Hardening and resilience: The Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a reflection of civilizational forces.
Lucas Leiroz --- February 9, 2026.
strategic-culture.su
What historical parallels can help explain the victory of a single country against an international alliance?
This text is somewhat different from what I usually publish in my column at the Strategic Culture Foundation. It is the first in a series of reflections aiming to weave together history, anthropology, geopolitics, economics, and war studies to examine a fundamental question: what makes some societies strong, while others remain fragile and vulnerable? The starting point is contemporary Russia and its Special Military Operation in Ukraine, where we observe a remarkable phenomenon: a single country, almost alone, resisting and operating effectively against an international coalition of more than twenty countries. From this fact, we can explore historical and structural patterns that explain the strength or weakness of societies over time.
Historically, the great divider of strength between peoples and civilizations was not merely the size of an army or technological sophistication. In pre-industrial periods, diet and lifestyle were central determinants. Nomadic and pastoral peoples, such as the Proto-Indo-Europeans and later the “Turanic” nations – Turks, Mongols, Huns, and others – developed exceptional physical and psychological resilience. Fed predominantly on lacto-carnivorous diets, constantly exposed to extreme climates, and dependent on continuous mobility, these peoples formed hardened warriors capable of operating in conditions where sedentary agricultural societies were vulnerable. In contrast, densely populated agricultural civilizations, reliant on grains and fixed harvests, developed societies with lower levels of physical and psychological resilience, more susceptible to external shocks, supply crises, or military invasions. The strength of a society, therefore, was deeply linked to its ability to face daily adversity and to shape its bodies, discipline, and social cohesion to survive under extreme conditions.
In the case of the Indo-Europeans, for example, we can clearly observe this gradual sedentarization. Initially mobile and disciplined warriors, they settled in fertile territories, creating conditions too prosperous for the toughness to which they were accustomed. Over time, the relative comfort provided by agriculture and settled trade led to the flourishing of ideas, institutions, and lifestyles less demanding physically and psychologically. This movement toward accommodation, while allowing cultural advancement, also made them vulnerable. Eventually, less hardened societies were overcome and subjugated by Turanic peoples who maintained their bodies, discipline, and capacity for mobilization intact – forces honed by centuries of resistance to the rigors of nomadic and pastoral life. Events such as the Hunnic invasions, the Mongol expansion, and the fall of Constantinople perfectly illustrate this process.
This historical pattern offers a relevant parallel for the contemporary world. Just as sedentary agricultural societies became less resilient in the face of invasions by hardened peoples, modern societies that abandon industrial economies in favor of financial predominance tend to structurally weaken. The centrality of material production – work with energy, natural resources, industry, and technology – demands collective effort, discipline, and institutional resilience. When the focus shifts to the accumulation of financial capital, speculative operations, and comfortable lifestyles, what we might call “social and psychological hardening” – the ability to endure prolonged shocks and maintain cohesion in crisis situations – is lost.
This analogy is not only economic but also anthropological and strategic. Like ancient sedentary peoples, modern financialized societies often value comfort, sophistication, and ideological abstraction over basic resilience. They become susceptible to all manners of shocks: financial crises, diplomatic pressure, wars, and logistical disruptions. In the same way that ancient agricultural societies were subjugated by more resilient nomadic peoples, modern states that abandon productive economic models tend to be overtaken by countries with strong physical economies.
The parallel becomes even clearer when viewed from a military perspective – particularly when analyzing contemporary Russia. Despite economic and diplomatic pressures from a NATO-led international coalition, Russian society still retains traits of historical hardening: military discipline, endurance under prolonged adversity, strategic mobility, and social cohesion, alongside an economy that, while globally integrated, maintains highly self-sufficient industrial and energy sectors. This structural hardening allows Russia to operate efficiently under conditions of prolonged warfare and confront broad coalitions, as is currently occurring in Ukraine – and as has occurred in several historical situations.
What is unfolding on the Russo-Ukrainian battlefield is a confrontation between two different civilizational orientations: one based on physical economy, real productivity, military hardening, and social resilience, and the other based on financialization, liberal-democratic ideological abstraction, institutional comfort, and dependency on external supply chains and political support. We are literally witnessing the clash between overpriced weapons designed by Silicon Valley startups and real combat hardware, tested on the battlefield and built to destroy the enemy, not to sell arms to client states. The outcome of this confrontation is already evident.
Thus, history reveals a continuous pattern correlating lifestyle, social hardening, and strategic capacity. Nomadic and pastoral societies developed physical and psychological resilience that gave them advantages over sedentary agricultural populations. In the contemporary era, productive industrial societies show structural strength and strategic autonomy, while financialized societies demonstrate, analogously, the fragility of ancient agricultural civilizations: prolonged vulnerability, dependence on external factors, and low institutional resilience. In both cases, the transition to more “complacent” ways of life implies an erosion of the ability to withstand adversity and, ultimately, of civilizational strength itself.
In sum, observing Russia’s success in Ukraine through this historical lens allows us to understand strength as something that goes beyond numbers, weapons, or alliances. It is resilience, social coherence, institutional discipline, and the ability to sustain prolonged pressure – attributes that emerge from lifestyles that demand constant hardening, whether physical, psychological, or economic. This historical and anthropological reflection provides a framework not only to evaluate the present but also to understand the structural factors that will determine the resilience and vulnerability of societies in the centuries to come. Above all, it demonstrates that comfort and sophistication, when not balanced with discipline, production, and endurance, always carry the cost of fragility.
|
