Thanks for this — but I don't buy the idea that Poland was as well placed against the Germans as Ukraine was against Russia today. Throughout WWII the Germans did twice as much damage to their opponents than was done to them in pretty much every land battle they fought. They were a ferocious and phenomenally effective enemy in battle with a brand new strategy — blitzkrieg. The Russians in 2022 — not so much.
I agree with that. There are many similarities between Germany 1939 and Russia 2022 but one of the most glaring differences is that Germany surprised everyone with how good they were at warfare while Russia has surprised everyone with how lacklustre they are.
This was challenging, educational and informative to read, thanks! It definitely made me appreciate the last two years differently. I look forward to your posts, keep them coming.
You have to be patient - Anders doesn't churn out posts. But if you haven't seen them, he has many other good ones worth reading under the History tab: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/t/history
> In February 2022 most observers, myself included, believed Ukraine would fall relatively quickly.
Really? I remember thinking early on that it was completely nuts, couldn't be anything better than a Pyrric victory, and would probably end in a few months when Putin realized he was seriously fighting the entire Western world.
> The upside here is that no one has used nuclear weapons in Ukraine (yet)
I doubt that was ever on the table - you don't usually nuke territory you want to reclaim. Putin was threatening to nuke everybody else.
> This was the infamous Munich Agreement.
Well, not that famous; I'd never heard of it.
> Even if the Russians eke out a win in the end they will be weaker at the war's end than at its start. Not only does this limit Russia's abilities to invade other countries, it also serves as a signal to other potential aggressors to think twice before they act. This is undoubtedly a win for the international community.
This is a very well argued point, and the conclusion to an impressive post!
Reading this to my wife, however, Mrs. Apple Pie pointed out that the basic fact remains: Victory is still victory. If Putin manages to grab eastern Ukraine, he will have shown that Russia gets what it wants without concern for the consequences. Ukraine's allies don't care about what happened to Russia because they aren't Russia; they experience having poured resources into a losing war. The next time Russia tries to force its own will on the world, will the world have the will to resist?
>>Reading this to my wife, however, Mrs. Apple Pie pointed out that the basic fact remains: Victory is still victory. If Putin manages to grab eastern Ukraine, he will have shown that Russia gets what it wants without concern for the consequences. Ukraine's allies don't care about what happened to Russia because they aren't Russia; they experience having poured resources into a losing war. The next time Russia tries to force its own will on the world, will the world have the will to resist?
When I first read this post, I said that it is worth maintaining a blog with posts on philosophy and gender relations just to be able to once in a while publish important articles like this one.
I think this should be said much more often: The point is not winning over Russia straight away. It would have been nice, but it is difficult to win over a very big country in mass psychosis mode. The point is to cut the losses. When a big country goes into a mode of aggressive mass psychosis, the rest of the world will inevitably lose something.
The question is whether it is possible to be this psychological in the broader public sphere, or if that takes away the point of it. The ingenuity of the current strategy is that the aggressor, Russia, can never pin-point when the West really strikes back, so it never gets that right moment to retaliate. If people started to say publicly that we are wearing the Russians down, maybe that would have been too openly provocative to be optimally effective.
> When I first read this post, I said that it is worth maintaining a blog with posts on philosophy and gender relations just to be able to once in a while publish important articles like this one.
Well... Yeah, but Anders should still write more posts, even if half of them are crazy ideas about Daylight Savings Time.
> The point is not winning over Russia straight away... The ingenuity of the current strategy is that the aggressor, Russia, can never pin-point when the West really strikes back, so it never gets that right moment to retaliate.
Of course; Russia didn't back down straight away. I agree with Anders' analysis that this was all deftly handled by Russia's opponents, and further I agree with what you're implying, that this is the way neutral nations should always respond to war. It's very useful to have a playbook that might help to maintain peace for some time in the future.
I'm just pointing out that, after all of this, Russia may still win, and victory is still victory.
>>I'm just pointing out that, after all of this, Russia may still win, and victory is still victory.
Sadly, you are right. Russia might see its gains of territory in Ukraine as a victory and do more of the same here and there, for many years to come. There are no genuinely good alternatives in this situation.
If the war ends with some sort of peace along the current frontline that will undoubtedly be painted as a great win by Vladimir Putin. But it will, de facto, not be a win since Russia will be weaker, militarily and economically, than it was before the invasion. With the end of hostilities people will also start asking questions. Questions that are currently not possible to ask in Russia. Was it worth it? Putin might have saved his presidency, but he will not have saved Russia.
Defeatism in the West is a whole different story. It might well play out as you describe it, that the Western public perceive any Russian win, no matter how Pyrrhic, as an existential loss. Something that might lead to defeatism and torpor. This is a real risk and I wrote this post at least in part to counter such a development.
Since the end of WWII, the western powers generally let America take the lead. But America's position is gradually weakening, and much may depend on how power is reshuffled across the world. For a while I was thinking that China or Russia would take the lead, but in the aftermath of the Ukraine war, and the clumsy governance of Xi Jinping, I'm not so sure. Do you have any opinion about this?
That can't be possible, since the article above defends the status quo and say that Western governments have handled the Ukraine war the best way possible. If many, or most, citizens of Western democracies didn't agree, the policy would be another.
Verbiage and garbage all in one post. You think the citizenry of Europe having had their cheap energy destroyed and implementation of fascist diktat including medical experimentation on a mass scale support the Western governments? Delusional. Where are you living? In your own head?
Btw, my last comment sounded mean — I really liked the post — just one nit pick.
Thanks for this — but I don't buy the idea that Poland was as well placed against the Germans as Ukraine was against Russia today. Throughout WWII the Germans did twice as much damage to their opponents than was done to them in pretty much every land battle they fought. They were a ferocious and phenomenally effective enemy in battle with a brand new strategy — blitzkrieg. The Russians in 2022 — not so much.
I agree with that. There are many similarities between Germany 1939 and Russia 2022 but one of the most glaring differences is that Germany surprised everyone with how good they were at warfare while Russia has surprised everyone with how lacklustre they are.
This was challenging, educational and informative to read, thanks! It definitely made me appreciate the last two years differently. I look forward to your posts, keep them coming.
You have to be patient - Anders doesn't churn out posts. But if you haven't seen them, he has many other good ones worth reading under the History tab: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/t/history
> In February 2022 most observers, myself included, believed Ukraine would fall relatively quickly.
Really? I remember thinking early on that it was completely nuts, couldn't be anything better than a Pyrric victory, and would probably end in a few months when Putin realized he was seriously fighting the entire Western world.
> The upside here is that no one has used nuclear weapons in Ukraine (yet)
I doubt that was ever on the table - you don't usually nuke territory you want to reclaim. Putin was threatening to nuke everybody else.
> This was the infamous Munich Agreement.
Well, not that famous; I'd never heard of it.
> Even if the Russians eke out a win in the end they will be weaker at the war's end than at its start. Not only does this limit Russia's abilities to invade other countries, it also serves as a signal to other potential aggressors to think twice before they act. This is undoubtedly a win for the international community.
This is a very well argued point, and the conclusion to an impressive post!
Reading this to my wife, however, Mrs. Apple Pie pointed out that the basic fact remains: Victory is still victory. If Putin manages to grab eastern Ukraine, he will have shown that Russia gets what it wants without concern for the consequences. Ukraine's allies don't care about what happened to Russia because they aren't Russia; they experience having poured resources into a losing war. The next time Russia tries to force its own will on the world, will the world have the will to resist?
>>Reading this to my wife, however, Mrs. Apple Pie pointed out that the basic fact remains: Victory is still victory. If Putin manages to grab eastern Ukraine, he will have shown that Russia gets what it wants without concern for the consequences. Ukraine's allies don't care about what happened to Russia because they aren't Russia; they experience having poured resources into a losing war. The next time Russia tries to force its own will on the world, will the world have the will to resist?
When I first read this post, I said that it is worth maintaining a blog with posts on philosophy and gender relations just to be able to once in a while publish important articles like this one.
I think this should be said much more often: The point is not winning over Russia straight away. It would have been nice, but it is difficult to win over a very big country in mass psychosis mode. The point is to cut the losses. When a big country goes into a mode of aggressive mass psychosis, the rest of the world will inevitably lose something.
The question is whether it is possible to be this psychological in the broader public sphere, or if that takes away the point of it. The ingenuity of the current strategy is that the aggressor, Russia, can never pin-point when the West really strikes back, so it never gets that right moment to retaliate. If people started to say publicly that we are wearing the Russians down, maybe that would have been too openly provocative to be optimally effective.
> When I first read this post, I said that it is worth maintaining a blog with posts on philosophy and gender relations just to be able to once in a while publish important articles like this one.
Well... Yeah, but Anders should still write more posts, even if half of them are crazy ideas about Daylight Savings Time.
> The point is not winning over Russia straight away... The ingenuity of the current strategy is that the aggressor, Russia, can never pin-point when the West really strikes back, so it never gets that right moment to retaliate.
Of course; Russia didn't back down straight away. I agree with Anders' analysis that this was all deftly handled by Russia's opponents, and further I agree with what you're implying, that this is the way neutral nations should always respond to war. It's very useful to have a playbook that might help to maintain peace for some time in the future.
I'm just pointing out that, after all of this, Russia may still win, and victory is still victory.
>>I'm just pointing out that, after all of this, Russia may still win, and victory is still victory.
Sadly, you are right. Russia might see its gains of territory in Ukraine as a victory and do more of the same here and there, for many years to come. There are no genuinely good alternatives in this situation.
If the war ends with some sort of peace along the current frontline that will undoubtedly be painted as a great win by Vladimir Putin. But it will, de facto, not be a win since Russia will be weaker, militarily and economically, than it was before the invasion. With the end of hostilities people will also start asking questions. Questions that are currently not possible to ask in Russia. Was it worth it? Putin might have saved his presidency, but he will not have saved Russia.
Defeatism in the West is a whole different story. It might well play out as you describe it, that the Western public perceive any Russian win, no matter how Pyrrhic, as an existential loss. Something that might lead to defeatism and torpor. This is a real risk and I wrote this post at least in part to counter such a development.
Since the end of WWII, the western powers generally let America take the lead. But America's position is gradually weakening, and much may depend on how power is reshuffled across the world. For a while I was thinking that China or Russia would take the lead, but in the aftermath of the Ukraine war, and the clumsy governance of Xi Jinping, I'm not so sure. Do you have any opinion about this?
"Why did the Soviets not invade Poland already in August, when the pact with Germany was signed?"
Because the soviets were fighting an undeclared war with Japan on the Mongolia-Manchukuo border.
Hahaha...
This is satire, right?
Why do you think so? Are you of another opinion?
I along with 99% of the rest of the world...
That can't be possible, since the article above defends the status quo and say that Western governments have handled the Ukraine war the best way possible. If many, or most, citizens of Western democracies didn't agree, the policy would be another.
Verbiage and garbage all in one post. You think the citizenry of Europe having had their cheap energy destroyed and implementation of fascist diktat including medical experimentation on a mass scale support the Western governments? Delusional. Where are you living? In your own head?
Then I get it.