Thank you very much for engaging with my question. Other experts just ignore me because I am a nobody and it is getting frustrating. I think that it is important to explain the theory of victory as specifically as possible to the public in order to justify Ukraine aid, and to explain why the Biden-Scholz escalation management a…
Thank you very much for engaging with my question. Other experts just ignore me because I am a nobody and it is getting frustrating. I think that it is important to explain the theory of victory as specifically as possible to the public in order to justify Ukraine aid, and to explain why the Biden-Scholz escalation management approach is wrong. Right now we all know the Biden-Scholz approach is a moral and humanitarian failure, but without a clear theory of victory as an alternative it is harder to win the debate against the Biden-Scholz approach on practical as opposed to moral grounds.
I'm not an expert on this so forgive me, but I disagree with your model that wars are contests of will. I say instead that wars are attempts to accomplish political goals through force. If one side can not accomplish its political goals, or if it becomes too weak so that it can not stop its opponent from accomplishing that opponent's political goal, then that side has lost. Continuation of bitter-enders through insurgency or terrorism doesn't change that loss as long as they can't overturn the big-picture political result. Take the US Civil War. Low level insurgency continued throughout the Reconstruction period. Terrorist violence (KKK. etc. continued into the 1960's) but the outcome of the war was final by the time of Lee's surrender because the South's political goal of an independent confederacy had been ended by force.
The political goal to me here is a secure, independent, democratic Ukraine, Whether or not it gets back to the 2024 borders. In fact the 2024 borders may be counterproductive to that goal because reincorporating the separatist regions may undermine possibilities for democracy and security of future Ukraine.
It seems that Putin's Russia will keep up his war to thwart a secure, independent, democratic Ukraine as long as he still has men and money to use and as long as he has strong enough political control within Russia to keep pushing the war effort. It looks like he will keep going until he has burned though all the Soviet stocks of weapons, all the money piled up over the decades, and his political power and control within Russia. It seems like it would take the collapse or near collapse of Russia's whole military, economic, and political system to finally end the war.
You seem to think that Russia's economic collapse may end the war. I think you're onto something there, but am not sure I can connect all the dots. Cant hey keep fighting regardless of how poor they get? But if economics is the answer, then we should go to the max with sanctions, etc. whereas equipping Ukraine for another offensive wouldn't align with that theory of victory, and long range strike isn't the answer either..
Sorry for such a long note. I'd be grateful for any responses. Thanks very much, John
As it turns out, what Ukraine wants to do is their choice, not ours.
You say you do not agree that wars are a battle of wills but wonder if Putin can keep fighting even if his military and economic power is greatly reduced. Of course he can. He just won't be as effective, but he can make that choice.
Sanctions are having an effect but in an interconnected world they are not as effective as a WW1 blockade. Secondary sanctions have been imposed on those that helped bypass the primary sanctions and that will help, but some materials will still get through. The objective of sanctions is to deny Russia material capability and that is the same objective as long range strikes. They have already removed some quantities of oil and munitions and are well worth the effort. Anything that reduces Russian capabilities is worth the effort.
I believe Putin's will won't change. So a contest of wills won't likely be won. But will no longer matters if Russia's capacity is weakened to the point that Putin's will to continue the war just can't be translated into impactful action.
So I think Ukraine and the West can only win by fully destroying Russia's capacity to use force (letting them bur through all their Soviet stocks, money, political cohesion), or selectively destroying certain key capacities. Every little bit helps, but a more targeted effort would be better and a better explanation of what capacities are being targeted and why and how that fits into a master plan would be very helpful and it would support the case that Ukraine's friends are making. Some fringe figures like Kamil Galeev think that the RUssian machine tools supply is the best target.
I tend to agree that Russia's economy may be the weakest leg of the stool and perhaps kicking that one out would lead to Russia's collapse. A full economic crisis might force Putin to focus on internal problems or simply no longer be able to pay for a million strong army in the field.
On the other hand, Ukraine could probably kill one million Russian infantry and still not get Russia to stop.
Hello Don,
Thank you very much for engaging with my question. Other experts just ignore me because I am a nobody and it is getting frustrating. I think that it is important to explain the theory of victory as specifically as possible to the public in order to justify Ukraine aid, and to explain why the Biden-Scholz escalation management approach is wrong. Right now we all know the Biden-Scholz approach is a moral and humanitarian failure, but without a clear theory of victory as an alternative it is harder to win the debate against the Biden-Scholz approach on practical as opposed to moral grounds.
I'm not an expert on this so forgive me, but I disagree with your model that wars are contests of will. I say instead that wars are attempts to accomplish political goals through force. If one side can not accomplish its political goals, or if it becomes too weak so that it can not stop its opponent from accomplishing that opponent's political goal, then that side has lost. Continuation of bitter-enders through insurgency or terrorism doesn't change that loss as long as they can't overturn the big-picture political result. Take the US Civil War. Low level insurgency continued throughout the Reconstruction period. Terrorist violence (KKK. etc. continued into the 1960's) but the outcome of the war was final by the time of Lee's surrender because the South's political goal of an independent confederacy had been ended by force.
The political goal to me here is a secure, independent, democratic Ukraine, Whether or not it gets back to the 2024 borders. In fact the 2024 borders may be counterproductive to that goal because reincorporating the separatist regions may undermine possibilities for democracy and security of future Ukraine.
It seems that Putin's Russia will keep up his war to thwart a secure, independent, democratic Ukraine as long as he still has men and money to use and as long as he has strong enough political control within Russia to keep pushing the war effort. It looks like he will keep going until he has burned though all the Soviet stocks of weapons, all the money piled up over the decades, and his political power and control within Russia. It seems like it would take the collapse or near collapse of Russia's whole military, economic, and political system to finally end the war.
You seem to think that Russia's economic collapse may end the war. I think you're onto something there, but am not sure I can connect all the dots. Cant hey keep fighting regardless of how poor they get? But if economics is the answer, then we should go to the max with sanctions, etc. whereas equipping Ukraine for another offensive wouldn't align with that theory of victory, and long range strike isn't the answer either..
Sorry for such a long note. I'd be grateful for any responses. Thanks very much, John
As it turns out, what Ukraine wants to do is their choice, not ours.
You say you do not agree that wars are a battle of wills but wonder if Putin can keep fighting even if his military and economic power is greatly reduced. Of course he can. He just won't be as effective, but he can make that choice.
Sanctions are having an effect but in an interconnected world they are not as effective as a WW1 blockade. Secondary sanctions have been imposed on those that helped bypass the primary sanctions and that will help, but some materials will still get through. The objective of sanctions is to deny Russia material capability and that is the same objective as long range strikes. They have already removed some quantities of oil and munitions and are well worth the effort. Anything that reduces Russian capabilities is worth the effort.
I believe Putin's will won't change. So a contest of wills won't likely be won. But will no longer matters if Russia's capacity is weakened to the point that Putin's will to continue the war just can't be translated into impactful action.
So I think Ukraine and the West can only win by fully destroying Russia's capacity to use force (letting them bur through all their Soviet stocks, money, political cohesion), or selectively destroying certain key capacities. Every little bit helps, but a more targeted effort would be better and a better explanation of what capacities are being targeted and why and how that fits into a master plan would be very helpful and it would support the case that Ukraine's friends are making. Some fringe figures like Kamil Galeev think that the RUssian machine tools supply is the best target.
I tend to agree that Russia's economy may be the weakest leg of the stool and perhaps kicking that one out would lead to Russia's collapse. A full economic crisis might force Putin to focus on internal problems or simply no longer be able to pay for a million strong army in the field.
On the other hand, Ukraine could probably kill one million Russian infantry and still not get Russia to stop.
Thanks again for any further insights...