On this day a year ago, with the West divided and cowed by the threat of an invasion of Ukraine, many European leaders knelt before the Tsar and offered him anything: starting with the power of veto over Ukraine’s future. In one year, Putin has performed a miracle, reuniting the West: Yesterday, this cohesion was demonstrated again at the strategy conference in Munich.
I remember Putin’s two false prophecies shared by many self-proclaimed pacifists in our House. First, that Russia’s overwhelming military superiority would bring a quick and easy victory. Second, that war would bring our economies to their knees. They’re both spectacularly wrong, but you won’t hear much self-criticism from the Putinians.
Doubts about existence: are we weak?
An age-old dilemma has become topical again. Which system is best suited to win wars: democracy or an authoritarian regime? We Democrats are plagued by an atavistic inferiority complex, and we are plagued by a thousand doubts about our staying power. There is a persistent belief – even among those who “support” democracies – that the consensual nature of our political system makes it more vulnerable. On the contrary, we attribute an innate military ability to dictatorships: because they know how to subject their peoples (and their soldiers) to endless suffering and to stick to strategic objectives for a very long time.
The Teaching of Herodotus
There is an extensive literature that proves the exact opposite. The progenitor is none other than the father of historical discipline: Herodotus. I wrote about it in the book that bears the same title as my daily column in Corriere, Oriente Occidente (Einaudi). Herodotus sees the Greek victory over the Persians as proof that free peoples know how to fight and win better when faced with vast armies led by despotic rulers. Following Herodotus and following his example, a thousand-year-old line of analysis has developed into the various political systems that are being tested by war. Among the proponents of the opposite thesis, that democracies are less able to win conflicts, is none other than Alexis de Tocqueville, a thinker of firm democratic faith: Proof that doubts are spreading in our camp. In these essays you will find two excellent summaries of the most relevant analyses: Democracies at War by Dan Reiter and Allan Stam (Princeton University Press) and The Return of Great Power Rivalry by Matthew Kroenig (Oxford University Press).
Our true strength: caution, alliances, technology
I summarize some reasons given by experts to show that political freedom is not an obstacle to victory. First and foremost is this observation: precisely because democratic governments have to win the consensus of public opinion, they tend to fight only wars they are sure they can win. Second is the question of alliances: democratic nations inspire more confidence and are therefore able to form and maintain grand coalitions. Technology comes third: Liberal political systems, especially when accompanied by a market economy, produce greater innovations and therefore have more advanced war technologies.
Two world wars, but then Vietnam
As for historical examples, a long list is added to the Persian wars by Herodotus. Even the military successes of relatively liberal systems or open societies (for the time) such as the Serenissima Republic of Venice, the Netherlands, the Bitannian Empire are attributed to the advantage of having had less despotic political systems than their opponents. The most important examples remain the First and Second World Wars. Democratic France and England, with eventual help from the United States, defeated authoritarian Germany in 1914-18. The Coalition America led by Franklin Roosevelt finally bent German, Italian and Japanese fascism in 1945, although these were clearly militaristic in character. We might add that the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union, 1947-89, was never fought openly and yet ended in victory for the democracies. There are more recent examples that go in the opposite direction and dampen excessive optimism: America fought in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, four conflicts that ended in, at best, “unvictory withdrawals.” In Vietnam one could speak of a “war lost at home” because American public opinion decreed defeat, not the verdict of the fighting. So history is not an exact science, there are no theories that can give us with certainty the outcome of the current war in Ukraine. However, the behavior of Ukrainians on the battlefield seems to revive Herodotus’ teaching: free peoples fight better than oppressed peoples. Even more so when they defend their homeland, the land of their ancestors and families, from attack. Russia’s overwhelming superiority — in arsenals and in numbers of soldiers — has been bogged down against a smaller opponent for a year.