Perhaps historical amnesia is not such a bad thing despite George Santayana’s warning in his 1905 book The Life of Reason that those who “cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” One reason is that even with recollections of the past, we are often doomed to repeat the blunders and even catastrophic errors that have been made. After all, what did the US learn from its Vietnam failures that it did not repeat in Afghanistan and Iraq three decades later?
That said, links between the Ukraine War and Vietnam do provide intellectual fodder in assessing how this conflict may evolve and eventually end. What is interesting is that after the 1954 division of French Indochina into North and South Vietnam, the Ukraine War could be seen as a representation of either. Here is why?
The “loss” of the South had no geostrategic consequence. Failure in Ukraine will.
The North was determined to unite Vietnam. As it recovered from the war with France and began rebuilding a state under communist lines, its leader, Ho Chi Minh, understood this would be a long struggle, possibly lasting decades or more. He also realised that exporting the fault lines in the South between the rich who governed to their benefit and the poor and out of power who suffered; Buddhism, Catholicism and Can Dai and Hoa Hao religious sects; and other factors was the basis for his strategy of unification.
This led to establishing cadres of Viet Cong and other revolutionaries in the south, some often with diverging interests from Hanoi. Over time, these groups would gradually increase control of parts of the south that the government in Saigon was unable to reverse. The rest is history. Fearful of dominoes falling in South East Asia to the so-called Sino-Soviet communist monolith-that could not have been a more mistaken assumption-in1961, the new Kennedy administration acted. Promising to pay any price and bear any burden, the US slid into what would become the Vietnam quagmire.
Despite having deployed at one time nearly half a million troops to South Vietnam and having dropped more tonnage of bombs on the North, Cambodia and Laos than in all of World War II, the US evacuated in 1975. Then, after Congress cut off all funding, it was a matter of time before the North would fully control the South. The photo of the last US Huey helicopter lifting off the US embassy in Saigon encapsulated the folly and stupidity of that war.
How might this apply to Ukraine? Interestingly, in a thought experiment, Ukraine could be seen as either North or South Vietnam. If it is viewed through the Hanoi lens, the parallel to the 1954 Geneva Conference was the dissolution of the USSR and the subsequent Budapest Memorandum that assured Ukrainian sovereignty. But parts of Ukraine were under Russian control. About 20,0000 Russian troops and their families lived in Crimea. And in the east, in Donbas and Luhansk, substantial numbers of the population were Russian speakers and favoured Russian rule.
In this case, the North was supported by China and the USSR. Ukraine is aided by the US, EU and NATO. And, as of last week, President Donald Trump has decided Ukraine can regain all its lost territories as North Vietnam was attempting in the South, provided the EU and NATO do the heavy lifting with money, resources and weapons.
As North Vietnam was attacking the South with its cadre forces using guerrilla war tactics until a conventional force could be mobilised, Ukraine is hammering Russia with drone and missile attacks. Indeed, the way that Ukraine immobilised Russia’s Black Sea Fleet with drones may be akin to guerrilla war at sea.
If Ukraine is considered in light of South Vietnam, there are significant commonalities and more differences. As the South was attacked by the North, so too is Ukraine being attacked from the north by Russia. Instead of using guerrilla forces, the war is being waged both as a kinetic slaughterhouse and with many non-kinetic forces. Unlike South Vietnam, Ukraine has a very competent and dedicated military. And it is not divided by a broken and unpopular government.
The link and possible reason for Ukraine succumbing is not necessarily the size and weight of Russia. South Vietnam was doomed when Congress cut off aid. Of course, the South could have lost. As Trump has put the onus of support on Europe, that too may prove fragile and lead to an unhappy outcome. The other difference is profound. The “loss” of the South had no geostrategic consequence. Failure in Ukraine will.
The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.