As United States and Russia attempt to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war this- with due respect to sufferings of real people - is a side show to the real ‘story’: the return of Great Power Politics. The reference is not to the cliched so-called multi-polar world ‘order’ but real great power competition.
In this schema, Russia appears to be a ‘revanchist power’ – seeking both ‘wounded pride’, irredentism by ‘reclaiming’ its ‘near abroad’, and ‘historical redress’. But that’s that. The country, in the grand scheme of things, might not be able to be in the ranks of great powers.
The real name of the game is between the United States and China. In the competition between this duo, other powers can either be middling ones, small ones or sideshows. But all are important. To ‘deal’ with and ‘manage’ this conflict, Donald Trump-the 47th president of the United States-brings his world view, style of functioning and perspective to the proverbial table.
Whether that succeeds or not remains in the domain of the ‘unknown unknown’. But what is certain is that Great power politics in and of the 21st century is a militarized one. Force postures, war-making in this century (the recent near war or contactless war) between India and Pakistan is an example of this), weapons systems, the diversion of public spending and aspects of fiscal policy (debt financing suggestions and tax cuts diversion to defense spending-Australia as a case in point), the saliency of ‘low intensity conflicts’ and their overall relevance to world politics among other things point to this.
Admittedly this is an elongated introductory or prefatory set of assertions to what is the theme of this essay: the nature of war and peace in the 21st century-an existential issue for the entire world. Toward this end, strategists and military men(women) appear to be dusting off their bookshelves and rereading the greats- Sun Tzu, Basil Liddell Hart and von Clausewitz.
I must hasten to make my ‘vantage point’ and ‘weakness’ clear here: I am not a student of war or military affairs. What I am is a student of international relations and political economy. Not a great perch to analyses military and defense affairs, I shall attempt to do my bit to throw light on this aspect of international relations- against the backdrop of my very limited understanding (of military affairs). So, what are the strategists focusing on?
Wrong things I aver. The focus appears to be on studying military doctrines, force postures, combat readiness, combat techniques, weapons systems and so on. These are all very important aspects and elements of war and war making. But the centre of gravity of the same lies in the philosophies of war and peace. If war is not an end in itself but an instrument or even an institution to forge peace, then it is the philosophy of war that needs to be studied. By philosophy of war, what do I mean?
Broadly, the conceptual underpinning of war is the answer. The rest is mere corollary. Consider an analogy here-a crude, prosaic one: person A conceives a thought in his or her mind-to say, get himself or herself a glass of water. The thought (philosophy, concepts and the causes of war), premised on need, begins the mind. (I shall ignore the mechanisms-neuro and biological transmission here).
He or she then walks over to the tap or the fridge to fetch the glass of water. How he or she walks-runs, walks, ambles or limps (doctrine, force posture, weapons systems etc)- to the tap or fridge is important and determinative of speed, grace, and so on. But of all pervasive importance is the thought in the mind (concept/philosophy). The philosophy and conceptual underpinnings of war are what need to be studied.
In this matrix, my limited perspective suggests that all greats – Sun Tzu (philosopher of war), Clausewitz (a theorist of war) and Liddell Hart (immersive or experiential analyst of war)- are important. But in the order of preference, it may be Sun Tzu – the philosopher of war- and his writings on war that would offer the best guidance.
It may not be an exaggeration to state that the world is becoming a veritable armed camp where, to invert Inis Claude’s memorable phrase (title of his classic): Ploughshares are being turned into swords, humanity is peering at the ‘edge of an abyss’.
A ‘minor’ precipitating event like Gavalio Princip’s shooting and assassination of the Archduke in a seemingly insignificant and obscure place like Serbia might set of World War III.
At all costs, this has to be ‘pre-empted’. The starting point here is to understand the philosophy and conceptual underpinnings of war -if only to forge peace. Toward this prospective endeavor, the great Sun Tzu offers a great template.
To conclude, the great Clausewitz’s suggestion that ‘war is a continuation of diplomacy’ must be inverted and replaced by my even greater Australian mentor’s suggestion,’ All war is bad politics. But, if war is to be fought, only as a last resort, then Sun Tzu offers the most incisive and able guidance (in his characteristically pithy way and to paraphrase the great philosopher of war): Winning without fighting is the real Art of War’.
Have you liked the news article?