I must say that I disagree pretty drastically with George Friedman’s assessment of the war in Ukraine:
The U.S. reached its goal, while Russia and Ukraine have not and will not. However, neither have they been crushed. Ukraine is now a divided country but enough of it is intact to claim victory, and Russia has pushed past its old border enough to claim a small victory. Both could claim humanitarian reasons for ending the war.
But now the dead creep. They gave their lives for nothing but the pretense of victory, as no rational person will think of the outcome as contempt for the dead. So having fought and defended for coming on two years, how the war ends is reasonably clear. How long will it take for the leaders to admit what is obvious? Everyone lost this war, and in due course so will the leaders. And that is what will delay the inevitable peace.
We agree in that everybody will lose. I disagree that the United States has gained anything. It may even be that Russian military strength has actually grown—there’s nothing like field experience to hone military doctrine. Furthermore, it illustrated the limits of economic sanctions and the futility of trying to teach others the American way of war.
“it illustrated the limits of economic sanctions and the futility of trying to teach others the American way of war”
That’s not quite right. Economic sanctions can work — but it is unlikely to work for a country as rich in resources as Russia, is willing to trade, is not following economically crazy theories like communism, and we aren’t willing to enforce through an economic blockade.
I do agree with the futility of trying to teach others the American way of war. Shock and Awe / Anaconda strategy is an ill fit for everyone else because few countries can count on the resource / technological / geographic advantages the US has and that way of war assumes.
The strategy must be suited to the objectives and the opponent. Battleships can work when facing a naval enemy; they’re not a great deal of use for land combat. The economic sanctions we tried to employ against Russia were not effective because Russia had other alternatives. They were a futile strategy, more political than pragmatic.
Agreed. The discussions around the oil cap has gone into the ether.
One other note, I disagree that everybody lost. Everybody directly involved lost, but I can name countries that aren’t involved that are “winning”. The list of winners so far would be the Arabs (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE), Iran, India, and China.
As an example, the Saudi look like the masters of oil prices again. The UAE and Qatar are making money by being intermediaries of Russian trade. India’s got cheap oil. China’s has cheap oil and the Russians have done more internationalization of the Yuan in the last year then the Chinese could have done themselves in the next 5 years.
The American way of war generally assumes control of the air. However, at a more granular level it also includes things like allowing more autonomy on the part of junior officers and NCOs, much different than the more centralized command structure in the Russian model. It sounds like that was helpful in stopping the initial Russian surge.
Steve
I think Friedman is likely correct, but I don’t think there will be an end to the war – it will more likely be something more temporary.
As to whether the US has gained anything, it depends on what one thinks benefits the US as well as analysis of how thing will play out over a longer timeframe.
I think there has been some value in us learning that our stockpiles are more limited than thought. I think it will/should make us re-evaluate the use of armor. Certainly th side oaf using lots of cheap drones will be looked at.
Steve
steve,
Yep, we’ve learned (and relearned) a lot about high-intensity warfare. I hope that results in changes, but I personally know that the military bureaucracy changes slowly in peacetime.