Note: This article may contain comments that reflect the opinions of the author.
Having a definition of “success” is extremely important when waging war. Without such a definition, without a goal of what winning would be like, winning is almost impossible. For how can a war be won if those who oppose it and lead the attack don’t know what to do?
That is one of the reasons we lost in Afghanistan: after the Taliban were defeated within a few weeks and the mission shifted to nation building, there was never a clear definition of success, other than “improvement”. improve the security situation” or some other fancy, bureaucratic phrase. The war can’t be won about that.
But they also cannot and should not fight when the definition of success is completely absurd, like Biden’s absurd definition of success in the competition with Russia.
That definition of “success” came from Deputy National Security Adviser and National Economic Council Deputy Director Daleep Singh, who appeared on the podium to answer questions after Biden’s speech about the invasion. Russian strategy.
One reporter, seeking clarity on the purpose of the sanctions, asked:
For weeks now, administration officials have repeatedly said – including yourself – that these sanctions are intended to deter and deter Putin from moving forward and taking action. Can you help us understand why today the President said that nobody expected sanctions to stop anything from happening?
And second, a brief question about the Putin sanctions: Without talking about when you can activate them, can you help us understand what they would do to him personally if you punished him? penalize Putin?
In response, Singh came up with an odd definition of success, one that can only come from the managerial elite. In his words:
Look, on your first question, we don’t usually get into hypotheticals here at this podium, but let’s give it a go. If we – had rolled out our entire financial sanctions package first, I think a couple of things could have happened.
First, President Putin could have said, “Look, these people are not serious about diplomacy. They are not engaged in a good faith effort to promote peace. Instead, they are escalating.” And that may provide a justification for his escalation and aggression.
[…]Overall – ultimately, the goal of our sanctions is to turn this into a strategic failure for Russia. And let’s define a little bit what that means.
Strategic success in the 21st century is not about a physical takeover of territory. That’s what Putin did.
In this century, power – strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic power, by technological sophistication, and by your story – who you are, what your values are. , you can attract ideas, talent and goodwill. For each of those measures, this would be a failure for Russia.
Is that true? Is “economic strength” something that inspires men to fight and die, to count “again trespassing”?
Not really. No one is willing to die for interest rates or keep the S&P 500 high, to increase market opportunities or attract more tech developers to make apps. National glory, often achieved through conquest of territory, remains the vision of success many believe in.
Russia’s markets may have plummeted and its economy damaged by Putin’s vision of Ukraine. But Putin’s vision of success: keeping a large swath of land within his country’s sphere of influence and maintaining Russia’s status as a great power, is a realistic one.
Biden’s fanciful idea of gaining strength through “goodwill” is not.
https://smartzune.com/bidens-bizarre-definition-of-success-against-russia/ Biden’s Bizarre Definition of “Success” Against Russia