Don't confuse naivete with morale. I'm not going to fall into the mistake of defending the French WW I concept of "cran", that "guts" can defeat artillery shells, instead of merely being splattered by them. But greater numbers-- and greater weapons-- do not a victor make. Beginning with Marathon and Salamis, military history is litte…
Don't confuse naivete with morale. I'm not going to fall into the mistake of defending the French WW I concept of "cran", that "guts" can defeat artillery shells, instead of merely being splattered by them. But greater numbers-- and greater weapons-- do not a victor make. Beginning with Marathon and Salamis, military history is littered with despots who made the mistake of thinking that numbers and weapons are all that matters.
At the beginning of WWII, France's army was much larger and better equipped than Germany's. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of Russia, Russia had the world's largest army and air force. But France's and Russia's armies were riddled with low morale, and their defeat was just as much a psychological victory as a physical one.
I was trying to recall the term, thanks, "Cran" -- what folly. The "triumph" of optimism over sanity.
Truly greater numbers and resources do not a victor make -- except in the hands of generals who know how to use them.
Lee outfoxed all the Union commanders in the Eastern theater... until the Union found a commander who understood how to take advantage of his resource superiority. After that it was simply a matter of how long before the inevitable happened.
And without in any way minimizing the incredible tenacity and bravery of the Red Army and the Russian people-- once it recovered from the self-inflicted near-suicide of leadership before Barbarossa, it too finished the war not so much with cunning as with overwhelming force and manpower.
Superior force and resources, even if wielded by mediocrity -- always prevails-- if it is applied as long as it takes.
America lost in Vietnam because it wasn't willing to stay as long as it took. For good reasons. Any prospect of military success for Ukraine lies in the hope that the Russian empire's force will not be applied as long as it takes.
It could take a long time, even if successful. Any such a victory necessarily comes at an unimaginable cost in suffering and degradation. Over 3.1 million Vietnamese lost their lives -- no one knows for sure -- and it went on for a quarter of a century. And that only begins to scratch the surface of the cost in human misery -- for, ultimately, what? The best excuse for our perpetuating that suffering is we (possibly) just didn't know any better and were in the grip of a delusion.
I'm not saying the Ukranians should not fight, nor that the West should not arm and support them... I'm just sick at heart.
Don't confuse naivete with morale. I'm not going to fall into the mistake of defending the French WW I concept of "cran", that "guts" can defeat artillery shells, instead of merely being splattered by them. But greater numbers-- and greater weapons-- do not a victor make. Beginning with Marathon and Salamis, military history is littered with despots who made the mistake of thinking that numbers and weapons are all that matters.
At the beginning of WWII, France's army was much larger and better equipped than Germany's. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of Russia, Russia had the world's largest army and air force. But France's and Russia's armies were riddled with low morale, and their defeat was just as much a psychological victory as a physical one.
I was trying to recall the term, thanks, "Cran" -- what folly. The "triumph" of optimism over sanity.
Truly greater numbers and resources do not a victor make -- except in the hands of generals who know how to use them.
Lee outfoxed all the Union commanders in the Eastern theater... until the Union found a commander who understood how to take advantage of his resource superiority. After that it was simply a matter of how long before the inevitable happened.
And without in any way minimizing the incredible tenacity and bravery of the Red Army and the Russian people-- once it recovered from the self-inflicted near-suicide of leadership before Barbarossa, it too finished the war not so much with cunning as with overwhelming force and manpower.
Superior force and resources, even if wielded by mediocrity -- always prevails-- if it is applied as long as it takes.
America lost in Vietnam because it wasn't willing to stay as long as it took. For good reasons. Any prospect of military success for Ukraine lies in the hope that the Russian empire's force will not be applied as long as it takes.
It could take a long time, even if successful. Any such a victory necessarily comes at an unimaginable cost in suffering and degradation. Over 3.1 million Vietnamese lost their lives -- no one knows for sure -- and it went on for a quarter of a century. And that only begins to scratch the surface of the cost in human misery -- for, ultimately, what? The best excuse for our perpetuating that suffering is we (possibly) just didn't know any better and were in the grip of a delusion.
I'm not saying the Ukranians should not fight, nor that the West should not arm and support them... I'm just sick at heart.