Journalists at multiple media outlets continue to bang the drum: the world is getting more dangerous. It is difficult to argue with the premise. Europe’s largest war since 1945, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, continues unabated. Hamas is now being hunted by the Israel Defence Force in retaliation for one of the worst massacres of innocent civilians in modern history with thousands of non-combatants trapped between the two armed forces. China continues to threaten its military muscle in the South China Sea. North Korea continues to play its one-note sonata of threatening to launch a nuclear attack against, well, whomever upsets the petulant child who rules that country.

Dire straits indeed. But the situation is different if seen from a military perspective rather than a political one. Yes, I am fully aware of Clausewitz’s dictum regarding war and politics, but when doing a strategic analysis, the factors of military strength and political intent must be considered independently, even if we keep in mind that they are joined at the hip.

From a political perspective, all of these autocrats have the same aim: gain an advantage over their rivals both foreign and domestic. These men (they are all men) live only to exercise power. But from a military perspective, all of them play their games from positions of weakness. Yes, even China. Why? Let us consider.

Having a large and threatening military is not the same as having a capable military. Yes, quantity is an important factor in military operations, but not the most important one. There are scores of examples in history where large forces have been overwhelmed by smaller ones. Sometimes it is because of ill-preparedness. Sometimes it is because of some type of tactical or operational error. More often it is because the larger force is a hollow shell. Look at Russia today. How many “professional” Russian generals have been sacked or “disappeared” because they have been unable to defeat a neighbour that was supposed to have simply rolled over and played dead? So confident of their upcoming military victory were the Russians that the soldiers were reputedly told to pack dress uniforms in their kit bags for the victory parade in Kyiv.

It is not always about size. If you have not studied the art of war, this simple fact may seem counterintuitive. When the 42-nation coalition was preparing to invade Iraq in 1990-91, intelligence services were warning all members to prepare for a bloody and hard-fought battle. The Iraqis had the fourth largest tank force on the planet and they were “blooded” by their 8-year war against Iran. They were victors of a lightning campaign against Kuwait. They knew what they were doing. I well recall the serious concern across NATO that our casualties were going to climb rapidly and potentially be staggering. I do not claim prescience or military genius but before the invasion I asked several Intelligence officers how they came up with their analyses. I didn’t agree with them. I reminded them that the Iraqi general staff was composed almost exclusively of toadies appointed by the president. They did not have a professional, well-studied officer corps, nor an equivalently professional Senior NCO corps. These guys were hacks, I said.

I boldly predicted a one-week war. I was wrong. It only took 100 hours.

So what? Look at the threat from China, N Korea, and Russia. China comes closest to having a professional cadre of military leaders but how experienced are they? Their doctrine (like their fellow bullies) still depends on everyone being told what to do from the top down in a highly pre-scripted manner. Initiative is strongly discouraged at all levels. Can any of them stand up to a determined enemy willing to go all twelve rounds? My bet is no, they can’t. Look at what the Ukrainians have done to the highly touted (pre-2022) Russian Army. In the world press, the Russians were the second-best “professional” army in the world. Today, they aren’t even the second-best army in Ukraine.

Before closing, I will briefly address the elephant in the room. Nuclear weapons. Yes, all three of these autocracies use the threat of nuclear escalation, but let us enter into the realm of the unthinkable for a moment. If any of them resort to nuclear weapons, NATO as a group and the US and France as individual nations, have warned that they will retaliate in horrific ways. There will be no winners should this happen, but one thing is certain: N Korea, China and Russia would cease to exist as we currently know them.

In conclusion, when listening to the sabre rattling that the press is constantly presenting, keep in mind that making a threat and having the skills to carry out that threat are two distinct skill sets.

PS: The Israeli Hamas Conflict is too complex to be lumped in with the three examples above and worthy of its own discussion at a future date.