War: The Ultimate Failure

Chapter 50.

“Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.”
— Isaac Asimov

The Nature of Failure

War is already a failure. It is the ultimate breakdown in human affairs. It is a testament to the futility of seeking gain through destruction. It begins long before the first shot is fired, born from a collapse in human interaction. It shows how a generation can be destroyed by war, even those who survived the shells. This represents an immense waste of human life. It extinguishes countless potentials, talents and experiences.

Beyond the immediate casualties, war wastes resources. It diverts capital, labour and innovation from progress to destruction. It leaves societies poorer and less resilient. Most tragically, it destroys previous achievements. It razes homes, infrastructure and cultural heritage. It sets nations back indefinitely. This destruction carries an irreversible demographic cost. The cost of killing a young person creates a ripple effect down non-existent generations.

“When someone that young gets killed, in a way it’s not just them that dies. That kid will never have children, never have grandchildren or great grandchildren and so on down the non-existent generations. All those people who will now never exist.”

This cost is visible in history. Historians estimate that without the loss of young men in World War II, the population of Russia today would be double its current size. This gap defines a century of national weakness and economic underperformance. The failure of war is a wound that multiplies its cost across generations.

The Roots of Conflict

Like theft, war often reflects a nation’s internal failures. It shows an inability or unwillingness to achieve objectives through peaceful means. The impulse to wage war can stem from a leader’s incompetence at home. They may seek to externalise their failures and impose their dysfunctions on others. This flaw lies at the heart of every conflict. In the long run, no one truly wins. The aggressor finds their victory hollow and self-defeating.

Avoiding war demands understanding human nature and geopolitical dynamics. We must never assume an adversary shares our definition of rationality. Historical errors show the danger of this. Leaders could not conceive of a nation willingly plunging into another world war. Others believed economic interdependence would guarantee peace. These were dangerous oversights. Diplomacy in 1938 was a difficult decision to buy time for rearmament when Britain was unprepared. Prudence dictated delaying conflict until the nation had the necessary defensive capability. The failure to avoid war is often preceded by a failure to prepare for it.

Leaders may operate from different values. They may prioritise historical grievances, ideological purity or a desire for honour or restoration over economic benefit or societal well-being. The modern example is the relationship between the United States and Russia. A leader who assumes everyone wants to make a deal fails to understand an adversary driven by imperial and security motives. Differences in worldviews shape understandings of world order. They shape the relation between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife. These divergences in core beliefs about security, governance and justice make understanding an adversary’s true motives paramount.

The Rules-Based Order as a Bulwark

The primary bulwark against war is the international rules-based order. This is not a system imposed by any single power. It is a framework of treaties, norms and institutions that facilitate cooperation, manage disputes and foster shared wealth. This order offers mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution. It establishes norms against aggression. It provides collective security guarantees that make unilateral military action less attractive and more costly.

Economic integration creates deep interdependencies that raise the stakes of conflict. War becomes financially ruinous for all involved. This universalistic order champions seas that connect rather than divide. It fosters global trade and cultural exchange.

This stands in contrast to orders that prioritise spheres of influence, territorial control and hierarchy over equality. This leads to the tragedy of great power politics. Robust institution-building creates mechanisms for dialogue, shared decision-making and collective action. Nations can stop invading each other and prosper. The EU’s journey from a continent ravaged by conflict to one bound by shared laws and economic interests shows this. Avoiding war necessitates strengthening these institutions. It requires bridging gaps in understanding diverse rationalities. It requires resisting the impulse for territorial acquisition.

The Costs of War and the Path to Peace

Despite all efforts at prevention, war can still erupt. It is often driven by less wise generations who underestimate its true costs. When this happens, the response must be strategic. External actors cannot fully control an aggressor’s decision. The focus must shift to maximising the costs for the aggressor. Ukraine has done a very good job at maximising costs on Russia. This strategy aims to make the continuation of hostilities unsustainable. It involves economic sanctions that cripple an aggressor’s financial system and trade. It involves diplomatic isolation that strips away legitimacy and alliances. It involves robust support for the victim’s defence. This raises the aggressor’s military and human toll. It highlights the pariah status that comes with violating international norms.

The disadvantages of aggression are not equally borne by all citizens. In a dictatorial state, the architects of aggression can insulate themselves and their political base from the ill effects. This prevents internal pain from reaching the threshold needed to convert suffering into political anger. It extends the life of the conflict and the regime.

The imposition of costs must be carefully calibrated. The aim is to enforce a rules-based order and deter future aggression. It is not to sow lasting resentment. The Treaty of Trianon continues to fuel dissatisfaction in Hungary over a century later. Measures perceived as unjust or punitive can create persistent grievances. The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh terms on Germany. This led to humiliation, instability and another war with disastrous consequences.

This stands in contrast to the Treaty of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars. It did not unduly punish France. France retained self-respect and independence. This contributed to almost a century of relative stability in Europe. The post-World War II approach to Germany superseded punitive ideas like the Morgenthau Plan. Comprehensive rebuilding efforts like the Marshall Plan aimed to integrate Germany into a new, stable European order. Long-term cooperation was deemed more beneficial than perpetual subjugation. The goal is to enforce norms and achieve behavioural change. It is not to permanently alienate or create conditions for a cyclical resurgence of conflict. The focus must remain on ensuring that the aggressor finds their victory hollow and self-defeating. This leads to long-term depressed growth rates, brain drain, technological isolation and diminished global influence. The human and societal tolls of prolonged conflict often mean that even the victors return to a world where the reasons for fighting have become obsolete. They struggle with alienation and a loss of purpose amidst a transformed reality.

The Role of Third Parties

As a third party to a conflict, the response is intrinsically linked to upholding the international rules-based order and supporting its victims. This role extends beyond a single nation. It emphasises collective action. The importance of a broad West encompassing traditional Western nations and key partners like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand is vital. This collective response involves unified diplomacy. It involves engaging in ongoing dialogue with both adversaries and allies. It involves strengthening alliances. The strength of the West lies in its unified front. This serves as both a deterrent and a mechanism for coordinated response. It means reinforcing norms through consistent condemnation in international forums like the UN. It means implementing targeted sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for aggression. It means leveraging international courts to hold perpetrators accountable. A collective commitment to upholding international law, freedom of navigation and national sovereignty sends a clear signal. Violations will not be tolerated without severe consequences.

It entails providing sustained support. This can be through economic aid for reconstruction, military assistance for defence or humanitarian relief for affected populations. These actions play a critical role in bolstering the resilience of the victim. They mitigate suffering and contribute to the costs borne by the aggressor. This makes continued conflict unsustainable.

Rebuilding for Lasting Peace

Rebuilding after war is a protracted process of creating sustainable peace. It transcends mere cessation of hostilities. It is about ensuring that the conditions for the ultimate failure do not re-emerge. True peace is cemented by robust institution-building. Strong, adaptable institutions can manage disputes, ensure justice and provide governance. This includes establishing fair legal systems, independent judiciaries and transparent administrative bodies. It includes fostering vibrant civil society engagement. The miracle of Europe’s post-war prosperity illustrates this. Sustained investment in institutions prevents regression into conflict. It ensures accountability and fosters trust.

Economic integration and shared prosperity are equally vital. Peace is more enduring when it is economically advantageous. Rebuilding efforts should focus on integrating economies within the rules-based global system. This promotes the compounding wealth that comes from cooperation rather than the isolation and impoverishment brought by aggression.

This includes supporting free trade, encouraging foreign investment and fostering economic interdependence. This creates shared interests and reduces incentives for renewed conflict. The searing experiences of war offer painful but vital lessons. Peacebuilding must involve a commitment to learn from past mistakes. These include pursuing outdated territorial ambitions or operating outside of established legal frameworks. Leaders forged by dire experiences often possess the pragmatic wisdom to prioritise long-term stability and economic development over conflict. A lasting peace requires a societal commitment to cultivating wisdom in leadership. This values compromise, understands diverse perspectives and prioritises long-term stability over short-term gains or ideological purity.

War is indeed the ultimate failure. Through collective wisdom, unwavering commitment to a rules-based order and sustained efforts in institution-building and economic cooperation, humanity has the capacity to prevent its recurrence and to build a more just and prosperous peace.

 

Next Chapter: Trust: A Compromised Cornerstone