This simple 3½ minute video This Land is Mine is a superb explanation and demonstration of who started the fighting in Israel, who is right and who is wrong.
This video should be put out instead of the news one day.
If I was working with children, I’d use it as the key part of a discussion.
I’ve just completed and passed a 12 week course “Understanding International Relations Theory” on Coursera run by the HSE University, Moscow. It was written four years ago, so well before the invasion of Ukraine. It has been on my To Do list since I completed my Masters in Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies, essentially an international relations course, but I wanted the perspective of a Russian university on the subject. I got round to doing it when I did because a small number of people were saying the invasion of Ukraine was inevitable and were predicting the nation of its escalation of not addressed. I also felt it was predictable and based on Russia feeling unheard in its objections to Eastward NATO expansion, not being heard on the world stage beyond its power of veto at the UN and its objections to how regime change was being conducted by the West.
Anyway, the theory is just the same: Realist, Liberalist and Marxist paradigms of interpreting international relations, with their modern neo- versions to accommodate their failings, and the special theories like Democratic Peace Theory, Regime Theory and the delightfully named Liberal Transnationalism or Complex Interdependence Theory. Also, the critical theories of Constructivism, Postmodernism and Feminism. As expected, it starts with the Peloponnesian Wars, goes through the philosophers like Hobbes and Locke and the Westphalian view of state sovereignty, the League of Nations, the Great War, WW2, the United Nations, the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and almost up to the present day. All as expected.
But the interesting bit was toward the end: the analysis of Russian foreign policy. It is entirely a Realist policy, so very different from how the West operates. And using the Realist paradigm of a desire to balance power, of great powers operating in a ‘concert of nations’ and Russia expecting to be the most influential state in its region, the behaviour of Russia was indeed entirely predictable.
While many were saying Putin is mad, that he intends to invade and conquer Europe, that it is all to do with internal Russian politics, had got it wrong. The invasion of Ukraine is – like most violence at any scale – all about humiliation. Russia resents being treated as insignificant on the world stage, resents the encroachment by NATO and the EU into its sphere of influence, resents not being involved in decision-making about world issues such as the Arab Spring (hence its involvement in propping up the Syrian regime to show that it can) and that it was not defeated and eliminated when the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia wants to be seen as what it sees itself as and has been for centuries: one of the great powers in the Eurasian zone.
All conflicts end with communication. And communication starts with listening. We need to stop treating Russia as a defeated opponent or an enemy to be crushed by an ongoing unofficial Cold War and try listening.
Why do we expect politicians to be all-knowing multidisciplinary people?
This was asked on LinkedIn by one of my fellow students at Lancaster University, someone I was very impressed with, Pilar Perez Brown. The context was President Macron attempting mediation talks with Putin, despite not having the necessary academic background or training to do so.
Mediators that comprehend the full political and strategic reality of the war are needed, people that know the best ways to guide this conflict and the relations in it. We need economists and strategists that can explain the depth of both sides’ demands, as well as many other specialists who are equally necessary despite not being politicians.
A discussion began.
Conflict analysis and responses have changed enormously this past few decades. There are far more options and interventions available to prevent conflict, transform conflict and resolve conflict than most people are aware of. Somehow, we need to get conflict resolution recognised and given a much higher profile in diplomacy and international relations incident management.
Exactly! Thank you for your insight. Indeed the nature of conflict has changed, and so the analysis of it has enhanced, therefore presenting more opportunities to transform and resolve conflicts, as you mention.
Why do you think these processes are not as recognised as they should be?
I think these are some factors:
I went to bed reminded of living as a child of the bomb, not expecting to reach adulthood because of the permanent threat of nuclear war and obliteration. No point working for the school exams or planning a future, because there would not be one. And now there are news stories looking breathlessly at nuclear escalation as an exciting prospect.
This is why we should have got rid of nuclear weapons by now. We are still living in fear of total destruction which is supposedly there to protect us.
So the post WW2 constitutional attitude of Germany being a peaceful nation in Europe is over. It feels like we’ve gone back 90 or more years in European peaceful negotiation and concepts. Once again a militarised Germany in the centre of Europe, throwing its weight about. And providing the arms for a war in another country: great way to get back into the game, Germany, by supporting a proxy war. Start out at a low level, why don’t you?
And Germany has committed to providing 2% to NATO, so NATO’s budget goes up as a result of Russia’s actions. Well done NATO for coming out the winner in this. The most powerful state in the world with a national flag, national anthem, guaranteed budget paid by taxpayers elsewhere and with no democratically elected leaders. Amazing.
Lots of countries are promising to send weapons of various sorts. Russia is on the outskirts of Kiev. By the time they have been found, ready to be boxed up, it will all be over. But the contracts and orders with the arms manufacturers will still go ahead. It is just throwing money at the arms industry that will have no effect. What are they going to do with them when they are ready for shipment in a couple of months – send them to the Russians occupying Ukraine? “Oh, these are items in the stores!”. They have to be gathered up, boxed up, transport arranged, receipt arranged, training booked, maintenance arranged, documentation provided … it won’t happen.
And the censorship has begun. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan I found it very interesting watching the mainstream news and listening to the BBC World Service, Voice of America and Radio Moscow and comparing the different versions of events. By tracking what each was saying about the front moving back and forth in my school atlas, and keeping track of the losses and gains reported on each side, I was able to work out which was utter bobbins and which seemed reasonably accurate, albeit with some spin. The Voice of America was utter bonkers fiction; the others were generally aligned. Fake news and lies in the media are not a new thing. Censorship in the West is.
What an unpleasant weekend. How quickly politicians will re-instate a Cold War and military escalation when given the opportunity, rather than trying to sort their problems out.
Welcome to living with fear.
I feel that if there were more money and effort spent on building international relations and conflict prevention, this (the invasion not just of disputed territories but the whole of the Ukraine by Russia) need not have happened.
The criticism of NATO’s continued existence as an offensive military organisation (as opposed to a mutual defence treaty) once the Warsaw Pact had collapsed is not a new one. I can understand Russia’s concern about it. And I have seen many suggestions being made for diplomatic solutions which could have addressed or at least challenged Russia’s demands for not having NATO on their borders. For example, a buffer alliance of East European states not in NATO or Ukraine joining an alliance of neutral states.
Our own national posturing and feeble threats did nothing to prevent what has happened. Nor have our sanctions spread to a whole list of things that any geezer down the boozer could come up with: impounding their ships and aircraft; expelling the 900 Russians who bought an express UK citizenship; banning all trade with Russia; confiscating any containers or goods bound for Russia; instructing every investment house to freeze the assets of every Russian investor or risk being struck off. I’m sure there are many more people with more knowledge can think of, especially for dealing with the Russian supply chain.
Photos of UK politicians wandering around Kiev wearing a furry hat (on a day when it was warmer than Manchester) might get votes but has absolutely zero impact on reality.
It’s another case of a country with some demands (going back 30 years) being ignored and challenged as if to say “We dare you”. But Russia has a cultural tradition of strong and brave leadership: they would respond with a strong and brave response. Which they have. Big surprise. Not.
There’s also the cultural issues in the region which go back a thousand years. The history is really complex and we learned during the Paris Peace Conference a century ago that self determination is really important. If people in a region feel they do not want to be governed by a different peoples, then that needs to be listened to or it will eventually escalate. Since then, and especially in the past 30 or so years, we have learned an awful lot about conflict de-escalation and how to create societies with imbalanced powers that actually work. Instead of waiting for this to go horribly pear-shaped, like we did when Yugoslavia fell to bits, we (European states, mostly, but also the UN) could have done more to help resolve the Ukraine / Crimea / Russia situation by thinking of the people, power structures, how to reorganise society and the history instead of nation state politics.
I don’t think international politics or relations is easy. Well, it is if you ignore it and wait for it to go belly up and wait for it to be a military problem, I suppose, rather than dealing with it. I don’t suppose it is any easier for a national politician in the UK to go and say “Can we help?” than it is to get involved when the neighbours are shouting at one another in the street. It’s easier to draw the curtains and hope it goes away.
But I thought the point of the United Nations was to stop this sort of thing, to create a safe environment to settle issues. Maybe that is where to look for the failure here. In what way does the UN need to change?
And where the heck were the UN peacekeepers? Instead of NATO posturing and behaving like a belligerent nation itself with its leader making threats and demands on the world stage (did you vote for him? I didn’t.), NATO could have offered to provide the peacekeeping force to the UN. To protect the border, from invasion, not as a NATO attack force but a UN peacekeeping force. They have the resources and money for a war, surely they have the resources and money for not a war?
Yes, it’s sad. Unimaginative and weak leadership, more concerned in posturing and local votes than making the world a better place. But then, isn’t that politicians the world over? Me, me, me, me, me.
It does not take a strong person to start a fight. It takes a strong one to stop one. And that strength could come from investment into further research into conflict management, raising awareness of the methods, publicising success when it works and promoting its application when the neighbours are having a falling out. Hmm. I wonder where the money could come from to pay for that?
How about starting with the management of NATO. Scrap NATO as an organisation – but leave the sensible mutual defence pact Treaty in place – and use the money saved for managing international relations in a peaceful way?
BBC news story “Trump urges NATO members to double military funding target” – Link.
Currently, NATO members are required to give 2% of the entire country’s Gross Domestic Product to the arms industry, with the non-democratic body NATO dictating what they have to spend it on. This is so NATO can defend Western Europe from a Soviet invasion by the Warsaw Pact. That’s the Warsaw pact that was dissolved in 1991, some 27 years ago.
That means the arms industry is given, each year, the entire productivity of much of Europe and the USA and other countries for one week. We don’t do this for education, health, homelessness or all manner of socially good things – just the means to kill people.
But now President Trump wants that doubled – doubled! – to 4%. He says one 25th of all production in every sector of society should be given to the arms industry.
The Cold War ended over half my life ago. Why are we still funding it at all?
Why should we cut health provision, housing, education, social welfare or anything else to pay for the tools and means to kill people? It is insane.
Unless he’s a puppet of the arms industry. Happy to take their money and doesn’t care what the cost will be to the world.
It was this kind of uplifting of military expenditure prior to the Great War that, arguably, helped lead to it occur.
Subject: Please do what you can to prevent escalation in Syria
Dear Cat Smith MP,
You are my MP as I live at <my home address>.
Please do all you can to prevent the government escalating the situation in Syria.
The news this morning suggests the Prime Minister intends to carry out a military response to an alleged chemical attack which has not yet even been investigated.
I expect better arguments for not carrying out this strike will become apparent through the day.
As my elected representative, should the government bother to ask your opinion, please do all you can to communicate the foolishness of a violent escalation to the situation in Syria.
As creatures, we are very poor at assessing risk. This knowledge was reinforced by what I learned in the Open University module DD210 Living psychology: from the everyday to the extraordinary. I suspect that is one of the reasons we allow wars to happen.
On the same theme The Ostrich Paradox: Why We Underprepare for Disasters by Robert Meyer and Howard Kunreuther may be a relevant and useful read. It looks as though they consider why we allow things to happen. They highlight six behaviours:
But that list does not tell us what to do about them; perhaps the rest of their book does.