Victories and Defeats
Hello everybody!
It seems that plenty of people do not understand - or outright refuse to understand - how wars ‘work’. And love comparing oranges with apples, too.
For example, when I write ‘Russia can’t win this war’ (as I did already back in March 2022), they come back with ‘commentary’ kind of, ‘and how comes Russia is advancing if it can’t win this war’?
Or, if the Russians are losing, and are suffering such heavy losses, how comes Ukraine is not winning…?
In military and political sciences, they’re usually teaching that there are five types of outcomes in a war, something along the following lines:
Decisive Defeat
Close Defeat
Pyrrhic Victory
Close Victory
Decisive Victory.
In almost every war, even when the outcome appears ‘crystal clear’, it’s hotly debated; even challenged. This is so because wars are emotionally charged affairs, and because there are dozens, if not hundreds of definitions for what which of these levels of victories mean; at least as importantly, because the life is going on, regardless if there is a victory or defeat, and thus the actual outcome of one or another war is becoming obvious only years later.
This is getting even more complicated due to the fact that a victory - or defeat - is always a matter of plentiful of mythology, and at least as many personal feelings and beliefs - and mythology and beliefs are rarely (if ever) related to cold facts on the ground.
This is why there is a fundamental difference between (political) victory or defeat, and (military) victory or defeat.
….which, between others, frequently results in situations like that the fact that one or another party in a war can or can’t win that war doesn’t mean it can’t advance. Just like an advance - in terms of capturing additional terrain - doesn’t mean the party in question is winning. Indeed, history if full of examples of, say, Party A winning on the battlefield, and yet, the Party B - the party that was losing on the battlefield - coming out as victorious at war. Point is: victories at war, and developments on the battlefield are two entirely different sets of affairs: one is ‘apples’ and the other ‘oranges’.
Principal difference is that a ‘victory’ at war is a political affair, while advance (or withdrawal) is a military affair. This is so because, in grand total, and as nicely defined by Carl von Clausewitz in the 18th Century: ‘war is a continuation of politics by other means’. See: instead of negotiating, the politicians send their armies, aiming to force the other side into accepting their demands.
(Nowhere is this more valid than in the case of Russia: consciously or not, especially the Russian GenStab is de-facto obsessed by von Clausewitz. And, because it’s serving successive dictatorships, and because the Russian domestic and foreign politics is changing very little, if at all, over the time, it’s far more consequent in applying von Clausewitz than all of the West - combined.)
As result, ‘victory’ (at war) can mean a lots of different things, and it’s rarely defined by the outcome of the fighting on the battlefield. Classic examples:
In 1962-1963, South Vietnam - supported by the USA - was on the best way of defeating the Viet Cong, and even whatever military support North Vietnam was providing to that movement. South Vietnam was successful on the battlefield and short of winning a war in political terms, too. Then, in 1964, the USA launched their military intervention in Vietnam (see: ‘Second Vietnam War’), and things went downhill: AFAIK, the USA did not lose a single battle in the following war, the USA also caused massive casualties to its opponent, but the war ‘still’ resulted in not only in a (political) defeat of the USA, but in destruction of South Vietnam, in 1973-1975 period.
1991: the USA and allies have defeated Iraq and liberated Kuwait, but then did not go on to topple Saddam; Saddam survived and remained in power, and declared himself a victor. The West was belittling Saddam and bragging about the defeat of his armies in Kuwait (and around it), but this has never changed Saddam’s point of view - nor that of many Iraqis. Even more so after what happened once the USA and allies ‘had to’ re-invade Iraq, in 2003….
In 2001-2003, the Taliban were defeated by the USA and allies in Afghanistan.
However,
a) they were permitted to survive in form of multiple movements,
b) then were left decades to hide and grow an entirely new generation of combatants in Pakistan,
c) Pakistan (and other of West’s glorious ‘allies’) were left to rebuild the Taliban, while the West was happy to look the other way (because all the Taliban enablers are ‘friends’), and
d) the USA and allies didn’t ‘rebuild’ Afghanistan, but created a scheme of laundering trillions of taxpayer’s money into private pockets, thus squandered all the funding and 20 years instead of creating new opportunities for Afghanistan’s ENTIRE population, while leaving the country in exactly the same, comatose condition like at the time they’ve invaded it.
Result: the West was ‘victorious’ in military sense - didn’t lose a single battle - but suffered such a political defeat, jerks like Pudding concluded the ‘West’ is finished as a concept (subverted from within, and systemically corrupt and incompetent), and thus felt free to go over to invading Ukraine expecting the ‘West’ wouldn’t mind nor react… indeed: that the ‘West’ wouldn’t even dare to react.
In the case of the War in Ukraine, the war is still going on. The System Putin is so broken, and this is so obvious, for Pudding and his Russians, but especially for Pudding-fans abroad (especially in the West) - that meanwhile it’s crucial for all of them to establish and to maintain the illusion of there being a hope of victory. Pudding fans in the West - the mass of whom is actually frustrated by all the obvious systemic failures of our political and economic systems - are hoping for a defeat of Ukraine and thus the ‘West’. Which is why Pudding is running this war the way he does since early 2023: in form of relentless attacks - although perfectly aware he can’t win any more, and although these are resulting in little or no gain, horrendous losses and complete destruction of the ‘Novorossia’ he is claiming to aim ‘liberating’: because, as long as ‘Russia is advancing’ the illusion that Russia can win can be kept alive.
Actually, the political outcome of this war - the issue of ‘victory or defeat’ in grand total - has not yet been decided.
….and that despite the fact that one sort of outcome is crystal clear. Russia can’t win.
The reason I’m so sure about this is that for me it’s obvious: Pudding’s aim for this war is a physical destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainians. A literal deletion of the country, the sheer idea of its existence, even the memory of its existence and, therefore, physical extermination of anybody thinking about him-/herself as an Ukrainian, or recalling there was something like Ukraine existent at whatever point in time and place…
Already back in early March 2022, to me it became crystal clear: Russia can’t accomplish this aim. It can’t conquer Ukraine, nor exterminate all the Ukrainians. It can gain some terrain here or there, keep about 15-20% of the country under military occupation, mass-murder the population on occupied territories, drive out millions or force those who are still around into submission.
But, it can’t defeat all of Ukraine nor all of Ukrainians. Therefore: it can’t win this war.
However, this doesn’t mean Ukraine can’t lose, or is certain to win. Or that Russia is certain to lose. Quite on the contrary: for Ukraine to win it must recover all of its territory within borders of 1991. Anything less is only going to result in a ‘disputable outcome’. Even a defeat - of Ukraine, and the collective West - and that despite the actual Russian failure. Which, in turn, means that Ukraine’s task is much harder, even daunting - because in this war it’s the party with less military power, while the West remains systemically unable to reform and support Ukraine to the level necessary to drive the Russians out of the country.
Indeed, the concept of Ukrainian victory is a much more complex topic also because giving any other result to Pudding, but enforcing a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, would be equal to the abandonment of the principle of rule of law and order - the very concept we, as the ‘collective West’, and Ukraine (as a country striving to establish the same), like to brag about being so successful and highly effective. It would be equal to a violation of our own laws: equal to the concept of giving in to dictatorships and oppression, and especially to the concept of exterminating entire nations. If Ukraine gives in to this, if the West gives in to this, then what right do we all have to consider our political systems for ‘better’, ‘peaceful’, ‘just’, even ‘more civilised’?
Indeed: in such case, we need not even complaining when Pudding and similar jerks start doing the same to us like they are already doing to Ukraine, have already done to Syria, Yemen, and few other ‘places’.
I could now go on with explaining a lots of additional factors and offering dozens of additional examples. That would be well beyond the point of this ‘message’. Instead, I’ll close at this point with a reminder, or summary: the fact Russia can’t win this war, doesn’t mean Ukraine can’t lose. It does not mean that Russia is already defeated. Nor that Ukraine is already defeated. Even less so does it mean the ‘West’ can’t lose.
It merely means that Russia can’t win.
The rest is still to be decided.
Youre reading this war as a stand alone conflict but Russia takes it as a part of a larger plan.
Its a deliberate strategy of peacemeal destruction of a country that, as you rightly pointed out, cant be destroyed with one go.
Here is how it looks like:
1992-2013 Political corrosion and keeping the date and military dysfunctional. Ie preparatory phase
2014- TBD peacemeal destruction.
2014 Crimea, 2015 Donbass, 2022- tbd however much can be taken. Once there is a ceasefire then conquered areas will be Russified. At the same time there will never be a peace deal, just ceasefire that Russia can cancel whenever opportunity presents to continue the slow destrcuction.
If you look at the history of Russia then youll see that this playbook has been used quite often and is very effective.
Russia probably will not destroy Ukriane within next year or two but over the course of next 20-30 years it can do it and Ukrainians know this - thats why they dotn want to agree on any ceasefires as this plays into Russian strategy.
Unfortunately, West doesnt see it that way and as Ukrainian victory is dependent on their help then here is why I think the statement Russia cant win is not correct. They can and the lands of current Russia are full of dead or dying nations that bear testimony to this.
Much needed commentary. Also, I'd like to add, with people focusing on whether or not Russia attrits faster than Ukraine: we don't know at this point.
What we can say, is that Ukraine will rebuild with the help of the West.
We can also say that Russia currently attrits faster than literally everyone else not fighting in this war: EU, US, India, and most importantly China. Putin rather lives as Chinas vassal, weakening every day, than cooperate with EU and US on equal terms, which is mindboggling. And Xi happily takes the opportunity. This we can say for sure.