Post No. 14: Great Power Relations, Part 2

Post No. 14: Great Power Relations, Part 2

As described in Part 1 (Prelude) on this topic, "Realism" is the approach most often taken in Great Power Relations, and it is this approach that has led to the many wars in the last few centuries. The fundamental aspect of realism is fear; fear that another great power will eventually threaten one's nation's survival if the other power remains unchecked. Realism in international politics assumes other state actors are rational and will also look out for their own interests. It assumes there is no single power that can maintain the nation's safety (an "anarchic" system), therefore the nation must look out for its own interests.

The buildup to World War I is a good example of this. Fear of any one country gaining an upper hand was prevalent at the time and there was a significant escalation of war materials, both on land and at sea. France was fearful of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Germany was fearful of France and Russia, and Britian was just fearful. Alliances were made in case of war. These alliances made sense to the countries involved because they felt safer being part of a larger military coalition. But military alliances generally amp up the fear factor. Given the situation, it didn't take much to light a flame that no one really expected to be lit. When Austria invaded Serbia (who had an alliance with Russia) in retaliation for Serbia's involvement in the assasination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, Russia mobilized. Russia's mobilization spooked Germany, who strategised that they should invade France first before taking on Russia. Voila, World War I. Does it have to be this way? Great Power Realists say yes, that is simply the way human beings react. These posts take a deeper dive into their underlying assumptions.

After World War II, the U.S. emerged as the sole superpower but was soon threatened by the Soviet Union, especially after they began their buildup of nuclear weapons. The "cold war", a stalemate of sorts, brought a sense of stability to Great Power wars with no major invasions during the second half of the twentieth century. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union did, however, become involved in civil wars: in Vietnam and Korea for the U.S., and in Afghanistan for the Soviet Union. Both wars were entered into by the respective Great Power in order to enhance their geopolitical advantages. It wasn't until the current century that Great Powers began to invade other countries. This is a main reason I am writing now about Great Power Relations and a possible way forward, which will be explored in Part 3 of this post topic.

The first Great Power invasion, that broke the 50+ year record of Great Powers staying in their own lane, was by the U.S. in Afghanistan. It was seen as justified by most, including myself, because the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001. Yet it was still an invasion where the U.S. occupied the country. There were alternatives at the time other than invading the country and choosing a war with the Taliban. Exploring these alternatives is not a purpose of this post, so let's move on to the next Great Power invasion: the Iraq invasion by the U.S. in March, 2003. As we now know, the main impetus of this invasion was U.S. neocon geopolitical strategy for the Middle East. Even assuming that the inaccurate intelligence presented by the U.S. intelligence agencies on WMD might have been true, there was no urgency to invade given conditions on the ground in Iraq at that time. Despite our arguably very positive intentions, these two invasions resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. They also created a jaundiced view of the U.S. by many in other parts of the world, including Asia and Africa. This is relevant because it does become a roadblock to possible outcomes that will be discussed in Part 3.

The immediate impetus for posts on this topic is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This invasion is more troublesome because it is both a land grab and a nasty, violent, protracted war. It also brings up the specter of war between Russia and the U.S., which is a horrible image. This post is not intended to suggest how this war might end, but as you will read in Part 3, Russia should not be rewarded with gaining any more territory than it had at the start of its invasion.

The U.S. has been the reason no Great Power has invaded another country (not counting involvement in civil wars) between the end of World War II and 2001. The U.S. was able to do this because we were the undisputed superpower, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. This fact is relevant because for the first time the world was not "anarchic" as Great Power Realists assume. There was an adult to stop any fighting school boys (see posts 9 and 10). The United States prevented any lesser powers from invading the territory of other countries. There were minor skirmishes but no major invasions. Unfortunately we broke that wonderful record ourselves by invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. We now have the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

What is the way forward to prevent Great Power wars in the future? This will be explored in Part 3 of this topic. Stay tuned.