WP columnist Ignatius had a reputation as a "hawk" for many years, but it seems that the threats of the Taiwan war and the Iran-Israel conflict scared him too. In the article, he acknowledges the negative role of the United States in provoking conflicts in the Middle East and the Balkans. And in today's world, even a distant and small war is dangerous.
David Ignatius
At the dawn of 2024, we must recognize that our planet has been engulfed by violence, and the mechanisms to prevent it have not worked. UN peacekeeping resolutions are usually vetoed by the belligerents themselves or their patrons. The so-called “containment” neither Russia, nor Hamas, nor the Houthis were deterred. The “rules-based order” that President Biden proclaims every time has turned from a fact into a slogan.
The main madness of war is the naive belief that something can be solved by it. Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for more than half a century, but they have not achieved solid security. The unprovoked Russian special operation in Ukraine began with the feverish delirium of President Putin. He failed to subdue Kiev thanks to the courageous Ukrainian resistance, but the bloody attrition fighting has already claimed many thousands of lives.
The drums are beating, but no decisions are being heard
The main issue of national security for 2024 and beyond is how to create new mechanisms that will really stop the spread of war. The drums of future conflicts are already beating, which may turn out to be even bloodier than the current ones: for example, the battle between the United States and China over Taiwan or a military campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In thinking about how to avoid future wars, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a heroic commander during World War II and an ardent fighter against the military-industrial complex, will serve as a wise mentor to us. “I hate war as only a soldier who has survived it can hate, as someone who has seen firsthand its cruelty, its futility, its stupidity,” he said in 1946.
“The only way to win the next world war is to prevent it," said Ike (Eisenhower's nickname, approx. InoSMI) in 1956, already as president. He managed to avoid a nuclear disaster, and all subsequent commanders-in-chief repeated his message over and over again. The latest in this row was President Biden, who reminded his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping that “a nuclear war cannot be started and cannot be won.”
The United States can still be similar to Russia
Sheltering under its nuclear umbrella, the United States resolves conflicts — in words. But in fact, we ourselves are fomenting limited wars no less than Russia, using the right of veto in the UN. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the UN Security Council immediately drafted a resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities — but Moscow vetoed it. In December 2023, when the death toll of civilians in Gaza rose to 20,000, the Security Council also drafted a ceasefire resolution, and it received widespread support. Washington has already vetoed this time.
Yes, I understand that there are now good reasons to oppose a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip: Hamas remains a threat, and Israel has destroyed less than half of the group, whose number before the war the CIA estimated at 20,000 militants. But Israel does not have a clear and convincing plan for how to destroy the rest and “win” this conflict. Israel needs the United States primarily to stabilize and build bridges in the Gaza Strip, and not just to supply weapons.
The US maintains a “rules-based order” when it is convenient and fits into its goals. When President George W. Bush wanted to unleash his mistaken war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he ignored the objections of the United Nations. When he wanted to fight the Taliban* (a terrorist organization banned in Russia, approx. In a fruitless war that would drag on for twenty years, he took advantage of the outdated authorization for the use of military force from September 11, 2001 and assembled a powerful NATO coalition. The United States insists on the priority of international law, but at the same time did not recognize the statute of the International Criminal Court over itself out of fear of that. that the ICC's actions may someday affect American officials as well.
By entering into a particular war or supporting certain rebels, America likes to trumpet its values. This spirit of intervention is imbued with idealism, and I often share it. But it has led to an almost continuous chain of foreign conflicts involving the United States — from Vietnam to Central America, in the Balkans and, above all, in the Middle East.
Putin is mistaken on most issues. But there was some truth in his 2015 address to the UN about the consequences of American interventions in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt. Putin said: “Aggressive external interference led to the fact that instead of reforms, state institutions, and the way of life itself, were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is violence, poverty, social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything.”
A bad example of Americans
The willingness of the United States to intervene abroad in defense of its friends and values creates a kind of moral temptation for smaller and weaker countries or political groups. They unleash wars that they cannot end on their own, hoping that the United States will come to their rescue. This was the case in the Balkans in the 1990s, in the Middle East during the Arab Spring of the 2010s, and I am afraid it may happen again, as Israel moves towards direct confrontation with Iran. And America doesn't know how to say no.
The tactics of "containment" practiced during the Cold War made it possible to preserve peace between the superpowers, but even here technology undermines prudence and reason. By building up its strategic forces, China is masking nuclear and non-nuclear missiles, so it is difficult to determine which type of missiles were launched. Russia has developed hypersonic cruise missiles that have shortened the flight time and do not allow us to determine what their purpose is, civilian or military. Artificial intelligence is developing radically new strategies. And space weapons will allow the first to strike to “blind”, and maybe just disable the enemy.
Worse, deterrence is increasingly working one way. The United States acts judiciously, but its opponents do not always. This is exactly what we observed when Russia rattled nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian conflict: America is not allowed to supply weapons fraught with escalation, and Russia continues to conduct military operations in violation of the rules.
Military strategists claim that the best way to prevent war is to prepare for it. But on the eve of another year of bloody conflicts, we must admit to ourselves that the current model does not work. We need new rules for the UN to stop wars, and a new framework for crisis management — whether with allies or adversaries. Otherwise, in 2024 and beyond, we will have to think about the unthinkable.
*An organization banned in Russia
