19 ms·
How the weak can win – A primer on protracted war
- whatever1 5y agoIf the people have national identity you cannot win. They have the time on their side, they can fight a guerilla war for generations. Maybe China and India can win such wars with their huge populations that would allow them to completely alter the demographics of a country.
- rq1 5y agoOr with a fully automated systematic harassment. We’re not too far away from these weaponised AIs.
- sytelus 5y agoNational identity don't really matter. In past, entire south american continent was changed to Western outlook and Christianity. The playbook is very simply for this: change school curriculum, medium of instruction, replace religious leaders, control media outlets, full on propoganda, remove dissendent and promote people who complies. If you don't care about human lives, you can change national identity within 3-4 generations.
- whatever1 5y agoAnd boatloads of European immigrants.
- nsajko 5y agoDon't forget about the infectious diseases that the Europeans brought with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics#Effect_on_population_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox#Epidemics_in_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox#Epidemics_... > After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, some believe that the death of 90–95% of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases. It is suspected that smallpox was the chief culprit and responsible for killing nearly all of the native inhabitants of the Americas.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoDidn't work in Ireland. Well, they destroyed the language, but didn't change religions or national feelings.
- Nemrod67 5y agolooks a lot like something I've seen somewhere, let me think... mmhmhm /s
- chillacy 5y agoI had read an account of someone from a tribe conquered by Rome which outlined exactly this. He complained about how his kids were educated in the Roman way, refused to speak the old language, identified with the new place, etc. I saw a lot of common bits to how immigrant integration as I experienced in the US (granted, immigration usually implies consent where being conquered doesn't): the cultural divide between children and parents, new national identities, etc.
- bduerst 5y agoI'd wished they would have gone into some of the differences between a protracted was with the U.S. and Russia looks like. It's seems like it is easier to point out how Afghanistan and Vietnam were able to draw out a long-term protracted war and out-will a democracy that (to a degree) follows the changing will of the people. It's especially easier given the lack of threat to the mainland that can be manufactured. But what about against a neighboring oligarchy like Russia? How do you out-will the singular authoritarian leader and/or his small group of oligarchs?
- stevenwoo 5y agoIn Vietnam, the majority of the people supported the Viet Minh, otherwise the USA and the dictator of South Vietnam would have allowed the elections for reunification agreed to at the 1954 Geneva Accords to go through as planned.
- ProjectArcturis 5y agoWell, Afghanistan was able to defeat the Soviets. I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. Edit: some folks have mentioned several, so let me be more specific: guerrilla wars to expel an invading power. This would exclude several attempted Marxist revolutions, but good points made about Chechnya, as well as Northern Ireland and Kenya which failed to expel colonial powers.
- leereeves 5y ago> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. I can think of one, and unfortunately it was the Russians who won it, but Ukraine is much bigger and better equipped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- KineticLensman 5y agoThe Mau Mau rebellion against the British in Kenya wasn’t successful.
- awb 5y agoLong article, but the first part reads like the Ukraine playbook: * Cede territory early and retreat to defensible positions * Let the enemy rush in and attack their stretched supply lines from the flanks * Let the people know you are still fighting and not defeated * Prepare the people to fight a long guerrilla war * When the enemy spreads out to take too much territory too quickly, counter attack I really don't understand the Russian military strategy. Their strategy of taking slivers of territory seemed to be working in Georgia and Crimea. They could have taken Donetsk and Luhansk with little effort and much less worldwide condemnation. Then started the bribery, disinfo, threats, "security" offer process all over again in the next territory. But driving full force to Kyiv seems like exactly what a much weaker army would want you to do.
- superturkey650 5y agoContrary to Vietnam and Afghanistan, Russia has the ability to take large swathes of territory early, absorb it, and start moving Russians into that territory while continuously sieging major cities. The Ukrainians will look bad if they attack the Russian citizens that are now occupying them, and the Russian army doesn’t need to convince the local population to join them but instead they can encourage them to evacuate and give them safe passage into the EU. Eventually the country will be more and more Russian and most of the world will forget about the Ukrainians. We’re just in the initial “rough” stages where it’s the new news item and countries not actually involved in the conflict aren’t bored yet. Once they reach a stable position, they can just wait them out while occupying the majority of the country.
- shaky-carrousel 5y ago> Russia has the ability to take large swathes of territory early, absorb it, and start moving Russians into that territory while continuously sieging major cities. Not anymore, with their economy collapsed.
- hadlock 5y agoRussia's globalized economy has been snubbed, but russia is perfectly capable of deeding prime farmland to existing successful russian farmers. When it comes to tractors and fuel, russia has these in spades
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sytelus 5y agoProtracted wars (i.e. long slow wars via hit-and-run and guerilla warfare) have been very successful in past to topal the mighty powers by far weaker forces. However, in recent times, I feel they are becoming much less effective. The electronic surveylence and automated targetting makes such warfare much difficult. This is especially the case because, (1) the ruling power will eventually control all communication and remove any free speech, (2) they will constantly find and kill leaders through electronic means which are now amazingly effective. A much better defensive route is probably mandatory militery training of all able citizens. Eventually, most professional armies are in the size of million at most and only 100,000 or so get deployed. If you have a million citizens with militery training, you are way harder to beat.
- bduerst 5y agoI'm not sure that's the right answer. The protracted Afghanistan war was "recent times", and likely involved technology that we civilians still don't know exists yet. Creating a larger standing militia is just trying to fight toe-to-toe against a superpower with more power, which still won't be enough to win in a quick decision. If anything, utilization of improved surveillance should be prioritized more by the smaller force, to be more effective.
- lazide 5y agoUh, the whole point of guerilla war is it isn’t toe to toe, and quick decisions don’t matter? If Russia ‘wins’, they still will probably lose (due to protracted guerrila activity draining them economically). Afghanistan never got won, even with all the wiz bang technology. The US just got tired of paying.
- cutemonster 5y agoIf Russia "wins", Russia still loses, yes. But Putin might win, the way his brain works - how happy he'd be, with more land, even if it's barren and flat and no people
- 5y ago
- optimalsolver 5y agoThe fuel trucks, dear chap, the fuel trucks. (And also the fuel trains.)
- babelfish 5y agoMore reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_war
- debatem1 5y agoWeird that the author mentions international support and the importance of inaccessible bases to Mao, but doesn't mention the ability of the Taliban or Viet Cong to hide in neighboring countries where conventional military force can't be applied. I expect that will also be crucial in Ukraine.
- paxys 5y agoBorders of this war are drastically in Russia's favor. They control the entire north (Belarus), east (Russia) and south (Crimea and Black Sea). Ukraine could potentially use their western borders with friendly countries to their advantage, but those are long ways away from the key population centers of the country. After a strike in, say, Kyiv, they will have to drive 7+ hours to hide in Poland.
- Retric 5y agoFriendly borders do a lot even if their not close. Just having a safe place to decompress between fighting makes a huge difference. Militaries need to be on constant alert where resistance forces can train and plain in safety. It also takes a lot of manpower to defend a border and those people can’t then be directly useful in the fighting. Russia could setup barricades, minefields etc, but that stuff take time, effort and resources to setup.
- tablespoon 5y ago> Borders of this war are drastically in Russia's favor. They control the entire north (Belarus), east (Russia) and south (Crimea and Black Sea). Ukraine could potentially use their western borders with friendly countries to their advantage, but those are long ways away from the key population centers of the country. After a strike in, say, Kyiv, they will have to drive 7+ hours to hide in Poland. But if the population is friendly to the insurgents, couldn't they hide there after an operation? It seems like the border with an insurgent-friendly country would be mainly useful for supply, training, etc. IIRC, the Taliban had a kind of "fighting season" where their fighters would migrate into Afghanistan from Pakistan, then return months later. It wasn't hit and run from border outposts.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y agoRight now, with the American experience in Afghanistan in Vietnam in our minds, we have this idea that a great power cannot win long term in a foreign country. However, history is full of examples where this did not happen: Examples include: * The European conquest of the Americas (especially North America) * The Boer War (British Empire vs Afrikaaners) * Julius Caesar's Conquest of Gaul * Mughal Conquest of (northern) India * British Raj (and Sepoy Rebellion) * US War in the Philippines * Roman Conquest of Asia Minor * Turkish Conquest of Asia Minor from Byzantine Empire * Anglo Saxon Conquest of England Basically, if a power is both more powerful militarily, can get their supply lines correct, and has the political will to see it through for the long term, it can be done.
- dillondoyle 5y agoTo me it seems the problem with Afghanistan in particular was the definition of winning. Creating a self sustaining Democracy? Hell no crazy that was ever the goal. But completely obliterating terrorists threats, without worrying about damage or creating a self governed country? i think that could have been achieved. Though at pretty big humanitarian consequences. Which it seems like Russia doesn't care much about since the first definition of winning seems to have failed already.
- csee 5y agoWhat about Russia's previous failure in Afghanistan, though? They weren't trying to install a democracy there.
- dillondoyle 5y agoThey were still trying to install a regime against the people's will. And the Soviet army at that time (which judging by ukraine was maybe better than Russia now despite worse tech?) doesn't even come close to the unimaginably grossly powerful weapons & military we have in the US (just using colorful language, my personal belief is on the whole beneficial even though causes plenty of pain and suffering).
- 5y ago
- eunos 5y agoInterestingly if you read Mao's interview with Edgar Snow https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-work... You can see a lot of parallel with the current Ukraine situation. Especially the first QA Question: Under what conditions do you think China can defeat and destroy the forces of Japan? Answer: Three conditions are required: first, the establishment of an anti-Japanese united front in China; second, the formation of an international anti-Japanese united front; third, the rise of the revolutionary movement of the people in Japan and the Japanese colonies. From the standpoint of the Chinese people, the unity of the people of China is the most important of the three conditions. Condition 2 is true right now, while I am not sure about condition 1 in Eastern Ukraine and condition 3 will be true if Russian citizen fed up with all the sanctions I guess.
- temp8964 5y agoLoL. Mao was a narcissist mass murder. His “interview” with westerners was just him playing with “useful idiots.” If you read Chinese, his comrades stated he was so happy he could not sleep when he heard Japanese invasion.
- frankfrankfrank 5y ago[flagged]
- HL33tibCe7 5y agoPlease take your propaganda elsewhere
- ryankupyn 5y agoIt's worth replying specifically to highlight how wrong the original comment is, but the evidence that was cited by the Russian government to justify their invasion was clearly fabricated. For instance, an alleged car bombing in Donetsk right before the invasion was staged using cadavers,[1] and a video used to claim that Ukrainian troops were moving aggressively into separatist territory was filmed far from its purported location.[2] If Russia was so sure that Ukraine was committing these atrocities, they wouldn't need to rely on fake videos to justify attacking. [1] https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadavers-and-faked-ieds-experts-debunk-staged-pre-war-provocation-in-the-donbas/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadave... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/europe/russia-videos-debunking-troops-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/europe/russia-videos-debunkin...
- heluser 5y agoYou know if you are talking about lies would be great to provide some credible references Otherwise the comment is pretty bleak and matches well Putin’s propaganda. Context: I have relatives in that area
- naveen99 5y agoWar is between oligarchs. The weak just switch to whom they pay taxes to. The weak don’t benefit from a war, quick or protracted.
- nine_k 5y agoThe weak benefit from a victory, and which side wins usually makes a lot of difference for them. Also, the weak just do not command a lot of wealth and might. It's not that they are stupid or indifferent; they can be incessant, ultimately effecting serious changes against the will of the mighty.
- paxys 5y agoAsk the "weak", aka the general population in Ukraine, who they'd rather pay taxes to – their own elected government or Putin – and you'll get a pretty decisive answer. Saying the war doesn't make a difference for them is idiotic. These aren't serfdoms in the middle ages but people who have chosen to live in a democracy.
- naveen99 5y agoI don’t know. The median income in Russia is way higher than the median income in Ukraine. Putin is old, he’ll be gone soon. Poor people are better off without a war . they wouldn’t vote for war over over annexation. they might prefer to be annexed by eu or the us.
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoThe correct comparison is not how high income is in Russia, but how high income is in Russian puppet states.
- steve76 5y ago
- Gatsky 5y agoI think Putin is getting ahead. It is plain Russia made a half assed attempt to take Ukraine, hence the relatively mild events so far. They will just raze the whole country if they have to, and fearsome modern weapons allow this without getting mud on your boots. This is a credible threat (see Grozny) and he is peddling this to World leaders. There seem to be two choices in my simplistic view. One is to continue current, which is ‘encouraging’ Ukraine, applying sanctions and largely letting Putin do what he wants, as well as really bending over to broker a peace deal grossly advantageous to Russia. The second choice is to be more aggressive, including military escalation (although not a direct conflict) and turning the screw as far as it will go with weaponising the global economy (this would involve deals with China and India so they don’t help Russia, and taking a lot of collateral damage). In the latter case, the idea will be that with an increasingly mad and aggressive and isolated leader, who frequently threatens what amounts to killing everyone in the world, Putin will be deposed. Hardly guaranteed, unless there is credible knowledge that someone is ready and has the necessary support to oust Putin. Maybe the first option is better, considering the existential threats. But maybe this is just deferring the problem to next time.
- jzb 5y agoDeferring it is how we got here. This has to be Putin’s last war.
- jjtheblunt 5y agoa third option is an internal coup because it's implausible Russians are uniformly willing to be complicit in Putin's mobster-style aggression
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> an increasingly mad and aggressive and isolated leader Force him into China's fold. North Korea, for all its madness, isn't rolling tanks into its neighbor.
- awb 5y agoNKs neighbors are Russia, China and South Korea. Russia and China tolerate NK, so NK has no reason to fight a much larger, friendly neighbor. Between North and South Korea is the DMZ, a 4km wide mine field. If your tanks somehow get past that you have 28k US troops waiting for you. If the border was flat, unguarded wheat fields, I’m sure NK would have tried at some point. They don’t lack the will, just the ability. In Ukraine, Russia had the will and the ability.
- jmyeet 5y agoThere is absolutely no justification for Putin's war here. None. But Putin can be wrong AND the US can be wrong AND Ukraine can be ill-prepared all at the same time. These aren't muttually exclusive. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, here's what should've happened: 1. The US should've formally and explicitly abandoned the effort to bring Ukraine into NATO; 2. Ukraine should've adopted a policy of official neutrality; 3. Ukraine should've abandoned efforts against minority language rights, a particularly sensitive issue with primarily-Russian speaking people in eastern Ukraine; 4. Ukraine should've restructured its military into a defensive army, which is to say that it should be largely decentralized and trained in insurgency tactics. The idea of this is to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. This is essentially the Swiss model [1]. This would mean acquiring appropriate weapons: small arms, mobile artillery, Stringer missiles, that sort of thing. An advantage of this is that a defensive army is relatively cheap; and 5. Just like Russia performed military exercises every year on Ukraine's borders (as an aside, the media never mentioned that Russia in fact did this every 12-15 months for years), Ukraine should've planned for a Russian invasion with their own exercises. This means training for and practicing things taking out key bridges; 6. Ukraine should've fortified chokepoints that Russia could use to invade. This would particularly include the narrow land bridge to Crimea. This is part of the sheer recklessness of US foreign policy as we egged Ukraine on with empty promises of standing behind them when there was absolutely no possibility we'd put boots on the ground in the case of a Russian invasion. We didn't start the fire but we sure left a lot of fuel lying around. And Ukraine is paying a bloody price. The best thing Ukraine could've done post-annexation is brought in Hezbollah as consultants on military organization and insurgency tactics. And no, I'm not even joking when I say that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book)
- EthanHeilman 5y ago> 4. Ukraine should've restructured its military into a defensive army, which is to say that it should be largely decentralized and trained in insurgency tactics. The idea of this is to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. This is essentially the Swiss model. This would mean acquiring appropriate weapons: small arms, mobile artillery, Stringer missiles, that sort of thing; The Swiss model worked because the mountains act as both a defensive fortification and because Switzerland is of limited strategic value (low benefit, high cost). An effective defensive model for a nation like Ukraine would be Israel. Nuclear weapons to ensure escalation dominance. A strong air force with the ability delete any air or ground forces preemptively before they even cross the border. A heavy investment in strategic level area denial and air defense: cruise missiles, missile shields, patriot missile batteries. You want to maximize the range to ensure that an invader has no areas of safety. An insurgency with small arms and MANPADs can be effective but only because the insurgents are willing to pay a much higher cost than the invaders. Soldiers in insurgencies expect to die at a ratio of 10:1 and that is considered winning. Insurgencies are what you do when your conventional strategy fails. Starting an insurgency is choosing a horrific sacrifice for your nation. Insurgencies don't prevent invaders from destroying your cities, from killing your family and burning everything of value. Even with that terrible cost many insurgencies still fail. You know what is better? Advanced tanks and attack helicopters operating under SAM umbrellas that allow you to win a conventional war at your borders. The best deterrent is conventional military dominance backed up by the US nuclear arsenal. The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is NATO membership. This war is a result of Ukraine not being given NATO membership.
- _carbyau_ 5y agoIt seems if you invade AND the population supports the local guerillas rather than you, then you have three options. 1. Kill everyone. 2. Convince everyone. Or enough to support you instead so that guerillas fizzle out or are actively outed by local population. 3. Leave. Any other options? What does 2. look like in a warzone? I mean, the West was in Afghanistan for 20 years and as a civilian many miles away I couldn't say I saw 2. reported on.
- throwawaygh 5y agoIn ancient times: be willing to stay for several generations + lots of rape + slavery. These are also all war crimes, though.
- fulafel 5y agoPalestine scenario (permanent military deployment, apartheid, settlements). The population ratio of Russia vs Ukraine is not that far off from Israel vs Palestine...
- dmix 5y agoWe don’t really know what Russias strategy is here. They could be hitting the north near Kyiv as a primary distraction to build a land bridge to Crimea and hold on to the east. They know at some point a treaty will be signed so it’s whatever they can compromise is the end goal. This would only take a few months at most if that’s all they care about (that and punishing western movement as a side gain).
- RealityVoid 5y ago> They know at some point a treaty will be signed Do they though? Looking at Putin's actions, I wouldn't be so sure.
- dmix 5y agoWhy would Russia who lost in Afghanistan and defended Syria’s regime expect to hold something like Kyiv or Kharkov long term via regime change? I really don’t see that happening and I haven’t seen one good explanation from anyone about how they would do that. Syria is the example people are missing not some tiny weak state like Chechnya. The west had tons of local support in Syria but Russia just had to prop up the state and local military long enough to ‘win’ that war. That’s all the west has to do to ‘win’ in Ukraine. To me it only makes logical sense for Russia to be feigning a full state takeover like a chess match, with a dual goal of just maintaining Baltic coast and punishing Ukrainians for Euromadien. Otherwise they are crazy and dumb, which they are regardless given their now near total economic isolation, but there has to be some logic here beyond some shortsighted George Bush style ‘regime change’ strategy.
- dylan604 5y agoIn Syria, the Russians were as you said propping up the gov't that was already in place. In Ukraine, they will have to hold onto control long enough to remove the current gov't so they can install the crony/puppet gov't. Once that's in place and the peoples are placated enough to accept the regime, they can pull back. Of course, the threat of coming back to settle any disagreements would be ever present.
- Animats 5y ago"Crack That Tank"[1] WWII US Army training film for infantry. Much of this still applies, although anti-tank weapons have changed. [1] https://archive.org/details/27424CrackThatTank https://archive.org/details/27424CrackThatTank
- rbrbr 5y ago
- random_upvoter 5y agoEveryone seems to be assuming that Putin intends to annex Ukraine in the short term. But as events have unfolded, this will likely be impossible without incurring huge costs on Russia. However that doesn't mean that Putin can't settle for lesser concessions by Ukraine, like a complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO, combined with the loss of the two small republics. That would still be a huge win for Putin without the catastrophic cost of an occupation. Ukraine "wins" by not being reduced to rubble and have half of its population displaced in the "protracted war" that every armchair geopolitician is advocating for, undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that their armchairs are not located in Ukraine. It seems that every other generation needs to learn again how hard war sucks. This is not Game of Thrones.
- nnx 5y ago“A complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO“ For the common man and woman in Ukraine this is the best scenario for a quick exit from this senseless war. Too bad politicians (and armchair geopoliticians) do not see it.
- adwn 5y agoDemilitarization and not being a NATO member means that the next time Russia gets imperialistic cravings, Ukraine will be utterly helpless and defenseless, with zero bargaining power. And judging by Russia's current behavior, that's a "when", not an "if".
- random_upvoter 5y agoImperialist cravings? Not seventy years ago Russia was almost destroyed by the West, with the lost of forty million lives. For Russia the danger comes from the West and the fact that we the West think ourselves to be all enlightened doesn't change that. I don't want to justify Russia's behavior in any way, but imagine if you will, for one second, that Russia starts arming one of the sides in the Mexican Drug War with high-tech weaponry and tries to convince the Mexican government to join some Warsaw pact alliance. The USA would not tolerate this for one day. Russia has tolerated this for over a decade. Since 2004 the West has been doing whatever the fuck they want in Eastern Europe and expected Russia to just take it on the chin. Now Russia has reacted and there was much astonishment. The West have been wiping their feet on a basic tenet of geopolitics, namely that the regional superpower calls the shots within their sphere of influence. Now the results are in and guess what? The West is STILL not taking this seriously, further escalating the conflict by arming Ukraine to the teeth. President Biden laughing at the idea of nuclear war like Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons. Clown world is truly here.
- woodpanel 5y agoAs of now, it looks like Russia seems fully aware of the dangers of protraction. The question is of course how it plans to mitigate it. Leveling of cities is one option, lets hope there are others
- throwaway290 5y agoThis article uses Mao's rise to power as an example. Who thinks it would have been possible without very tangible support of USSR next door? Can you even call CCP-backed-by-USSR "weak"?