The Three Principles Supporting the Safety of a State

+

JMJ

 A long time ago I worked for a Defence Contractor and during that time I took to reading the magazines and journals available at my workplace. It still keep tabs on military developments by reading public domain sources like Defense News, Defense One and other reports.

The following statement made by the Polish DPM and Defence Minister caught my eye:

“States are safe when three principles are met: the strength of their societies, the strength of their militaries, and the strength of their alliances,” Polish Deputy Prime Minister and National Defence Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said, as quoted in a statement released by his ministry.

Defense News: German Patriot batteries begin guarding Ukraine aid hub in Poland

While I'm not certain if the principles are all encompassing, but they do provide a point to ponder.  Rome's fall, according to popular assessment, coincided with its economic, moral and military decay.

Looking at these words, I wonder if there is a hierarchy between the principles.

The Foundation

I think that the foundation must be Societal Strength. I feel that real strength would be found on virtue - natural obviously being the foundation for spiritual virtues. That, so I have been taught was the original foundation for Rome's success - the natural virtue of its people.

If a people lacks the moral fortitude, then they will neither provide nor support the strong military needed to deter an invader or stand up to an aggressor who pushes the boundaries by operating just below the trigger level for a direct military response.

So, I believe that a strong, united people will foster a strong country.

The Middle

Societal Strength is, I believe, a necessary predecessor to a strong military.  First because, the military is far more than the number of tanks, ships, and airplanes.  The strength of a military depends first on the strength (physical and moral), discipline and creativity of its members. Then comes the support of the people (via the government) to train, equip and supply the military  All of these combine to create and sustain a strong military to deter and defend an aggressor.

A country's strength lies first in its people, second in its resources and finally in its economy that converts those resources into wealth.  All of these are, to my mind, key factors in the strength of a country and form the middle layer.

The Top

 A country with both a strong sustainable military and sustainable depth of resources (natural, economic and people) is the ideal ally.  First, because they can contribute in a meaningful way to the alliance.  Second, they have the staying power necessary for the sustained level of effort needed in the long-term nature of international conflict - both military and non-military alike.  

A strong alliance made of strong partners creates a formidable force for holding 'ground', be it geographical, political or principles.

Discussion and Conclusions

Just my thoughts, ...

The underpinning layers of a strong society, supporting a strong military, make a country an attractive partner for a strong alliance. Undermine either the foundation or the middle and it will all fall apart.

A look at the events in the South China Sea or the Middle-East are good examples of a multi-generational vision being implemented with varying degrees of success over that span of decades. 

Hamas vs Israel

Hama's goal, as far as I know, remains the elimination of the State of Israel.  There were some changes / notes made in 2017, but to my knowledge their vision remains. The attack of October 7, 2024 is just the latest part in a decades long conflict. In this case the only real difference between the

A key thing to note is that the vision didn't change and Hama's alignment with it has been steadfast since its formation in 1988. I suspect that key elements may have been imported from the Muslim Brotherhood. This brings forward the key enabler is long political cycles.  If an organization can sustain its vision over the long-term and achieves some degree of success then it will become part of the culture. That culture can give rise to strong beliefs. Beliefs so strong that is facets are challenged, even unessential ones, the believer will reject or reframe any evidence that contradicts that belief.

For all of its faults and hypocrisy Hamas has staying power in that its people could be described as 'believers' who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve the organizations vision. Notably, the longer the political cycle the more progress that a country can make towards its ends. what we commercially call 'long-term'. 

 China vs ?

China, like Hamas, effectively has a very long political cycle.  It's goals and objectives are set on decades long scales. As history has shown, when it is a bad decision, millions of Chinese suffered. On the flip side as their space and military programs show, they can exhibit a tenacity to achieve their long-term goals.

I've watched China open up to western ideas, still adhere to their version of Communism and maintain strict controls on its economy, people, economic and scientific development. As it charts it course into the second quarter of the 21st Century I have no doubt that they will continue on this course. So, barring a strong adversary, they will continue to make progress towards their goals.

Now, while I don't agree with how they treat their people, I think I can understand some of their motivation.  The Chinese civilization is one of the oldest on Earth and was treated miserably by the Advanced West during the Century of Humiliation. This loss of face is something that is deep in the Asian culture and the humiliation of that hundred+ years of dominance by the west can and I believe is a strong unifying force.

The CCP wants China to reclaim what they see as its birthright, going even to the extent to look sideways at history in order to stake their claims to the South China Sea and thwart the West's ability to counter their plans - which include Taiwan.

Taiwan is important for a couple of reasons, but one of them is that they could then hold an outward chain of islands to project their power and create a buffer zone - just like Russia and China have ever done.

Conclusion

These principles of Societal, Military and Alliance strength are not unique to any one nation or even group of people.  

Look at the Ottoman Empire (Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia), as a Belloc once mentioned there is nothing in Islamic belief that prevents to acquisition and development of Technology.  At one point the Ottoman's had the best weaponry and that their empire eventually collapsed under its own weight is not an indication of an inability to adapt. It existed for around 600 years.

The same can be said for Japan and China.  Japan was a powerhouse in World War II and China is a growing powerhouse now on multiple facets including military and economic.

So any nation that can galvanize its people to be strong, manage economics and resources to form a military that can stand against its regional enemies, would be candidate for membership in an alliance.

Hopefully, the West will recover from its hubris before someone starts another war to prevent nuclear proliferation s - like the one that further radicalized Iraq (Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia).

I find it ironic that hubris / pride of Western Leaders seems to often result in training and preparing their current allies for when they become their future enemies (i.e. Afghanistan) as they play the game of World War Chess.

 

P^3