Peace has historically been dictated by the control of a power singular hegemon.
Examples: pax Romania, pax Mongolia, pax…
The stability of the hegemon confers benefits. The ideal state of a wider market, leading to improved trade, consumption, employment, enrichened culture in theory brings all under its influence to prosper. This continued prosperity promulgates further stability.
However, with the free market within its hegemon comes competition. And with competition (no doubt having the hegemon benefit the most) comes inequality. And so it is the hegemons role and existential challenge to maintain harmony within its own domestic borders, as much as it is with its own allies.
At what stage does the bigger picture fail to align with the day to day politics and ‘looking after’ poorer colonies when times are tough? These were led by the will, the investment, and the belief of the populace to support domestic and enriched decision makers.
The consequence of which, historically, was war. Great fracturings across already divisive lines of culture, prosperity, ability. with new states and warlords coming and going.
Peace gone nuclear
I am curious on how this game has changed with the arrival of a nuclear arsenal.
I cannot say i’ve read a huge amount of literature on this political theory, but with the ever-so topical issue of today’s Russia-Ukraine war - one can’t help but to consider the complexities of such a topic.
I deeply wish that I won’t ever see nuclear weapons being used and that there are enough control measures over it. For all my concerns that cycles are consistent because humans forget too easily, it is apparent that the entire world is on edge on Nuclear.
Indeed, it does a disservice to the efforts towards abundant and cleaner energy, but as a citizen of earth, I am assured that many people are still thinking about its destructive possibilties, and that Hiroshima media are still part of modern knowledge.
To be clear, I think a nuclear threat is real. It is possible that the sheer will of a single strongman galvanising support from a controlled populace and purge of those disloyal can put a finger on the button.
But globalisation has reached a current peak where objective prosperity has risen, and no other government would be willing to experiment with mutually assured destruction.
On alliances
Major wars rarely happen with a single actor. Often, its a complex network of alliances, assurances from others not only. When trapped in a declaration of war - it almost feels that multiple states are relying on one another to justify to themselves or even their own people, absolving themselves from a terrible decision through guilt and shared accountability.
China, in my view, will have a strong influence and capablility to keep catastrophe from happening.
On the future of warfare
Held together by nuclear, interdepency and interconnectedness. The new age of war seems to touch on the intangible areas. Not a terrible thing mind you, as it literally avoids bloodshed, but the new era of information war is still dangerous. Splitting lines, dividing loyalties and more.
Many talk about the metaverse and digital spaces - it’s my hope that wars would still be limited to the intangible zone…as long as the world is too deeply interconnected in the material sense.
In terms of key players, I maintain that China would be a critical influencer.
China remains a key player who controls the world’s supply chains, and if played right, could be a geopolitical winner - for its prospective enemies will see them as too critical for material comforts, while for itself it is too dependent on the world for its own domestic success.
This leads me to believe that the next major war will arise from the catastrophic collapse of a superpower - not because of external forces alone, but because of its inability to deal with external forces while keeping its domestic folks happy.
Peace and prosperity y’all.