EDIT: important to note that abandoning the trenches and the frontline does not mean surrendering, and I never said they should surrender! I suggested evacuating the govt and continuing the resistance with other means - I don't believe the actual surrender would do any good.
You're right - the risks are, of course, very significant. And we've been through that here in Poland, historically, like 3 times already. We've had quite a few failed uprisings, and we've had anti-communist guerrillas here for a while after WW2 - they were quickly (it still took 3-5 years, though!) dismantled, and most of them were killed. So the risks are real, and it is a "desperate measure".
On the other hand, it worked quite a few times: Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan all proved that it's possible to win (or at least not lose) using guerrilla tactics. In case of Ukraine, I think the circumstances would favor the resistance: Russia's already not doing well economically; the "severe oppression" of the Ukrainians (which I agree would follow) would cement the support for the resistance, and it would cost Russia a lot; Russia had air superiority since day one, and it didn't really help them much (it would be much more of a threat had Russia have US-level intelligence capabilities - but they domonstrably don't).
Yes, as long as it's possible, the conventional war should continue. At some point, though, the costs (all kinds of them) of continuing to fight in the field become so high that it's better to stop and switch to other ways of defending.
I'm not saying that moment is now - and it's not for me to dictate when it happens - I'm just trying to say that there are other ways of dealing with the aggressor that may (in favorable circumstances) lead to lower casualties without forgoing the hope of eventually winning. Which I wish Ukraine with all my heart, BTW.
The countries that got invaded by the US fought guerrilla because that is the only thing they could do. It wasn't some deliberate strategy to rope the US in.
And the only reason it worked out for them is that the US wasn't determined to create new states and had very low domestic support to begin with. That's not the case with Russia where this war is clearly a big deal to them.
You're right - the risks are, of course, very significant. And we've been through that here in Poland, historically, like 3 times already. We've had quite a few failed uprisings, and we've had anti-communist guerrillas here for a while after WW2 - they were quickly (it still took 3-5 years, though!) dismantled, and most of them were killed. So the risks are real, and it is a "desperate measure".
On the other hand, it worked quite a few times: Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan all proved that it's possible to win (or at least not lose) using guerrilla tactics. In case of Ukraine, I think the circumstances would favor the resistance: Russia's already not doing well economically; the "severe oppression" of the Ukrainians (which I agree would follow) would cement the support for the resistance, and it would cost Russia a lot; Russia had air superiority since day one, and it didn't really help them much (it would be much more of a threat had Russia have US-level intelligence capabilities - but they domonstrably don't).
Yes, as long as it's possible, the conventional war should continue. At some point, though, the costs (all kinds of them) of continuing to fight in the field become so high that it's better to stop and switch to other ways of defending.
I'm not saying that moment is now - and it's not for me to dictate when it happens - I'm just trying to say that there are other ways of dealing with the aggressor that may (in favorable circumstances) lead to lower casualties without forgoing the hope of eventually winning. Which I wish Ukraine with all my heart, BTW.