Jordan Peterson has accused those who think Ukraine can win its war with Russia of being naive. Sadly, whatever other insights this man may possess, his remark shows that on military matters, he is the naive one.
Because first, Russia needs to defeat the Ukrainian regular army: Which has proven so difficult that Russia is now resorting to the tremendously unpopular act of conscription. Then Russia needs to defeat the Ukrainian insurgency that will inevitably arise if Russia does happen to win---and. That insurgency will, if it starts to lose, begin to act inside the borders of Russia proper. If they couldn't hold their own against the Afghans, what makes you think they will hold their own against battle-hardened, trained veterans in a nation that is much, much larger? And what makes you think Putin's regime can withstand partisan activity inside Ukraine, sanctions, and domestic terrorism all at once—domestic terrorism that his political rivals might use in and outside of the Kremlin to remove him? Does he think insurgencies are just an Islamic thing? Perhaps he should read up on Napoleon and the origin of the term guerilla war.
Ukraine wins if it wins either stage of the conflict- the conventional or the guerilla phase. Russia has to win twice to win at all. The fact that he doesn't appreciate this suggests he is not a competent military analyst. The analogy would be someone who planned to go into Iraq or Afghanistan and didn't have plans to deal with the subsequent insurgency. Indeed, to be so close to both the Iraq and Afghan wars as we are now and not to see this suggests that Peterson is not the universal genius he probably believes himself to be. A clever man who is worth listening to, but I suggest he read some military history before he opens his God damned trap.
For those who remain dubious, consider how much trouble Russia had in Chechnya, a much smaller area with many fewer people. Now consider that the irregular forces emerging from this conflict will have better training, more combat experience, and the material and intelligence support of the US and a number of its allies—and that they will have to fight this Guerrilla war with a military that cannot easily replace its equipment and whose men and equipment have been exhausted by a long and costly conventional conflict. Jordan, do I still seem naive?
Indeed, Russia needs to have some Ukrainian state survive this war: Otherwise, he will be forced to absorb a large number of Ukrainian veterans unless he decides to send them to death camps, which would itself belie the “fighting NATO and Nazis” narratives, and risk a massive backlash from the Russian population: But if he does absorb these Ukrainian veterans, he is likely to face a large scale Guerrilla war both in Ukraine and in Russia itself as these new citizens of the Russian Federation move around. After all, if Putin confines Ukrainians to Ukraine, it becomes difficult to argue Ukrainians were really Russians and that Ukraine had always been Russian territory.
People who favor Russia claim there has been “virtually no partisan activity.” This is manifestly untrue, as the following article from 1945 demonstrates; here is an article describing some of these acts: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/ukraine-is-waging-guerilla-warfare-hell-on-putin. However, the partisan activity is a shadow of what it will be for the following reasons:
Now, partisans are more valuable as spies than fighters—providing targeting information to the regular army. If the regular army is defeated, this dynamic will change.
As I said above, veterans are more likely to engage in violence than regular citizens. Once the conventional war is over, these people will blend into the civilian population and turn to asymmetric warfare unless Putin is willing to track drastic action that will undermine his narrative that this is a war of liberation. Of course, Russians will argue that this did not happen when Bandera fought against the Russians: But the Russians had just liberated Ukraine from a vicious, and frankly mindlessly cruel, occupation by the Germans. Without that dynamic.
At the moment, Ukrainian citizens are fleeing the fighting. But if Ukraine were to surrender, well, Russia would suddenly have a much larger Ukrainian population to police, making the task of finding and attacking partisans more difficult.
In six months, Russia has suffered 80K casualties---at least---and likely 30K+ dead. That is more than the US lost in three years of fighting in Korea, and it is three times what the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.
Ukraine has two things Putin needs and, as his use of conscription evinces to everyone regarding one of them, does not have: Men and morale. If required, Ukraine could call up an army of nearly a million men in addition to the combat hardened and highly motivated forces it currently has on the field. If Putin attempted a mobilization of that size, he would likely face a political crisis that would not only put his hold on power at risk but his very life. The West, on the other hand, has plenty of equipment that is, quite frankly, better than Russia’s—and Russian strategy appears to be making no progress towards shutting off that supply of equipment. Given that this is the case, in what sense is Putin’s military superior at this point? We used to think Russia had the second-best military in the world, but I fear Russia now merely has the second-best military in Ukraine. Our alpha lobster bucko is allowing his perception of force and equipment ratios at the beginning of the war to affect his thinking on where things stand now.
Russia did not properly train its soldiers. Russia did not properly maintain its equipment. As I said above, Russia will not be able to win this war—let alone win it twice.
More importantly, Peterson ignores that his philosophy requires the US to stand up to Putin’s aggression. He constantly reiterates the importance of displaying one’s capacity for aggression and not being a pushover. Simply surrendering on matters of principle, without putting forward any resistance, creates the risk of a sudden explosion of violence. If the US were to simply offer up Ukraine, what happens when Putin, let’s say, tries to test the integrity of the NATO alliance? Conflict is communication, even if it is tragic, heart-rending communication.
It is naive to think where the militarily stronger Soviet Union failed Putin will succeed despite having a much, much tougher task on his hands.
You're right, of course, but Peterson thinks what he thinks about this not because he has assessed the strategic situation and carefully arrived at what seems to him to be the likeliest conclusion but rather because he feels that the sins of the West have elicited the responsive wrath of God and that Russia is the instrument of that wrath -- and, moreover, he feels that it is his divinely appointed task to proclaim that this is so.
And, secondarily, he shares the standard Anglospheric pro-Russian view of the Russian regime as not merely an instrument of divine vengeance against the West, playing the role that the Assyrians played (in Isaiah's imagination) in relation to ancient Israel, but as positively virtuous (unlike the Assyrians) due to Putin's alleged affection for the Orthodox Church, professed opposition to radical homosexualism, and signaling of manliness.
ChatGPT's feedback: "I would rate this op-ed as biased and lacking in objectivity. The author presents their own argument and analysis without adequately acknowledging and addressing counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The language used is also inflammatory and not conducive to a respectful and productive debate."