Thanks for answering. I’m sure you’d agree that it’s a difficult decision to cede your territory and your countrymen in exchange for a perceived advantage later.
A suicide defense, as you call it, IS a defense. It may not always be the wisest one, but it is an option. For the Iwo Jimas or Okinawas of the Japanese, there is also a Thermopylae, an Alamo, an Admin Box at Kohima, a Chosin Reservoir or a Bastogne.
I don’t suggest we’d see one in Ukraine. But I do suggest that if the government decides to attempt to hold its territory, I wouldn’t begrudge them that right.
The only time a “suicide” retreat is “meaningful” is if they are covering the retreat of a much larger force and their equipment.
Of course, if you are stuck on an island and there are no boats coming to get you, there is not much choice.
That's no defense.
Thermopylae and the Alamo are two examples of a holding defense. In the former, the Spartans/Greeks held the Persians while the rest of Greece got their act together.
The Alamo was an example of holding out too long for rescue. Again, in the hopes that Houston would get his troops together.
They were both noble. Their heroes are equally dead.
There is no one coming to the rescue of the Ukrainians.
There is no “need” or “reason” for heroes.
And while Putin is a dictator, there is no indication his troops are, or will, behave badly when they are facing a retreating army.
The ability to save men and equipment to fight another day is paramount in this situation.
I would be the ratio of Ukrainian soldiers who really want to get it on with the Russian army is in the 1-5% range. You know, the same percentage of crazy people in any large organization.