.
But a protracted war of a larger state with larger population and multiple of the industrial capacity has never worked against a smaller state, no matter whatever force multipliers that smaller state had in technology, training, enthusiasm or other such factor.
Do we really think that the supply of Western weapons and supplies to a committed Ukrainian force can eventually grind down Russia into dissolution?
Say what you will about Henry Kissinger, but when he called for ending this war with a brokered peace, maybe he is not a Putin-apologist-of-the-day like Scott Ritter and perhaps knows what he is talking about.
I will admit that the Russian peace terms offered so far are silly and clueless. But shouldn’t we be applying our arming Ukraine as an inducement towards more realistic peace terms — do we really think we can arm Ukraine to the point of disrupting and maybe even dissolving the Russian Federation?
Can’t we approach Putin’s emissaries and say, “Dude, brother-man, tovarich, let’s make money, not war.” Maybe Mr. Putin has enough money set aside, but there are a lot of influential people in his orbit who like money. A whole lot. Isn’t this the way the Mafia families end their gang wars, that war hurts the making of money?
Is Mr. Putin a nationalist patriot, or is he a gangster, and if he is a gangster, can we offer a positive economic inducement?
But a protracted war of a larger state with larger population and multiple of the industrial capacity has never worked against a smaller state, no matter whatever force multipliers that smaller state had in technology, training, enthusiasm or other such factor.
Do we really think that the supply of Western weapons and supplies to a committed Ukrainian force can eventually grind down Russia into dissolution?
Counterexample: Switzerland versus the Hapsburgs which took over two centuries for the latter to relinquish claims to the territory of Switzerland. And yes, I do believe it is possible and a lower threshold. Russia merely needs to lose the will to fight, not dissolution.
Another counterexample both more recent and involving Russia on the losing side is the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan.
Not to mention the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan. History suggests the conquest of Afghanistan would be best accomplished by an army of sarissa-armed phalanxes.
Or horse archers – though I guess that’s who’s there now.
Population and economy size would say Russia will win, if Ukraine was unsupported. But when you count countries that are actively arming Ukraine, essentially serving as its population and industrial base, Russia is outmatched 6 to 1 in population and about 30 to 1 economically, not even counting the disparity in equipment and technology.
Russia wasn’t counting on that, and when it’s factored in it says that Russia will lose a protracted war, and badly. Almost all of it’s legacy Soviet equipment will be destroyed in this war, and there’s not much in the pipeline to replace it, because they had a military command economy with a population of nearly 400 million to build the Soviet equipment, and a non-militarized economy with only 144 million people to replace it.
It’s a shame they can’t both lose.
Bleeding Russia – Good.
Fleecing Ukraine – Good.
Unfortunately, with the current administration, the U.S. is the one being fleeced.
You guys need to watch “Dr. Strangelove” again. “We’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when…” Hey, we got Muffly Merkin in the White House and Premier Kissoff in the Kremlin. Must be time!
There are disturbing parallels to the US Civil war, where a more massive but initially inept Union Army ground down the Confederacy.
Parallels are just parallels, not an exact replication. Ukraine does not have an economy dependent on human bondage, and Mr. Putin is not Abraham Lincoln.
But a protracted war of a larger state with larger population and multiple of the industrial capacity has never worked against a smaller state, no matter whatever force multipliers that smaller state had in technology, training, enthusiasm or other such factor.
Do we really think that the supply of Western weapons and supplies to a committed Ukrainian force can eventually grind down Russia into dissolution?
Say what you will about Henry Kissinger, but when he called for ending this war with a brokered peace, maybe he is not a Putin-apologist-of-the-day like Scott Ritter and perhaps knows what he is talking about.
I will admit that the Russian peace terms offered so far are silly and clueless. But shouldn’t we be applying our arming Ukraine as an inducement towards more realistic peace terms — do we really think we can arm Ukraine to the point of disrupting and maybe even dissolving the Russian Federation?
Can’t we approach Putin’s emissaries and say, “Dude, brother-man, tovarich, let’s make money, not war.” Maybe Mr. Putin has enough money set aside, but there are a lot of influential people in his orbit who like money. A whole lot. Isn’t this the way the Mafia families end their gang wars, that war hurts the making of money?
Is Mr. Putin a nationalist patriot, or is he a gangster, and if he is a gangster, can we offer a positive economic inducement?
But a protracted war of a larger state with larger population and multiple of the industrial capacity has never worked against a smaller state, no matter whatever force multipliers that smaller state had in technology, training, enthusiasm or other such factor.
Do we really think that the supply of Western weapons and supplies to a committed Ukrainian force can eventually grind down Russia into dissolution?
Counterexample: Switzerland versus the Hapsburgs which took over two centuries for the latter to relinquish claims to the territory of Switzerland. And yes, I do believe it is possible and a lower threshold. Russia merely needs to lose the will to fight, not dissolution.
Another counterexample both more recent and involving Russia on the losing side is the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan.
Not to mention the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan. History suggests the conquest of Afghanistan would be best accomplished by an army of sarissa-armed phalanxes.
Or horse archers – though I guess that’s who’s there now.
Population and economy size would say Russia will win, if Ukraine was unsupported. But when you count countries that are actively arming Ukraine, essentially serving as its population and industrial base, Russia is outmatched 6 to 1 in population and about 30 to 1 economically, not even counting the disparity in equipment and technology.
Russia wasn’t counting on that, and when it’s factored in it says that Russia will lose a protracted war, and badly. Almost all of it’s legacy Soviet equipment will be destroyed in this war, and there’s not much in the pipeline to replace it, because they had a military command economy with a population of nearly 400 million to build the Soviet equipment, and a non-militarized economy with only 144 million people to replace it.
It’s a shame they can’t both lose.
Bleeding Russia – Good.
Fleecing Ukraine – Good.
Unfortunately, with the current administration, the U.S. is the one being fleeced.
You guys need to watch “Dr. Strangelove” again. “We’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when…” Hey, we got Muffly Merkin in the White House and Premier Kissoff in the Kremlin. Must be time!