2026/02/20

American-Clausewitzian thought falls short on the strategy level

 

So, here's the issue that makes American-Clausewitzian thought rather useless for strategy:

They write about winning a war 1vs1 or coalition vs. coalition and do not properly account for escalation.

Suppose somebody would design a Clausewitzian campaign against Russia. I've just today seen an article by a prolific article writer who wrote a lot of nonsense about that. Still, going with the American-Clausewitzian nonsense that Americans write and think of Schwerpunkt as the one thing you need to knock out to win (that's not really what Clausewitz wrote about):

You would go for either Putin or the fuel industry (which Ukraine did, but not enough for decisive effect, at least not decisive so far). 

Why would this not be done in a decisive way in the year 2026?

Fear of escalation. 

You had to fear adding more enemies in previous wars, such as Germany adding the U.S. as enemy in 1917 by conducting unrestricted submarine war against the UK*.

In 2026, you fear escalation by Russian nukes instead.

So in order to dare to press that "I win" button, you need to first overcome the fear of escalation. You might position your own nukes to deter first nuke use by the enemy, you might kidnap the enemy leader's only daughter, you might position lots of potential allies who would join the fray if powers join your enemy or you might simply ball bigger balls (something that sounds more like Sun Tzu than von Clausewitz).

There are "I win" buttons, military history and military technology leave hardly any doubt about that. You first need to make them usable, relevant - or else all talk about them is pointless blathering by people who only fool themselves and a few others into thinking they're big military thinkers.


S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

 

*: compounded by a huge British hatemongering campaign in American press that still leaves its mark more than 100 years later with the "huns" thing and the myth about Germans having been unusually militaristic 

.

4 comments:

  1. >>>you might kidnap the enemy leader's only daughter>>>

    The same old Last Dingo who always holds international law, the law, and justice in such high regard. Amazing. Your bigotry and your left-socialist drivel are always refreshing. Completely independent of that, I fully agree with you in this context that one should simply let go of the fear of escalation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wrote about what could be done, not about what should be done.

      It's pretty obvious that the person in question is being protected by the West, for else the GUR would already have her.

      Delete
    2. Bold of you to assume psychopaths with extreme wealth or power git a shit about their own family.
      Anyways, Germany is done for. I remember when I asked Sven "please reproduce" he and some other German dismissed it as right-wing nationalist propaganda. Defense and Freedom is really about "We must secure the existence of Turkish immigrants and a future for Syrian refugees".

      Delete
    3. Stalin didn't give a shit about his son, but some dictators do very much.

      Germany is a country, not a bloodline. Never was. We've been importing people since Roman times.
      Fertility rates are universally low, including among immigrants.

      https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/06/europe-bashers-and-their-next.html

      Delete