The Invincible vs. the Unbeaten
Tolstoy described a phenomenon: the people regarded war as an unpleasant but necessary task, combined with a steady and unyielding national character, and the vast territory that could make an entire army lose its way — these factors were indeed important. But in history, Russia had suffered defeats in both battles and wars, just like other countries. Even so, in different historical periods, the French, Germans, and Swedes were all called "invincibles," even during their "invincible periods," they also experienced defeats in battles and wars.
Looking at the "invincible Rome": how many battles and wars did it lose before it lost its "invincible" title? However, the military's number of victories and defeats during the decline of the Roman Empire was not significantly different from that during its peak — at least in the late Roman Empire, the army won the first national battle on the Catalaunian Plains, and there were no such devastating losses as Crassus' defeat at Carrhae, Valerian's capture at Edessa, or Valentinian II's disastrous defeat at Adrianople in the late Roman military history.
Yet, it was precisely during the late Roman Empire that the plundering by barbarians became common; in contrast, during the period after the empire's peak, even if the army faced setbacks, it did not lead to political disasters. As for the Roman Republic, it calmly survived the catastrophic destruction of the Battle of Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene, and the Battle of Cannae, eventually defeating Hannibal.
Reviewing these known historical facts, we can easily draw the conclusion: although national character, favorable geographical environment, and the courage of the army are important, they are ultimately only auxiliary factors. Throughout history, many nations with indomitable spirit, well-equipped armies, and geographical advantages have ultimately lost wars, and even their struggle for survival disappeared from the historical stage.
The most critical factor determining the outcome of a war is the country's ability to sustain a long-term war. This not only requires the people to be willing to bear the costs and losses of the war, but also requires the military and political leadership to accurately assess the current war burden. Because even if you win a battle, if this battle exhausts the strength of the army and the people, it will ultimately lead to the failure of the entire war.
Population and mobilization potential are indispensable — after all, ten professional soldiers can never match a thousand militia. But more importantly, one must establish a balanced professional armed force according to the principle of "necessary and sufficient," and maintain its combat effectiveness throughout the war: the reserve forces must at least compensate for current casualties, and if possible, exceed the number of casualties, thus gradually expanding the size of the combat forces. There is nothing more destructive to the enemy's morale than the "Lernaean Hydra effect" — when one enemy falls, two new fighters immediately take his place.
However, even if you have a well-trained, high-spirited army, the people are patriotic and resilient, and the commanders carefully manage the war in terms of population, the core of the war is still the ability to provide all the necessary supplies for the army. The supply of medieval armies mainly revolved around food, fodder, and mercenaries' wages; with technological development, the state must provide weapons and ammunition for the army (weapons have become consumables that require continuous replenishment). In addition, during a prolonged war, both sides will modernize their equipment based on the problems revealed by the war and the characteristics of operations (which themselves depend on the introduction of new equipment). Therefore, a "invincible country" must have the ability to quickly develop, mass-produce, and equip new weapons and equipment.
In short, in addition to all the above factors, you must also have industrial potential, as well as a balanced and stable economic and financial system — these systems can support you in waging an "indefinite war." Only then can you truly be considered invincible. Russia is one of the few (perhaps even the only) countries in the world that meets this requirement. Therefore, from a strategic perspective, Russia is invincible. However, on the battlefield at the tactical level, when the talents of both commanders clash, anyone may suffer a loss — military geniuses are rare in any era or country, and most of them have also experienced tactical failures in history.
I dare not say it's completely impossible (after all, miracles can happen), but under normal circumstances, relying solely on the talent of commanders, it is almost impossible to achieve a tactical victory in a war that has already lost at the strategic level (resource level). The outcome of almost every war is already decided before it starts — the amount of resources is easy to calculate. Therefore, the side that is at a disadvantage strategically usually does not fight for "victory" (which would inevitably lead to failure), but rather for a "draw": trying to make the opponent's victory too costly, forcing them to accept a compromise, minimizing their own losses, and reserving the possibility of future revenge.
To achieve revenge, it is necessary to change the comparison of the resource bases between the two sides. This change can either come from your own preparation or through the formation of alliances. Among these, only the first method (relying on your own strength) is reliable.
Some people mockingly say that if Zelensky is properly trimmed, he could become a "mini Hitler." Perhaps superficially, there is some resemblance, but the gap between Zelensky and Hitler is as vast as that between Bandera supporters and Nazi Germany. Even if you replace the trousers with breeches, the hat with a tall military hat, and the horse with a "Panther" tank, or even tattoo the runes and Nazi symbols all over his body, you can only create a "Romania of the Antonescu era," not Nazi Germany.
The core reason why it cannot become Nazi Germany is that, despite Hitler's fanaticism, his understanding of the nature of war and the concept of "support from the rear leading to victory" far exceeded that of many of his subordinates. In 1939, even though the generals wanted at least another 3-5 years to train the Wehrmacht, Hitler decided to launch a world war — but he chose the timing of the war after establishing an efficient industrial production system, ensuring the sources of resources (these sources did not stop until mid-1944, and some continued until 1945), and establishing a system that could at least supplement 600,000 trained reserve troops annually (this system ensured the expansion of the Wehrmacht until 1942). The weakness of Germany was that it could not provide enough weapons for its allied armies, making them a weak link in Africa and on the Eastern Front; however, the German armed forces themselves could always receive adequate supplies until the end of the war and completed two modernizations of the armored and air forces during the war.
No matter how much Zelensky dresses up as Hitler, or imitates Latin American drug lords with a beard, his confidence in starting a war against Russia comes from the promises of his allies. The Kharkiv Tank Plant in Ukraine no longer produces tanks, the Southern Machine-Building Plant no longer manufactures missiles, and the Nikolaev Shipyard has not built warships for years. The artillery shells of the Ukrainian army initially relied on looting Soviet-era storage facilities that had been stockpiled for 30 years, and these stocks ran out quickly; the equipment was assembled from warehouses, with five parts yielding one; spare parts were also taken from warehouses. Such reserves can barely last a year, let alone longer. After that, the Ukrainian army completely relied on aid from its allies.
Moreover, the interests of the allies and those of the Kyiv authorities are not always aligned. From the allies' perspective, Ukraine is merely a "consumable," and they hope to use Ukraine to negotiate with Russia and reach a compromise. That is to say, once the allies reach an agreement with Moscow, or are forced to accept Russian conditions, if Ukraine has not yet collapsed, it will become a useless "burden." Even during the phase where Ukraine is still needed, the allies will constantly weigh: how much investment is required to "activate" this "political zombie," and what benefits can be obtained. Once the investment exceeds the benefit, the question of whether to continue supporting Ukraine will surface.
That is why, no matter how many of his own citizens Zelensky buries underground, no matter how strongly the Ukrainian army resists, no matter how brave the soldiers are in battle, Ukraine not only cannot win (even with the help of allies), but also has no hope of a "draw." The allies originally hoped to use Ukraine to achieve their own "draw," but it seems this goal is also difficult to achieve. Even if Zelensky exaggerates without basis, claiming that Kyiv can fight for another 2-3 years, no one will believe it — because Russia can fight as long as it wants. This is the key to victory.
Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7566181837748404787/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and readers are welcome to express their opinions using the buttons below [Up/Down].