Bleeding Ukraine white
Tambov, Petliura, the Chechens, the Forest Brothers, the Polish Home Army, the OUN—and on and on. All crushed. Insurgency is an illusory policy option.
Today in the Cosmopolitan Globalist
By Joshua Treviño
THE DEFENSIVE-WAR PLAN for Ukraine against a Russian invasion, such as it is, seems pretty straightforward: resist until you can’t, and then descend into guerrilla war. Western powers seem reasonably interested in supporting both phases—the battlefield combat and the insurgency—but it is not at all clear that anyone has thought through the prospects of success.
Insurgency possesses an appeal in the West as a sort of magic bullet in warfare, mostly because we believe, in the land of D.C.-commentariat groupthink, that insurgencies have beat us time and again. But they mostly haven’t. The insurgencies in Vietnam and Iraq actually failed versus the United States, which is why the former war wrapped up with a full-on conventional PAVN invasion, and the latter sees the Iraqi state still in existence. Going back further in time, American contentions with insurgencies including the Hukbalahaps, the pre-1950 South Korean uprisings, the original Sandinistas, the American Indian campaigns, and beyond, were almost uniformly successful. …