Michael Lind's story, Don't Mention the Old World Wars: Outdated Analogies Make Bad Foreign Policy, certainly presented a challenging argument to the reader.
He started by addressing how often politicians use the appeasement stick (opposing any dealings with a geopolitical adversary) to beat up their opponents, something I've been hearing for years. He mentioned Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk tweeting that putting pressure on Kyiv to make a deal with Moscow is tantamount to appeasement. Of course, these politicians always bring up the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, which was disastrous.
Lind stated that many predictions made by media pundits, politicians trying to be heroes, and academics seeking to be celebrities have led the public to believe the world is far more dangerous than it is. According to a recent YouGov poll, 22 percent of Americans think it is very likely that there will be another world war in the next 10 years, and another 39 percent think it is somewhat likely.
Of course, it's a relevant question to ask if Vladimir Putin, who is bogged down in Ukraine, is really the next Adolf Hitler. Hitler controlled most of Europe and North Africa, while Putin is stuck where he is for now. Is China equivalent to the Axis powers in World War II? No, Chinese troops have been involved in limited border conflicts with India and harassed other maritime nations in the South China Sea. However, those incursions can't be compared to anything Germany or Japan did in World War II. Hitler's territorial ambitions were a nightmare. He wanted for Russia and Eastern Europe to be depopulated to make room for Germans. Remember, Japan wanted an autarkic Asian empire.
As Lind stated, the only thing we have today that is similar to empires is competitive trade blocs established through diplomacy. The great powers are using trade blocs to increase their home markets. Their goal is to promote national economic champions in large, scale-intensive industries. These are blocs like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the European Union. China has the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and it hasn't invaded another country yet. In fact, China has only one overseas military base in Djibouti, established in 2016. Russia, China's ally, has the Eurasian bloc.
He goes on to say that surprise attacks like Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor or Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union will not be repeated in the age of global satellite surveillance, a good thing. The most interesting part of the story is Lind stating that the age of mass conscription of citizens as cannon fodder in colossal war is similarly a thing of the past. I hope Lind's prediction is true. He said that mass armies have been replaced by conventional missiles, drones, autonomous forces, technicians, and special forces.
Also of interest is his drawing from international relations thinker and military historian Edward Luttwak. Luttwak said individualistic societies now produce one-child and two-child families, and this changes countries' outlook on war. Naturally, families grow weary of war when they're smaller and mothers have few children to sacrifice. The highly regarded international relations guru has also stated that many societies, including both democracies and authoritarian ones like Russia and China, are in a post-heroic phase in which people are reluctant to serve in wars outside their own country. To prove we are in a post-heroic phase, Lind cites a YouGov poll where 60 percent of Americans say in the event of a world war, they would be unable to serve because of age or disability; 13 percent say they would refuse to serve if drafted; nine percent said they would serve if drafted but would not volunteer; only six percent say they would volunteer for service.
Lind correctly viewed the current international situation as Cold War II, and not something that's likely to lead to a world war. In this Cold War, we have America and its allies in Europe and East Asia, as well as Israel and some Arab nations. China, Russia, Iran, and a few of their allies are on the other side. He predicts arms races, space races, and competition to win the allegiance of the world's nonaligned nations. He said, and I hope he's right, that this will end in a dtente amongst the great powers.
So, there's more good news than some in academia and in the media would think. However, we must not forget how dangerous drones, autonomous forces, and missiles can be. How do we control them? It's good that post-heroic societies are willing to sacrifice fewer people. However, new technology could still do great damage. Let's hope we can find our way to the dtente Lind talks about. It's during the periods of dtente in the first Cold War (in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I administrations) that some of the finest examples of arms control were produced. Where can we start? We should renew the New Start Treaty with Russia. How do we go beyond New Start? Let's hope creative minds can safeguard our lives and those of people in other countries as history unfolds. We have a hopeful beginning, let's hope we can find a nice ending.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
