Sleepwalkers

Essential reading for any student of the First World War is “The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914” by Christopher Clark demonstrating how none of the combatants really wanted or expected war, despite the fear of being left behind in military preparation seen as a threat in others, yet somehow found themselves engaged in the then bloodiest confrontation in world history which left its mark both geopolitically and socially on so many nations and created the pretext for the second great war in a generation. Now, history never repeats itself yet as, presciently, George Santayana wrote in his 1905 work The Life of Reason, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".  Are we sleepwalking into another global crisis with the consequence of world war?

Wars are born of territorial acquisition (or re-acquisition as its protagonists will often argue), fear of a dominant neighbour, clash of ideologies or demagogues’ desire to gain popularity or divert popular opinion. We have seen it all in the last one hundred years and those casus belli remain in many parts of our current world.

Very few of the population study, let alone understand, the global marketplace and financial markets and perhaps fewer still who make major political decisions affecting us all, yet these have a profound impact on politics. The doomsayers (or are they soothsayers?) are now predicting at some time in the near future we shall see a crash equivalent to 1929 and the Great Depression, the oil crisis of 1973 or the financial crisis of 2008. The indicators are there: global crisis around hotspots such as Ukraine, Taiwan, Kashmir, the Middle-East (if the peace does not hold) and others, the ideological clash of autocracies against democracies, a trade war with tit-for-tat tariffs and so many industrialised countries with a greater debt burden as a percentage of their gross domestic product and propensity to borrow even more and high domestic taxation all of which is becoming unsustainable coupled with the runaway price of gold as countries and investors avidly purchase the recognised safe haven in times of trouble. Just as with the dot.com bubble we are now seeing massive investment (as well as cross-investment) in artificial intelligence and other technologies that may all burst. If even some of these factors assume prominence, let alone all of them at once, then the impact could be both profound and long-lasting and see a reorientation of a state of affairs that many, complacently, take for granted.

The sad reality, not least for some of the reasons set out above, is that the world no longer has the means or mechanisms with which to deal with such a crisis. The international rules-based order is being trashed by many countries that openly ignore international instruments and treaties to which they are signatories, the only international organisation we have, the UN, is in disarray and has lost confidence and there is insufficient capacity in the financial system and reserves (other than printing money the result of which we know only too well) to come to the rescue.

What can be done? It is trite but axiomatic that prevention is always better than cure. We all must hope that the uneasy peace holds in Gaza/Israel (yet with so many details yet unspecified) and we need to see a conclusion to the war in Ukraine which, come next April, will have lasted the same duration as the Great War.  That conflict, however, exemplifies the problem of uncertain reactions. Russia is not winning the war but still has capacity to wage it notwithstanding its economy now being on its knees and a probable need for a further conscription of fighters. Just as we saw with Hitler in the closing stages of the Second World War (when Germany knew that it could not win) he launched a further offensive (Battle of the Bulge) and the Nazis hastened the killing in the extermination camps; just as with the Japanese (although not an accurate analogy) when they knew the war was lost they increased resistance and fighting to the last person and encouraging suicidal missions; so we cannot tell what Putin will do if backed into a corner. Would there be a desperate diversion into occupation of an Estonian city with a majority Russian population or forcing a route to Kaliningrad through the Suwalki Gap thus a direct test of NATO’s Art.5 resolve? If NATO did not react immediately that would send a dire message (and might be the tipping point for Xi JinPing to launch his attack on Taiwan while the Western nations were preoccupied). I can only hope that in the secretive corridors of power in NATO we already have the response.

I have made the point already that history does not repeat itself but we cannot deny that today’s leaders will have their historical heroes and may be tempted to follow their examples (even if the previous result was a disaster – the chancer always thinks that things will turn out differently). Putin’s behaviour in his creeping re-acquisition of territory regarded historically as essentially Russian is too close to Hitler’s quest for lebensraum for the German people and the gathering under one Reich of the German speaking peoples: there are, of course, many Russian speaking peoples in what the former hegemony of the Soviet Union was.

Is there a better way of dealing with this overt threat than merely adopting the caution of si vis pacem, para bellum? If it were true for Vegetius (“De Re Militari”) in the fifth century is it still true today? Must we arm ourselves to the hilt in order to deter aggression on the basis that it becomes too costly to the perpetrator? Logic dictates that deterrence should work – but it falls away if the protagonist is neither logical nor realistic and, instead, harbours a favourable view of fate and a belief that those who are threatened will choose not to react for reasons of pusillanimity or indecision. That was certainly true of Hitler (who never believed that Britain would go to war – perhaps encouraged by Chamberlain’s naivety and the appeasers like Halifax and the admirers of the Nazis in some parts of the aristocratic set).  We have yet to see if Putin is of the same frame of mind. We may not have the luxury of being able to afford to find out the hard way.

There is, of course, another way but itself beset with difficulties and blind alleys. Arguably, it is what President Trump attempted only just a few months ago. It is to humour Russia and to dangle a stick that offers more than merely hanging on to Crimea and the Donbas. Russia feels the hurt of the loss of global influence, of not being included in the world’s leaders’ deliberations of being a pariah and having to look for friends among an old and uncertain often antagonistic neighbour China. Dangling the carrot of being accepted more into the civilised world of diplomacy and negotiations is not appeasement but appealing to another aspect of a nation’s (and leader’s) vanity. It is manifestly obvious that those who extract most from a vain, narcissist leader are those who play to that personality – far be it from me to make any personal comparisons with existing leaders! This approach, offering something different from threats of retaliation, may be beyond the experience or gameplan philosophy of those to whom it is directed but it is at least worth an attempt at de-escalation. It is perhaps because it is not the usual tactic of a bully and those who see main force as a crucial factor that it might just work. Leaders have to face both ways – they look to their obvious opponents but they also have to look behind themselves. If they stumble they are more likely to be dispatched by their colleagues and those around them than by those against whom they have been squaring up. That means that however a conflict ends they have to show a gain, a victory even if it is not a conventional one. To regain a position in the G7, the G20 and other counsels of the world could be a prize that could be sold to keep the troops happy.

In whatever way the war in Ukraine may end and however repellent, corrupt and untrustworthy may be the Kremlin with its people suppressed and denied freedom of information, those of us who value democracy and freedom will have to come to an accommodation – just as we must with China while aware that subterfuge and sabotage are their preferred modi operandi.  We must keep our eyes open but still engage. As Churchill remarked "In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, and in Peace: Good Will". After all, it is only when there is a dialogue that positions and red lines can be understood as well as those areas capable of compromise. This may mean dangling some economic benefits as a bargaining chip. In addition, we should never forget the lessons of divide et impera – a concept practised with great effect by the British in India. As more an more munitions made by Iran are used in the Ukraine war and their remains dissected so it becomes clear that so many of their component parts are made in China. China has not crossed the red line of providing actual armaments but its technical contribution is enormous. If we are to isolate Russia there is a strong argument for a rapprochement with China – while being mindful of the inherent dangers. Opening rather than closing markets for Chinese goods (now that the domestic Chinese market seems saturated) may be a way of weaning the Chinese away from supporting Russia.

Risky, even dangerous? Yes, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Had the West been less triumphalist and more pragmatic when the USSR collapsed we might have averted future aggression. The Allies attitude towards Germany after the Second World War, the Marshall Plan and other attempts to keep the country free from a bolshevik take-over were an act of realpolitik just as was the Americans’ recruitment of the Nazis’ rocket scientists. Cynical, perhaps, but far more an accommodation for the wider good. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland the British Government steadfastly maintained that it would not negotiate with terrorists – but as we now know talks were continuing with the IRA beneath the surface leading to the Belfast-Good Friday Agreement. Duplicitous, dishonest, misleading? Yes, but necessary - for without such dialogue one will never know when the time and politics for peace may be present. It would be good to believe that behind our backs such dialogue is going on in even the most unpropitious circumstances.

Keith Best TD, MA is a former Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Anglesey/Ynys Môn and served as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Wales. Major in airborne and commando (artillery) forces, practising barrister, liveryman (Loriner), and Freeman of the City of London, Keith was named one of the 100 most influential people in public services in the UK by Society Guardian. Keith has made significant contributions to international refugee and human rights initiatives, including serving as Vice Chair of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and as a member of the Foreign Secretary’s Advisory Panel on Torture Prevention. He is the Chair & CEO of the Wyndham Place Charlemagne Trust, Chair of the Universal Peace Federation (UK), patron of TEAM Global, and a trustee of several national and international organisations. 

The views and opinions expressed in our International Insights are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or positions of TEAM Global or its affiliates.