Ukraine - The Great War All Over Again
The more I read about the war in Ukraine, the more struck I am by the
similarities, both political and military with WW1.
There were many reasons why the Great War happened, one of the main
reasons was how a newly united and dynamic Germany, felt it wasn't being
treated as an equal by the other "Great" powers, especially Britain.
It felt, and the Kaiser felt, that Britain failed to give Germany the
respect its military triumphs and rapid industrialization deserved. After all,
its army was seen as the best, most efficient and well-led in Europe, its
economy was poised to overtake the UK's and domestically its population was
enjoying increasing wealth. It had also embarked on a programme of shipbuilding
with the intention of challenging the Royal Navy. As it turned out this was
probably a mistake, as it alarmed the UK government and pushed it into a closer
relationship with France and Russia.
Germany felt it deserved its place in the sun and was determined to
create a large overseas empire. At the same time, it was also determined to
develop its sphere of influence in central Europe, creating a trade alliance to
keep Britain out of Europe, and damaging its economy. With the intention of
developing this trade alliance further into an early prototype version of the
EU, a Mitteleuropa, under its control and 'protection'.
Not everything was rosy however, the political agreement put in place by
Bismarck following German unification was fracturing and under pressure to
reform and there was an increasing wealth gap between the richest and poorest.
And at the top of German society was the Kaiser, a weak, unpredictable
man, viewed with contempt by large sections of the ruling class.
He also happened to hate the UK, although he did love his grandmother
Queen Victoria. But he felt slighted by his British relatives and blamed his
British mother for the injury he experienced at birth to his arm which affected
him the whole of his life.
His relationship with his parents was never a good one.
There had been several crises in the run-up to the war. The Moroccan
crisis of 1905 was one of the most significant. Here the Kaiser, with his usual
bombast, fermented a dispute between France and Germany over French influence
in Morocco.
The intention was to force France into such a humiliating climbdown,
that war between the two countries would be inevitable. The Prussian military
believed it had only a narrow window of time before a rearming France and
Russia were strong enough to encircle Germany.
In addition, the German military was concerned at the speed of Russian
rearmament following their humiliation in the Japan - Russian war of 1904 to
1905 and was determined to bring the two countries to war whilst Germany still
had a clear military advantage.
Britain however had no intention of allowing their new Allie to be
treated this way and intervened.
The Kaiser backed down and Germany felt humiliated.
The German (in reality Prussian) military was determined never to allow
this to happen again and when war came the Kaiser effectively found himself
bypassed and forced into declaring war with no other option open to him.
Thereafter he became a peripheral figure during the war, wheeled out to
encourage the troops and fed propaganda about how the war was going, like the
rest of Germany. Losing was a major shock and cause for disbelief for many
Germans as right to the end, they were being told that they were winning.
So how is this anything like the Ukraine - Russian war of today.
Russia also felt humiliated and treated with disrespect by NATO and its
allies following the collapse of the USSR and the breakup of the Russian
empire.
Putin grew to hate the West, with this not being helped when Bush
invaded Iraq in the face of Russian objections.
Unfortunately, Russia found itself unable to do anything about it, such
was the state of its military. Putin was determined to recreate Russian
greatness, assert Russian control of the old Russian republics and humiliate
the West.
And to a large extent succeeded, through his invasion of Georgia, his
destruction of Chechnya and the humiliation of Obama and his disappearing red
lines in Syria.
The successful invasion of Crimea and the weak response of the Western
Governments seem to have convinced Putin that the West was finished and Russia
could do what it wanted.
Putin cultivated an image of a strong, determined hardman. A person not
to be trifled with.
What other similarities with 1914 are there? Both Russia and Germany
felt and feel they are not respected. Both felt the need to counter this by
'decisive' military action, although, in reality, the Kaiser was incapable of
decisive action of any sort and Putin has avoided direct confrontation with
Nato.
Both felt they had a right to their country commanding a 'sphere of
influence' where they could effectively act as they wished.
And both put their trust in a well-equipped military and new weapon
systems. Bayern class battleships (equivalent to the British Dreadnought class)
in Germany, and new tanks and 5th generation fighters, along with hypersonic
missiles by Russia.
Not to mention new, ferociously destructive nuclear weapons.
Both Russia and Germany were extremely confident in their invasion
plans, with each indulging in a significant gamble. With Germany, it was the
invasion of Belgium, and with Russia, it was the hope that the invasion would
be quick and the local population happy with the change of government, that
everything would be concluded before the West reacted.
Both gambles failed and blew up in the faces of the aggressor. Both the
Kaiser and Putin were being fed what they wanted to hear, not what they needed
to hear.
And this had an impact on decision making.
And just as the German Bayern class battleships ultimately had no impact
on the course of the war, Russian new wonder weapons have failed to impress,
with the nuclear threat effectively ignored.
So far at least it would appear Russians don't want Russia turned to
glass. Who'd have thought?
And the wars themselves? Both bogged down into an artillery battle, with
the soldiers hiding in well-dug and laid-out defensive positions, with any
gains made at a huge cost in human life.
Otherwise known as trench warfare.
And the parallels between Verdun and Bakhmut battle's are clear to see.
Two fights to the death in tactically unimportant locations, with the aim to
'bleed your opponent white'.
So men are being fed into the military meat grinder. Lives are being
lost and gains made are minimal. And all to suit the ambition of two, vain and
not-very-impressive men, who have allowed countless lives to be wasted because
of perceived imaginary slights.
Have we learnt nothing?
On the assumption of a Ukrainian victory, I hope at least we will have
learnt the lessons of 1918 and the cost of humiliating the defeated, which was
made painfully clear when the failings of Versailles were exposed by the
recommencement of military action in 1939.
If not, well the costs this time could be immeasurably greater.
So men are being fed into the military meat grinder. Lives are being lost and gains made are minimal. And all to suit the ambition of two, vain and not-very-impressive men, who have allowed countless lives to be wasted because of perceived imaginary slights.
ReplyDeleteAmen. Where are the peacemakers?
In March, Pope Francis said the war in Ukraine is driven by the interests of several "empires" and not just of Russia's. He said the conflict was fuelled by "imperial interests, not just of the Russian empire, but of empires from elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteThe Anglo-American alliance has an interest in Russia exhausting itself banging its head on Ukraine. China has an interest in the West depleting its resources by endlessly funnelling money and resources into Ukraine.
DeleteIn one of my occasions forays into reading Reddit, I was stunned to find general agreement among posters in the 'UK Tories' forum that weakening Russia by expending Ukrainian lives and not spilling any British blood was a 'great strategy' and a 'no brainier'.
Russia expending its blood and treasure on Ukraine is a mixed blessing for the west. Russia is a paranoid and inherently unstable country, regardless of who is in power. If you don’t kowtow to it, you're out to get them and they'll have to show you how strong they are by expanding. If you do kowtow, it means you're weak, which means they can expand. Either way, you'll have to confront them sooner or later. Callous as it sounds, it's better for the west that it happens in Ukraine.
ReplyDelete@ Bell
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the West provoked Russia a decade ago into a predictable response, and is now funding the Ukrainian military. This is now essentially a global proxy war and it is Ukrainians who are suffering and dying.
@HJ,
DeleteYes, it was all predictable; Putin repeatedly promised it and Peter Hitchens for one had been warning about western encroachment in that region forever. While one can salute the Ukrainians for defending their land with passion, they are surely being used as pawns here, and far too many are dying or being maimed.
As a Chrizza I for one won't be praying for any single person's demise. And who do people want to lead Russia anyway, the Valkyrie group?
Welcome back, Gadjo!
DeleteThanks a lot, Jack! Been very busy, finally got myself a piece of land to try a bit of Amish farming, as I have long been threatening to do. Hope everybody here is well.
DeleteGood reflection here:Can we pray for Putin’s death?
ReplyDeleteLast year Tish Harrison Warren, an Anglican cleric, was urging Christians to pray for Putin’s death.
"Now, I don’t think it’s a sin to pray the imprecatory psalms against Putin. If anyone deserves God’s curse, it’s the man responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians, wasting thousands more soldiers’ lives, and plunging two countries into turmoil while rocking the global economy on its heels. Putin is a bad man, and he’ll get his ... "
But ...
Remember what Jesus says about revenge ... This is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Jews were right to ask God to curse their enemies, but Christians are called to a higher form of combat. A good man might pray the imprecatory psalms against Putin; a perfect man would love him and pray for him. Which takes more courage? And which course should a member of the clergy be promoting? ...
The man whose mind is fixed firmly on the City of God loves his enemy and prays for his persecutor. He does so because he himself is the enemy, the persecutor, of God. His sins are the scourge that tear at Jesus’ back and nail Him to the Cross. Yet He forgives. More than that, He offers to make us perfect, like Himself. And being freed from sin we can say, with St. Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”
When Christ is alive in us, we love as He loves. And, hard as it is to believe, Jesus loves Putin. He died for Putin, just as surely as He died for you and me. He wants nothing more than for Putin to repent, confess his sins, and end this war. That’s what we should want, too.
The point is to put on the mind of God ...
One last note. I expect many of you are glad to see the clergy putting the fire and brimstone back into their teaching. So am I. It’s a nice break from the God we so often hear about, the Great Babysitter in the Sky who just wants us all to play nice and share our cookies.
"Yet the social-justice gospel and the death-to-Putin gospel both stem from the same error: La politique d’abord. They use religion as a means to worldly ends. They fail to recognize what Jacques Maritain called the primacy of the spiritual.
"Believe me, I get it. I don’t blame Ms. Warren or anyone else who wants Putin dead (except Lindsey Graham)". [He called for Putin's assassination] "But, again, for Christians, it’s not a question of what’s natural, or even acceptable. It’s a question of what’s going to get us into Heaven. The thoughts that appear in our unguarded minds don’t need to be splashed around the pages of Christianity Today—or Crisis, or Twitter, or Facebook, or anywhere else.
"That shows a serious lack of discipline. That’s our failure as Christian soldiers.
“Let no evil talk come out of your mouths,” wrote St. Paul, “but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.” That’s the golden rule of Christian journalism. And whatever truth there may be in Ms. Warren’s article, it falls short of that standard."
I'm reminded of the story of a letter that a woman wrote to Dean William Inge: 'Dear sir, I am writing to inform you that I pray every day for your death. My prayers have so far been unsuccessful'.
DeleteNow, I don’t think it’s a sin to pray the imprecatory psalms against Putin. If anyone deserves God’s curse...
This is a stupid argument, which barely deserves the time that the article's author spent refuting it. The imprecatory psalms aren't Holy Hand Grenades for individuals to lob at people they dislike. And anybody who thinks that someone deserves God's curse more than anyone else (more than them, for example) has missed the entire point of the Gospel.
The Jews were right to ask God to curse their enemies, but Christians are called to a higher form of combat.
Correct. The Old Testament must be understood in the light of Christ, not the other way around. What would Jesus do?
But [the Samaritans] did not receive Him ... And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” Lk. 9:53f.
...for Christians, it’s not a question of what’s natural, or even acceptable. It’s a question of what’s going to get us into Heaven.
Well, no. It's a question of what's going to make us grow in the love of Christ. We don't refrain from smite people because we hope that we'll be rewarded for it in the future.
@ Lain
DeleteFrom the tone and reasoning of the article, HJ doesn't believe the writer was suggesting "do this to get to heaven". Throughout he places emphasis on the spiritual dimension. As he says: "The man whose mind is fixed firmly on the City of God loves his enemy and prays for his persecutor. He does so because he himself is the enemy, the persecutor, of God," adding later, "When Christ is alive in us, we love as He loves," and "The point is to put on the mind of God."
In context, he's cautioning against unguarded expressions on social media of a desire for vengeance that distorts the Gospel and might harm our and other's spiritual progress.
Then he should be careful about unguarded expressions on social media suggesting that Christianity is a reward programme!
DeleteIncidentally, the original article to which he's responding is slightly more nuanced, but it's still horrible theology from an 'ordained' minister. In a major Christian magazine, too; hardly an unguarded comment on social media.
But this one sentence in his article, read in context, wasn't "unguarded". It's meaning was pretty clear to HJ.
DeleteYes, the original article was more "nuanced". That said, in HJ's opinion it was rambling and emotive .
... it was rambling and emotive.
DeleteThis is what passes for Anglican theology nowadays. The bishop of Worcester's open letter in favour of SSM was the same.
Well, when you cut yourself off from scripture and lose the facility to reason, that's what you're left with.
Delete@Clive, when you say “On the assumption of a Ukrainian victory,” what exactly do you understand by that term? Ukraine can’t defeat Russia in the sense that Germany was defeated in 1918 and again in 1945. Russia is too big. It’s by far the biggest country in the world, with a land area nearly 30 times the size of Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean just pushing the Russian troops out of Ukrainian territory, back to the other side of the border? That would be the equivalent, in 1918 or 1945 terms, of pushing the German troops out of France and Belgium and back across the border into Germany, without any Allied troops pursuing them any further. I don’t think that would have ranked as an Allied “victory”, would it?
Firstly I would like to say that my parallels between the two conflicts can't be pushed to far. At the moment at least the two conflicts differ massively in scale and let's hope, continue to do so
DeleteSaying all that, what would be seen as a victory in the current conflict also differs and pushing Russia out of Ukraine would undoubtedly be seen as a great Ukrainian victory.
The Great War ended remember, not by pursuing the German armies across the Rhine into Berlin, but by German exhaustion on the Battlefield and a home front that was on the verge of revolution.
I can very easily see a similar scenario happening in Ukraine.
The most likely outcome seems to be the internal collapse of Russia, or Putin more specifically, with the hope that somebody more reasonable will replace him. That's a massive gamble, and it's going to be an incredibly dangerous time if or when Putin goes down.
DeleteI haven't read a single article anywhere that suggests that Putin would be replaced by a more reasonable individual. Usually the opposite is believed.
DeleteThen we really are in trouble. All the fears about rogue states with nuclear weapons that followed the collapse of the USSR might ultimately be realised.
DeleteI find the lack of international peace efforts baffling, instead we have Sunak proudly boasting of committing billions more to chucking Russians and Ukrainians into the meat grinder, while grinning for photo ops in a flight suit with Zelensky. The whole thing is ghoulish.
@ Prof
DeleteHere’s a good assessment:
"While each conflict is unique and tends to defy history, a clear-cut defeat of either side in this war is unlikely, said experts. A more likely scenario is protracted fighting leaving both sides exhausted but unwilling to admit defeat, resulting in a frozen conflict or an eventual uneasy truce ...
"Putin and the Russian elite have harboured a deep sense of humiliation from the break-up of the Soviet Union. The years that followed were “dreadful for a lot of Russians”, said Macmillan. “The country looked weak, its economy was in chaos, there was resentment that the West didn’t do enough, didn’t offer a Marshall Plan, and condescended.”
"Maria Popova, associate professor of comparative politics at McGill University argued that Putin is motivated by a desire to restore Russia’s imperial prestige and correct perceived historical wrongs.
"The Russian ruling elite saw the Soviet Union’s collapse merely as a reconfiguration in which former Soviet countries would “continue to be together in some way”, Popova told Al Jazeera, whereas Ukraine saw it as an opportunity to be fully independent.
"For Ukraine, it was a “civilised divorce”, for Russia a “rewriting of vows”, said Popova. That difference in how the two nations saw the end of the Cold War is now playing out through blood and bullets ...
"For both sides, there is something existential at stake in this conflict, which makes it all the more intractable.
"Some observers have suggested that continued defeats on the battlefield might result in Putin’s downfall. After all, Russian defeats in the Crimean War in the 19th century, and losses to Japan and in Afghanistan in the 20th century, all catalysed profound domestic changes. A protracted and costly World War I helped usher in the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
"But to analysts, like Morris, the prospect of Putin being removed is extremely unlikely — and the chances that whoever replaces him will be less hawkish are even more remote. “There isn’t really any source of alternative power to coalesce around while Putin is healthy and alive,” said Morris.
"And that has direct consequences for the future of the war in Ukraine.
"“I don’t think this can end while Putin is in power,” said Slanchev. “Even if Ukrainians push the Russians to the borders, if he’s still in power I don’t think he will negotiate.”
"Prolonged, slow-burn conflicts have helped Russia establish breakaway, pro-Kremlin enclaves in Ukraine (the Donbas), Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), Moldova (Transnistria) and Azerbaijan (Artsakh).
"The current war is different, with Western support helping Ukraine regain large parts of the territory Russia grabbed in the early weeks after last year’s invasion.
Still, if Slanchev is right, the two sides face a forever war."
Thank you, Jack. I find that argument very convincing. A couple of brief comments.
DeleteA more likely scenario is protracted fighting leaving both sides exhausted but unwilling to admit defeat, resulting in a frozen conflict or an eventual uneasy truce.
That’s pretty much what I had in mind when I suggested earlier that a Ukrainian victory over Russia is inconceivable, in any meaningful sense of the word “victory”.
“There isn’t really any source of alternative power to coalesce around while Putin is healthy and alive,”
I would expect a Kremlin coup to ensure that Putin remains neither healthy nor alive. What country would offer him asylum? Nicaragua, maybe? I imagine Putin himself would rather be dead than face that humiliating prospect.
Still, if Slanchev is right, the two sides face a forever war.
DeleteSemi-relatedly (since this isn't really a war with only two belligerents), this article from The Guardian(!) is an interesting read - not specifically about Ukraine but about the global context that enables perpetual war.
How the US created a world of endless war.
Through the presidencies of Bush, Obama and Trump, the US could take strides to keep its wars humane. But it did so while entrenching its globalised militarism, as one anti-war candidate then another became an endless-war president. And now one more, alas, seems a prisoner of the script.
Barring assassination, Putin's internal position seems secure for the moment. In any event, his removal, one way or another, could spell even greater danger for European and world peace. It's more likely is Putin will now move to remove any threats and reassert his authority. Russian internal insecurity isn't necessarily a positive development as it makes him more unpredictable.
DeleteThe Russian comedian/commentator Konstantin Kisin made the point that Russian politics has one huge advantage over western democracies, and that's longevity. Whereas Western politicians are continually chasing trends to stay in power for four or five years and achieve very little, Putin has been prime minister and president since 2008. That's a long time to get rid of your enemies and consolidate your power base. He will be very hard to remove.
Delete雲水,
DeleteI find Konstantin Kisin well worth listening to on many issues, though he is an agnostic and may not fully take into account the wider issues regarding the war in Ukraine (I believe that his mother's family is from there, so, fair enough).
And I find that he tends to give a balanced persective of the Russian people: For example, that the brief experience of democracy in the 90s was absolutely chaotic and shattering, that Putin is a leader of only average appallingness by Russian standards, and more besides. I guess that they tend to do things differently over there, and we need to understand how that works.
Yes, he certainly brings a different perspective to the table, which is helpful in understand how Russia works. He's also been very good at translating Putin's addresses, which our media doesn't bring to us, which gives some insight into how Putin's mind works and his motivations for doing what he's doing. The media paints Putin as a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, whereas Putin believes (or at least, appears to believe) that he and Russia have genuine grievances to air. If those are ignored, they will surface again - perhaps even more violently - even if Putin is removed. One needs to understand one's opponent if there's to ever be any hope of peace, even if one doesn't agree with them.
DeleteHonestly I think any speculation regarding Putin's chances of survival, whether long or short are exactly that, speculation. To me he could be gone tomorrow or still be here in a year.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess, which is all anyone is doing, it'll be shorter rather than long.
He looks weak. He appeared indecisive. Frankly he appeared scared, hiding in a bunker.
Not a good look for an autocrat. However it's down to his backers to decide and they maybe no keener on the alternatives than we are.
I'm still not clear what the exit strategy is here. Ukraine cannot win this war in any meaningful sense without the kind of direct NATO intervention that's going to drag us all into WWIII. If Putin remains, he cannot back down. If he's replaced, it's unlikely that his successor will want the humiliation of retreat either, unless a third party can devise some way of doing so while saving face.
DeleteOn our current trajectory, it seems either that we have to wait for Russia to exhaust itself (by which time, there won't be much of Ukraine worth saving), or that a weakened and slighted Putin will flatten Ukraine, declare that a 'victory' (since it prevents Ukraine falling into western hands) and withdraw from the ruins.
In the meantime, we'll have tanked our economy, given away significant amounts of our money and resources and been left depleted, with an identity politics obsessed military so weakened that the head of the army has stepped down after his warnings that the UK is no longer a serious military player have gone unheeded. All in the face of a resurgent and increasingly hostile China, who stand to benefit enormously from this conflict.
I think a hard line, but clever replacement could actually leave Ukraine. Blame it on the bad planning of the previous regime and promise to reclaim the Ukraine when he has sorted out the issues aka China and Taiwan.
DeleteThen kick the can down the road and focus on other former Soviet republic's.
Russia said to be withdrawing personnel from the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant:
Deletehttps://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-reducing-personnel-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-ukrainian-intelligence-2023-06-30/
Three weeks after his first round of talks in Kyiv, Cardinal Zuppi spent three days in Moscow this week. He must have learned quite a lot about the events of last weekend and what they portend for the future.
Deletehttps://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/06/30/230630f.html
Russia has declared its openness to "negotiation" - providing Kyiv accepts the loss of the four provinces (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia). Ukraine wants all its occupied territories back, including Crimea, and insists that war crime trials be included in any diplomatic settlement as well as reparations for the destruction of their country.
ReplyDeleteNot much hope for peace in these stances.
Added to this both Russia and Ukraine are convinced they will eventually prevail: Russia because it can mobilise more troops, has more weaponry and can force Ukraine to succumb. Ukraine because of the nearly $32 billion in military assistance it has received since the invasion from the United States, £ 2.3 billion from the United Kingdom and € 3.6 billion from the European Union.
The 'mood' in the West at the moment seems to favour a fight to the finish - Russia’s defeat and expulsion from Ukrainian lands it has annexed, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. Negotiation and compromise is anathema, comparable to 1930s-style appeasement. In addition, some believe Russia’s defeat will lead to Putin’s demise and even the collapse of the Russian state.
All in all, things don't look too good.
It's nice that the West has suddenly started caring about Crimea, only nine years after the fact. Russia will never agree to that, it's far too humiliating. The collapse of the Russian state would be a nightmare for Europe.
DeleteThe removal of Putin and/or the collapse of the Russian State could be a nightmare. There's the possibility there would be prolonged, violent upheaval in a country with thousands of nuclear weapons. The potential resulting chaos and mayhem is unthinkable.
DeleteThe Guardian:
"Another strongman could take over and continue the war in Ukraine. Studies suggest that only 20% of personality-based autocracies become democracies. Putin could be replaced by someone from his inner circle who is even more ruthless – Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of Russia’s security council, may be one candidate.
Putin has managed to keep the Russian elite together, but if he left they could turn on one another. And Russia’s security services, the siloviki, could seize the opportunity to settle scores – sometimes violently."
Yes, it all hinges on whether Putin is ousted because his war is damaging Russia and it's time to find a peace settlement, or because it's taking too long and he should have used the nukes by now.
Delete