You can win every battle and still lose the war - Sarah Paine
Sarah Paine argues that military victory in battles does not determine overall war success; rather, success depends on achieving the political goals for which a war was waged. She illustrates this through the Russo-Japanese War, where Japan achieved its objectives and gained significant territorial benefits, while Russia gained nothing and would have been better off not fighting.
Summary
In this excerpt, Sarah Paine discusses the distinction between winning battles and winning wars. She emphasizes that the success of a war cannot be measured solely by military victories in individual battles. She supports this argument with the example of the United States in the Vietnam War, noting that despite winning most conventional battles, the war is not considered a U.S. victory because the broader war objectives were not achieved.
Paine then shifts to analyzing the Russo-Japanese War as a case study in successful war strategy. She explains that Japan's goal was to oust Russian influence from Korea, which they successfully accomplished. Beyond this primary objective, Japan also secured the southern portion of Russian railway concessions in Manchuria and obtained a naval base. Paine characterizes Japan's outcome as exceptionally successful, as they acquired significantly more than their initial objectives.
In contrast, Russia gained nothing from the conflict and suffered a defeat. Paine concludes that Russia's position was so unfavorable that it would have been strategically wiser for them not to have initiated or engaged in the war at all. This analysis underscores her central thesis that war success is determined by the achievement of stated political goals and the resulting net gain or loss, not by tactical or battlefield victories.
Key Insights
- War success is determined by achieving the goals for which a war is waged, not by winning individual battles
- The United States won most conventional battles in the Vietnam War yet this conflict is not recorded as a U.S. victory
- Japan's goal in the Russo-Japanese War was to oust Russians from Korea, which they achieved and exceeded by also obtaining railway concessions in Manchuria and a naval base
- Russia gained nothing from the Russo-Japanese War and would have been strategically better off not starting the war at all
- Japan achieved more than its initial objectives in the Russo-Japanese War, making it an exceptionally successful outcome
Topics
Transcript
[0:00] When you determine whether a war is successful, it is not based on whether you have won all the battles. The United States won most of the conventional battles in the Vietnam War, and I don't believe that war is recorded as a victory. It depends on whether you achieve the goal for which you are waging war. And Japan's goal was to oust the Russians from Korea. Well, they certainly achieved that, but they also got the southern part of the Russian railway concessions in Manchuria, as well as a naval base and so on. So, boy, did the Japanese do incredibly well. They got [0:31] more than they initially wanted. The Russians get nothing. It would have…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Dwarkesh Patel
How 168 Men Captured the Inca Emperor - Si Sheppard
Francisco Pizarro, with only 168 men, captured the Inca Emperor Atahualpa in 1532 at Cajamarca by using psychological tactics with horses and an ambush strategy. Despite Atahualpa's show of dominance and his large army, Pizarro's surprise attack and capture of the emperor allowed him to control the entire Inca social hierarchy.
The Myth of the Helpless Aztecs and Inca - Si Sheppard
Si Sheppard argues that the Aztecs and Incas were not helpless victims but actively developed countermeasures and adaptive strategies against Spanish conquistadors, including terrain manipulation, weapon improvisation, and tactical learning—though they lacked sufficient time to fully master foreign technologies.
How Conquistadors Conquered the Aztecs - Si Sheppard
Conquistador success against the Aztecs relied primarily on steel weapons, horses, and psychological tactics rather than firearms. Steel armor and swords proved far more effective than indigenous weapons made of wood, stone, and obsidian, while horses—animals unknown to the Aztecs—provided decisive military and logistical advantages.
How did a few hundred Spanish soldiers topple two empires? – Si Sheppard
Military historian Si Sheppard explains how a few hundred Spanish conquistadors were able to conquer the Aztec and Inca Empires within just a few years through a combination of technological advantages (horses, steel weapons), psychological warfare, diplomatic manipulation of existing divisions among indigenous peoples, and the catastrophic impact of disease. The conquests were contingent on individual leadership decisions and geographic factors, but were fundamentally enabled by the conquistadors' ability to exploit internal rifts within empires that appeared monolithic from the outside.
Russia Couldn't Afford to Keep Fighting - Sarah Paine
Japan successfully secured decreasing interest rates on war loans due to battlefield victories, while Russia faced a financial crisis with depleted treasury and inability to secure additional loans after the Russo-Japanese War. Russia's pre-existing recession and poor harvests left it unable to sustain the war effort, ultimately forcing Nicholas II to cease operations.