NATO Aspirations to Make Ukraine an “Afghanistan” Is neither Wise nor Realistic
Unless NATO Means It Will Suffer a Strategic and Humiliating Defeat There Too
I think I have heard that NATO plans to make Ukraine into Afghanistan one too many times to not address this absurd garbage. Ukraine is not and will never be Afghanistan. This is a very different war with very different conditions. The notion that Russia will get bogged down in an insurgency in Ukraine is a false construct birthed by the same idiots on the payroll of Western intelligence and defense organizations that were whipped and lost the war in Afghanistan. These amateurs have been drinking the “irregular warfare” Kool-Aid far too long without any hard self-analysis for why this military strategy correlates nearly perfectly with American military failure over the last 75 years. If this plan was ever to be put into effect, it would fail and become a far greater disaster for Ukraine and the West than any damage or annoyance it could inflict on Russia. At best, it could be a backup plan for the failure of major conventional operations and a way to continue the money laundering and slush funds for the elites and military industries, but it will never be a viable strategy for a better or victorious Ukraine. If there are going to be any similarities at all to Afghanistan in Ukraine, it will be that NATO suffers another humiliating strategic defeat.
The mere fact that NATO and no doubt, the CIA, have floated making Ukraine into an “Afghanistan” for Russia should immediately tell you how stupid these people are. To list just a few of the massive differences, here are a few highlights:
1. The war in Ukraine is a large-scale conventional war. The recent wars in Afghanistan have never rose above what amounted to occupation forces running counterinsurgency operations.
2. The war in Ukraine is perceived as an existential threat to Russia’s survival. The wars in Afghanistan have never been an existential threat to any major power.
3. The Russian annexed territories claimed by Ukraine are populated by ethnic Russians that are largely in favor of Russia. At no point were there indigenous Russian or American populations in Afghanistan that sought to join either of the former nations.
4. Ukraine is an industrialized nation at the foot of Europe. Unlike Afghanistan, it cannot be turned into a perpetual warzone without spillover into the rest of Europe.
5. The costs of prosecuting a war in Ukraine are magnitudes of order higher than the relatively small-scale operations in Afghanistan.
6. Ukraine has a major coastline and ports. Afghanistan is a landlocked country.
7. The wars in Afghanistan never threatened to rapidly escalate into World War 3 and involve nuclear weapons.
Of these, I want to focus on the first three points in particular. To date, Russia has been exclusively focused on liberating and controlling areas of Ukraine that are predominately inhabited by ethnic Russians that are supportive of Russia. Any novice study of insurgent warfare would understand right away that does not create the conditions an insurgency could survive in. For any insurgency to exist, it must have sanctuary. When faced with a foreign invader, such as in Afghanistan, an insurgent enjoys ample opportunities to leverage natural resentment and find safe harbor in villages across the country. In Russian annexed areas claimed by Ukraine, ethnic Ukrainians cannot hide or enjoy sanctuary and therefore could do little more than attempt to launch limited raids across what undoubtedly will be a militarized border area. This type of border is effectively no man’s land and historical precedent shows insurgents that attempt to cross these types of borders are rapidly annihilated. The counter point to this will be if Russia is forced to capture additional territory in the Ukraine, it will open itself up to partisan attacks where its forces are in contact with an ethnic Ukrainian population. This is true only to the extent that Russia would tolerate it. There is a very strong likelihood that Russia has no interest in occupying any such territory and would simply clear those areas in order to create a militarized buffer between the two ethnic groups. Further, Russia has extensive experience dealing with counter insurgency operations and partisan forces. I’d point out that Russia dealt effectively with a very nasty situation in Chechnya. Ukraine would be wise to avoid inviting a similar fate. Finally, in the event Russia is forced to transition from what it calls a Special Military Operation, God forbid, into a full-scale war, the success rate of Ukrainian insurgents will be no higher than what was left of Nazi Germans organizing into an effective resistance after Germany capitulated. In simplified terms, a full-scale war means Russia will inflict a total unconditional defeat on Ukraine. History tells us that after such defeats via a bloody war of attrition, there is neither men nor desire to continue hostilities. The fight is over and decisively won.
I would also add a word of caution to the members of NATO that champion such reckless ideas. Inviting a long-term insurgency on their border will prove to be a disaster for both Ukraine and Europe. First, whatever is left of Ukraine will be left broken and incapable of recovery so long as an insurgency is actively on-going. These human wastelands become hotbeds of all types of vice, illicit activities, and criminality. Weapons, drugs, and problems of all types will metastasize from the infected wound on Europe’s side and spill its violence into the streets of Paris, Warsaw, Berlin, and Brussels. Ukrainians that entertain this romantic notion also should be made fully aware an insurgency would mean the total destruction of any quality of life they currently enjoy. There will be no business or investment. The high-end stores and luxury items will disappear. There will be no peace. There are no examples of a city or nation afflicted by a major state sponsored insurgency that did not turn into devastated hellholes. Remember, even Kabul was a very pretty and desirable city as recently as the 1970s. Further, Europe will bankrupt and exhaust itself trying to subsidize an insurgent war many times larger than Afghanistan and Iraq while also inviting the persistent threat of sudden escalation and potentially a nuclear confrontation with Russia. As for Russia, perhaps ironically, it would most likely not suffer beyond the annoyance level. Russia would likely pacify areas and forcibly relocate anyone deemed to be a potential threat beyond the militarized buffer zone leaving the Ukrainians that are left attempting to inflict some type of damage on Russia more or less impotent.
It is important to highlight point #2. Russia perceives this war as an existential threat. Insurgencies come in many shapes, sizes, and colors but generally are a most effective against occupation forces when time is on the insurgent’s side and the occupier can always just go home if or when the costs are too high to justify furtherance of the conflict. Russia for all intents and purposes is on home turf. They aren’t going anywhere. They must fight this war to victory or die trying. Even then, the latter option is rather moot since a Russia forced into a corner and facing defeat would satisfy the justification for use of nuclear weapons per its doctrine. As such, there really is no defeat of Russia. The only viable option for survival once war has commenced is a negotiated settlement that gives all sides an honorable exit. Further, with a war of attrition, Russia will bleed Ukraine white. If they don’t surrender and opt to fight Russia to the last man, to the last man it will be. They will still lose. The only difference is there will be no one left on their side to tell the story, much less fight an insurgency.
All of this is to make the point that an insurgency against this type of determined adversary and under these conditions has no real chance of success. The only outcome that could be expected would be for Ukraine to prolong its suffering and for Europe to self-sabotage itself into even greater troubles. The only truth to Ukraine becoming an Afghanistan is its society and life would soon mirror life in Afghanistan. For those that previously fancied this as a viable option, I hope that I have convinced you of not just the futility of the idea, but the lunacy. There is no viable reality to a successful Ukrainian insurgency against Russia. It is futile to the point of suicide for all parties involved. So, the next time some idiot brings this up, feel free to intellectually crush their soul so that this demonic notion of further prolonging the suffering and bloodshed is pre-emptively killed in its infancy.
Till next time…