The Road to War
An Axis of Revisionists
This week, an escalation occurred by an emerging axis of revisionist powers seeking to rewrite the global order. This escalation is concerning to me and will be the primary topic of this post. The dynamics I'll describe below came into focus when Russia launched its Ukraine invasion 2-1/2 years ago (and are why I was certain Russia would invade).
This was partly what motivated me to pursue foreign affairs on a professional basis. Seeing these clouds approaching led me to seek a way to leverage my knowledge of history and policy to have some sort of impact on mitigating the potential crisis ahead.
For the last year of the Ukraine War, Iran and North Korea have been the most significant supplier of military equipment to Russia. Iran's Shahed drones have been used to attack Ukraine. North Korean missiles have replenished Russian stocks.
China has refused to be direct in its support. It has done nothing to stop the invasion of Ukraine, and North Korea does not make significant policy shifts without tacit approval by its patron superpower.
This week, it was revealed that North Korea would send troops to Russia, with the intent of training them for deployments to Ukraine. It seems the comprehensive strategic partnership treaty signed by the two nations back in June may have included more.
This throws another nuclear power into the mix and brings together a European theater and an emerging East Asian theater in the new Cold War. Now, South Korea's greatest military threat is an ally of Europe's greatest military threat. The security of both is now directly tied together.
At the same time, China is also getting more aggressive in East Asia. Recent exercises simulated a blockade of Taiwan, which is the most plausible means the PRC would use to initiate a takeover of the island. The Chinese Navy continues to act aggressively toward the Philippines, and the PRC continues to build artificial islands.
Iran has also tried to throw its weight around, with mixed results. The terrorist group they used to scuttle the normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel, Hamas, has been all but eliminated as a military threat. Iran's proxy to the north, Hezbollah, has been decimated. Their recent volley of missiles was a last gasp at maintaining credibility.
What is clear in all of this is China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are cooperating at various levels to challenge the geopolitical status quo in several theaters. Ukraine is where the cooperation between Russia, Iran, and North Korea is now explicit.
The common thread in the history of the two world wars is an alliance of revisionist powers attempting to adjust the terms of world order by force. In World War I, a young power in the heart of Europe, Germany, allied with the fellow central powers of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire to challenge the naval dominance of the British Empire.
In World War II, Germany sought to create a sphere of influence accross Europe in rebellion against the one imposed on it by the end of first World War. Japan sought to grow its industrial base by ejecting Europe and America from their colonial possessions in Asia.
These actions are often explained as a clash of ideologies, and that is true to an extent. But, another explanation is simply that countries not favored by a particular geopolitical arrangement will seek to change the terms at the expense of favored countries. To me, this gets closer at the truth.
From this frame, what is happening becomes more obvious. The international system largely centers American interests. The dollar is the reserve currency, its military alliances dominate Europe and the Asia-Pacific, and it largely has free reign in the Western Hemisphere.
The Soviet Union's status as a second superpower has been reduced to the lesser Russia, which is not paid the same deference it once was in Europe. China is the closest to a second superpower, but it’s constrained in East Asia by America's hegemony and alliances with the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and others.
Iran seeks greater influence in the Middle East, but its frustrated by Israel and the Gulf States, both American allies. America's financial dominance has allowed it to impose crippling sanctions. As far as sanctions, North Korea is in a similar position, and a huge American military presence supports its greatest foe. All four of these countries have a reason to be frustrated with the current system, from their perspective. Their coordination indicates they see these common interests and are acting to change things in their favor.
Neither side wants a major war, but the dynamics are aligning so that a miscalculation leading to war becomes a greater risk. The challenge is going to get stronger and stronger as long as this revisionist axis thinks there is something to gain. This is where deterrence comes into play, and why a relatively weak response in Ukraine is becoming problematic.
Russia, for the first time in history, is using nuclear weapons as a sort of blackmail to enable offensive operations to conquer territory. By being so reticent to defend Ukraine, we have signaled that having nuclear weapons gives tremendous leeway in challenging the international order.
Russia has essentially overthrown the principle of territorial integrity that has mostly stood since World War II with little long-term consequence. This is provocative to a revisionist power. China then might question American willingness to defend East Asia. It recently launched an unarmed ICBM into the Pacific Ocean to demonstrate this point.
What we have signaled is a low-risk tolerance. In normal times, that might not be a problem. For a revisionist power, that looks more like an invitation. I’m not much of a Reaganite, but I believe Ronald Reagan described this dynamic perfectly:
If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand, the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. - A Time for Choosing by Ronald Reagan, 1964
I think we have had some success in warding off this growing threat. Iran is undoubtedly in a worse strategic position than it was before the Hamas attack on Israel last year. Russia has been stalemated and Finland and Sweden are now in NATO. A pro-American alliance is growing in the Asia-Pacific.
However, the escalations are not stopping. China is increasingly the wild card here. Does it throw in completely with this axis beyond financial support? Or does it calculate that it needs to grow more powerful within the existing system? Convincing China to stay on the sidelines is key, but its increasing aggression against its neighbors is not a good sign.
Diplomatic channels must remain open, but the prospect of a long-term diplomatic resolution is receding. Right now, it’s important to stand firm and signal resolve in supporting our allies, not just with words, but with substantial military support.