The future of war? Who knows?

This rant was inspired by a Rand Institute article: The U.S.-China Rivalry in a New Medieval Age, by Doug Erving.  Mar 19, 2024   

https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2024/the-us-china-rivalry-in-a-new-medieval-age.html??cutoff=true&utm_source=AdaptiveMailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7014N000001SnhoQAC&utm_term=00v4N00000X4bruQAB&org=1674&lvl=100&ite=286825&lea=504041&ctr=0&par=1&trk=a0wQK000003h5AnYAI 

Superpower governments and others are struggling to govern as tribal politics, economic inequality, social unrest and cultural division continue to grow within the US.  And in the Spring of 2024 a Pew Research Center survey found that less than 20 percent of the people answered saying they trusted our federal government to do the right thing.  

COVID should have brought Americans together but instead it continued to drive us apart.  This continued the polarization created by a US military reaction to the mass murder of American on Sept 11, 2001 that led to ‘permanent’ wars against a terrorist tactic that will never be defeated militarily. 

China and other totalitarian and democratic nations are experiencing inequality, slowing economic growth, and growing tensions.  Crime and corruption are rampant in many nations.  And populist leaders increasingly continue to rely on repression to maintain order and authority.  Nuclear armed nations security and defense budgets continue to grow as debts sore.

Conflicts can distract populations from their own problems, but most governments can ill afford launching any conflicts.  But competition continues between superpowers and sides are being picked.

One Rand analyst asserts that “Decisionmakers need to adopt a more neomedieval mindset. They cannot assume the public will get behind a war effort that requires real and sustained sacrifice. Other threats—a pandemic, climate change, political upheaval—will always vie for attention and resources. With nations everywhere facing the same challenges, partners and allies will also be stretched thin.” 

That suggests that the United States and China are unlikely to risk escalation and are more likely be in a long-running, low-intensity state of conflict.  Is that realistic given China and Russia both committed to expanding their territories and influence.   The Middle East could erupt if Israel takes out Iran’s nuclear capability.  A Chinese blockade of Taiwan is another possible conflict that could escalate.  It’s hard to imagine either clash being modest given the modern weapon systems involved.  And any stop or recovery period would be expensive and unstable.   Battles will likely be fought in cyberspace, economic arenas, and ‘gray zones’ just short of war. But the use of biological or chemical weapons should not be forgotten or ill prepared for.

Cold War or the world war analogies may not be useful anymore, but history has a way of rhyming.

The Rand analysts believe “The neomedieval era is here to stay,” he and his coauthors wrote. The trends they documented “are structural,” they added, “and return to the conditions of the industrial nation-state is impossible…. The sooner U.S. decisionmakers and planners recognize and accept the reality of the neomedieval era, the sooner appropriate and effective strategies and plans can be developed.”

American policy makers are not known for heeding warnings or wise recommendations.  But these analyst’s five “Trends That Define Neomedievalism” below are worth serious consideration given they are likely to “shape the rivalry between China and the United States” in this new era:

1.       Weakening states: Governments will struggle to maintain legitimacy; ensure domestic security; and provide levels of goods, services, and opportunities their people expect.

2.       Fragmenting societies: National spirit will erode as competing group identities, such as sub- and transnational communities, gain traction.

3.       Imbalanced economies: Growth will be concentrated in a few sectors. Problems of entrenched inequality, stagnant social mobility, and illicit economies will worsen.

4.       Pervasive threats: The proliferation of dangers, such as natural disasters, infectious disease, and violent nonstate actors, will create a sense of permeating risk, even as the possibility of conflict with rival states persists.

5.       Informalization of warfare: Military forces will increasingly consist of professional troops augmented by contractors, mercenaries, and sympathetic armed groups such as militias. Older methods of fighting, such as intrastate conflicts, sieges, and irregular conflict, will be revived.

Russia is learning all of this the hard way.  It rolled its tanks and troops into Ukraine as if it were fighting a conventional, industrial-age war.... Since then, it has struggled to carry out even a partial mobilization. It has gone to ever-greater lengths to avoid any sense of sacrifice at home. Instead, it has bolstered its battered army with mercenaries and militia, some loyal to criminal warlords. It has targeted civilian areas, hoping to break Ukraine's will to fight, rather than attempt any more knockout blows with armored columns. And it has brought back that most medieval of tactics, the siege.”

But advances in weapons systems that will soon be accelerated with AI leading to changes in warfare we can only imagine...I wouldn’t count on siege tactics being relevant much longer.   Future historians may “look back at the Russian war as a turning point, the end of one chapter and the start of another” but one would be a fool to think “the story” will pick up “where it left off two centuries ago.” “The novelty here isn't the arrival of a new medieval age” is correct.  But unless the world changes the foundation of the western ‘Westphalian system established 400 years ago, humanity may not get another 20 years to gain the wisdom needed to create a truly global system of governance that puts the protection of human freedoms and security with sustainable environmental progress as the bottom line for the future of civilized human experiences.