No. of Recommendations: 5
Just like we outlasted the Limeys! Well, no, the American Revolution was a lot more complicated than that as it involved not only other nations giving us guns and money but also dudes of their own to fight along side us.
But those complications weren't relevant to the point at hand. Even though they gave us dudes, we never had enough dudes or guns or money to drive the British out. Which is the thing you keep claiming about Ukraine - right? That if they can't actually drive the Russians out, they can't prevail? But in the American Revolution, we never had the dudes or guns or money to drive the British off the continent - even with other nations' contributions. The British left because Parliament didn't want to finance the war any more, and the king couldn't convince them that it would be won any time soon. Not because we were able to drive British forces out of the continent.
I asked you repeatedly if you wanted Americans and/or NATO forces on the ground, in the fight, in the Ukraine. This board says no. And with that, the comparisons to the American Revolution end.
No, they don't - any more than asking what part of the Ukrainian conflict was taking place in the Western Hemisphere, hearing "none," and declaring that the comparisons are therefore over. It's not relevant that the French contributed troops, because they never contributed sufficient troops for the Americans to end the war the way you insist the Ukrainians have to win the war. The French only contributed sufficient troops that the Americans could stay in the fight - and the Ukrainians don't need that. We needed troops, the Ukrainians need weapons both high- and low-tech. Both countries are getting what they need(ed) to keep fighting, neither country gets what they need to drive out the other military by force of arms. The American path to victory and the Ukrainian path to victory are exactly the same - outlast the British/Russian forces until the other country decides it's not worth fighting any more, and not to try to dislodge their military physically from the theater.
Who are the 18th-century French in the Ukraine scenario?
NATO. The French helped us defeat Britain by imposing costs on them in areas outside the specific theater of North America. Sure, they gave us troops - but never enough to allow us to drive out Britain if they had wanted to just hunker down and hold the areas they controlled militarily. But by globalizing the conflict, Britain was bleeding resources everywhere. The NATO analog is all of the sanctions that they (and other allied countries) have imposed on the Russians while they prosecute their fight against Ukraine. Like Britain, Russia would be able to continue the war there for a much longer time if the only costs they bore were the military expenditures in country. But like Britain, Russia's resources are being decimated by expensive consequences far from the battlefield.
