Why And How The U.S. Never "Wins" Her Wars: A Review Of Jacques Baud's 'The Russian Art Of War: How The West Led Ukraine To Defeat'

"Western Generals have very little idea of how to fight wars and no idea at all of how Russia fights wars." Essay By Manorborn

While Zelensky begs for more artillery shells, the shells Ukraine already does possess are being used to target – not Russian battalions on the eastern front – but civilian buildings like schools, libraries and hospitals in Russian cities like Belgorod which are far from the front lines and where there are no Russian military personnel. 

This indiscriminate bombing of civilian neighborhoods and infrastructure by the UFA has been going on in the Donbas since 2014 and is being stepped up again and broadened in scope in the aftermath of Victoria Nuland’s visit last month. The Ukraine strategy is transitioning away from conventional warfare to tactical terrorism as conventional warfare is failing and has hit a wall. Russia recruits several thousand conscripts daily – many are ethnic Russians from occupied territories, while Ukraine loses those potential recruits and is forced to dragoon potential recruits off the street in western Ukraine.

There are many reasons why conventional warfare is failing for Ukraine apart from manpower limitations, but they all stem from the fact that the US has no real interest in “winning” and never had any… not in any of its past adventures around the world from Vietnam to Iraq to Libya. For the US, endless war is just the preferred path to profit, and profit is the only criterion for judging victory. So logically it matters not to the US where the shells are deployed or whom they kill.

Responding to Emmanuel Macron’s insane indiscretion the other day about the possible option of NATO troops being deployed to Ukraine to maintain a “strategic ambiguity,” Dr. Gerald Horne of the University of Houston made it clear that the comment was a reflexive expression of panic:  We see that this is a major defeat that has been inflicted upon the powers that have been dominating planet Earth for hundreds of years, and now are going to have to get accustomed to a bitter new reality."

Or as VVP puts it:  “[Western politicians] have already forgotten what war is. [They] think that these are just some cartoons.

…

Everything that they are thinking up now, that they are scaring the world with, it all really poses the threat of a conflict involving nuclear weapons, and therefore, the destruction of civilization.”  He then asks the only question that matters with genuinely puzzled sincerity:  Don’t they understand this?

Here's Helmholtz Smith’s review of Jacques Baud’s new book about how the Russians on the other hand view winning:

I have just finished reading Jacques Baud’s book The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat and, for people who want to know what’s really going on in Ukraine, I highly recommend it.

In short, he shows that Western generals have very little idea of how to fight wars and no idea at all of how Russia fights wars. He sardonically remarks that “The Russians can bless their hearts that the Ukrainian army was trained by NATO officers.”

There are two key concepts that underwrite the Russian way of war. The first is Clausewitz’s famous dictum that war is a continuation of policy by other means. It’s a tool in the toolbox – the policy is always what is important. “In other words, it’s all about turning operational successes into strategic successes, and strategic successes into political successes.”

The other concept is “correlation of forces.” Everything must be taken into account and as accurately and realistically as possible. Political will, military power and capacity, the economy, import dependency, industrial capacity, national morale, the real strengths and weaknesses of yourself and of the enemy – everything. This is Clausewitz again – there’s a purpose to your actions and everything contributes to that purpose. “Thus, while the Russians see a fluid, two-way link between war and politics, the West tends to make war an end in itself.”

For the West, by contrast, it’s always bang-bang and then wonder what to do when the bang-bang doesn’t work. The invariable answer to that question is more money down the hole and more bang-bang. (Or, as they said in Afghanistan, another surge). And when that inevitably fails, tell yourself a victory story, go home and forget about it. Baud says that Westerners lose wars because “they judge their adversaries on the basis of their own prejudices, not on the facts.”

In the simplest terms, the Russians know that the bang-bang has to serve a policy purpose; the West does not.

Baud on the Russian way of war –

The reason why the Russians are better than the West in Ukraine is that they see the conflict as a process, whereas we see it as a series of separate actions. The Russians see events as a film; we see them as photographs.

Victory is not simply a matter of conquering territory, but of physically and morally crushing the enemy’s armed forces.

The wording chosen by Vladimir Putin has been very poorly analyzed in the West. It was inspired by the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which envisaged the development of a defeated Germany according to four principles: demilitarization, denazification, democratization and decentralization.

The Russian calculation is that lost ground can be regained, while human lives cannot.

The aim of strategic action is to lead the adversary to negotiation or defeat. The operative level is that of cooperation and coordination of inter-force actions, with a view to achieving a given military objective. The tactical level, finally, is that of maneuver execution at weapons level, as an integral part of the operational maneuver.

Baud on the West –

Knowledge of the Russian system by our so-called “military experts” is extremely fragmentary and tinged with prejudice.

As I said in my previous books, the turning point was the misinterpretation by Ukraine and the West about the Russian withdrawal from Kiev. It was a withdrawal, not a retreat—but our media, eager to see a Russian defeat, fed a narrative that today weighs heavily on Ukraine.

But as usual, the analyses of our pseudo-experts are not built on knowledge and reflection, but on professions of faith.

As during the Cold War, the number of generations of their major equipment is higher than in the West. As a result, the average technological level of their systems is higher than in the West, at a lower cost.

That’s why the incident at the Canadian parliament is more than an anecdote—it’s the image of a Western political class adrift; of media without faith or law; of politicians and journalists who live off the blood of others, and, as we shall see, in particular that of Ukrainians.

This crisis has shown that Europe has not only lost its global political and industrial leadership but is deeply divided on a wide range of issues. In fact, the only thing that unites Europe is Russophobia.

The mediocrity of our journalists and politicians has long been known. Now we’ve discovered the mediocrity of our military.

—By Manorborn*, for The Truth Barrier

March 5, 2024

(*Manorborn is a pen name.)

---