Two wars against Russia: what Volodymyr Zelenskyy can learn from Friedrich the Great
But without understanding the seven -year war, we will not be able to fully understand the possible advantages of current strategic patience in Ukraine. Focus translated the article by Alexander S. Burns about the lessons of Prussian history for Ukraine. According to the leading military historian Paul Lockhart, the vast majority of military historians in the United States have focused on events after 1900. Even less, about 20%, they study military history by 1815.
The recent article on the War On the Rocles website rightly states that one of the main values of historical thinking is "the ability to think beyond the parameters of the present" rather than extracting specific lessons. But at the same time, the specific examples given in the article do not look back in 1938 - still within the limits of living memory. Take, for example, the topic of ending wars is an urgent issue that concerns the United States against Ukraine.
Dan Rayter's book "How Wars Ends", a leading academic study on this issue, covers only the US Civil War. In the book of Hideoon Rose with the same name "How the wars end: why we always lead the last battle" is considered an even shorter period of time - after the First World War. The range of examples given Parley Policy Initiative is even shorter - from 1940 to the present.
Even educational institutions such as the US Military Academy in West Point are reducing the mandatory military history course for cadets by 1900. The Academy has abandoned this compulsory subject in 2018, although it can still be studied as an elective. It is a problem not only of professional military education, but also in the historical profession in general.
In the period from 2004 to 2017, approximately 80 % of historians were studying topics after 1800, and the number of graduate students who studied the era by 1800 is rapidly decreasing. Given the special training in the fields of languages and paleography necessary to access this realm of the human past, it is not an exaggeration to say that we are losing the ability to prepare future generations of historians who want to specialize in topics by 1800.
We will not be able to think beyond the parameters of today if everyone studies the XX century. If we focus on closer conflicts, then confrontation such as the Civil and World War II will seem to us excessively large -scale. However, the completion of both these wars was deceptively simple. The Soviet troops were taken by Berlin. American atomic bombs have accelerated Japan's surrender. The union's armies were occupied by Richmond and devastated part of the American South.
In other words, the end of these stories for their participants was determined by an obvious military defeat. But this experience is less significant for understanding conflicts in which a clear military defeat or hike to the opponent's capital is not the most likely and not even the safest result. In order to better understand the future of the Russian-Ukrainian war, we should turn to the past and draw some parallels with the Seven Year War, which lasted from 1756 to 1763.
The problems of Ukraine and President Vladimir Zelensky, are largely similar to those who were dealing with Prussia and Friedrich II. The Little German Kingdom of Prussia, which belonged to Friedrich Great, tried to prevent defeat as a result of the invasion of Russia, Austria, Sweden and France. Britain played the role of an ally, who in some places enthusiastically supported Friedrich as a hero, and sometimes considered him a burden, distracted by a new conflict.
Comparison between Prussia of the XVIII century and Ukraine of the XXI century demonstrates difficulties associated with maintaining the financing of allies during a difficult war. But it also suggests that strategic patience can now be effective. Even if your country's leader has become a military star that has not been seen in recent history, this reputation may not be enough to continue to receive help.
In such a situation, the desire to take offensive actions to give the war a new impulse and attract public attention can be very strong. However, thanks to flexibility and readiness for defense, Friedrich II retained its state for six years from 1757 to 1762, even in the face of impatient allies and great military risks. Let us delve into this "foreign" war, relevant to this day, despite its distance from us in time. The war in Eastern Europe was increasingly delayed.
At least it seemed in the overseas capital, where voters and deputies discussed the benefits of supporting the small country in which Russia invaded. Just as US policies in Washington are discussing the level of financial and military support of Ukraine in 2024, British politicians in London argued about the level of support they were ready to provide Prussia in 1760-1762. London politicians have repeatedly ignored the calls for the creation of new weapons for confrontation with Russia.
Whether the F-16 in the modern world or the British naval squadron in the Baltic Sea in the 1750s-both Ukrainians and Prussians were looking forward to new weapons. Unfortunately for Ukrainians and Prussians, their friends were distracted by the Sea of the Sea in the Mediterranean: the War of Israel with Hamas in 2024 and a new conflict with the Spaniards of the 1760s.
In the far capital, a new administration came to power, which decided to reduce the costs and put an end to the war, forcing the leader of the smaller occupied county to negotiate. In 2024, this role was played by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson (or, depending on the result of the presidential election, Donald Trump); In the 1760s, the new administration was the Ministry of Count Beat.
The determination of a small state leading a defensive war against Russia fell into the headlines of newspapers, making the country leader a hero in the English -speaking world. He was known in the face, his style of clothing was copied by leaders and inhabitants around the Western world, and military and financial assistance was rushing to it. This applies equally to Zelensky in 2022-23, and Friedrich II Prussian in 1757-58.
Friedrich Great became a hero in the English -speaking world, and, just as French President Emmanuel Macron copies the wardrobe of Zelensky, Friedrich II's "cosplay" became a characteristic feature of English (and Irish) fashion. However, at some point, this support has exhausted. The new administration in the distant imperial capital, less friendly and fighter in financial terms, estimated the costs of further support.
Earlier, the leader who resists Russia looked like a hero, now for some he became more and more. We do not know what the history of 2024 will end, but the events of 1762 have gained a dramatic turn: the financial pressure from the former allies intensified, and Friedrich allowed his diplomats to negotiate and even give territory to ensure peace.
Just at the time of making this decision, the news reached: Russian autonomic died! The new Russian leader, who represented the party that looked at the European culture outside, not inside Russia, immediately began negotiations to stop the occupation of the territories captured by Russia. It seemed miracle. The late Russian leader was Elizabeth Petrovna, and the new king with radical ideas - her nephew, Peter III.
The real miracle of the Brandenburg House happened: the death of Elizabeth Petrovna saved Prussia from the inevitable death at the last moment of the conflict. Thus, it seems that in 1761-62, Friedrich Prussian was dealing with the same difficulties and problems as Volodymyr Zelenskyy today. Thanks to foreign assistance, good luck and perseverance, Friedrich was able to withstand in the war, which, if judged by his country's military and economic resources, he should not win.
Today, many in the West hope that Zelensky will reach the same. In the history of Prussia and Germany, Friedrich is a well-known figure that it, like George Washington, was once considered a founding father of the nation.
Friedrich himself was a rare personality of the eighteenth century; The notion of an unprecedented Prussian militarist is nullified when getting acquainted with a real Friedrich, who spoke French better than German, and who liked to write poems or play sonatas for a flute than to shoot guns. Despite this, he was a capable (although in some places overrated) by a commander who was in a dangerous situation during the seven -year war.
Most of its territory was occupied by Russian and Austrian troops. The little state Friedrich, Prussia, had neither people, finance nor military resources to win a long war with larger states against it. Despite this, thanks to his generals, the will of the soldiers to battle and, to some extent, his own talents, he won impressive victories in the first two years of the conflict, stopping the invaders on the way and even pushing their forces in counter -offensive.
Having won the French, Austrians and Russians, Friedrich became a hero for the British people and the government headed by Duke Newkastle and William Pitt Elder. Historian Dennis Shooalter argues that Friedrich became the first military celebrity of his time, mirror reflecting Zelensky's reputation in the first months of the Russian-Ukrainian war. However, despite some initial successes, the decisive victory for which Friedrich sought remained unattainable.
At the beginning of the war, his troops were excellent and highly motivated, but all new waves of conscription needed to replenish the loss, weakened the cohesion and efficiency of the army. Usually capable of keeping the territory in defense, its military was hardly supplanted by hostile detachments from the Prussian possessions as the war was delayed.
The Russians occupied the capital of the Royal Prussia Königsberg for so long, having come there, eventually turning into the present Kaliningrad. However, by 1761, the British people were tired of Friedrich's status as celebrity. The new king, George III, was much less interested in preserving the Alliance with Prussia than his father.
The new favorite of George III in the government, John Stuart, Earl Bight, had an increasing antiprussian influence in the British office and eventually replaced Newcastle as Prime Minister in 1762. Already in 1761, the British rejected Prussia's request for allocation of additional funds and crossed out an article from the Union Agreement, which allowed Britain to make a separate peace with France, Austria and Russia.
Friedrich was concerned, but there was only one of his many problems in the face of a military defeat. At the beginning of January 1762, he authorized his diplomats to start surrender negotiations, which was to be a severe defeat for Prussia. However, immediately after changing the regime in Britain, the regime in Russia changed. The old Russian queen, Elizabeth Petrovna, finally succumbed to illness that has tormented it since the mid-1750s.
On the Russian throne, it was replaced by the nephew Peter III, one of the most amazing and most memorable characters of Russian history. He was a passionate fan of the enemy of Russia, Friedrich, and obsessed with his legacy of the Prince of the Small North German Duchy of Schleswig-Golstein. He agreed with Friedrich on peace and even offered military support for the former enemy of Russia if Friedrich supports his minor territorial claims in the border areas of Germany and Denmark.
Friedrich gladly agreed. Release from the need to resist both Russia and Austria, his troops were able to win over the Austrians in the decisive season of the 1762 campaign. Public opinion in allied democracies can be volatile. On October 10, 1761, before the final rupture of the United Kingdom with Prussia, the Public Ledger or Daily Register of Commerce ridiculed its announcement from the previous day, which was for sale a ship called King of Prussia.
The author with humor noted the symbolism of advertising in the face of public opinion against the Prussian Union: "Indeed, Mr. H. , Why do we sell King Prussia? Is he not our friend? And should people honor be stored and protected their friends? The prince will not become a brilliant figure in future history? We have not pledged to support him; and in the future will not glorify us what we supported him against the whole world of enemies who sought to destroy it? contract.
It is a very good idea on your part, Mr. H. , because it would be a big shame to sell it publicly. " The implication, according to which Britain sells Friedrich, is well consistent with recent columns about supporting the West of Ukraine. Just as during the Seven Year War, Britain was concentrated primarily on confrontation with France, in the United States, many state that it is China, not Russia or Eastern Europe, should be the main priority of American defense policy.
This increases the extinction of public love for Zelensky and Ukraine. As a result of a very limited window, the West expected that Zelensky and Ukrainian military would quickly end the war with a triumphant offensive in 2023, which would displace Russian troops from the Ukrainian territory. Few people tried to sober up. The British were also disappointed in the absence of rapid victory in the XVIII century.
At the beginning of July 1759, the Universal Chronicle newspaper reported: "The Prussia King finally came out of a state of inaction, in which he seemed to have been a long time. " In the end, Friedrich learned to adapt to the enemy's fire superiority. His troops were defeated in frontal attacks, and he began to adhere to more defensive tactics, although his most famous victories were won in a tactical offensive.
Friedrich sought to preserve the sufficient shock power of Prussia to bring the war to the end. Although he would have been defeated if Elizabeth had not died, the change of tactics enabled the Prussian army and the state to withstand in the Long War, until it finally had the opportunity to win or at least survive. The lesson for Ukraine is obvious: the pace of operations should be determined by the fact that Ukraine gives the best chance of survival in long war, not the impatience of foreigners.
Western media seems like to speculate on the health of Russian President Vladimir Putin; He has now been diagnosed with many different diseases. The same fears and hopes for the health of the Russian ruler were during the seven -year war. In the summer of 1757, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna suffered a stroke. This forced her field commander who invaded Prussia to retreat.
Not wanting to conduct an aggressive campaign in the case of the pro-Russian sentiment of the heir of the throne, the Russian troops left the fruits of their victory under Gross-Jersdorf and retreated. In 2024, there is no pro -Ukrainian heir. However, changing leadership or even serious Putin health problems can lead to significant failures in Russian hostilities.
Perhaps we are giving the desired for the true: German leaders have (incorrectly) interpreted the death of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Second World War. Putin's death will probably not be enough to put an end to Russian imperialist goals, but this will change the dynamics of the situation. It should be remembered that historical parallels can be useful, but the past is not always the perfect benchmark.
It may be worthwhile to turn to conflicts of the recent past to get information for our historical vision. After all, they are closest to us in time and the least "strangers". As shown in this article, conflicts until 1900 remain relevant for professional military education and training of officers. Military history until 1900 is still capable of thinking about modern strategic events and problems.
In the latest issue of The Russian CONTINGENCY program, Michael Kafman reminded the audience that even in 2024 he was an important tactical multiplier. The Prussian Army officer, who grew up in the eighteenth century, would probably agree with that. He formulated it even tougher: "Defense is a stronger form of war. " The history of the Napoleonic wars or even earlier periods remains relevant in the 21st century, since officers develop their "ability to think outside of the present.