A great historian of ancient Greece, Thucydides left as a legacy to political science the idea that conflict is almost always the normal consequence of a situation where an emerging power begins to demand a reform of the world system on the basis that that -it is no longer suitable for asserting its interests: a system that the hegemonic power refuses to modify in any way whatsoever, in addition to taking measures prejudicial to the interests of the rising power.
When such a scenario occurs, states are then caught in a trap (now called “Thucydides’ trap”), and the situation tends to escalate quickly, to the point where war appears to the power claimant as the only way out allowing it to resolve the impasse. This is how it is possible to explain the current situation in Ukraine.
fake speech
Vladimir Putin has for years been expressing his complaints about the global security architecture, more particularly the false discourse on the importance of multilateralism and dialogue held by the United States, including the unilateral interventions in Kosovo in 1999 or in Iraq in 2003 showed the hypocritical character, in addition to requiring an in-depth reform of this architecture.
In a now famous speech delivered in Munich in 2007, he said: “We are witnessing a growing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law.
Moreover, certain norms and, in fact, almost the entire system of law of a single state, above all, of course, of the United States, have overflowed their national borders in all areas: in the economy, the political and humanitarian sphere, and are imposed on other states. »
He also said that ” [l]he use of force is only legitimate on the basis of a United Nations mandate. We must not substitute NATO and the European Union for the United Nations”. The Russian president has been repeating himself ever since.
The frozen security order
However, since this speech, the world security order has remained frozen, and instead of working for a true multilateralism based on dialogue, Washington has instead continued to favor the expression of its interests through NATO, whose territory today extends less than 150 kilometers from Saint Petersburg, since Estonia joined the organization in 2004. Consequently, such an attitude has only contributed to exacerbating fears and Moscow’s doubts about the sincerity of the post-Cold War US rhetoric that states should stop seeing each other as mutual rivals and instead focus on the idea that they were able to cope with the global challenges as equal partners through multilateralism.
Over time, Moscow gradually convinced itself that Western rhetoric was not in line with its real intentions and that it actually hid a desire to convert post-Cold War ideological unipolarity into strategic unipolarity. whose objective was to transform the United States into a hegemon able to impose, no longer by persuasion, but rather by force, its model of society.
Under the circumstances, the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO was one blow too many for Vladimir Putin, who convinced himself that the only way to force a change in the international order could only be by force and bullying.
Despite this message that could not be clearer from Moscow, the United States continues to close the door to any dialogue on the issue and has, since the beginning of the crisis, systematically refused to make the slightest concession. Faced with this trap of Thucydides, it is obvious that the Russians will continue to multiply provocations over the next few weeks in the Donbass and possibly further west, towards Kiev.
See the crisis coming
Like any power that stubbornly refuses to review a system decried by an emerging power, the United States (and, by doing so, the rest of the world) are today reaping the fruits of their stubbornness and their double talk.
We should have already seen this crisis coming in 2007, during Vladimir Putin’s speech, and a year later, during the conflict in Georgia, a country which was then threatening to join NATO. If this frustration is expressed today by Russia, it’s a safe bet that tomorrow it will be China’s turn to do the same.
Although the great conflicts since the Peloponnesian War all find their foundations in the same underlying logic, we prefer to continue to ignore it, and we make the easy choice to decry our adversary for his delusions of grandeur, his warmongering and its expansionist will. However, as long as we persist in this willful blindness, the world will continue to multiply crises.