The Russia invasion of Ukraine that occurred this Spring, aka Putin’s War, poses the usual problem for someone who’s not an intellectual Superman, i.e., me, of how to evaluate and punditize on the phenomenon in question, whether it be war or climate change, and doesn’t want to be caught in Ryan’s Fallacy[1]. How to go about it?
I have no military background, nor experience with Ukraine armed forces. Russia’s armed forces during World War II were very rough, employing the inmates of insane asylums as shock troops, but at least somewhat effective against fuel-starved German forces. But it was not clear if Russian military science had advanced since 1945 – and if it mattered.
But I can observe those who would put themselves forward as analysts and analyze them.
The first group are the experts consulting, or even writing, for the mainstream media. They, more or less, predicted Ukraine eventually falling to the onslaught. That hasn’t happened yet. In fact, Ukraine appears to be turning the Russians back.
As it happens, I also monitor former military folks at Daily Kos, and they’ve cautiously done better, giving Ukraine a chance at survival. There are several diarists covering Putin’s War on Daily Kos, and I don’t try to keep track of who writes what.
What I do gather, though, is that the Russian Army suffers from corruption leading to a lack of critical maintenance and production of advanced weapons, a lack of crucial esprit de corps, an inferior command structure compared to Western armies, from which Ukraine has borrowed judiciously, and a command staff lacking in grounding in basic military science. On the plus side, some of their lightweight tactics, such as the use of drones for both recon and munitions delivery at least exists, although I get the impression that Ukraine Army forces do it better.
All that said is, at least spiritually, much what historians write about the Tsar’s forces in their last war, that being World War I: an enormous Army crippled by corruption, eventually leading to the downfall and death of the Tsar and his family.
Back when it became initially apparent that Russia was in trouble, I mused, unpublished, on the possibility that China would invade Russia. They share a long border which is often in dispute, and Russia was displaying weakness. The main restraint is, of course, Russian nuclear weapons, although I have to wonder if they’re truly functional. Experts, meanwhile, were wondering if China might try to force reintegration with Taiwan, i.e., invade, which it has claimed to decades. Taiwan, for those readers not familiar with recent Chinese history, is the largish island where the defeated Nationalist forces of post World War II China retreated to after being defeated by the Chinese Communists, and they haven’t ventured forth since. China is quite sensitive to the thought of Taiwan becoming formally independent.
Taiwan, meanwhile, has built a raucous parliamentary democracy as well as an ace card and put the latter in its back pocket: critical industries such as semi-conductor plants manufacturing the most advanced mass produced computer chips on the planet are located in Taiwan.
All this comes together to suggest something: all the autocratic leaders of the world may be, unexpectedly, reluctant to exercise their aggressive tendencies. Russia has become the object lesson, not in its abilities, but in its disabilities. Corruption is, in my view, endemic to autocracies. Autocracies, regardless of variety, are built on the foundation of breaking the law. It’s definitional, isn’t it? First, in their founding, such as in Spain, and then in the repression of those who object to their dominance, it’s all about ignoring a devotion to justice in favor of acquiring and retaining absolute power. The corruption follows naturally, as the leaders must be satisfied, so whether you fill your artillery shells with sand, as in Tsarist times, or skim off maintenance money and thus neglect critical maintenance while reporting it’s been performed today, the chances that the status of a given military is adequate to the task of a war is … questionable.
Add to that the superiority of Western weapons systems, whether they’re Javelins, Stingers, or HIMARS, and China’s Xi Jinping has to be frowning at the thought of aggression. Xi is, after all, an autocrat, and he has to be wondering about his own military forces. Russia’s tough autocrat, Putin, has shockingly failed, looking exceedingly weak as he’s done so, and if Xi is smart – and you don’t get to be undisputed leader of China without being smart – he’s gotta wonder.
Add to that, you have to wonder if he really wants to go up against the American military? American President Biden has demonstrated an undisputed ability to build alliances and deliver weapons systems rarely seen in the world before. Is China really ready to go up against that?
Xi might not survive that. Not because the United States might find him and kill him, but because Xi’s own subordinates might eliminate him.
Just as Putin is probably facing right now.
Ukraine has used Western assistance to survive, and has, in the process, changed the world. Just not quite how I thought. It doesn’t look like China’s going anywhere.
1 Ryan’s Fallacy, which I’ve not mentioned before, is the encouragement to the ignorant that their opinions are just as, if not more, valid than that of experts, as former Speaker Ryan (R-WI) said in a speech to Republican voters. A blot on his honor and a shame to his family, this encouragement doubtlessly led to a great deal of grief during the recent Covid-19 pandemic. However, he was merely continuing an old tradition, as scientist and famed writer Isaac Asimov observed decades earlier:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
