Theories of war – and Ukraine

Basically, this site subscribes to john Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. I just haven’t seen a better theory of international relations. The best sources for this theory are his books How States Think. The Rationality of Foreign Policy and The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. In a word; the theory notes that, unlike within a state, in the international arena there is no policeman who can enforce rules. The system is therefore irretrievably competitive. The safest place to be is to be a regional hegemon and states will strive for this. Security, the imperative to continue to exist, is the over-riding priority, because any other aims depend on this. States cannot trust other states and cannot know their intentions in advance. States may initiate wars when they see an opportune moment reasoning that if they don’t then perhaps their neighbours will, when they see a chance. The system is inherently unstable and war is built in. Through this lens the Ukraine war was primarily caused by NATO posing an unacceptable risk to Russia by trying to turn Ukraine into “a Western bulwark on Russia’s doorstep”.

The narrative of the West is that a) Ukraine has the “sovereign right” to join whatever international organisations it wants and b) NATO is a defensive organisation and not a threat to Russia, so Russia has no ‘right’ to object to NATO setting up shop in Ukraine. a) is interesting, not least because the people who make this argument are the same people who talk a lot about democracy, but in fact, joining NATO was not a very big desire of the Ukrainian people, prior to the crisis of 2014 – and even then support has only grown slowly and in response to the war [1] The idea of sovereignty also emphasises in a deliberately pedantic way one aspect of the UN Charter. The proponents of this narrative line are well aware that there is also a question of self-determination of peoples, also mentioned in the UN Charter, (an argument they seem to have sided with when they bombed Serbia in the 1990s to force it to accept Kosovan independence). And they must surely know that “realpolitik” trumps the UN rules. They do it all the time themselves. b) is laughable in itself. The peoples of Libya and Serbia will, for example, certainly not see NATO as ‘defensive’. But, more to the point; saying “don’t worry we are not placing our intelligence bases / missiles here to threaten you” just doesn’t cut the mustard in international relations. (Back to the theory); no one can trust this. Any more than the US could trust that Russia placing weapons in Venezuela posed no threat to the US [2], however many times Russia insisted the weapons were not aimed at America. Well; the narrative of the West on Ukraine is entirely false and it can be demolished very easily. It is a wonder that any of them believe it, but evidently, many really do; they are not consciously lying. The Danes in particular. [3]

However; the purpose of this post is to consider another theory of war. I came across this theory a long time ago in a book by the Russian esoteric writer, George Gurdjieff. I think he merely mentioned the theory, rather than arguing for it. In this theory war happens periodically and is something to do with the alignment of the stars. This, then, is also a tragic theory. Wars are inevitable, (as they are in John Mearsheimer’s system). In general, I prefer the rational and empirical theory of offensive realism. To say that “wars just happen as cosmic events” does encapsulate the tragedy and senseless aspect of war, but does not provide a rational analysis, and thus cannot help find a way out. Why am I writing this? Because, looking at the Ukraine war, which has been going on for nearly four years now, it is taking on a bitter aspect of two sides just slugging it out. (I am not saying it is a “stalemate”; all the military analysis I listen to says that Russia is gaining ground, albeit slowly). One stage removed from the battlefield, there is another slug-fest. The West is trying to break the Russian economy. Russia is trying to hold out. Europe is scrabbling around trying to figure out how they can raise the Euro 140 billion a year [4] that Ukraine needs. They are so desperate and have so little spare money themselves that the leading option is to steal the Russian money frozen at Euroclear. (France’s current debt to GDP ratio is 115% for example. That of the EU as a whole 88%). [5][6] The Russian authorities are implementing a programme of budget thrift; for example tightening up dispensation of some social benefits, public transport fares are increasing, and they are focusing the budget on the needs of the military. Salaries, in some regions at least, are falling. On the battlefield it is a cruel slugfest and in the background it is also a question of who breaks first. Which will enter crisis first; the Russia or European economies? Trump has wisely, and as a businessman, stopped the US haemorrhaging money to Ukraine, though it is unlikely the US Congress would have voted for another huge package of support anyway, so it is Europe v. Russia on the economic front.

It is not a rational analysis but there comes a point when you look at this; two sides throwing everything at each other, digging themselves ever deeper into a hole, people dying and suffering, just slugging it out, and you want to say “why can’t they just meet and talk this out”. I think Nietzsche, for example, might say this is a woman’s perspective. It breaks your heart.

And, lest I slip into some apolitical ‘analysis’ which serves the interests of the West, one has to note that the main obstacle to a resolution seems to be the intellect-free narrative of Europe. It is not cosmic forces breaking one’s heart, but sheer stupidity; rather than think anything through, try to read some history, study competing theories of international relations, engage in meaningful diplomacy, the political class of Europe immediately circles the caravans and defends themselves behind the most simplistic of slogans.

Notes

Theories of war – and Ukraine

Related Posts

Where Western media propaganda collides with bad journalism – a case study (“Abduction” of children from Ukraine)Where Western media propaganda collides with bad journalism – a case study (“Abduction” of children from Ukraine)

The free press in the WestThe free press in the West

Rewriting historyRewriting history