The vast majority of people on this planet are peace-loving and law-abiding citizens, going about their lives without any inclination toward violence. Yet history repeatedly shows us that wars erupt, leaving devastation in their wake. Why does this pattern persist, and does the current geopolitical situation suggest that we are on the brink of another conflict? As NATO Secretary Mark Rutten warns us to prepare for war, we must grapple with whether war is inevitable or if there is another path forward.
The paradox of peace and war
Throughout history, wars have often been instigated by a small group of leaders or elites, driven by ambition, greed, or fear. These individuals hold the reins of power, while the majority remain powerless to resist their decisions. This concentration of power enables conflicts to escalate even when most people wish to avoid violence.
Human nature also plays a role. Our tendency toward tribalism and identity politics creates in-groups and out-groups, which can be exploited by leaders to inflame divisions and justify aggression. Combine this with competition over scarce resources, fear of potential threats, and historical grievances, and you have a recipe for conflict. Propaganda and manipulation further transform peace-loving populations into reluctant participants in war.
A “reset” through war?
There is a troubling idea that wars, while catastrophic, can serve as a “reset” for society. After World War II, for instance, the global order was reshaped with institutions like the United Nations and Bretton Woods, aimed at fostering international cooperation and preventing future conflicts. However, the costs of achieving such resets are staggering. Millions die, infrastructure is destroyed, and societies are left scarred for generations.
In today’s world, the stakes are even higher. Modern warfare, with its nuclear weapons and advanced technologies, could lead to destruction on an unprecedented scale. The interconnectedness of our global economy means that the ripple effects of a major conflict would be felt worldwide. The moral and human costs are too great to consider war a viable path to a better equilibrium.
Current geopolitical tensions
The warnings from NATO’s Secretary come amid escalating tensions on multiple fronts. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, China’s assertive stance on Taiwan, and the ongoing rivalry between the US and China create a volatile global environment. Emerging power blocs, such as BRICS, challenge the established Western-dominated order, while resource scarcity and climate change exacerbate regional disputes.
These dynamics create conditions ripe for conflict, but they also underscore the urgent need for visionary leadership. Instead of succumbing to war, we must address these challenges through diplomacy, cooperation, and systemic reforms.
Alternatives to war
War is not the only way to achieve a “reset.” History shows that humanity is capable of evolving its systems without resorting to violence. Strengthening global governance, addressing systemic inequalities, and prioritising multilateral negotiations are all viable paths to a more stable world. Shared global threats like climate change and pandemics should unite us, not divide us further.
Conclusion
As we face the possibility of another war, we must ask ourselves: Do we truly need conflict to create change, or can we learn from history and forge a better path? The stakes have never been higher. Humanity’s ability to cooperate in the face of existential challenges will determine whether we succumb to the destructive cycles of the past or build a future where peace and progress go hand in hand.
The choice is ours, but time is running out.
Paul Budde