Defeat and victory?
In discussions on military issues that start after my posts on Ukraine, I see that there is always a misunderstanding about the concept of "Victory". And this is because defining victory in military terms is not easy. In football it is "who scored the most goals", but in the military world what are we talking about?
The classical and rational definition of victory, born in the Enlightenment period and therefore extremely logical, is the following:
"One faction has won the war when it retains the will and the ability to fight, while the opposing faction has completely lost the will to fight, the ability to fight, or both"
For example, if you invade a country and defeat the army but the soldiers become guerrillas and continue the war, for example, you have not won.
This definition is very clear and very logical, and does not require many assumptions to work. After all, if the enemy has lost the will to fight he surrenders, if he has lost the ability to fight he is dominated, if he has lost both he has been annihilated.
This definition of victory, however, did not like either of the two big contenders of the cold war.
Because according to this definition, the USA never won a war after the Second World War, and not even the USSR with its raids (they made it hard and raw in Africa and South America) if it never went well .
Am I saying the US lost in Korea? Yup.
Am I saying the US lost in Vietnam? Yup.
Am I saying the US lost in Afghanistan? Yup.
Am I saying that the USSR lost in Afghanistan? Yup.
….
…
All this, you will admit, is embarrassing.
And so their military say they have constructed different definitions, although in the case of the US they are quite unofficial.
The US ultimately calls victory any large-scale practical demonstration of superior firepower.
And no wonder: because Americans only wage wars of aggression and see war on television, they don't need things like "resilience" and so they rely on displaying firepower. Boom, boom, boom. And then bang.
Even the Russians have developed, in the communist period and during the 10 years of revolution, alternative definitions (to avoid having to admit defeats). Accustomed to the culture of five-year plans, for them the war is won when everything has gone according to plan. Since no one plans their defeat, obviously if everything goes as planned we are winning.
It would make sense in a world of truth: but in the military world no one is so fooled as to publish their plans first, so anyone can say "hey, but I was planning to end up in the hospital unconscious and with a broken nose. , I won the match! "
As you can see, these are definitions of "victory" that are more valid for propadandistic (USSR) or electoral (USA) purposes.
We can build theorems on the "classic" or "European" definition of victory. It means that we can say that a democracy has little chance of winning a war of aggression if the enemy intends (and can) fight indefinitely. The reason is obvious: sooner or later a faction that says “enough is enough” will go to the government. See under Afghanistan, see under Vietnam, etc etc.
On the contrary, a democracy has a disproportionate sense of freedom and a very amplified sense of "people", and therefore more easily builds the means to resist an invader for a long time. And since defending oneself is easier than attacking, a democracy is usually the one that wins if attacked.
Based on this, European democracies are quite reluctant to wage wars of aggression, while the US says if you have enough ammunition you should do it and the Russians believe you should do it "if you have a plan".
In this sense, taking into account the different definitions of victory, this happens in Ukraina:
- Ukrainians risk their skin and destruction, so they stick to the classic definition. And they are winning because they have both the will and the means to keep fighting.
- The Americans point to the fact that they are providing firepower, so they believe they are winning by proxy.
- The Russians say everything is going according to plan, because the aim was to grow the funeral home industry.
The Ukrainians seem to fight following a doctrine that comes more from the classical school. the Kherson operation will enter the manuals like that time when the Ukrainians brought the Russians to fight in the place they wanted in Kiev and at the moment that the Kiev generals had prepared.
The Americans would like more firepower from the Europeans, and the Russians would like to be able to accomplish something.
I, who am a European, embrace the classical doctrine, and so far the Russians are taking them very well. And if they run out of resources for war, they risk defeat.