If you want peace, don't prepare for war

[Brian D'Agostino]

I am starting a new thread, both because the previous one was getting too long and because I want to highlight something that is really a new topic.  For my subject line, I am turning the hoary Roman maxim  "Si vis pacem, para bellum" on its head.  Even if it was true in the past that "If you want peace, prepare for war," it is certainly not true today, as the adverse effect of Finland's joining NATO is showing.  

The Roman maxim is the classic statement of the doctrine of deterrence.  However, as Robert Jervis showed in his classic work, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, what one country perceives as its defensive military preparation and deterrent is likely to be perceived by its adversary or potential adversary as a threat.  This produces a spiral of threat escalation that often leads to war.  This is exactly what is occurring between Europe and Russia today.  It was also occurring under US administrations prior to Trump.  Ironically, even though Trump is an idiot and a would-be dictator, the Biden administration's and previous Ukraine policies were even worse, as Jervis's spiral theory shows.

In the case of Finland, no one seriously thinks that Finland is going to invade Russia out of the blue, but its decision to join a hostile military alliance on the very borders of Russia is provocative, as David pointed out.  And although David is correct that Russia would be insane to invade a NATO member country, Esa is also correct that Finland cannot entirely rely on NATO, because notwithstanding NATO members obligation under their charter, the risk of nuclear war may be prohibitive.  So we are left with uncertainty, which is a dangerous situation for deterrence and which lends itself to the cycle of threat escalation described by Jervis.  So at this point the existence of NATO is worse than nothing at all--it is provocative because it MIGHT work in a crisis, but it is not reliable for its own members because it might NOT work.

So what, if anything, is the alternative?  I have already indicated the alternative, but it is worth repeating in this context.  The alternative is verifiable, mutual threat reduction, which can be achieved through treaties mutually reducing troops and weaponry similar to those that were concluded by the US and the USSR.  In response, Brigitte said that Trump's government and "Putin's mafia régime" are not comparable to the USSR.  Then I responded further, 

"Brigitte, mafiosos make deals all the time.  International agreements do not depend upon trust; they are designed to be verifiable and contain provisions to remediate violations.  If one party seriously and repeatedly violates the agreement, the latter becomes null and void.  That rarely occurs because if a state intends to violate the agreement, they just formally withdraw from it.  The agreements generally work, because they benefit both sides.  When they fail, it is not usually because the governments are treacherous, but because hard-liners on one or both sides sabotage the agreement.  But my point is that we in civil society should be demanding formal arms reduction on both sides, not rallying behind leaders who seem hell bent on squandering general prosperity on war preparations."

That is where we left the previous conversation, and I would like to hear further responses. 

[Michael Britton]

The Washington Post has an assessment of the nuclear weapons risks today and going forward, from directors of assessment of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists.  Here's the link: 

https://wapo.st/4jB0MPY

Michael

--
<><><>
To post to this group send to: clios...@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jpnFnEXivqD_NNCvh-Ri595di4UyGC%3DL0RR_LgpSxo4nMw%40mail.gmail.com.