Lawrence Freedman
Ukraine’s invasion of Russia provides a salutary lesson for pundits, including me. However diligent we are in trying to follow events, and however good we may be in explaining what has already happened and drawing conclusions for the future, our appreciation of a developing situation is unavoidably circumscribed. We tend to respond to disruptive moves such as this in ways that reflect our established views.
Those convinced that Ukraine can turn the tide of war see the attack on Kursk as an exciting indication that at last this may be happening; those who believe that Russia is bound to prevail insist that this is a monumental blunder that will hasten Ukraine’s inevitable defeat. The positive can note the boost to Ukrainian morale and compare favourably the amount of Russian territory acquired by Ukraine in a matter of days with the amount of Ukrainian territory captured by Russia at huge cost over months. The negative warn about the vulnerability of the soldiers now in exposed positions in Kursk while those defending tenuous positions in Donetsk are denied desperately needed reinforcements.
After two and a half years of war we should all be wary by now of coming to quick judgements. This is not because we dare not comment until this operation has run its course. There are still things that are worth noting about what has already happened. It is more the need to respect the dialectics of war, the duel between two opposing sides, so that ends shift according to available means. In long-standing and intense conflicts, such as that between Russia and Ukraine, particular moves are rarely decisive.
No comments:
Post a Comment