16 December 2022, NIICE Commentary 8440
Gaurav Dahal
The conflicts amongst nations were thought to have gradually shifted from nation-states to non-state actors. International organizations like the UN and other regional organization like NATO, and the EU governed and controlled the countries’ performance which was thought to suffice in minimizing direct conflict amongst nations. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine showed that a handful of countries still possessed the mindset to fight a war and acquire another’s territory. It was also apparent that these heinous attempts will face collective retaliation from these international organizations and the global community. Instead of direct conflict, to obtain their national interests, most countries will now be obsessed with various forms of alliances, influencing people’s mindsets, or fueling domestic conflict resulting mostly in the change in regimes. As evident from the cold war era, these proxy wars can become the major way for conducting conflicts and confrontations in today’s world avoiding direct involvement.
Soviet Aggression and Formation of NATO
During the cold war, the confrontation of ideologies between the US and the USSR was evident as a non-state struggle and a conflict for preserving regimes and alliances after World War II. These two countries were not fighting each other for acquiring territories but for spreading their ideologies globally. In contrast, war-torn Europe was struggling economically and was vulnerable to Soviet aggression propagating communist ideologies all over Europe. As such, the communist government in Czechoslovakia was considered a result of the Soviet-sponsored coup near the border of Germany. To confront this situation, the United States for the first time signed a peacetime collective defense treaty, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), outside its western hemisphere with European countries. The main objective of this treaty was to assist these countries in developing their strengths as an economically strong and militarily capable Europe was essential to retaliate against any communist expansion in Europe. To achieve this, the treaty provided European countries assurances against any soviet aggression in the region.
Nuclear Deterrence
Similarly, postwar nuclear deterrence can be seen as one of the major reasons for the minimization of direct conflict between states. After World War II, states were hurtling towards the proliferation of nuclear might resulting in the sharp rise in the nuclear ambitions among nations instead of acquiring the territories of other nations. Apparently, territory played less role to display a country’s might as compared to its nuclear capabilities. As such, avoiding conflict with countries having similar nuclear capabilities became the norm. Both the United States and the Soviet Union understood each other’s nuclear might; therefore, they pursued the policy of nuclear deterrence leading to the strategy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) consisting of the second-strike capability to avoid confrontation and neither to disarm their nuclear arsenal nor initiate a conflict against one another.
Non-State Confrontation and Distant Adversary
During the 18th and 19th-century, people mostly fought to expand the territory of their country. Especially in Europe, people died in millions for their nation-state and almost a pure industrial process. This has become the historical reality of warfare. The enemy was known then, their military capacity, economic capacity, and alliances were recognized because they were fighting against another nation. But September 11, 2001, attack on United States’ World Trade Center changed the perception of how the new adversaries were. They were not a state but were in distant territories and operating through its vast multinational connections. This new distant adversary was able to use American commercial jets and turn them into a guided missile inside its own territory. The US had almost no or little information about these distant adversaries’ capacity. Although the US knew Al Qaeda was operating from the territory of Afghanistan which was under their control, the US started the war against terrorism and the regime of the country but not the country itself.
Direct Conflict or the Instruments of Diplomacy?
With increasing globalization and rapid advancement in connectivity and transportation, countries are mostly focused on their economic cooperation and achievements rather than their military ambitions or confrontations. They are seeking various ways to cooperate and integrate with other countries big or small. They even tend to seek multilateral arrangements to deal with the countries they have had bad relations in the past. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine too, may not be solved only by military means. With the support it is receiving from the international community, it became evident that militarily weak countries like Ukraine too can focus on building an arsenal of political, economic, and financial instruments of diplomacy for addressing these issues along with the gradual military advancement. The significance of proper dialogues and processes to communicate, cooperate and exchange information and technologies with one another as well as the entire global community was evident as well.
Have we come Full Circle?
The Chinese military demonstrating its aggressive posture around the East-China Sea conceivably outclassing the US military might in both size and technology is a regular incident. With direct conflict seeming to be on the horizon, it comes with a profound concern under what conditions China may want to test its capabilities and go to a full-fledged war against its counterpart and vice versa. Similarly, this December, the decision of the cabinet of Japanese Prime minister Khisida Fumio to implement three new ambitious defense strategies to flex its military prowess seems relevant to the ongoing vortex around the globe. Japan complying with its postwar pacifist policy while being in proximity to potential aggressors like North Korea, China, and Russia seems inappropriate and with unavoidable contingencies. Military expansion and enhanced capabilities do seem like a feasible option for its national security in this unavoidable war-prone global order.
For now, it’s a matter of time to see how this conflict will resolve. The role of international organizations and other regional organizations to resolve this conflict will undoubtedly have a major impact and work as a beam of hope for a peaceful world. Similarly, the possibilities of the use of nuclear weapons seem far-fetched but will certainly change the trajectory of the global order and cannot be overlooked. Indeed, Russia Ukraine conflict seems to have instilled a sense of urgency among most countries for the risk of possible direct confrontations. The urgency of the proliferation of military arsenals and enhanced military capabilities seems irrefutable which may further lead the counties towards new arms races and military confrontations. It’s a matter of time to wait and see how this conflict concludes and what impact it will further have on the international system.
Gaurav Dahal is Research Associate at NIICE.
