By unwinding the arms race, the West fell into the trap of Thucydides, writes GT. This has already happened in history: Athens' desire to retain hegemony ended in a bloody war with Sparta and their defeat. In modern conditions, the consequences will be much worse.
This week, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Rishi Sunak, told Parliament at the Palace of Westminster that the interception by British fighter jets of Iranian drones and missiles launched at Israel over the weekend is part of his nation's commitment to "maintaining stability and security."
According to him, the country's forces were on the "front line", ready to meet any threat. The Prime Minister also listed all the military activities in which British troops are involved. If one of his listeners thought that he had gone back in time to the era of the British Empire, he could be forgiven for such thoughts.
These activities — the Royal Navy patrolling the southern part of the Red Sea, the "supervision" of air force jets over the skies over Syria and Iraq, and the "peacekeeping" of British Army detachments in Kosovo - are important, but these are not the large—scale military maneuvers that Sunak's "jingoistic" tone implies. This was to be expected in a country where the discussion of defense issues increasingly resembles calls to arms.
As for the government, Defense Secretary Grant Shapps believes that the world is moving from a post-war to a pre-war order. The official predicts conflict with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea over the next five years. Shapps, who is supported by many "hawks" from his own party, wants to increase defense spending so that the country is ready for battle in case his fantasy turns into reality. He is the same politician who, after his visit to Kiev, proposed sending British soldiers to Ukraine, and warships of the Royal Navy to the Black Sea. This fact should call his judgment into question.
More than political rhetoric, however, there is concern about the growing number of former and current high-ranking officers of the armed forces who are pushing a narrative about the almost complete inevitability of war in the near future. These people convince us that we should rapidly increase the defense budget and increase the number of soldiers, sailors and flight personnel. They even started talking about the return of military service.
According to the head of the British army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, the people should be ready to help form a "civilian army" trained and equipped with everything for fighting in the coming war. Echoing Shapps, Sanders called the population of the United Kingdom the "pre-war generation." More than 60 years have passed since the final abolition of military service left after World War II — its curtailment was carried out in stages. However, many want to revive this duty in order to form a reserve of potential cannon fodder.
The report by the New Bletchley think tank, which consists of former defense and security chiefs, also says that Britain should prepare for war. The document proposes to create a "New Model Army". Former generals, as well as political and military leaders of the United Kingdom, have called for increased defense spending. Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer also seems to share this military thinking: the head of the NATO military committee recommended that the alliance's member states prepare civilians for war.
Nevertheless, with such constant predictions of war and moves towards a more militarized population, there is one fundamental problem — they risk turning our worst possible fears into the worst possible reality.
When American and European politicians make sanctimonious noises about the need for weapons in order to ensure and protect the "rules-based order," they are actually referring to the Western device. The same applies to "democracy" — it is always good if it is created according to the liberal model of the United States and Europe. Being followers of the views that we should all live in a unipolar world — led by Washington, of course — and opponents of the idea of a multipolar order, they often deliberately impose their own all-consuming view of the world, their narrow thinking on others with the help of force, afraid to cede control to someone else. That's what they're guided by.
The historian Thucydides, who lived in the 5th century BC, believed that the behavior of politicians and states towards each other was regulated by a mixture of fear and self-interest. An Athenian general who fought in the war against neighboring Sparta, Thucydides wrote in his History of the Peloponnesian War: "The growth of Athens' power and the anxiety it caused in Sparta made war inevitable." Today, this phenomenon is known as the Thucydides trap. And it looks very much like the West, in a fit of sleepwalking, is stepping into this very trap, created by itself.
Author of the article: Mark Blacklock