Ukraine Should Invade Russia

 

Simple Sun-Tzu. Attack where the enemy is not.

Russian forces are in Ukraine. In the South (the 60 mile-wide path from Donetsk to Crimea), Russians have numbers and have massed their resources. War now, as is usual in history, tends to favor defenders. Ukraine has enough force there to keep the Russians busy, terrified of a mass surrender from Kherson.

But in the North, there is nothing. The Russian rout from Kharkiv Region leaves Belgorod entirely undefended (with tens of thousands of people fleeing Belgorod as I write this).

Intelligent war strategy is to attack where the enemy is not. Ukraine can – and should – invade Russia where it is soft and undefended. Do lots of damage. Do it on the ground. you might even follow the highways around to encircle the Russian forces facing into Ukraine. Wreak havoc, and spread fear. And keep doing it until Russia sues for peace. Then you trade invaded Russia for invaded Ukraine.

Done and dusted.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 108 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Franco (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    What happened the last time someone invaded Russia? What about the time before that?

    Nothing unites the Russians like an invasion.

    The French and Germans wanted to keep Russia.

    Ukraine does not. And everyone knows it, including Russians.

    That’s some serious mind-reading.

     

    Seriously? Find me one Russian who believes that Ukraine wants to invade and KEEP Russia?!

    • #31
  2. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    History says this is a bad idea – see Germany and France 

    Russia is a very large area – Supply chain will become an issue the more they go into Russia

    A Russian population which is not happy about Putin’s invasion will change if attacked on their soil

    • #32
  3. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    BDB (View Comment):
    I disagree that Lee should have gone to Philadelphia and besieged (or invested) the town.  That would have pinned him down and allowed Union forces to besiege Lee’s army.  He was far from home, his army was barefoot and hungry, and their luck had run out.

    They lived off the land already. Rich pickings up North. Worked a treat for Sherman.

    The only way the South could have won the war was by invading the North until the North sued for peace. But in their quest for glory, they ignored common sense (AKA Sun-Tzu).

    • #33
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    iWe (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    I disagree that Lee should have gone to Philadelphia and besieged (or invested) the town. That would have pinned him down and allowed Union forces to besiege Lee’s army. He was far from home, his army was barefoot and hungry, and their luck had run out.

    They lived off the land already. Rich pickings up North. Worked a treat for Sherman.

    The only way the South could have won the war was by invading the North until the North sued for peace. But in their quest for glory, they ignored common sense (AKA Sun-Tzu).

    They tried it twice and were stopped twice, at Antietam and Gettysburg.

    • #34
  5. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    iWe:

    Ukraine can – and should – invade Russia where it is soft and undefended. Do lots of damage. Do it on the ground. you might even follow the highways around to encircle the Russian forces facing into Ukraine. Wreak havoc, and spread fear. And keep doing it until Russia sues for peace. Then you trade invaded Russia for invaded Ukraine.

    Done and dusted.

    No. God, No. This sort of thinking is how World Wars start. 

    How did this make it to the main feed?

    • #35
  6. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    iWe:

    Ukraine can – and should – invade Russia where it is soft and undefended. Do lots of damage. Do it on the ground. you might even follow the highways around to encircle the Russian forces facing into Ukraine. Wreak havoc, and spread fear. And keep doing it until Russia sues for peace. Then you trade invaded Russia for invaded Ukraine.

    Done and dusted.

    No. God, No. This sort of thinking is how World Wars start.

    How did this make it to the main feed?

    It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree.  It means they think it’s worthy of “publication” and wider conversation.  I have certainly benefited from R’s willingness to air contrar(ian) views.

    • #36
  7. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    BDB (View Comment):

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    iWe:

    Ukraine can – and should – invade Russia where it is soft and undefended. Do lots of damage. Do it on the ground. you might even follow the highways around to encircle the Russian forces facing into Ukraine. Wreak havoc, and spread fear. And keep doing it until Russia sues for peace. Then you trade invaded Russia for invaded Ukraine.

    Done and dusted.

    No. God, No. This sort of thinking is how World Wars start.

    How did this make it to the main feed?

    It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It means they think it’s worthy of “publication” and wider conversation. I have certainly benefited from R’s willingness to air contrar(ian) views.

    Good point. So have I.

    • #37
  8. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Here’s a surprisingly good (that is, quality) news snippet from a US big-3 network outlet:

     

    • #38
  9. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Percival (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    I disagree that Lee should have gone to Philadelphia and besieged (or invested) the town. That would have pinned him down and allowed Union forces to besiege Lee’s army. He was far from home, his army was barefoot and hungry, and their luck had run out.

    They lived off the land already. Rich pickings up North. Worked a treat for Sherman.

    The only way the South could have won the war was by invading the North until the North sued for peace. But in their quest for glory, they ignored common sense (AKA Sun-Tzu).

    They tried it twice and were stopped twice, at Antietam and Gettysburg.

    They were not stopped. The South did NOT go North to Philadelphia. They turned to fight a battle they did not need and could not win.

    • #39
  10. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    iWe:

    Ukraine can – and should – invade Russia where it is soft and undefended. Do lots of damage. Do it on the ground. you might even follow the highways around to encircle the Russian forces facing into Ukraine. Wreak havoc, and spread fear. And keep doing it until Russia sues for peace. Then you trade invaded Russia for invaded Ukraine.

    Done and dusted.

    No. God, No. This sort of thinking is how World Wars start.

    How did this make it to the main feed?

    Our government – and most people – tend to always think inside the box. Military history is full of people who walk around with hammers and consider everything to be a nail. War is often like this – “I have an army, so I should go look for another army.” This is colossally stupid, strategically. But it is more the rule than the exception nevertheless.

    If I had a kid in the fight, I’d want their commanders to be thinking with their heads. I’d want them to prefer to attack where the enemy is not, rather than going into the teeth of a prepared defense. 

    War is horrible. But when it is necessary, it is best to win definitively and rapidly. The Ukrainians have a window of opportunity right now that will not last long – winter is coming, and the Russians are going to dig in. If Kherson falls in the next week, then that will probably end the war, with Ukraine getting all the land back. But if Kherson does NOT fall, then Ukraine needs to be thinking out of the box – which is to say, using common sense.

    Russia is not all powerful, as this war has shown. And “invading Russia” to Belgorod or otherwise within a few dozen miles of the Ukrainian border is not comparable to Napoleon or Hitler’s invasions. But the psychological value can be enormously positive.

    Think, for example, of how Doolittle’s Raid transformed Japanese strategy, and helped them lose the war. The damage was barely symbolic – but it changed how the Japanese thought about the war. Ukraine can achieve similar results through similar means. 

    I think they should do so. I welcome counterargument, of course. But I’d suggest that those who just reply with, “That would be terrible!” wargame out the alternatives and ask whether a long, grinding conflict of men in mud is really such a great solution.

    • #40
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Franco (View Comment):
    The casual application of ancient precepts such as “attack the enemy where he is not”  was never Sun-Tzu’s intention, dare I speculate. 

    So this was your version of “what Sun-Tzu really meant by that, was…”

    :-)

    • #41
  12. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    iWe (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    I disagree that Lee should have gone to Philadelphia and besieged (or invested) the town. That would have pinned him down and allowed Union forces to besiege Lee’s army. He was far from home, his army was barefoot and hungry, and their luck had run out.

    They lived off the land already. Rich pickings up North. Worked a treat for Sherman.

    The only way the South could have won the war was by invading the North until the North sued for peace. But in their quest for glory, they ignored common sense (AKA Sun-Tzu).

    They tried it twice and were stopped twice, at Antietam and Gettysburg.

    They were not stopped. The South did NOT go North to Philadelphia. They turned to fight a battle they did not need and could not win.

    They turned to get ready for a fight because the Army of the Potomac was moving faster and farther than Lee had anticipated, Lee’s army was widely spread out, and Lee was concerned that his army could be destroyed piecemeal. So Lee gave orders for his army to concentrate in the vicinity of Gettysburg ( where several roads converged, giving his army the chance to concentrate as quickly as possible)or Cashtown.

    Lee did NOT want the battle he got, but did what he thought was right given the information he had at the time. As one historian ( Gary Gallagher, in his Darden Gettysburg Leadership Ride lectures on YouTube) said,  if “ Jeb” Stuart had been doing his job, Gettysburg would not have happened.

    • #42
  13. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    The casual application of ancient precepts such as “attack the enemy where he is not” was never Sun-Tzu’s intention, dare I speculate.

    So this was your version of “what Sun-Tzu really meant by that, was…”

    :-)

    Exactly.

    But I humbly venture that somewhere Sun-Tzu says, “these proverbs should be applied on a case-by-case basis and not by some armchair warrior who lacks sufficient intelligence of what’s happening on the ground, and all bets are off if one side has nukes and the other doesn’t” or something like it.

     

     

     

    • #43
  14. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    iWe (View Comment):

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    iWe:

    Ukraine can – and should – invade Russia where it is soft and undefended. Do lots of damage. Do it on the ground. you might even follow the highways around to encircle the Russian forces facing into Ukraine. Wreak havoc, and spread fear. And keep doing it until Russia sues for peace. Then you trade invaded Russia for invaded Ukraine.

    Done and dusted.

    No. God, No. This sort of thinking is how World Wars start.

    How did this make it to the main feed?

    I welcome counterargument, of course. But I’d suggest that those who just reply with, “That would be terrible!” wargame out the alternatives and ask whether a long, grinding conflict of men in mud is really such a great solution.

    I am not a “my country, right or wrong” sort of a guy. When my country is doing something I do not approve of, I want it to stop. This war in Ukraine looks like yet another US colonial campaign, all of which are always doomed to fail.

    They fail because they have no popular support. In the US this always matters, in the long term. In the short term our elites can cause all sorts of damage.

    In my understanding, the Russians attacked in February of this year to stop the attack the Ukrainians were about to make to conquer the long rebellious provinces of Donbas and Crimea. The Russians feinted toward Kiev to stop the invasion, giving them time to move in troops and establish the current battle lines. Seven months later Donbas and Crimea still have the governments they prefer and a lot of people have died.

    I am very much of the opinion that a long, grinding conflict of men in mud is not a good idea.

    • #44
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    iWe (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    I disagree that Lee should have gone to Philadelphia and besieged (or invested) the town. That would have pinned him down and allowed Union forces to besiege Lee’s army. He was far from home, his army was barefoot and hungry, and their luck had run out.

    They lived off the land already. Rich pickings up North. Worked a treat for Sherman.

    The only way the South could have won the war was by invading the North until the North sued for peace. But in their quest for glory, they ignored common sense (AKA Sun-Tzu).

    They tried it twice and were stopped twice, at Antietam and Gettysburg.

    They were not stopped. The South did NOT go North to Philadelphia. They turned to fight a battle they did not need and could not win.

    Bah. If Lee had been facing a real general instead of Maclellan at Antietam, he never would have made it back to Virginia. Mutual exhaustion prevented Meade from chasing him down after Gettysburg. Two invasions, both of them repulsed. By ’64, Grant had ahold of Lee and never let go.

    • #45
  16. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    iWe (View Comment):

    I’ll break this down:

    One of the biggest mistakes armies make is by doing what Lee did – aiming for the enemy army. In the runup to Gettysburg, the South behaved idiotically – they should have just gone North, and taken Philadelphia, held it hostage and sued for peace. That they chose instead to fight was a colossal mistake, born from terrible strategy.

    The purpose of war is to win. And you win by convincing the enemy that he has lost. That enemy might be soldiers, or civilians. They might be nearby or far away. But the overall goal remains: you must convince them that they have lost. If you do this, then nothing “on the ground” matters all that much. See: Nam:Viet.

    Ukraine should invade Russia within the limits of its capabilities to do so. Whether that means 5 miles or 500, you still strike where the enemy is not. Your job is to make the Russians prefer to sue for peace and get back to normal life. And you do this through public, obvious, indisputable victories. Create the new reality – that invading Ukraine was not just a questionable decision, but a terrible, awful, no-good one. Once Russians realize they have lost, then they want to end all of it – the war, the sanctions, the hassle, etc.

    And make it abundantly clear to the Russians and the world: your job is to end war, not prolong it. As soon as the Russians agree to give back Ukrainian lands and restore the old borders, then you are good to go (the reparations are a bargaining chip).

    I’ve got a rather long joke about Ukraine taking Moscow and leaving the Russians to take Ukraine and who debate whether to bring peace to the region by simply nuking Moscow, but I won’t mention it.

    Seriously, how would Ukraine protect its supply lines inside Russia.  And if Ukraine leaves a degraded Russian army behind, what’s to stop Russia from taking much of Ukraine?  And besides all this, who would the Ukrainians be fighting 500 miles inside Russia?

    • #46
  17. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    As much as I would like to see Ukraine reenact Sherman’s March to Moscow, they don’t have the resources to fight a large war.  But I’m with you in spirit! Russia needs to feel what they have been doing to so many other countries – East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Moldova to name a few.

    • #47
  18. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    iWe (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment)

    Simple Sun-Tzu. Attack where the enemy is not.

    What did Sun-Tzu say about giving an enemy that has nukes an excuse to use them?

     

    Putin could use nukes at any time, for any reason. Unless his own troops refuse the order – which is quite possible, considering how many Russian soldiers are ignoring orders these days.

    True enough. However what you are advocating could well provide two incentives for the use of tactical nukes.

    An excuse for Russian internal propaganda – and the nature of your plan – spreading destruction and fear on Russian territory -(and tacitly backed by NATO) could easily be construed as a real threat. That is/was his original claim! Wrong then maybe but try to convince him or most Russians that results imply intent.

    Aggravating the situation is putting Putin in an embarrassing position where he has to act decisively or lose power and his life.

    An invasion or incursion of – as you describe – a malicious nature to destroy and spread fear (not ostensibly on mere control or a political claim) will require a reaction. 
    You suppose this will make Pooty-Poot look bad and he will fall. 

    As others have stated, the risks are far beyond the gains here. Losing the moral high ground on the world stage.
    While Zelinsky has acted disgracefully in many ways already with his everything is justified because we are victims positions, this wouldn’t help his cause on that front.

     Putin and his generals would be forced  to escalate. Do you think for a moment that Putin would allow a loss or failure in this situation? 

    Apparently the Russian troops didn’t refuse orders to knock out 50% of Ukraines energy production. This marks a new escalation, another dimension this war can take, as many can foresee. The Russians have not run out of options. They are a massively larger country in full control of their population. Their economy is fine, especially compared to ours. They can hold out. We don’t even know that if somehow Putin is embarrassed,  disgraced and toppled, that the next guy won’t be worse.

     

     

    • #48
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    iWe (View Comment):
    ey should have just gone North, and taken Philadelphia, held it hostage and sued for peace.  That they chose instead to fight was a colossal mistake, born from terrible strategy.

    You know nothing, John Snow. 

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Franco (View Comment):
    Apparently the Russian troops didn’t refuse orders to knock out 50% of Ukraines energy production. This marks a new escalation, another dimension this war can take, as many can foresee.

    I’ve heard (Military Summary) that this was immediately to stop the quick movement of military material from Kharkov to Donbas – which would normally be done by trains, which run on electricity.

    (They also mentioned that the delay in knocking out civilian infrastructure was noteworthy – because otherwise [eg US invasion of Iraq] that’s the first thing that an invading army does.]

    The Russians have not run out of options. They are a massively larger country in full control of their population. Their economy is fine, especially compared to ours. They can hold out. We don’t even know that if somehow Putin is embarrassed,  disgraced and toppled, that the next guy won’t be worse.

    Would it be the equivalent of the Mexican Army invading US territory?

    • #50
  21. Locke On Member
    Locke On
    @LockeOn

    Count me as another that sees a full on invasion of Russia as a bad idea. Even letting aside the risks of losing ‘good guy’ status or provoking a WMD exchange, Ukraine simply doesn’t have the logistical capability to pull it off. Russia has shown us exactly the outcome when an army using Soviet era mechanized forces gets beyond its logistical abilities. Ukraine taught that lesson to Russia, why would they now ignore it?

    I am not, however, saying don’t go past the Russian border. Invasion is one thing, raids are another. Russia continues to pot-shot Ukrainian towns and infrastructure with artillery and missiles launched from Russian territory. That makes those weapons, troops and supporting infrastructure fair targets, for HIMARS, drones, or ground raiding parties.

    • #51
  22. Locke On Member
    Locke On
    @LockeOn

    Separating this into another post:

    Comparing Ukraine/Russia to Lee vs. Meade is ridiculous (and I say this as a long term Civil War buff). A Civil War army had a fraction of the supply usage and logistical tail as a modern mechanized army. Lots of difference between a foot and horse-borne army that can supply itself from the enemy as long as it keeps moving, and a column of tanks, IFVs and artillery that gulps fuel by the 1000s of gallons and fires off ammo at a rate Lee could only dream of.

    And for that matter, one of the reasons Lee had to fall back from Gettysburg was he had shot through almost all of his artillery ammo, and the closest resupply was in Virginia.

    < /civil-war-nerd>

    • #52
  23. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Maybe we’ve only been listening to one side of the propaganda. But somehow this (other) side is the more entertaining.

    I’m very cynical now, except for the poor civilians and conscripts on both sides. Hating Putin doesn’t help them and actually hurts them in most scenarios IMO.

    But we must account for other forces:

    • #53
  24. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Sort of a side note: I’ve always been interested in one of the most basic questions of WWII: What did Germany and Japan think would happen? Even if they’d beaten us in battle, neither country would have had anywhere near enough manpower to occupy and control the continental US. And they knew it, going in. The answer seems to be, they expected shock and awe to make us give up quickly and withdraw. They figured we had no stomach for a real fight. They made a drastic misjudgment about Americans based on lousy, and self-flattering “information”. 

    That’s also why Russia expected Zelensky and the Kiev government to pack up and flee. That’s what Russia’s “intelligence” agencies told Putin. After all, that’s what their boy Yanukovich did. Bad mistake. 

    It’s also the fallacy at the heart of this post. If Russia was invaded, no Russian would refuse orders to launch missiles at Kiev–or, I suspect, at Berlin, Paris, or London. 

    • #54
  25. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Franco (View Comment):

    Maybe we’ve only been listening to one side of the propaganda. But somehow this (other) side is the more entertaining.

    I’m very cynical now, except for the poor civilians and conscripts on both sides. Hating Putin doesn’t help them and actually hurts them in most scenarios IMO.

    But we must account for other forces:

    Funny, but also shocking in its crassness.  Like saying the quiet part out loud.

    • #55
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Sort of a side note: I’ve always been interested in one of the most basic questions of WWII: What did Germany and Japan think would happen? Even if they’d beaten us in battle, neither country would have had anywhere near enough manpower to occupy and control the continental US. And they knew it, going in. The answer seems to be, they expected shock and awe to make us give up quickly and withdraw. They figured we had no stomach for a real fight. They made a drastic misjudgment about Americans based on lousy, and self-flattering “information”.

    That’s also why Russia expected Zelensky and the Kiev government to pack up and flee. That’s what Russia’s “intelligence” agencies told Putin. After all, that’s what their boy Yanukovich did. Bad mistake.

    It’s also the fallacy at the heart of this post. If Russia was invaded, no Russian would refuse orders to launch missiles at Kiev–or, I suspect, at Berlin, Paris, or London.

    This is why I finally think that Russia is now relatively more likely to use tactical nuclear weapons — not at all likely, just now more likely than zero.  If it comes to defending Russian soil from any serious devastation, that changes the whole thing.

    • #56
  27. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Maybe we’ve only been listening to one side of the propaganda. But somehow this (other) side is the more entertaining.

    I’m very cynical now, except for the poor civilians and conscripts on both sides. Hating Putin doesn’t help them and actually hurts them in most scenarios IMO.

    But we must account for other forces:

    Funny, but also shocking in its crassness. Like saying the quiet part out loud.

    The quiet part is the most important to me. Jimmy  Dore is a great show. Like anything I don’t always agree with some of his assumptions but I respect his perspective. 

    • #57
  28. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Seriously, how would Ukraine protect its supply lines inside Russia.  And if Ukraine leaves a degraded Russian army behind, what’s to stop Russia from taking much of Ukraine?  And besides all this, who would the Ukrainians be fighting 500 miles inside Russia?

    Seriously: please read what I wrote. If Ukraine can raid 5 or 50 miles in, it delivers tremendous PR value.

    I am not suggesting you remove the holding forces that have the Russians in the South locked in. You leave them there. And you use indirect attacks to achieve the primary war goals.

    • #58
  29. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    iWe (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Seriously, how would Ukraine protect its supply lines inside Russia. And if Ukraine leaves a degraded Russian army behind, what’s to stop Russia from taking much of Ukraine? And besides all this, who would the Ukrainians be fighting 500 miles inside Russia?

    Seriously: please read what I wrote. If Ukraine can raid 5 or 50 miles in, it delivers tremendous PR value.

    Wouldn’t that work for Putin within Russia wrt escalating, general mobilisation, etc.?

    And don’t you think it would give iffy Europeans an excuse to turn on Nordstream 2, since Ukraine is now attacking Russia (and not just Donbas)?

    • #59
  30. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    The underlying common-sense strategy remains as true in the ancient world as in the modern world. You do not accept battle on the enemy’s terms. You always seek to destroy the enemy’s strategy – and if you can do it without bloodshed, so much the better. And if the populace loses heart, the army will, too.

    Attacking entrenched positions is deeply stoopid. The Ukrainians have not been stupid to date. They have done a very good – or even superb – job of following these same dictums thus far. Which is why they are already raiding Russia, and hitting targets across the border. 

    I just think they should do more of it. And I suspect they will.

     

     

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.