Spaces of tranquility show their value when the world is in turmoil. For me such a place is a local cafe with loyal customers and civilized atmosphere. It is a place of order and predictability. Sometimes the realities of the outside world hit, however, a striking note in the midst of calm. For example, my discussion with other loyal customers ended up touching the worrying strikes of Israel into Iran’s nuclear facilities. A customer noted, somehow without hesitation, that the world is going into another World War. Even though I tried to bring more optimistic note (“Well, I certainly hope not!”), the previous joyful mood was damaged. The chills of warfare had reached my safe haven.
For the Western countries, the Second World War is a collective trauma which continues to haunt the everyday life. The events of the war are not only horrifying, they are easily relatable, since the wars were well-documented with modern technologies and the stories are still repeated throughout the cultural spectrum. Although there are no longer many of those who actually witnessed the warfare, new technologies attempt to imagine the events in more gruesome detail than ever before. Understandably, many fear that the past returns and leads us to similar destruction.
In some respects, these fears are justifiable. According to the Peace Research Institute of Oslo, the world witnessed the highest number of conflicts in almost 80 years last year. The record of 61 conflicts in 36 countries narrowly surpassed the previous year’s record. Thus, conflicts are becoming a structural issue for the globe, rather than just a momentary spike.
Moreover, several trends point towards sustained or even increasing levels of violence. The growth of emerging economies has challenged the capabilities of the US which kept the post-war order in check by defending even distant territories. Opportunistic military leaders are currently testing the new dynamics directly or indirectly at several battlefields. At the same time, the US leadership amplifies the situation by openly retreating from its previous outposts and leaving their defense for the local powers. Smaller nations are being forced to increase their military spending and prepare for the worst. The rapidly changing alliances and technologies have formed a vacuum where authoritarian powers are able to pursuit their expansive goals.
When nations from small to large expand their armies, one thing is for sure: risks of large-scale conflicts increase. Border disputes or internal uprisings are not necessarily solved diplomatically, since governments can reach their goals by other means. If an enemy is continuously portrayed as an existential threat in public discourse, brutal methods can reach an extensive support among citizens. Thus, long-lasting militarization can promote conflicts even in democratic states.
A commander would point out that large armies allow better management of escalation than before. When there are many steps to go until nuclear warfare, nations are able to enter into a debate before weapons of mass-destruction need to be used. Such a solution somewhat functioned between the US and the USSR to keep Cold War -relations in check.
Yet, too extensive armies can clearly be a problem when governments use them as a tool beyond defensive purposes. Lavish defense expenditure or decreased hostilities provide relatively strong position for army, who obviously uses the opportunity to widen the previous goals. A large army is effective in inventing new enemies even when there are not any in sight. For example, far-away proxy warfare can be seen as a justified method to protect military outposts, supply chains, critical infrastructure, preferred institutions, common values, or oppressed populations. An objective observer, like the United Nations, should look after the credibility of these justifications.
In any case, any reasoning for an offense is usually met by skepticism among citizens of the targeted nation and their allies. The affection to oppose the hostile government should not be underestimated, since it can run deep for years to come. Without an exit-plan, even enormous armies can meet a humiliating defeat, as we know from the retreat of the US from Vietnam.
Unfortunately, a beginning of warfare requires only a violent event and/or a leader who has no proper sense of mind. They are both commonplace in the contemporary world. Sometimes the eruption is long-awaited, sometimes it is a huge shock to everyone involved.
Should we then conclude that the world is indeed close to a period comparable with the Second World War? Or are we moving to another Cold War -period with proxy wars? These are popular points of comparison across media outlets, but there are reasons to look beyond both of these periods into the beginning of the 20th century. Let me discuss the topic further in my next post…
saukotuksia 
What’s your view?