Menu Subscribe Log in
BPC > Full article text fetched from (no need to report issue for external site): |
archive.today | archive.li
By Invitation | Putin, the West and the rest
Yuval Noah Harari on how to
prevent a new age of imperialism
Non-Western powers have a stake in bringing peace to Ukraine, argues the
historian
photograph: dan williams
Jun 3rd 2024 Share
W e fully appreciate our knees only when they stop working. The same
is true of the global order: its former benefits become apparent only as
it collapses. And when order collapses, the weak usually suffer most. This law of
history should be on the minds of world leaders in the run-up to the Ukraine
peace summit in Switzerland on June 15th. If peace cannot be restored and the
international rules-based order continues to unravel, the catastrophic results
will be felt globally.
Whenever international rules become meaningless, countries naturally seek
safety in armaments and military alliances. Given events in Ukraine, can
anyone blame Poland for almost doubling its army and military budget, Finland
for joining nato or Saudi Arabia for pursuing a defence treaty with the United
States?
Unfortunately, the increase in military budgets comes at the expense of
society’s weakest members, as money is diverted from schools and clinics to
tanks and missiles. Military alliances, too, tend to widen inequality. Weak states
left outside their protective shield become easy prey. As militarised blocs
spread around the world, trade routes become strained and commerce declines,
with the poor paying the highest price. And as tensions between the militarised
blocs increase, chances grow that a small spark in a remote corner of the world
will ignite a global conflagration. Since alliances rely on credibility, even a
minor challenge in an insignificant location can become a casus belli for a third
world war.
Humanity has seen it all before. More than 2,000 years ago Sun Tzu, Kautilya
and Thucydides exposed how in a lawless world the quest for security makes
everyone less secure. And past experiences like the second world war and the
cold war have repeatedly taught us that in a global conflict it is the weak who
suffer disproportionately.
During the second world war, for example, one of the highest casualty rates was
in the Dutch East Indies—today’s Indonesia. When the war broke out in eastern
Europe in 1939, it seemed a world away from the rice farmers of Java, but events
in Poland ignited a chain reaction that killed about 3.5m-4m Indonesians,
mostly through starvation or forced labour at the hands of Japanese occupiers.
This constituted 5% of the Indonesian population, a higher casualty rate than
among many major belligerents, including the United States (0.3%), Britain
(0.9%) and Japan (3.9%). Twenty years later Indonesia again paid a particularly
heavy price. The cold war may have been cold in Berlin, but it was a scorching
inferno in Jakarta. In 1965-66 between 500,000 and 1m Indonesians were killed
in massacres caused by tensions between communists and anti-communists.
The situation now is potentially worse than it was in 1939 or 1965. It’s not only
that a nuclear war would endanger hundreds of millions of people in neutral
countries. Humanity also faces the additional existential threats of climate
change and out-of-control artificial intelligence (ai).
As military budgets rise, so money that could have helped solve global warming
fuels a global arms race instead. And as military competition intensifies, so the
goodwill necessary for agreements on climate change evaporates. Rising
tensions also ruin the chance of reaching agreements on limiting an ai arms
race. Drone warfare in particular is advancing rapidly, and the world may soon
see swarms of fully autonomous drones fighting each other in Ukraine’s sky,
and killing thousands of people on the ground. The killer robots are coming,
but humans are paralysed by disagreement. If peace isn’t brought to Ukraine
soon, everyone is likely to suffer, even if they live thousands of kilometres from
Kyiv and think the battle there has nothing to do with them.
Breaking the biggest taboo
Making peace is never easy. It has been said that nations march into war
through a barn door, but the only exit is through a mousehole. In the face of
conflicting claims and interests, it is difficult to assign blame and find a
reasonable compromise. Nevertheless, as wars go, the Russo-Ukrainian war is
exceptionally simple.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine’s independence and
b d i ll i d Th t f lt th t it dt
borders were universally recognised. The country felt so secure that it agreed to
give up the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the Soviet Union, without
demanding that Russia or other powers do the same. In exchange, in 1994
Russia (as well as the United States and Britain) signed the Budapest
Memorandum, promising to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence” of Ukraine. It was one of the
biggest acts of unilateral disarmament in history. Swapping nuclear bombs for
paper promises seemed to Ukrainians like a wise move in 1994, when trust in
international rules and agreements ran high.
Twenty years later, in 2014, the Russo-Ukrainian war began when Russian
forces occupied Crimea and fomented separatist movements in eastern
Ukraine. The war ebbed and flowed for the following eight years, until in
February 2022 Russia mounted an onslaught aimed at conquering all of
Ukraine.
Russia has given various excuses for its actions, most notably that it was pre-
empting a Western attack on Russia. However, neither in 2014 nor in 2022 was
there any imminent threat of such an armed invasion. Vague talk about
“Western imperialism” or “cultural Coca-Colonialism” may be good enough to
fuel debates in ivory towers, but it cannot legitimate massacring the inhabitants
of Bucha or bombing Mariupol to rubble.
For most of history the term “imperialism” referred to cases when a powerful
state such as Rome, Britain or tsarist Russia conquered foreign lands and
turned them into provinces. This kind of imperialism gradually became taboo
after 1945. While there has been no shortage of wars in the late 20th and early
21st centuries—with horrendous conflicts ongoing in Palestine and Israel, and
in Sudan, Myanmar and elsewhere—there have so far been no cases when an
internationally recognised country was simply wiped off the map owing to
annexation by a powerful conqueror. When Iraq tried to do that to Kuwait in
1990-91, an international coalition restored Kuwaiti independence and
territorial integrity. And when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, there was
never a question of annexing the country or any part of it.
Russia has already annexed not just Crimea but also all the territories its armies
are currently occupying in Ukraine President Vladimir Putin is following the
are currently occupying in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin is following the
imperial principle that any territory conquered by the Russian army is annexed
by the Russian state. Indeed, Russia went as far as annexing several regions
that its armies merely intend to conquer, such as the unoccupied parts of
Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk oblasts.
Mr Putin has not bothered to hide his imperial intentions. He has repeatedly
argued since at least 2005 that the collapse of the Soviet empire was “the
biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”, and has promised to rebuild
this empire. He has further argued that the Ukrainian nation doesn’t really
exist, and that Russia has a historical right to the entire territory of Ukraine.
If Mr Putin is allowed to win in Ukraine, this kind of imperialism will make a
comeback all over the world. What will then restrain Venezuela, for example,
from conquering Guyana, or Iran from conquering the United Arab Emirates?
What will restrain Russia itself from conquering Estonia or Kazakhstan? No
border and no state could find safety in anything except armaments and
alliances. If the taboo on imperial conquests is broken, then even states whose
independence and borders won international recognition long ago will face a
growing risk of invasion, and even of again becoming imperial provinces.
This danger is not lost on observers in former imperial colonies. In a speech in
February 2022 the Kenyan ambassador to the un, Martin Kimani, explained
that after the collapse of the European empires newly liberated people in Africa
and elsewhere treated international borders as sacrosanct, for they understood
that the alternative was waging endless wars. African countries have inherited
many potentially disputed borders from the imperial past, yet, as Mr Kimani
explained, “we agreed that we would settle for the borders that we inherited…
Rather than form nations that looked ever backward into history with a
dangerous nostalgia, we chose to look forward to a greatness none of our many
nations and peoples had ever known.” Referring to Mr Putin’s attempt to
rebuild the Soviet empire, Mr Kimani said that although imperial collapse
typically leaves many unfulfilled yearnings, these should never be pursued by
force. “We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a
way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and
oppression.”
As Mr Kimani hinted the driving force behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is
As Mr Kimani hinted, the driving force behind Russia s invasion of Ukraine is
imperial nostalgia. Russia’s territorial demands in Ukraine have no basis in
international law. Of course, like every country, Russia does have legitimate
security concerns, and any peace agreement must take them into account.
During the past century Russia has suffered repeated invasions that cost the
lives of many millions of its citizens. Russians deserve to feel secure and
respected. But no Russian security concerns can justify destroying Ukrainian
nationhood. Nor should they cause us to forget that Ukraine too has legitimate
security concerns. Given events of the past decade, Ukraine clearly needs
guarantees against future Russian aggression more robust than the Budapest
Memorandum or the Minsk Agreements of 2014-15.
Empires have always justified themselves by prioritising their own security
concerns, but the larger they became the more security concerns they acquired.
Ancient Rome first embarked on its imperial project because of security
concerns in central Italy, and eventually found itself fighting brutal wars
thousands of kilometres from Italy because of its security concerns on the
Danube and Euphrates. If Russia’s security concerns are acknowledged as a
legitimate basis for making conquests on the Dnieper, they too may soon be
used to justify conquests on the Danube and Euphrates.
Humanity’s next leaders
To prevent a new age of imperialism, leadership is needed from many
directions. The upcoming Ukraine peace summit can provide the stage for two
particularly important steps.
First, European countries, some of which could be the next targets of Russian
imperialism, should make a firm commitment to support Ukraine no matter
how long the war lasts. As Russia intensifies its campaign to destroy Ukraine’s
energy infrastructure, for example, Europe should guarantee Ukraine’s energy
supply from power stations in nato countries. And no matter what happens in
the American elections in November, Europe should commit to providing
Ukraine with the money and weapons it needs to continue protecting itself.
Given the isolationist tendencies of the Republican Party and other segments
of American society, Europe cannot rely on the United States to do the heavy
lifting.
Such commitments are the only thing that will convince Russia to negotiate for
Such commitments are the only thing that will convince Russia to negotiate for
peace in earnest. Russia has much to lose from a prolonged war. Every month
the war drags on, Mr Putin’s dream of making his country a great power fades,
because Ukrainian hostility towards Russia deepens, Russia’s dependence on
other powers increases and Russia falls further behind in key technological
races. The prolongation of the war threatens to turn Russia into a Chinese
vassal. Nevertheless, if Mr Putin thinks Europeans are getting tired of
supporting Ukraine, he will play for time in the hope of finally conquering the
country. Only when it becomes clear that Europe is in this for the long haul can
serious peace talks begin.
The second important step is greater leadership from non-European countries.
Rising powers like Brazil, India, Indonesia and Kenya often criticise Western
powers for past imperialist crimes and for present incompetence and
favouritism. There is indeed much to criticise. But it is better to take centre-
stage and lead than to stand on the sidelines and play the game of
whataboutism. Non-Western powers should act to protect the international
order not to oblige a declining West, but for their own benefit. This will require
powers like Brazil and India to expend political capital, take risks and, if all else
fails, take a stand in defence of international rules. This will not be cheap, but
the price of doing nothing will be much higher.
In September 2022 Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India told Mr Putin that
“today’s era is not the era for war”. When Mr Modi later recalled their
conversation he added that today’s era “is one of dialogue and diplomacy. And
we all must do what we can to stop the bloodshed and human suffering.” Many
months have passed since Mr Modi expressed these sentiments. Unless
decisive action is taken by world leaders, it seems that the era of dialogue will
be over, and a new era of unlimited war will be upon us.
Leaders from around the world should therefore attend the forthcoming
summit, and work together to bring a just and enduring end to the war.
Securing peace in Ukraine would position these leaders as global pathfinders
who can be trusted to resolve other conflicts, tackle climate change and
runaway ai, and guide humanity in the troubled 21st century. ■
Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher and author of “Sapiens”, “Homo Deus”
p p f p
and the children’s series “Unstoppable Us”. He is a lecturer in the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem’s history department and co-founder of Sapienship, a social-impact
company.
Explore more Ukraine Russia Vladimir Putin
By Invitation
June 8th 2024
→ Yuval Noah Harari on how to prevent a new age of imperialism
→ American business should not empower a criminal, says Reid Hoffman
From the June 8th 2024
edition
Discover stories from this section
and more in the list of contents
⇒ Explore the edition
Share Reuse this content
the economist today
Handpicked stories, in your inbox
A daily newsletter with the best of our journalism
[email protected] Sign up
Yes, I agree to receive exclusive content, offers and updates to
products and services from The Economist Group. I can change
these preferences at any time.
More from By Invitation
A former adviser to Keir Starmer on what his victory can
teach the global left
You don’t have to splurge to woo back working people, says Claire Ainsley
Justice Sotomayor was right for the wrong
reasons
The Supreme Court’s ruling on prosecuting presidents is
mistaken, says Eric Nelson, but not because the founding
fathers were anti-monarchists
A big donor says Joe Biden’s team has gone
all Trumpian
The president is deluding himself. Democrats are better
than that, says Ari Emanuel
Subscribe Corporate subscriptions
Reuse our content Help and contact us
Keep updated
Published since September 1843 to take part in “a severe contest between
intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance
obstructing our progress.”
The Economist The Economist Group
About The Economist Group
Advertise Economist Intelligence
Press centre Economist Impact
Economist Impact Events
Working here
Economist Education Courses
Executive Jobs
To enhance your experience and ensure our website runs smoothly, we use cookies and similar technologies.
Manage Cookies
Terms of Use Privacy Accessibility Modern Slavery Statement Sitemap Your Data Rights
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2024. All rights reserved.
