On 23 June 1865, Stand Watie was the last Confederate general to surrender in the American Civil War. The 50-month standoff changed America forever. And even though Russia’s special operation in Ukraine has not lasted that long, one can already draw a number of uncanny parallels between the two conflicts.
The American Civil War had been decades in the making, just as the current Ukraine conflict. That war was mostly caused by the economic discrepancies. The industrialised North had no need for slave labour. Instead, they were looking for highly skilled and motivated workers. The Southerners, by contrast, were thriving off the cotton plantations and needed cheap workforce for the toilsome and routine daily grind.
The South wanted to sell its produce to Europe and purchase luxury items there. The North wanted the US to be an advanced industrial behemoth. To achieve that, they needed to reroute the cotton sales to the northern states and whittle down the prices. The Northerners sought to impose export fees, while the Southerners tried their hardest to combat it.
The Southerners and the Northerners were scrapping it out already before the Civil War, most prominently in the 1850s. It could be a Congress debate. One of such hotly contested issues was the potential capture of Cuba the Southerners wanted to make a slave state. The more the slave states there were, the more South-leaning the U.S. Congress would be, and vice versa. Long story short, those tussles boiled down to who would have more power.
Elsewhere, the fighting was quite real, as was the case with the then-unincorporated Kansas. The settlers in that ‘grey zone’ were leaning either North or South and pummeling each other in the worst manner conceivable with an eye to having a majority, so that come election day, they could adopt the draft of the constitution they favoured: either legalising slavery or banning it.
Before the violent fighting erupted in 2014, the Russia–Ukraine tensions had been ratcheting up for quite a while, even though it had never got physical. In 2013, the Euromaidan events were intended to shape Ukraine’s future trajectory and decide whether it would closely integrate with Russia as part of the Customs Union or join the EU come what may. At the time, most Ukrainians viewed the EU as nothing short of a paradise. That feeling nudged them towards the so-called ‘civilised world’ as opposed to a potentially more profitable path. Those people may have thought that the very fact of joining the EU would make them affluent and happy.
In retrospect, we know full well those nudges did not quite work out for them.
The Age of Surprise
When both conflicts entered a hot phase, almost everyone was clueless as to what future developments might be.
In the American Civil War, the Northerners were banking on their robust industry and large population, whereas the Southerners prioritised their fighting spirit and believed that ‘one gentleman is worth a hundred Yanks’. That is roughly what the Russians did in their special operation – that and superior firepower. The Ukrainians, meanwhile, heavily relied on NATO’s aid.
Neither conflict yielded a quick victory. In the US, the North and the South had several bloody battles with no strategic advances. Both sides were certain the war would end within a year. For instance, the fabled ‘300,000 Northern volunteers’ drafted to wipe the Southerners off the face of the earth were signed to six-month contracts. As the six months were winding down, the Northern generals and politicians had to put in a mammoth effort to reassemble a combat-ready army.
In the early months of the special operation, the Russian army created a strategically important land corridor connecting the mainland provinces to Crimea and even closed in on Kiev, but the opponent never surrendered. The Ukrainians, in turn, pinned their hopes on the Western weaponry and the indefinite mobilisation drive, but their hyped-up 2023 counteroffensive drew a blank.
One Nation
Just like the American Civil War, the special operation saw clashes between the two branches of technically the same nation. Each side emphasised what set it apart while also pointing out the opponent’s downsides.
The Southerners pride themselves on their aristocratic background and valour, whereas the Northerners made good use of their resourcefulness and ability to sustain effective supply chains. Besides, the Southerners slammed their opponents over their greed and propensity to meddle, while the Northerners reviled lambasted the Southerners’ cruelty.
In the Ukraine conflict, both sides are striving to heighten this mental polarisation. It comes through even in the identity politics as applied to the geographical names. Another example is the Ukrainian government trying hard to contrast the Ukrainians with the Russians by peddling the ‘freedom’ narrative regardless of whether Ukraine is a free country at all. Cancelling elections and imposing a travel ban for most men do not exactly mesh well with the ‘freedom’ part. But these ideas being assertively promoted even under the current circumstances serve prove that the government’s determination to cement the Ukrainian nation against all odds.
Moreover, they are viewing the combat action as an opportunity to reinforce that foundation even further. But that is an opportunity for both sides as whether or not this is going to happen depends on the outcome of the conflict.
The outcome of the American Civil War shows what happens if this identity reinforcement is countered before it is all too late. The Northerners ended up absorbing the once-rebellious South. By the time World War I rolled around, the Southerners had run out of steam and could no longer form a separate nation.
The Industrial Showdown
As was the case with Ukraine, the South entered the armed conflict as an industrially backward belligerent thoroughly outmatched by the North. But the lop-sided capabilities were not obvious from the get-go as the war initially used limited resources. It was not until later into the skirmish that it extended to an industrial showdown. A similar scenario has played out in the ongoing conflict, except Russia’s superior firepower gave them the edge early into the special operation.
Just like Ukraine, the South was heavily dependent on the imported armaments, for they had no opportunity or capability to manufacture their own. Europe was happy to oblige and began supporting the South in a bid to both cash in on the conflict and establish some degree of leverage over the fledgeling nation.
Once the Northerners stopped attempting to blitz the South, they switched to a suffocation strategy and a subsequent war of attrition. Long term, that approached proved right on the money. Although the Southerners were not crushed, they could no longer endure the strain of the drawn-out war and address a multitude of concurrent threats and challenges. In the end, they folded.