I like to give analogies a break since tightly applied comparisons are difficult to make. But using Chechnya as a model for Australia just violates any grace I might be inclined to give Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
Australia must learn from past guerrilla insurgencies and adopt an "unconventional deterrence" policy in facing down threats from China, Russia and elsewhere, one of the country's leading think tanks said Wednesday. ...
ASPI, acknowledging Australia's 'inferiority" against adversaries like China, argued that past guerrilla wars like the Chechen insurgency against Russia in the 1990s showed that smaller actors could inflict heavy damage on much larger foes.
Chechnya is now part of Russia.
And what of this evidence bolstering the argument?
It also argued Canberra could learn from former Singaporean leader Lee Kuan Yew's description of the city state as a "poisonous shrimp" -- as well as the "porcupine" strategies of Switzerland and the Baltic states.
With all due respect to Yew's imagery, China might get the runs after eating Singapore, but China would still digest its meal. Singapore really relies on having America between it and a significant Chinese threat of conquest.
Switzerland relies on being in the middle of NATO.
And the Baltic states rely on the rest of NATO liberating their territory after Russia plows through--at high cost, no doubt--the weak forces that protect their borders.
ASPI needs a better model than the one Westerners try to impose on states that seek to avoid defeat by much stronger enemies.
And why does America's State Department help fund research like this?
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!
NOTE: Photo from the article.
