Lose. Evacuate the government. Then mount a guerrilla, and wait for an opportunity. It'll come, most likely sooner rather than later.
Why is that unthinkable? I can understand people in the US being unable to process such a scenario, but here in Europe, there's not a single nation that wasn't off the map for some time.
I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
> I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
And you imagine they won’t die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
You're suggesting a decades long guerrilla movement under occupation will be better for the Ukrainian people than conscription during an existential defensive war?
In terms of the number of lives lost? Yes. Guerrilla resistance is a way of trading important advantages (like control of the territory or political legitimacy) for time and human lives. Guerrillas in a favorable environment tend to suffer much lower casualties per fighter per unit of time than trench warfare along a frontline.
It's a desperate measure, but so is snatching people from the street to bus them off to trenches.
Personally, I think people can live through almost any hell (and can make a comeback later) - unless they die, in which case they can't do anything anymore. Decades of hard times, in this view, are preferable to tens of thousands of excess deaths per year over a decade.
I understand why people are reluctant to consider this - I'm just trying to show that there are alternatives to the current situation; not strictly better, but at least presenting different trade-offs. In a situation of "existential defensive war," we should discuss all plausible options, even the most controversial ones.
Not necessarily, if Ukraine surrenders then Russia will disarm them. Then when they revolt Russia will be able to bomb them with impunity because the resistance will not have the air defenses and manufacturing that the Ukrainian military now has.
Not to mention that Russia will almost certainly genocide or atleast severely oppress the Ukrainians if they win
EDIT: important to note that abandoning the trenches and the frontline does not mean surrendering, and I never said they should surrender! I suggested evacuating the govt and continuing the resistance with other means - I don't believe the actual surrender would do any good.
You're right - the risks are, of course, very significant. And we've been through that here in Poland, historically, like 3 times already. We've had quite a few failed uprisings, and we've had anti-communist guerrillas here for a while after WW2 - they were quickly (it still took 3-5 years, though!) dismantled, and most of them were killed. So the risks are real, and it is a "desperate measure".
On the other hand, it worked quite a few times: Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan all proved that it's possible to win (or at least not lose) using guerrilla tactics. In case of Ukraine, I think the circumstances would favor the resistance: Russia's already not doing well economically; the "severe oppression" of the Ukrainians (which I agree would follow) would cement the support for the resistance, and it would cost Russia a lot; Russia had air superiority since day one, and it didn't really help them much (it would be much more of a threat had Russia have US-level intelligence capabilities - but they domonstrably don't).
Yes, as long as it's possible, the conventional war should continue. At some point, though, the costs (all kinds of them) of continuing to fight in the field become so high that it's better to stop and switch to other ways of defending.
I'm not saying that moment is now - and it's not for me to dictate when it happens - I'm just trying to say that there are other ways of dealing with the aggressor that may (in favorable circumstances) lead to lower casualties without forgoing the hope of eventually winning. Which I wish Ukraine with all my heart, BTW.
The countries that got invaded by the US fought guerrilla because that is the only thing they could do. It wasn't some deliberate strategy to rope the US in.
And the only reason it worked out for them is that the US wasn't determined to create new states and had very low domestic support to begin with. That's not the case with Russia where this war is clearly a big deal to them.
