Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Russian Honey Badger and Wars of Attrition
“Honey badger don’t care” does not mean what Wiktionary says it does: A person who displays indifference or disregard for others’ opinions. At least, that’s not what I take from the saying.
“Honey badger don’t care” refers to the persistence and toughness of the animal in pursuing its prey — typically venomous prey that can even temporarily paralyze the honey badger. It makes a diet of venomous snakes and African bee larvae, all while getting repeatedly bitten and stung. If you’re unfamiliar with the honey badger, here’s a short descriptive clip.
I got to thinking about the honey badger while reading VDH this morning. I’m no historian, military or otherwise, so this is a sincere question: when was the last war of attrition in which Russia (or the Soviet Union) was defeated? I’m not sure Hanson’s article was meant to be comprehensive on this point, but the examples he provides are not encouraging … for Ukraine.
Yet the resilient Russian army is also dogged as it bends but rarely breaks—even if its tactics of pouring men and fire against the enemy are scripted and predictable. We laugh at the unimaginative Russian entrenchments, but we also accept that to breach them will require a cost in blood and treasure that Ukraine and its Western benefactors may not wish to pay, although Russia itself may well gladly pay that tab and more still.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/16/have-we-forgotten-the-russian-way-of-war/
It seems Russia can be defeated battle after battle, with incompetent leadership and massive losses of men and materiel, and still win the war. It’s like the honey badger that way. It just doesn’t care how many lives are lost in the process of pursuing its aims. As the saying goes, “you have to break a few eggs. . .”
Published in General
Afghanistan?
Good one. Was Russia interested in holding Afghanistan as territory, though?
This, I believe, is the origin of the phrase.
And yes, it’s about persistence and toughness.
Yes, and the ability to take hit after hit and keep coming back for more. Part of this ability has to do with size — both in population and in resources.
I haven’t read The Second World Wars, but I believe Hanson wrote about the inevitability of Germany’s defeat in WWII because of its limited size in manpower and materiel compared to the UK and particularly the US. Ukraine is facing an enemy much larger and which doesn’t care about the loss of human life and weaponry, so long as it outlasts the Ukrainians.
The last time Russia won a battle of attrition was WWII, and a large portion of its materiel and logistical support came from the United States. Not the case now, of course.
ETA: Thanks for the excuse to go back and watch the original, classic video. Honey badger is a crazy [CoC] end to end.
The Cold War.
Not fought on Russian soil.
That is hilarious.
“Honey Badger don’t give a f***.”
Added: Still laughing.
Doesn’t matter though, does it?
Honey Badger: Do you expect me to talk?
Black Mamba: No, Mr. Badger, I expect you to die!
Honey Badger: Honey Badger don’t give a — .
The late 80’s were a bad time for the Soviet Union. That might be an outlier. Or, it could be the new trend.
World War I is the last war Russia lost on Russian soil. However, Russia has a miserable record outside Russia. Just since the 20th century started there is the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, Afghanistan and the Cold War.
The Russian high command has always been contemptuous of casualties suffered by the rank and file. They are courageous like that.
Taking as given that there’s a hardiness to the Russian character that allowed them to prevail over Hitler, Napoleon, and Swedish invasions as VDH lists in his article, I’ve got to ask where Ukraine was in all of that? Part of Russia. If modern day Russians are inheritors of the grit of their forefathers then I don’t see why modern day Ukrainians haven’t as well.
They may indeed have the grit. What they lack is the numbers.
It’s all spin, isn’t it? The Tartar Yoke dominated Russia for 250 years, can we really say Russia won its war of attrition with the Mongols?
The legend is Russia went to great lengths to get every man a rifle for action in WWI, but just one in ten soldiers had a bullet for it. That’s not contempt, that’s fear. Can’t give bullets to soldiers whose lives you’ve made miserable, they might use them against you.
It seems to matter. Invaders don’t seem to do well at that type of war where they don’t have the home field advantage.
Good question. Now ask the same question about the US and Ukraine..
I think the U.S. would get bogged down if it invaded Ukraine.
I also think Ukraine would get bogged down if it attempted a full-scale invasion of Russia.
I’ve been thinking that too.
Not only did that, but Russia saved the rest of Europe from the Tartar-Mongol yoke. If you don’t believe me, ask Margarita Simonyan on Russian state television. It’s at about 4:00 in this clip. We should all be grateful.
Or maybe it wasn’t so much a win as getting in the way of the Tartar-Mongol conquest. She doesn’t really explain, any more than she explains why a photo of Volodomyr Zelensky (that was also posted here on Ricochet) is so significant.
Maybe she just isn’t into reasons.
Neither is Ukraine.
Regardless of the specifics, in Afghanistan the USSR wound up proxy fighting the US of Reagan and the glorious 1980s.
.
Sort of. Tatars are a large ethnic minority in the Russian Federation today, Russians aren’t a large ethnic minority in Greater Tatarstan.
I don’t think this says more about Russian culture than it does about historical chance, but fwiw.
And the Mongols also shaped Russian institutions and government initiatives like the early postal system or the census.
Plus furry hats.
I’ve seen Margarita before. She makes Alex Jones look like Edward R. Murrow.
I have read The Second World Wars. As I recall, VDH wrote that Germany’s biggest problem wasn’t the UK or the US. It was the Russians. Again, I’m going from memory, but I think that he reported that the Russians inflicted 75% of the Wehrmacht’s losses.
Russia’s production was also enormous, though specialized. VDH wrote about that, praised the Russian T-35 tank, and said that they were great at producing artillery, too. We sent them other important supplies that they weren’t good at producing — even things like boots, which are important. We did provide them with a lot of trucks, too.
I have another thought about the OP generally, though. For purposes of comparing armies to their historical performance, the Ukrainians are the Russians. The bulk of Ukraine was part of Russia throughout the 20th Century. They were part of the Tsar’s army and of the Red Army. To the extent that they are distinct people at all, the Russians and the Ukrainians were united for about 300 years.
There’s not much reason to expect the Ukrainians to fight like Americans. They’re more likely to fight like Russians. Frankly, this may well explain how the Ukrainians have been able to hold their own. They’re as tough as the Russians because, for the most part, they are the same people as the Russians.
I think that it’s a lot more complicated than this. You’ve noted the bad ones, but Russia had some major victories too.
The Russians were critical in the defeat of Napoleon. That was a big deal. The Russians had the largest contingent at the Battle of the Nations (aka Leipzig) in 1813, which was effectively the final, decisive defeat for Napoleon. It was the largest battle in Europe before WWI. A combined Russian-Prussian-Austrian army then invaded France and took Paris. The bulk of the army that took Paris was Russian.
The Russians fought well in WWI on the battlefield. The Brusilov offensive in 1916 was a major Russian victory. However, their society cracked under the pressure of total war — and even worse, the German political ploy of sending Lenin to Russia to foment a Communist revolution worked.
After the Russo-Japanese War, the Russians had a rematch with the Japanese at the start of WWII, with the Japanese launching an attack from Manchuria. The Russians gave the Japanese a major bloody nose. The war didn’t expand, as the Japanese gave up and had a non-aggression pact with the Russians until almost the very end of WWII.
The Russians had a great record outside Russia during WWII. They crushed the Germans and took Berlin, for crying out loud. They conquered just about all of eastern and central Europe. It was the most decisive military victory of the century, and the Russians did the bulk of the fighting.
So to review:
This is the country that you say “has a miserable record outside Russia”?
Yeah, right. Except for defeating the two greatest European conquerors of the past 500 years.
Agreed. Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, there are a lot fewer expendable bodies than the Russians fighting for Putin. And unfortunately for everyone involved it likes like yet another quagmire.
It’s worth the read.