More Reasons to be Concerned about a Ukrainian-Russian War
Continuing Monday's initial thoughts about the possibility of an all-out Ukrainian-Russian war, the comparisons to World War I and the mistaken notions of the countries engaged in that tragedy really do haunt me. The governments believed, as did their people, that the war wouldn't last long. The "glory" of war actually inspired many to join the fight with patriotic fervor. No one envisioned the horrors that ensued. But what's haunting here are a couple of comparisons between what people thought then and people think now.
No, I'm not saying that people would engage in an all-consuming total war naively believing that massive death and destruction could be avoided. But we do have similar conditions that could drag countries farther into conflict than they might imagine. Just as treaties between countries in the early 20th century created a web of alliances that required one country to enter any war that broke out if it's ally was attacked, so too are today's countries engaged in such alliances. NATO stands against the Russian "confederation" - or whatever it's official name might be these days - and the countries on each side are committed to fighting if one of their allies are attacked. The issue with Ukraine right now is that Russia believes it should be part of their confederation, and therefore fight on its side, whereas many Ukrainians want no part of that. In fact, many want to be part of the European Union, if not a member of NATO itself. But I wonder whether such people realize that by "joining" with Europe, they would not necessarily be avoid war with Russian, or avoid being dragged into any other NATO conflict that might - and most probably will - emerge in the future. There are those Ukrainians who would prefer a neutral, independent stance, but I can't see how they would be "allowed" to exist as such by the Russians, and I can't believe that the Euro-NATO countries would not try to entice them to lean westward in order to bulk up their alliance against the Russians.
There is yet another common factor that reminds us of the attitudes and beliefs of the people of Europe before World War I. Many of us forget that the period from the mid-19th century to 1914 was a time of great economic "globalization." Trade flourished to such an extent worldwide that people believed that war would be impossible in the future. They thought that the prosperity that had resulted from the international trade between nations would preclude any war, as governments would realize that commercial relations that improved the lot of their citizens would take precedence over any political disputes. From The First World War by military historian John Keegan:
Perhaps the Russians believed that a quick war against Ukraine would result in even greater commercial riches. But when we turn to history and see how people believed World War I would end quickly, we see that it may be more wishful thinking based on an illusion that lucrative commerce trumps war in every case. We ought not discount the danger that a government or governments will simply pursue its political ambitions, even in our own times, in the face of unimaginable, incalculable destruction of lives and wealth. If history has taught us anything, it would be just that.
No, I'm not saying that people would engage in an all-consuming total war naively believing that massive death and destruction could be avoided. But we do have similar conditions that could drag countries farther into conflict than they might imagine. Just as treaties between countries in the early 20th century created a web of alliances that required one country to enter any war that broke out if it's ally was attacked, so too are today's countries engaged in such alliances. NATO stands against the Russian "confederation" - or whatever it's official name might be these days - and the countries on each side are committed to fighting if one of their allies are attacked. The issue with Ukraine right now is that Russia believes it should be part of their confederation, and therefore fight on its side, whereas many Ukrainians want no part of that. In fact, many want to be part of the European Union, if not a member of NATO itself. But I wonder whether such people realize that by "joining" with Europe, they would not necessarily be avoid war with Russian, or avoid being dragged into any other NATO conflict that might - and most probably will - emerge in the future. There are those Ukrainians who would prefer a neutral, independent stance, but I can't see how they would be "allowed" to exist as such by the Russians, and I can't believe that the Euro-NATO countries would not try to entice them to lean westward in order to bulk up their alliance against the Russians.
There is yet another common factor that reminds us of the attitudes and beliefs of the people of Europe before World War I. Many of us forget that the period from the mid-19th century to 1914 was a time of great economic "globalization." Trade flourished to such an extent worldwide that people believed that war would be impossible in the future. They thought that the prosperity that had resulted from the international trade between nations would preclude any war, as governments would realize that commercial relations that improved the lot of their citizens would take precedence over any political disputes. From The First World War by military historian John Keegan:
Europe in the summer of 1914 enjoyed a peaceful productivity so dependent on international exchange and co-operation that a belief in the impossibility of general war seemed the most conventional of wisdoms. In 1910 an analysis of prevailing economic interdependence, The Great Illusion, had become a best-seller; its author Norman Angell had demonstrated, to the satisfaction of almost all informed opinion, that the disruption of international credit inevitably caused by war would either deter its outbreak or bring it speedily to an end. It was a message to which the industrial and commercial society of that age was keenly sympathetic.I think you can see many similarities between those days and our own times. For example, I'm reminded of some libertarians who espouse international trade because of a belief that one benefit of such would be the avoidance of war, or at least any large war, between countries. While certain benefits may be derived from international trade, the idea that it might avoid war appears naive and that's why I've quoted from Keegan's book here. A small example of how war trumps commercial advantage might be the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia for gas delivery to Ukraine. Rich Russian businessmen make enormous sums from what is in essence a corporatist state monopoly that controls Russian oil and gas. You might reasonably think that those rich men would want to avoid destructive war at all costs. And yet the negotiations over oil deliveries to Ukraine broke down over the June 14th-15th weekend as Russian tanks crossed the border with Ukraine.
Perhaps the Russians believed that a quick war against Ukraine would result in even greater commercial riches. But when we turn to history and see how people believed World War I would end quickly, we see that it may be more wishful thinking based on an illusion that lucrative commerce trumps war in every case. We ought not discount the danger that a government or governments will simply pursue its political ambitions, even in our own times, in the face of unimaginable, incalculable destruction of lives and wealth. If history has taught us anything, it would be just that.
Comments