At 1945 Christian D. Orr considers several historical precedents for the Russia-Ukraine War to answer the question could Russia win? After considering the American Civil War, the Russo-Finnish War, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the putting down of the Chechnyan insurgency he concludes:
To sum up, Russia could conceivably still “win†in Ukraine under sufficiently scaled-back mission parameters and objectives, but other than Moscow’s wounded national pride and bragging rights, what would Putin truly gain from such a costly “victory?â€
which I think reflects a lack of understanding of Russian politics and history. Retaining the port at Sevastopol is not negotiable. That has been a key goal of Russian policy for over 200 years. It is no less important to Russia now than it was in 1783.
That brings up a point which is extremely frustrating to me. Why do supporters of the Ukrainians argue that U. S. support has not altered Ukraine’s objectives in the war at all? That is demonstrably false. Back in February the Ukrainians broached the subject of allowing the Russians to retain Sevastopol. Now Russia returning Sevastopol to Ukraine is apparently an essential goal of the Ukrainians. That’s a change.
What appears to me is that presently both sides of the war are expanding their objectives. I would interpret that as telling us that the prospects for a speedy resolution of the conflict are poor.
Zelenskii has become an irrelevant sock puppet. The US is in full control of the Ukrainian government and military. US officers are setting Ukrainian strategy and tactics, are deciding what targets to hit, are supplying targeting information, and US troops are manning the HIMARS and other high end equipment. If NATO supplies fighter-bombers, NATO pilots will fly them.
We are in the position of American troops in direct conflict with Russian troops. Similar things happened in Korea and Viet Nam, but they were not existential issues for us. Ukraine is existential for Russia (it’s not Putin’s war), and Russia (not just Putin) will go all the way to the top of the escalation ladder to win.
” Now Russia returning Sevastopol to Ukraine is apparently an essential goal of the Ukrainians. That’s a change.
After the war crimes, thousands of Ukrainians killed and tortured you expected that would not change? I trust this was rhetorical or something and you were not serious. Negotiations were always going to be tough since it came down to how much land does Ukraine give the the country that invaded them, Russia, to get them to stop invading any further. Now its harder and will be viewed as wasting those lives. On the Russian side it would not necessarily mean giving up any land it would just mean admitting they couldn’t invade and win and after losing so many lives that wont go over well.
Steve
I confess confusion why the American Civil War was picked.
The author misses 3 wars that I think are more relevant — the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Sino-Vietnamese War.
World War I has some resonance as well.
“That brings up a point which is extremely frustrating to me. Why do supporters of the Ukrainians argue that U. S. support has not altered Ukraine’s objectives in the war at all? That is demonstrably false. ”
That’s one of my frustrations too. Some insist that the US actions have and had no effect while simultaneously arguing that “we” should not accept anything less than a complete Russian loss.
I would just note the parallels between China and Taiwan again – we could definitely precipitate a war there, and should a war occur, Taiwan’s calculus would be heavily influenced by US support and policy.