“He who defends everything defends nothing.” ~ Friedrich II
Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” is set during a time when Napoleon was almost in control of the European continent, with Russia waging war against France. Although Napoleon appears in the novel, he is neither the protagonist nor the hero. Tolstoy conveys the message that Napoleon became a great figure by exploiting the French Revolution, not by shaping the era himself. In “War and Peace,” the general that Tolstoy highlights is the Russian General Kutuzov, who humbly recognizes his limitations. It may be natural since Tolstoy was Russian and Kutuzov had ties with the Tolstoy family, but nevertheless, in the showdown between Napoleon and Kutuzov, it is Kutuzov who emerges victorious.
Napoleon, in an effort to counter Britain, imposed the Continental System across Europe, which led to his decision to punish Russia for its non-compliance by invading in June 1812. The newly appointed commander for the Russians was Kutuzov. Although Napoleon advanced seeking battle, the Russian army maintained its strength by continually retreating and avoiding combat, not merely retreating but also burning all food supplies and houses to prevent them from falling into French hands, occasionally launching surprise attacks to harass Napoleon.
During this period, Kutuzov finally attempted a counterattack in September 1812, west of Moscow at Borodino. Both armies suffered a total of 100,000 casualties in this fierce battle, and Kutuzov, deciding against further sacrifices, retreated and surrendered Moscow. This battle, depicted in “War and Peace,” was one of the largest in human history at the time, with over 200,000 troops participating and resulting in one quarter of the French and half of the Russian forces being killed or wounded, yet the battle was inconclusive by nightfall. Taking advantage of the night, Kutuzov retreated, leaving the path to Moscow open for Napoleon.
Upon Kutuzov’s retreat, the citizens of Moscow city were made to evacuate, and Kutuzov abandoned Moscow. Although Napoleon captured Moscow, he gained nothing as the city, left in ruins due to the Russian scorched earth tactic, had no enemies to fight or food to consume.
Nevertheless, Napoleon hoped that Tsar Alexander I would seek peace after the capture of Moscow. However, the Tsar neither made a move nor acknowledged Napoleon’s proposals. As the harsh winter approached, Napoleon’s army, after a month in Moscow, had no choice but to withdraw.
Kutuzov began to pursue and annihilate the retreating Napoleon’s forces. Kutuzov died in 1813, but the Russian army continued the pursuit under the Emperor’s command, entering Paris in 1814, ultimately avenging the loss of Moscow and securing the final victory. The Russians still commemorate this war as the “Patriotic War” and honor Kutuzov as a national hero.
Most old stories we know, regardless of East or West, end with “They lived happily ever after.” However, in reality, it seems that greedy people who covet others’ possessions often live well. This may be because they are more noticeable but observing that luxury cars are more often illegally or improperly parked seems to support this. While there appears to be a social consensus that honest people are good, in reality, those who are cunning and practice legal evasion seem to have a competitive edge in making money.
In fact, such people are cheating in the game of competition. Such behavior is harmful to society as a whole, which should collectively prevent and punish it, but that is beyond our current discussion. The story of the woodcutter and the golden and silver axes also rewards honesty. The honest woodcutter responds with “It is not mine” when presented with the axes. However, even those who do not wish to be honest strategically can learn to refuse ownership.
The Art of Giving Up
Peter Drucker, a guru in management studies, advised that in order to displace a market-leading company, a new entrant needs to offer a product or service that is ten times better. The Lanchester Strategy emphasizes not to compete at all if the opponent is stronger. However, there are also things that should be given up even if this is not the case.
The law of equivalent exchange or the trade-off rule is not unique to special relationships. The saying that to gain something, something else must be sacrificed implies a cost and ultimately, from my perspective, something must be given up. It is an unavoidable principle that whatever strategy is used, one must consider what to give up. Of course, a strategy is what one does to gain something. This is relatively easy to see. However, what we need to give up to achieve it is not always as apparent. That’s why it’s emphasized in the strategic planning process that one must first think about what they are willing to give up. Even when I rely on the number of troops I command and engage in a head-on battle, my sacrifices are inevitable.
Sun Tzu succinctly defines military strategy as ‘a tactic of deception.’ Thus, the essence of military strategy is to appear weak when you are strong, to disguise as unnecessary when needed, to target a near place while aiming for a far one, or vice versa. However, for such deception to work, it is crucial above all to give the enemy the illusion of gaining an advantage.
The 36 Stratagems, while not officially recognized like classical texts, organize the necessary skills for competition in reality. These strategies mostly involve deceiving the enemy. The 16th stratagem, “Release the Catch to Snare the Prize,” teaches that to gain something significant, something smaller must be let go. All six strategies under the “Defeat Strategies” category involve giving up something of mine. The “Beauty Trap” involves surrendering something valuable to the enemy. The “Empty Fort Strategy” is about offering up my own fortress, and the “Chain Stratagems” from the Battle of Red Cliffs involve cutting off my own flesh to bait the enemy.
Even for deceiving or luring the enemy, the payment of a price is essential. In life, we often have to give up numerous things to make a choice. Even if it’s not about tactics or strategy, a single choice can be the result of many sacrifices. This is why the veteran American golfer Ben Crenshaw says that one must consider the cost of aggressively playing a golf course. The difference between a vision and a goal, aside from specificity, also exists in whether one considers the ‘cost’ involved. Paying a price for a goal ultimately means having to give something up. To enter university requires the cost of time and effort. For a business, investment is necessary, meaning giving up money and dedicating time and effort. Simple as it may seem, deciding to bear some cost itself is a strategy. Thus, the statement “My strategy is just to work hard” makes sense.
The art of giving up also helps in choosing alternatives. Economics predicts that the wider the range of choices, the greater our utility, assuming humans are rational enough to evaluate all options. However, in reality, too many alternatives often lead to decision-making errors. Simplification is an important virtue in decision-making. Simplifying alternatives means giving up options that, though regrettable, feel redundant and inferior. In practice, we intuitively try to avoid many alternatives. Even when purchasing products, we first narrow it down to 2-3 brands or types. While having more choices seems ideal, often fewer can be better—this is the paradox of choice.
The more choices there are, the more costs are incurred. Analyzing them requires time and resources, and a wider range of options increases the likelihood of mistakes. Moreover, the regret of potentially losing better opportunities can be significant because the fish that got away always looks bigger. The larger the regret for the alternatives given up, the greater the opportunity cost. While we all go through complex analyses and evaluations for important decisions, eventually, we have to wrestle with a few alternatives compressed into a few key variables. Malcolm Gladwell in “Blink” states, “Overloading the decision makers with information, he proves, makes picking up that signature harder, not easier.”
It is always a stumbling block that our greed makes it difficult to give up, but by simply giving up, we can easily discover many strategies. Most scams trap people because of their greed. Not only scams, but most failures and disputes with close ones in daily life also happen because of greed exceeding common sense. Despite the constant limitations in our abilities and resources, which means we cannot achieve as much as we desire, we often find it hard to give up. However, if there is truly something I want to gain, I must first consider what I can give up. This is a useful strategy in interpersonal relationships as well. For instance, even a small gift can have an astonishing effect if given with sincerity, and if one can sacrifice their own time and comfort, they can build a necessary support network around them at any time.
Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” records the following military strategy: “If I am superior to the enemy, I can fight (敵則能戰之); if I am inferior, I must flee (少則能逃之); and if I cannot match the enemy, I must avoid conflict (不若則能避之).”
Life brings us many difficult situations. When we encounter or anticipate such situations, we must consider the alternative of giving up, but oddly enough, we often struggle to make such decisions. Persisting irrationally can lead to greater difficulties and may even cause suffering not only to oneself but also to family members. However, our society focuses only on those who succeed. Regardless of what success means, we strive to find the laws of success from those who have succeeded, and successful people invariably advise against giving up.
Yet, we must remember that there are far more people who fail than those who succeed. Despite this, there is an emotional consensus that giving up means failure, which is why no one readily advises giving up. Giving up can prevent us from falling into greater difficulties. Most people who are experiencing difficulties in the world are already in a challenging situation but often fail to give up—whether out of complacency, recklessness, or even laziness. Giving up is also an action. Moreover, ‘giving up’ is a key part of strategic execution. Giving up on what you are doing does not necessarily mean you have to give up your goals. You can simply prepare for a new attempt or a fresh start.
답글 남기기