“If you observe a weapon hanging on the wall at the beginning of a play, be aware that it will be used to kill someone by the end.” This is one of the most famous quotes from the esteemed English writer William Shakespeare. Today, there are numerous rifles positioned along national borders, poised for a conflict that may erupt, with its repercussions potentially exploding at any moment.
Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the world has been on the brink of disaster. This is not merely a transient crisis; it is a pivotal historical moment that evokes memories of the ominous days preceding the two World Wars. However, this time, the crises are interwoven like threads in a complex fabric, threatening to unravel the global order that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.
Envision the world as a vast mosaic, with each piece representing a volatile crisis. China and Taiwan, North Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, and the Middle East and North Africa, extending nearly to the halfway point of the continent. Yet, at the centre of this mosaic, Ukraine stands as the cornerstone, threatening to destabilize the entire structure.
Ukraine has written the latest chapter in this contemporary saga. On August 6, 2024, its forces breached the Russian border, advancing several kilometres into the Kursk region. This remarkable development is not merely a military victory; it represents a geopolitical earthquake that shakes the foundations of the global order. Some argue that Russia permitted this incursion to turn Kursk into a graveyard for the Ukrainian army at a moment when President Vladimir Putin might order a scorched earth policy, annihilating Ukrainian forces on Russian soil without facing any international condemnation. If we were to imagine Putin’s reaction upon waking to the news of Ukrainian troops roaming through Russian villages, would he experience the same feelings that Hitler did when Soviet forces invaded Berlin? Or would he evoke the spirit of Stalin in Stalingrad, determined to transform defeat into victory at any cost?
The real danger lies not in the Ukrainian incursion itself, but rather in the potential response from Russia. History demonstrates that when the Russian bear is cornered, it does not surrender; instead, it becomes more ferocious. This may provide a compelling justification for Moscow to showcase this ferocity to the world, possibly manifesting in the form of tactical nuclear warheads.
In a similar vein, one can observe the historical crisis in the Taiwan Strait, where events are escalating at a concerning pace. China, which has long regarded Taiwan as a “rebel province,” is intensifying its military manoeuvres in the largest display of force seen in decades. This is not merely routine training; it serves as a clear message to the world: China is prepared to reclaim what it considers its territory by force if necessary. The United States, for its part, is bolstering its military presence in the region to an unprecedented level since the Vietnam War. However, the pressing question remains: is traditional military deterrence still effective in an era characterized by hybrid warfare and interconnected economies?
In the Middle East, there is a scene that resembles a combination of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Six-Day War. Iran is nearing the threshold of nuclear capability, while Israel is launching a widespread assault on Lebanon that may last for weeks, potentially bringing this beleaguered nation to a state worse than that experienced during the 2006 war.
Iran’s response to the bombing of its consulate, followed by the assassination of Haniyeh within its vicinity, and subsequently the targeting of Hassan Nasrallah along with many leaders of Hezbollah in Lebanon, marked a significant shift in the rules of engagement. Additionally, the prior direct attack on Israel using drones, despite its limited military impact, signifies a strategic transformation in the conflict. Have we reached a point of no return, making confrontation inevitable?
In addition, the escalation of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, along with their symbolic strikes against Israel, introduces a new dimension to the crisis. These assaults are not merely military operations; they represent a direct threat to the lifeblood of global trade.
Amidst this turmoil, a new factor emerges that was absent in previous conflicts: the intricate web of global economic interdependence. The BRICS group, now including rising powers such as India and Brazil, is challenging the dominance of the US dollar. This challenge is not simply an economic rivalry; it signifies a fundamental restructuring of the global system.
However, will this economic interconnection serve as a protective shield against war? History teaches us that interdependence does not guarantee peace. Before World War I, Europe was at the height of economic globalization. Yet, this did not prevent the ensuing catastrophe.
Amidst these crises, a new element emerges that alters the game’s rules: artificial intelligence and autonomous systems in the military domain, along with the use of drones and electronic warfare. This technology not only transforms the nature of warfare but also raises profound ethical questions.
In times of uncertainty, individuals often turn to historical comparisons. Following the events of September 11, officials in the George W. Bush administration referenced the attack on Pearl Harbor as a benchmark to analyze the intelligence failures that led to those events. Currently, the favoured analogy is the Cold War; however, the present situation is not merely a repetition of that era but is, in fact, more perilous. China is not the isolated Soviet Union of the past. Today, due to the policies and actions of the West, there exists a coalition that includes, for the first time, China with its unprecedented human and economic resources, Russia as the legitimate successor of a former superpower with its arsenal and nuclear stockpile, North Korea, along with numerous countries that have grown weary of sanctions and American financial and political arrogance.
Amid this bleak scenario, it becomes evident that political diplomacy has often proven ineffective, even when intertwined with economic and military pressures aimed at defusing crises. Such efforts appear akin to attempting to extinguish a massive fire with a mere cup of water. We find ourselves trying to address the challenges of the twenty-first century with tools from the twentieth century. In international politics, wisdom lies not in avoiding mistakes, but in refraining from repeating the same error twice. Time is passing, history is awaiting, and we must consider what tomorrow holds.
Dr. Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
