Daily Inspiration Quote by Martin van Creveld

Power hates an easy win because it produces a lousy story. Van Creveld, a military historian with a taste for puncturing grand doctrines, is pointing at a recurring trap in war and politics: when the opponent is much weaker, victory stops being proof of competence and starts looking like bullying, accident, or brute advantage. The stronger side can rack up tactical successes and still fail the only test that matters in modern conflict - legitimacy in the eyes of domestic publics, allies, and the people being fought over.

The intent is clinical, almost mathematical: strength is relational, and evidence requires a meaningful benchmark. Beating a lightweight doesn’t certify your greatness; it only certifies that you were the heavyweight. Subtext: asymmetric conflict is a reputational minefield. If you win, it’s dismissed as inevitable. If you stumble - or even if you win too violently - you feed the weaker side’s central asset: moral leverage. The weaker actor can treat survival as victory, exploit images of disproportionate force, and convert your every demonstration of “capacity” into proof of cruelty or strategic clumsiness.

Contextually, van Creveld is writing in the shadow of late-20th-century counterinsurgency and “small wars,” where advanced militaries repeatedly discovered that dominance in firepower doesn’t translate into decisive outcomes. The line also needles managerial fantasies about performance: institutions want measurable success, but against a much weaker adversary the scoreboard becomes suspect. The strongest player ends up trapped in a paradox - forced to fight to validate itself, yet unable to make the validation credible.