Can we get defense issues to cluster around the intersection of victory and efficiency a little more?
So many analysts and observers say Russia will defeat Ukraine because of Russia's ability to inflict and endure casualties with firepower-intensive tactics. It is costly, but it works.
And then we have the "Porcupine" strategists who insist that efficiently killing the enemy with magical, inexpensive asymmetric capabilities is the way to deter war.
I really want the Russian firepower-supremacists to talk to the porcupine advocates and decide who is right.
I'm not against killing an enemy more efficiently the way Porcupinists advocate. But the purpose of war is to win--not kill efficiently.
If you fail to deter an enemy with the prospect of casualties, your Porcupinist strategy has lost on the enemy's D-Day, no?
And if all your resources went to asymmetric capabilities to deter invasion, you will find you lack the symmetrical capabilities to drive the enemy back and eject them from your territory. The resulting stalemate may just enable your enemy to regroup and resume the war from positions deeper inside your country. Sooner or later you will run out of country to lose while you efficiently kill your enemies.
There is no cheap, magical method of defending yourself from enemies determined to destroy you. Ultimately you have to fight them everywhere, all at once, with a wide array of weapons and capabilities rather than restricting yourself to the bargain capabilities.
When it comes to a war where your national survival is on the line, nobody gets extra credit for losing the war despite efficiently killing the invaders. At best, future generations of the conquered may draw inspiration from the example to resist and reverse the defeat.
In the meantime you are conquered.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: I added a couple links I meant to include.
