First thing to ask when making a strategy… is this, what is this game? If for example the game is this… It is Ukraine against Russia, and Russia did wrong to attack and we want Ukraine to win the war against Russia. Well if that is the game, then people of Ukraine will need our help. Of course answering the question in this way is not enough, because when you ask a question what is this game, that answer also has to answer many other questions, like these four. 1. How do we not want to win the game? 2. How do we want to win the game? 3. What kind of ending do we want for the game? 4. Aren't attacking always wrong? First I will answer the number 1. How do we not want to win the game? Answer is of course no Nuclear War or no World War 3. So then even if the attack is the best answer to help Ukraine, then the attacker can not be a country who will take us all to World War 3 etc. So the attacker should be a neutral country, that is not in NATO. (It would be better if that country would not be in the EU too, but not-NATO country is good enough.) That neutral player in the field could be Finland, but when thinking who is close enough geographically, without getting too difficult logistic problems… then it would be Poland. (But before this attack, this neutral player should not be in NATO anymore. So Poland should resign from NATO and only then they should attack.)
Muut lukivat myös
Odottaa vastausta
Näihin keskusteluihin ei ole vielä vastattu. Ole ensimmäinen.
Vastaukset 5
Vanhimmat
You write about attack? You mean attack Russia? Some would ask. Yes and no. But the war is Russia against Ukraine... So when you write that Poland should attack, that means that Poland should move its army to help Ukraine? No. I do not write about that, well not directly. Poland in this scenario, if it would be a neutral country/without NATO, it should attack Belarus, not Russia. Take over Belarus, that will make the Russian Army weaker also in Ukraine. Everyone who understands something about of the art of war knows this - attack is not always the best move, but attacking in the place where the enemy is the weakest is many times the best move. So then, how to answer the number 2 question that need to be answered too, to get good overall answer. How do we want to win the game? If the answer is that we want to win the game in the way that Putin loses his power. Then he should be humiliated, example in the war, by losing areas, like Crimea. And that would effect in the way that Putin loses his face inside his own country and someone else will take his place. There are also always many ways to do strategy, many variations. I will write another variation of the same idea. Someone could in this variation arm a Refugee Army. Yes, I just wrote arm a Refugee Army. There are already a lot of refugees from Ukraine inside Poland, so some of them would be willing to fight, if they had weapons to do that. (Not children or teenagers of course.)
Also this Refugee Army should take in people from all the parts of the world, who Ukraine did not accept to war, because they do not have enough military training etc. So Refugee Army would be also full of volunteer around the world, who are soldiers of B and C level, not the finest fighters, but good enough. In this scenario Finland as a neutral country/not-NATO country could help, by sending example 50 army officers to train this army. Then this Refugee Army would attack Belarus and help people/groups against Lukashenko in there, to take over Belarus, kick Lukashenko out of power and destroy Russian supply lines. (This way Russian army movement to Ukraine from Belarus would stop or at least slow down.) Of course there are many other variations, but I will now focus on what would be at the end of this game. 3. What kind of ending do we want for the game? Well of course the world where Putin is out of the picture, destroyed by someone inside Russia and Lukashenko, leader of Belarus is also out of the picture. But what about NATO, the danger of Nuclear War and World War 3? Even if Ukraine wins or some kind of deal is enough for Russia, this problem will not go away. At least not in a world that will be full of NATO countries next to Russia, to annoy the next ruler of Russia too. There should be something else between, to avoid also clear Cold War 2. That something else could be a new Military Alliance, that is between NATO and Russia, that is powerful enough to defend themselves, but also who do not have nuclear weapons. (I think it is immoral to use nuclear weapons or keep the peace with them.) That new military alliance would be the Military Alliance of The Border Nations Next of Russia. Name example: Border Nation Alliance.
In that military alliance heart could be these three countries; Finland, Poland and Ukraine, who all have good reserves, even though one of them is to the world a little country. Later the Border Nation Alliance could get two more countries or at least one more, those countries could be Belarus and Sweden. (Belarus could be a member only after they have a real/working democracy in place.) Those countries in the Border Nation Alliance could be then in the end Finland, Poland, Ukraine and maybe Belarus and Sweden. Also all those countries benefit from closer ties together, because of trade in the next decades, example those countries could do more of their own stuff and sell it between these Border Nation Alliance countries. (And also Border Nation Alliance could have more neutral trade with Russia, but not gas pipelines ever again. We should make our own energy or at least we should not let Russia get us in a leverage again.) In the end of this writing I will also answer the question that most who read this will think - what about morals?
About attacks. 4. Aren't attacking always wrong? No. It depends on the reasons for the attack. In history there was once this wise king, whose name was Frederick II, he was the king of this small country called Prussia. He attacked against his enemies, before for example Russia and Austria would attack his country, at that time they were still planning to attack Prussia, and in the end Fredericks small country of Prussia became a great power for a while. Frederick did not fight alone, but Frederick understood one lesson well about war; sometimes you need to attack to defend or to survive. I will tell the same point in other words. If a school has a group of mean bullies who attack the weak, how wrong is it to hunt them down and beat them with fists in a fair fight, one by one, before the next school day, to teach them a lesson? So no. Attacking is not always wrong. I am not saying violence is the right thing to do or killing someone, but at the same time, is it right to watch Ukraine civilians die or soldiers on both sides of the war, when there are two power-hungry dictators still enjoying their power? Those Two Bullies, Putin and Lukashenko are beating down their Slavic neighbors and in this situation some of us could beat down these Bullies before the next school day, but some of us are not doing that, are we? We are too much under the power of School Teachers, who say that we should be part of their School by their rules, and by their rules only. And so many forget this next lesson about power in the world. Like in the movie Braveheart, William Wallace said, after talking about how Scottish nobles just fight over the scraps under England's king table, “you've missed your God-given right to something better.”
Of course I do not suggest any harm to Belarus or Russia or Ukraine people, this kind of hatred is not my fuel. On the contrary, I would like to see that all players in this game would play with morals, with fuel of empathy and justice and also with the right vision of the future that has wisdom inside of it. But maybe I am wrong and as a self-taught writer, I do not have the right to ask the question - what is this game?