Why You Shouldn’t Be Surprised by Ukraine’s Success

The Ukrainians have shown the value of sticking to one’s principles.

By
88

“Nobody knows anything,” William Goldman, the legendary screenwriter said. “Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.”

I’m starting to think the same thing is true of foreign policy. Culminating over the weekend, the Ukrainian military has achieved some remarkable victories over their Russian invaders in the northeast of Ukraine. The scope and speed of the victories seem to have surprised everyone, starting with the Russians, who abandoned vast amounts of materiel as they fled in panic—or as the Russians put it, “regrouped.” It’s the most significant Ukrainian victory since they thwarted Russia’s assault on Kyiv in March.

Except for Russia and its fan club, everyone—markets, politicians and media alike—was pleasantly surprised by Ukraine’s success.

Surprise seems to be an overarching theme in foreign policy these days. After all, many of the same people were surprised by Vladimir Putin’s invasion in the first place. They were shocked again by Ukraine’s success in thwarting Putin’s plan for a quick, surgical, decapitate-and-conquer “special military operation.” The White House (and probably the Kremlin, too) was stunned when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy refused to flee—sorry “regroup”—reportedly telling American officials: “The fight is here. I need ammunition, not a ride.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
88
By
Comments (88)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Surprise seems the dominant theme in much of what happens in the world.

    Collapse
  2. Tom Doniphon

    The Ukrainians are making it clear they don't intend to surrender any part of their country or their independence to Russia. I'm glad to see it; if we can just get them into NATO it will be the end of any real threat from Russia to Europe.

    And it will send a signal to China that any invasion of Taiwan will be resisted, and resisted effectively.

    Collapse
  3. Paul Kempf

    Iraq did have WMD's, though not nukes. When troops uncovered chemical weapons, Karl Rove persuaded Bush that it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. But he was wrong; the absence of WMDs were part of a narrative that persists as conventional wisdom. (Daily Beast broke the story, and Rove wrote about a mea culpa column about it in the WSJ. Both are paywalled; here's the Daily Beast link.)
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/insiders-blame-rove-for-covering-up-iraqs-real-wmd

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bel Aves

    Ever since the Berlin wall fell, the term foreign policy is in itself incorrect. There is little actual policy. America First, embraced by both sides for different reasons, means little actual policy is done. Aside from the war on terror what long term foreign policy strategy has been implemented and worked over? The pivot to Asia? Russian containment? China has belt and road and we have ... bupkis. It is easy to be surprised when you are simply not paying attention.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    John D. Wright

    I still think that tyranny cannot survive contact with freedom. I think it does take time and every time China shuts things down or goes into extreme mode it is to fight off the influences of democracy. Each time they do that though they are setting their own nation back so it's a win win. We will guide them along to democracy or they will fail as a nation to compete with us.

    Collapse
  6. GregS

    " 'Nobody knows anything... Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.'
    I’m starting to think the same thing is true of foreign policy.
    ...
    Clear principles—and credibility that we will act on them—is the best deterrence and the author of all worthwhile strategy. "

    Don't you find it amusing that you wrote an entire column about how the experts get things wrong and how hard it is to know anything, and concluded with a flat assertion that you have discovered the best deterrence and strategy known to man?
    I actually agree with you, but I'm thinking that your assertion that clear principles are the best strategy is... a guess. And if you and I are lucky, an educated one.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    I think it's possible to categorize these surprises into 2 groups.
    First, there's the surprises where we made the mistake of believing what somebody else was trying to persuade us to believe. Saddam Hussein had ended his WMD programs when faced with the threat of confrontation with the West, but still wanted to maintain some ambiguity about it to bolster his geopolitical standing in the Gulf. Unfortunately, that provided enough justification for an invasion that deposed him. The Afghan government wanted its NATO partners to believe that it was a stable country, not just a construct propped up by Western aid and force of arms. Oops. Putin's Russia had engaged in sabre-rattling and made a show of military build-up to bolster its standing, and the West took him seriously enough that they felt Ukraine was outmatched by a competently-led, well-trained, and properly equipped Russian military.
    Second, there's the surprises that resulted from not paying attention to the warning signs because it implied an unpalatable reality. Al Qaeda had been increasingly active over the decade preceding 9/11, but the US never truly took it seriously and imagined an attack on US soil was crossing some redline, notwithstanding the 1993 WTC bombing. Obama simply could not believe that China and Russia would engage in aggressive activities when it didn't comport with his own assessment of the benefits of a post-Cold War order based on international law, trade, and increased integration. Several different levels of governments neglected and discarded what little preparation had been put in place for a future pandemic after the SARS epidemic because they thought the era of pandemics was over with modern Western public health systems.

    Collapse
    1. Tom Doniphon

      To be accurate, Iraq did have current WMD programs; they had chemical weapons that were stolen and used in some IEDs.

      Collapse
  8. Duane Truitt

    There were plenty of bona fide experts who knew, without a doubt, that Russia's invasion of Ukraine would fail. But they were not listened by by the yakking class.

    One prime example: Retired General David Petraeus commented in an interview on CNN the week the invasion began the following: "Russia does not have the forces to conquer Ukraine. Russia does not even have the forces to conquer and hold even one major Ukrainian city".

    He was 100% correct, based upon his professsional evaluation of the readiness and strength of Russian forces.

    Now, Gen Petraeus did not know just how badly the Rooskies would perform once engaged in warfare, but he is an expert on military history including invasions. Virtually every expert in that area of military history and science knows that a successful land invasion, wherein the invaders not only win but preserve most of their own forces from casualties, must have an overmatch in forces, assuming all other factors are equal, of at least 3:1 Our own US military history in WW Two showed that when we or our allies attacked with less than that much overmatch, the affair was extremely bloody for our own forces if not an outright failure.

    Yet Russian total military forces across the entire nation - the world's largest land mass with by far the longest borders to defend - was only about 850 thousand members, of which fewer than 200 thousand were combat ready, and Russia could not afford to put all 200 thousand into the Ukrainian invasion lest they suffer attacks on their other borders, and maintain control of their own dictatorship.

    In truth, Russian forces at the outset of the Ukraine invasion numbered only 150 thousand, of which at most 100 thousand were actual combat troops and not troops engaged in logistics and other support functions. There was no defense of the "motherland" involved, so morale would be questionable at best. The Ukrainians, on the other hand, had approx. 200 thousand combat troops immediately available, all of them located, or quickly relocated, to the Russian/Belarus invasion boundary, all extremely motivated to defend themselves, and experienced from 8 years of low level border fights with the Little Green Men and their local Russian militias in Donbas. Within a few months the Ukrainians boosted their forces on the battle lines to nearly three quarters of a million, while Russia's minimal initial forces had been cut in half by battle casualties and mass desertions. Their replacements were mostly foreigners and mercenaries, also of questionable morale and training.

    The bottom line is that what actually happened was no surprise to any actual American or NATO military experts - which is why NATO jumped in with both feet to fully support the Ukrainians, which we never would have done if we thought that the Ukrainians were all goners, a lost cause, as so many in the media and other civilians seemed to believe.

    Russia may be a far larger country than Ukraine, in population and in area, but Russia has been a "Potemkin village" of military preparedness ever since the end of the Cold War, and all of Putin's much ballyhooed military investments were all for show - with a big media emphasis on big scary weapons, o my! - but he and his military leaders neglected the basis of building and maintaining an effective fighting force.

    Which is what happens when you lead a third world country that is basically a thoroughly corrupted kleptrocracy and militarily and economically a gas station with nukes and not much else.

    Collapse
    1. Tom Doniphon

      One thing to remember is that a lot of post-Soviet Russia's military reputation was built on their wars in Chechnya and Georgia - countries of 1 million and 3 million people, respectively. Now they're invading Ukraine, a country of 40 million. It would be like if we thought our invasion of Grenada meant we could conquer Mexico in a week.

      Collapse
      1. Duane Truitt

        Very true. Which is why I found it curious that the vast majority of analysts and writers in American media assumed that Russia would take all of Ukraine in just a couple of days. I always knew that not only that Russia couldn’t whip Ukraine easily but that they couldn’t do so at all.

        The guy I paid attention to was Gen David Petraeus, who gave an interview on CNN just a couple days after Putin launched his war. Petraeus said,

        “Not only is it that Russia cannot conquer and hold all of Ukraine, they do not even have the forces to take and hold even one major Ukrainian city.”

        He was of course 100% correct, but nobody listened to him, and were shocked to see Ukraine survive.

        Russia is just a gas station with nukes, completely hollowed out by the self serving kleptocrats who believe in nothing but thievery and personal power.

        Collapse
        1. Tom Doniphon

          I agree. I think a lot of the idea that Ukraine would fall was based on their poor performance (and small military) in the 2014 invasion, but they've drastically grown their military since then, have made sure they have a lot of guys with some combat experience by rotating new soldiers into combat in the east, and have undertaken serious reforms - producing their current successes.

          Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I suspect RatPutin fell for an old blunder (no, not never go against a Sicilian with death on the line!), in that he assumed Crimea was representative of all of Ukraine. There is a large cohort of pro-Russian people living in Crimea, especially near Sebastopol. In my time there I found a) pro-Ukraine Crimeans, b) pro-Russian Crimeans, c) Crimeans who wanted independence, d) Tatars, who wanted to be left alone. One can reasonably argue that those living in Crimea (which at the time was part of Ukraine) didn't know what they wanted.

    But there are also many places in Ukraine where Russians are not welcome.

    Collapse
    1. Natty Bumpo

      I think he actually fell victim to the first classic blunder: 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

      Ukraine is in Europe, not Asia, but uncomfortably close to the Volga-Don, which was classically an element of the Europe-Asia boundary.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    Indeed! As some writer I follow, I forget his name, has often said, "Character is destiny."

    Collapse
Load More