The will to fight as a strategic pillar of state resilience in the 21st century
It is a reality that the last decade in Europe and its immediate vicinity has brought a number of opportunities that allow us to study the dynamics of the will to fight in modern societies. The most recent example is the war in Ukraine, but it is also worth looking back at the asymmetric combat operations in Syria and Iraq. Older military conflicts, such as World War II, the US combat operations in Vietnam, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and others, can certainly be used for more in-depth study. However, there are not many war and security-strategic studies that comprehensively address the preparation of individual elements of the will to fight. The will to fight is thus an often overlooked, yet essential component of war effort. The preparation and strengthening of the elements of the will to fight spans periods of peace, crisis, and war. It develops at the individual level and gradually permeates the structures of society to the level of state leadership. The concept of a comprehensive state approach to crisis resolution cannot be applied only when the crisis itself is being resolved, but must be implemented in the state's preparations long before a future crisis arises. The will to fight is a complex phenomenon that cannot be understood merely as an individual's motivation to take up arms.
The invisible weapon: Why the will to fight is key to national defense, trust, and stability
Essentially, the will to fight consists of elements of psychological resilience, physical abilities and capacities, and ideological conviction. These three elements are constantly changing and evolving as the internal environment of the state and its external security situation change, or, in times of armed conflict, as the situation on the battlefield changes. At the same time, all elements influence each other and have a retroactive effect on the internal and external environment of the state, or the situation on the battlefield. These are therefore multidirectional and dynamically evolving relationships. However, the will to fight also enters into strategies for promoting the vital interests of the state in the international environment. It influences the credibility of the state in the eyes of its own population. It affects the resilience of society as a whole in the face of crises. It strengthens the confidence of the population to create, maintain, and support smaller communities. Last but not least, it also influences the confidence of individuals in themselves. The will to fight is therefore not exclusively linked to the complexity of the use of a state's combat capabilities and war potential. Equally decisive is the presence of psychological and ideological elements of the will to fight throughout society. These contribute to healthy self-confidence, the ability to take action, a sense of belonging, and trust in one's immediate and wider environment. Understanding multiple perspectives and the essence of ensuring the conditions and needs for inducing the will to defend and fight is important not only for the highest political and military leadership structures of the state, but also for academia, business, education, and an open society.
From weapons to cohesion: The will to fight as an expression of morality, leadership, and group identity
The psychological element of the will to fight is a combination of interacting factors such as morale, trust in proven leadership abilities, group cohesion (family/community), and individual motivation (justification). These factors influence the mental strength, resilience, and endurance of soldiers and civilians to persevere in adverse conditions and situations. In every crisis or armed conflict, the strength of the will to resist is inextricably linked to psychological factors. It is important to maintain group morale through collective efforts linked to purposeful and meaningful action. Support personal determination and the belief that individual actions have an impact not only on one's own benefit but also on the group as a whole. Effective leadership and group cohesion strengthen the mental and spiritual strength of individuals in a group of soldiers, as well as in a civilian work team, group, or community.
Strong leadership and group cohesion give people the inner strength to overcome physical and psychological limits and to continue pursuing the group's goals. In other words, we achieve more through cooperation than we are capable of as individuals. As a result, a cohesive society achieves more than an atomized society. It is clear that in reality there are countless micro and macro influences, external and internal factors that affect the psychological element of the will to fight. However, understanding the psychological perspective of combat through a deeper insight into the dynamics of the interaction of its basic factors can indicate and predetermine the success of a combat encounter. Psychological resilience is often a decisive factor in any conflict that can tip the scales. Its collapse is usually a turning point.
The key to victory: The physical dimension of the will to fight as the foundation of national defense
The physical element of the will to fight is absolutely critical for every state and has a direct impact on its actual ability to resist and fight. It includes the abilities and capacities to initiate and sustain combat operations. It relies on factors such as the training system, command and control system, weapons/armaments/equipment, human resources/military personnel, and the entire complex of sustainability and logistics. Simply put, it is what we commonly think of as military capabilities. From the perspective of the physical conduct of combat operations, military capabilities include training and leadership. Capacities include personnel and material. Both capabilities and capacities are equally important for shaping the physical will to fight and form the basis of a state's real power to fight. A higher level of capabilities in terms of quantity, quality, technical sophistication, diversification of resources, and other criteria increases the overall combat effectiveness, economy, and combat determination of personnel. In other words, armies fight better and more effectively when they are competently, technically, and materially prepared for combat. Soldiers who know they have good equipment and support fight with greater determination.
In protracted conflicts, the importance of the physical element of the will to fight increases even further. It is linked to adequate personnel reserves outside regular military structures, the ability to continuously replenish materials from national industrial capacities, the interconnection of military/war and civilian/peace logistics and infrastructure, and social support for the families of deployed soldiers. In any armed conflict, the effective use of national resources, the transition of the economy to war production, and the satisfaction of the needs of combat operations are absolutely essential. Understanding the physical perspective of the will to fight offers useful insights into ensuring the necessary capabilities and capacities of the state to persevere in situations that threaten its existence. In essence, it provides a basic framework for calculating achievable results in any conflict scenario. It is interdependent and underscores the need for a society-wide effort to ensure the successful use of the state's military power. The physical element of the will to fight is indispensable for achieving victory.
Defense starts in the mind: From ideology to action
The ideological element of the will to fight is often underestimated, yet it can have a fundamental impact on a society's ability to persevere during conflicts. It can overcome the limitations imposed by national identity or state affiliation. It is a kind of art and science at the same time, through which the fundamental ideas of a particular political system or religious belief are transformed into a central narrative. Such a narrative then morally justifies and motivates engagement in armed conflict. Ideological narratives often portray combatants as protectors against a perceived threat or revive deep-rooted historical sentiments. Alternatively, they reinforce beliefs about the unjust reasons for negative social conditions. In conflicts, the sacred struggle is a powerful ideological motivator. Political ideology that seeks to change/preserve the status quo or dominance/submission through struggle is also used and emphasized. Ideological narratives give armed conflict a higher meaning, framing it as a defense of good, identity, or survival.
The extent to which ideological narratives resonate with recipients and actually stimulate the will to fight varies considerably depending on the depth of religious belief, the strength of political and social convictions, and previous experience. The vulnerability/resilience of individuals to accept and submit to collective decisions and a whole range of other circumstances also play a role. However, this does not mean that the ideological element of the will to fight should be underestimated or completely overlooked. Understanding the ideological perspective of the will to fight offers valuable insights into the complexity and intricacy of the determination to engage in combat. In extreme situations, all that remains is conviction and belief that we are acting in the name of the victory of good. A strong ideological framework can mobilize even people outside official military structures. It reveals individual subconscious and deeply rooted sentiments that are intertwined with the national/group historical context, religious undertones, and the narrative of the current situation, which requires preparation for combat. However, it is crucial that this framework is credible and corresponds to the reality of society.
The power of society in modern warfare: When defense is not just about military combat
To sum up, in modern warfare, it is essential to possess physical capabilities and capacities backed by a broad economic and scientific base. However, it is the number, determination, resilience, and perseverance of the population to defend itself and fight that significantly influence and shape the course of a conflict. In other words, (for now) it is people and human will that animate and control the means of combat, organize and direct the war effort, and use the instruments of state power. A state's ability to defend itself in the modern world is not just a question of tanks and weapons, but of deep psychological and social preparedness. It is therefore necessary to include a deeper understanding of the psychological, ideological, and social factors that significantly weaken or strengthen the will to defend and fight when assessing a state's military capabilities and capacities. In times of growing threats, this determination is one of the most valuable strategic resources.
The natural atomization of modern information societies, which emphasize individuality with all its accompanying aspects, the influence of hostile information activities in the global/national information environment, and the inherent difficulties of interdepartmental cooperation can further complicate the situation. Understanding the more directional and dynamic relationships between the individual elements of the will to fight and their natural intertwining in a whole range of aspects of social life in modern and democratic societies indicates the complexity of the problem. It seems impossible that spontaneous optimization could occur without the conscious and continuous implementation of a comprehensive state approach to preparing for future crises. The psychological, physical, and ideological dimensions are not separate but constantly influence each other. Ideology can raise morale, psychological resilience strengthens physical endurance, and physical security promotes trust in leadership. Together, they form the will to fight—the ability of a society not only to survive a crisis but to actively confront it.
Possible ways to strengthen the will to fight
Possible avenues for strengthening the will to fight can be found in developing the physical capabilities and capacities of the domestic defense industry, expanding and enhancing the importance of strategic communication by the state, and finally, building a regular army in a way that moves it from the margins of public interest closer to the center. This can be achieved by ensuring greater overlap, closer links and permeability between the civilian population and regular military units. Many countries have therefore simply reintroduced compulsory military service. Others have adjusted the integration of the army into the social framework in a way that uses military experience and knowledge to strengthen the psychological and ideological will to fight in the civilian sphere. After all, who else but the army has the necessary know-how and all the prerequisites to be a role model and source of trust for the population?
