Atomic Bomb Explosion Photo: Reproduction
I was recently asked the innocent, almost routine question: “What is the main risk we are taking?” The aim was to start a discussion about Brazil’s dilemmas and the obstacles facing the new government. However, something else immediately came to mind, something entirely different and more urgent: the threat of destruction to the planet and to human life on Earth. Not because of the heralded climate crisis, but because of another, much more immediate and destructive crisis. I am referring to the risk of nuclear catastrophe, the possible development of the war in Ukraine and the consequent disappearance of humanity. The planet would certainly appreciate it, but we’d all be screwed.
overkill? Brazilians are among the most smug people in the world. Like all giant nations, Brazil tends to be introverted. We pay only relative, only selective attention to what is happening in other countries. Besides, we’re lucky. We live in South America, a region of peace that has not been at war for a long time. Without exception, we have good relations with all of our border neighbors. What’s more, we were relatively spared from the devastating effects of the two world wars of the 20th century. For all these reasons, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Brazilians have been among the least sensitive to the danger the world is in.
danger of nuclear war
However, it is not difficult to see that there is indeed a threat of nuclear war. The conflict in Ukraine directly or indirectly affects the two largest nuclear powers. Russia direct. The United States indirectly fought a proxy war in which Ukrainians fought and died for them. At stake for the United States is nothing less than the prestige of its global hegemony, which is being threatened by the invasion of Ukraine. For its part, Russia views Western actions in Ukraine and elsewhere as an existential threat, and has repeatedly expressed this openly.
A soldier with a Russian flag on his uniform stands guard near the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant Photo: Alexander Ermochenko/Portal
Ideally, the United States would be less paranoid about threats to its world leadership. And that Russia would be less paranoid about foreign threats. But this paranoia has deep roots. Americans have been accustomed to commanding constantly since World War II and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russians, in turn, are used to seeing Western imperial invasions, especially Napoleonic and Hitlerite invasions, as a major threat.
We are facing the greatest threat of nuclear war since the Soviet missile crisis in Cuba in the early 1960s. It is true that the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia have clashed in various regions of the world over the past few decades without actually reaching out. That’s how complacency came about. It is believed that nuclear war, unthinkable because of its potential for mutual destruction, can always be avoided. One optimistic theory even posits that, paradoxically, the existence of nuclear arsenals is a guarantee of peace, or at least the absence of direct and allout war between nuclear powers.
Parallels to World War I
selfdeception? Possibly! The international picture at the beginning of the 21st century is very, very similar to that before World War I, and this parallel has been drawn by several observers. I recently read a book about World War I by Karl Hellferich, a prominent German economist and politician who was actually the mastermind of Germany’s 1923 hyperstabilization. What he wrote about the origins of the 1914 war left me cold such is the resemblance to what we are living today, a little over a hundred years later.
Then as now, an emerging power then Germany, now China quickly gained importance and was perceived as a threat. In particular, the hegemonic power—then England, now the United States—felt threatened and was prepared to impede the rise of the emerging power. Declining potency is always more dangerous. Their willingness to bully and, in extreme cases, to provoke war was heightened by the perception that time was against them. Better to confront and even wage war now than later, argued England then and America now.
Soldiers in World War I photo: reproduction
Another common feature of both periods: the international scenario was multipolar, with multiple powers vying for space in Europe and/or the rest of the world. At that time, among others, England, France, Russia, Germany, AustriaHungary, Japan, the United States. Nowadays the United States, Germany, France, China and Russia, among others. Multipolarity, both today and a hundred years ago, has multiplied dangerous friction points. The formation of coalitions with mutual guarantees increased the risk that a local conflict would lead to a general conflagration.
Another disturbing resemblance. Before the outbreak of war in 1914, there were several episodes of conflict between the Central Powers Germany and AustriaHungary on the one hand and the Triple Entente, France, Russia and England on the other. Crises and conflicts erupted in the Balkans, Morocco, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East that threatened to provoke a military confrontation between the Central Powers and the Triple Entente. Many knew that a new war in Europe would be just as destructive as any before it. The blindness was not complete. And yet a dangerous complacency set in as each episode of conflict was resolved without war.
The March of Folly and Other Scenarios
Isn’t that what we’re living now, mutatis mutandis? So often, local confrontations have been prevented from escalating into a nuclear confrontation. We trust that the leaders of the nuclear countries will not be irresponsible. They know that nuclear war would shatter the world wars of the 20th century. And the optimists among us believe in human evolution and that historical experience leaves lessons.
Well then. It is precisely the millennial historical experience that refutes these beliefs. Humanity doesn’t progress, it doesn’t even exist, said Nietzsche. What was it like learning from historical catastrophes? What you have is in a way, and as Nietzsche also said, the eternal recurrence of the same. Appearances change, but what historian Barbara Tuchman called the “March of Folly” endures. And Marx’s famous theorem deserves a modification. History repeats itself: the first time as a tragedy, the second as well.
This is the spooky picture I wanted to paint today. Of course, all is not lost. And the unstoppable doesn’t always happen. There are more or less plausible scenarios in which a nuclear catastrophe could be avoided. A victory for Ukraine with the expulsion of Russian troops from its territory seems unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out given the level of military and financial support from the West. A Russian victory, which is more conceivable in view of its military, economic and population superiority, meets with fierce resistance in the western bloc.
A third, more likely scenario would be the socalled halt to war, a protracted conflict with no battlefield resolution and no diplomatic solution. A “freeze” of the war would perpetuate the threat of a nuclear confrontation. Over time, the events that could lead to its realization would multiply. For the countries involved, above all Ukraine, a prolongation of the war would entail enormous human and economic costs. Ukraine, already badly hit by the invasion, would suffer even more. In human, political and economic terms, too, Russia would pay a heavy price. The West would bear an ever heavier bill. The rest of the world would continue to suffer the economic consequences of the war.
peace club?
I am returning to Brazil. Political leaders like Lula and others appear to be fully aware of all of these threats. It is understandable and commendable that they are trying to help restore peace. Countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Turkey and Brazil appear as possible mediators. The path could be the one originally proposed by Brazil the formation of a group of countries that would work together towards an end to hostilities and a lasting solution to the conflicts in Eastern Europe. Obviously, Brazil and others could end up emptyhanded. No matter how great the efforts, there will only be peace if the warring parties are really willing to negotiate. However, given the scale of the risks we face, it is worth continuing to seek a peaceful solution.
In 2024, Brazil will chair the G20, a group that includes all the major countries involved in the conflict, with the exception of Ukraine. It is the chance that may present itself to overcome war and its risks.
Join our WhatsApp group by clicking this link
Enter our Telegram channel and click on this link