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.
I agree. In the context of Ken’s reply, though, what would ordinarily be considered a ‘suicide defense’ does have historical examples of success.
I wouldn’t argue that either of the conflicts you mention was necessarily a success in terms of their individual battles, but in both cases a galvanized defense led to eventual victory.
I’d further note that Ken’s example of Japanese defenses in World War II mostly, but not exclusively, occurred on islands, where retreat was hardly an option. As a method of attrition, which was the only way Japan had any hope of slowing down the American juggernaut, it was the only defense available.