Winning without Territory: Russia's Focus on Destroying the Enemy Army

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by kazenatsu, May 4, 2023.

  1. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Jan 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    You wrote a lot of extraneous bs just to agree with me at the end. Yes, there are more variables than just the ratio of attackers to defenders, and yes, the 3:1 depends on having a prepared, dug in defensive force, but with the exception of true surprise ambushes, that is the situation most of the time. This is Basic Training 101, and over the years I have discovered that despite the hardships involved, basic training works, and sticks. 25+ years later, I still know the magic 3:1 ratio, I still know that a successful squad or platoon sized attack against a dug in machine gun nest is considered successful if you lost 'only' half your force. Of course, advanced weapon systems can change that, too. If you are a squad sized element facing the necessity to take one of those out and have air support and the ability to laser designate the target (or even give accurate GPS coordinates), then you'll probably manage to take it out with zero losses, but that's not always available, and as a leader, you can never assume it will be, especially when training for worst case scenarios.

    It's not all that different from an airline pilot going through his 6-month simulator refresh... In most circumstances, they'll face more emergencies during those sessions that take a few hours than they will in the real world throughout an entire career.

    Still, Russia probably can't 'win' this war, because a true, original goalpost definition of winning is the overtaking and annexation of the entire country of Ukraine, which at this point is not in the cards. From what I've heard, even Putin himself is starting to see the light, and is prepping 'his' press to set expectations a little less ambitious. I would love to see them pushed all the way back to the original border, including Crimea, which would amount to a TOTAL Ukrainian victory that I think is still quite possible... probable, even. But even if they call a cease-fire/armistice where the front lines currently are, that's still a win for Zelensky and his country. A TOTAL win is greatly preferred, but just the status quo at this point is still a win, even if that's as good as it gets.

    The days of allowing bully evil countries (and evil leaders) to just steamroll and take over their neighbors just because is over, and cannot be allowed.

    Once upon a time, using violence to gain territory was not just considered acceptable, it was essentially how things worked. But those days are over, and have been for decades now. As the sole superpower on the globe, we have to stand up to bullies, just like having a big, muscular dude in your school class that beat up all the bullies make high school a much more pleasant experience.
    Mushroom likes this.
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Jul 13, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    To be honest, I can't see even an armistice in place anymore. To be honest, the only resolution that I would be willing to accept would be a return to the 1997 borders as established in the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, along with a DMZ to be monitored by an International force (not unlike that between North and South Korea).

    Russia have shown that they are not to be trusted as a neighbor, and they need to realize their behavior is not acceptable.
    DentalFloss likes this.

Share This Page