In hindsight, war usually look as if they were expected. Conflicts were erupting. National interests were clashing. Worries and suspicions were eroding. Traditional grievances were simmering.
But in truth, they are always inevitable. They are influenced by men’s choices; nearly always people have been the men who have ruled out wars, and they may have had to make other decisions.
Over the past month, I’ve been researching and writing a new publication about the possibility of a war between China and the United States.
The title of the English book, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and Routledge, is ,” Deterrence, Diplomacy and the Risk of Conflict over Taiwan” . , But the title of the translated ( and expanded ) Japanese version that has also just been translated by Fusosha, is ,” How to Stop World War Three“, which you might think is a somewhat dramatic title.
Had a conflict between the US and China actually qualify as” World War II I”? And could it be stopped?
The solution to the first is clear: this would be the first battle between two nuclear-armed powers in history, and it would be one that would shape the nature of global authority for decades to come.
With margins so high, we have to believe that such a fight would increase to include other places, including Japan, and, ironically, that it would rise to include the use of nuclear weapons.
The answer to the second problem is, nevertheless, more convincing and takes us back to the issue of inevitability. If a battle were to begin, it would either have the opposite outcome.
- a intentional choice between the chances of winning, such as in the case of a Taiwan war, or
- an aggressive response to an event or injury, such as one involving a motion in the South China Sea, where both parties failed to comprehend one another’s motives or actions.
In either case, the problem is primarily related to mindset and the choices made by political and military leaders. What needs to be focused on is that psychology if a like fatal war is to be prevented, as well as how to change the choices leaders make to maintain peace and prevent war.
One of the most significant training to be drawn from Russia’s war against Ukraine is the one that was launched in 2014, with a full-scale conquest of Crimea, in February 2022.
Only if Russian President Vladimir Putin made the decision to try to retake control of a former Russian colony that had been declared independent by one of his Soviet successors in 1991, regardless of the costs, was that war expected. That is what he did consider, and Ukrainians and Russians are also bearing the effects.
Could he have been persuaded to make a unique choice? Two years later, it looks as if two things may include altered his estimates. The second would have been if he had known that the Russian army was so well-equipped, supported by Russian society, and that it would probably impose strong enough resistance to cause his invasion to be very expensive and time-consuming.
This in turn turned out to be the case, which is why, more than two years later, he managed to occupy only about 20 % of Ukraine’s place for an estimated 110 000 to 140 000 Russian military ‘ deaths and a significantly larger number of greatly injured people. ]And it is why Russia’s vulnerability has now been exposed by , Ukraine’s daring counter-invasion. ]
Putin expected Ukraine’s military to surrender quickly, probably within a few days, but this may qualify as a terrible miscalculation on his portion. It is doubtful that he would have ordered the invasion had he known in advance what the costs would be and how much improvement the Russian army would have made two years later.
A perception that American or other NATO troops had support Ukraine would have entered the conflict, according to his calculations, may have changed these calculations. In this case, President Joe Biden and another NATO officials ruled out their troops ‘ membership right from the start, but Putin’s wisdom about this was well-informed. And he has gotten the NATO officials to decide against using the threat of nuclear weapons.
The war in Ukraine has been a horrible drama and a terrible mistake on the part of Russia and, let us not forget, its” proper spouse”, China. Only three weeks before Putin ordered the complete invasion of Ukraine, Russia and China both signed a joint statement outlining their goals and ambitions.
However, if the tragedy’s training can help stop the Indo-Pacific from starting a far more disastrous battle, some good may yet come along.
The important point is that philosophy is fundamental. Only if Taiwanese leaders choose to attempt to invade or block Taiwan, more than simply discuss it, will there be an attempt to do so. That choice may be prevented in two main ways, as Ukraine has reminded us of.
The best way to get China’s leaders to believe that, in contrast to the case of Ukraine, American and other allies had immediately intervene to support Taiwan’s protection, causing them to be fighting America rather than just Taiwan. President Biden on four times during 2021-22 said that he was committed to , doing , this. He said it exactly to stop a Taiwan knockoff war.
Whoever wins the US national election in November really commit to doing so as soon as possible, and then do it again. The greatest threat to peace is doubt about a new government’s intentions, which may entice Xi Jinping to observe him because of his flawed judgment.
That commitment needs to be accompanied by assurance that America will continue to oppose a proper Taiwan declaration of independence, as well as more harsh words notice of the possibility of nuclear weapons wracks if a conflict arises. The old Cold War model of nuclear weapons agreements needs to be revived for the US-China period.
In addition to these promises, China needs to persuade China that Taiwan’s security forces and those in its vicinity in Japan, the Philippines, US bases, and South Korea are capable of playing a crucial and tenacious role in a fight. It would be much more likely to attempt an war if China were to decide that it would be a walkover.
Those efforts are underway, in Japan and its friends, and the important thing is that such defense build-ups continue, year after year, decade after decade. Unfortunately, the old saying from the Roman Empire still rings true today:” If you want harmony, prepare for war.” Leaders’ mindset and their decision-making are affected by this.
Previously editor-in-chief of The Economist,  , Bill Emmott , is currently president of the , Japan Society of the UK, the , International Institute for Strategic Studies , and the , International Trade Institute.
This is a slightly expanded English original of a” Jidai-no-Kaze” ( Winds of Our Times ) column published in Japanese and English by Mainichi Shimbun on August 11 and in English on the Substack , Bill Emmott’s Global View. It is republished with authority.