Russian expansionism, growing tensions between the United States and China, the powder keg in the Middle East, to which we must now add Donald Trump's withdrawal from Europe... The international climate has never looked so alarming since the Cold War.
But in his fascinating book "The World War Will Not Happen", published on March 26, Frederic Ansel turns the doomsday prophets upside down and assures us that the scenario of global conflict remains highly unlikely. Professor at the Institute of Political Science in Paris and columnist for the French newspaper L'Express, Ansel explains the geopolitical reasons that give him a certain optimism.
L"EXPRESS: Although the international situation is particularly worrying, in this book you assure us that a Third World War is unlikely to happen. Why?
FREDERIC ANSEL: First of all, in geopolitics there is never a guarantee that the worst will happen. Throughout history, we have already seen crises more serious than the one we are experiencing resolve themselves. First of all, we must question the interest in the apocalyptic posture. Pessimism solves nothing. If doomsday prophets can help us better understand a specific crisis, they could be useful. But to understand the current situation, it is better to put the facts in perspective. Military clashes in a specific area - as we have seen for years in the Middle East, Sudan or Congo - do not imply the outbreak of an imaginary Armageddon or global chaos.
L"EXPRESS: Vladimir Putin's Russia, with its expansionist ambitions, today poses a serious threat to peace in Europe. Isn't that worrying?
FR. ANSEL: In this book I refute the idea that a new world war is likely, but I do not question the idea that conflicts will arise or deepen. This has always been the case throughout history, since the time of the first Sumerian cities! From a military and political point of view, a nationalist Russia of Vladimir Putin poses a threat to democracies in general and to Eastern Europe in particular. However, paradoxically, the risk of an international expansion of the Ukrainian conflict has decreased since Donald Trump returned to power. If the United States and Russia come to an agreement, even on unpleasant issues such as the Americans abandoning Ukraine, the prerequisite for a new world war becomes much less realistic.
Caution: If this risk decreases in the short term, the question now arises whether in the long term this American policy of ignoring most of its allies, at least on the European continent, will not provoke an increase in Moscow's imperialist ambitions due to the balance of power that has become more favorable after America's withdrawal.
L"EXPRESS: Opponents of military aid to Ukraine often refer to the 1914 scenario. As lunatics, we are involved in the worst fatal spiral. What do you think?
FR. ANSEL: This is what I call the summer of 1914 syndrome, namely the cascade of declarations of war caused by the tangle of military alliances on the European continent. However, the current situation is radically different from the one that prevailed at the beginning of the 20th century! In fact, the only multinational military alliance currently operating on the planet is NATO, which is now threatened by Trump. In the case of Ukraine and Russia, there is no scheme for an integrated alliance, as there was in 1914. This also applies to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), and even to the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR). There is no coherent system of alliances behind Moscow. The proof is that, faced with extremely serious military setbacks in Ukraine, Putin was forced to call up Russian prisoners, Chechen Islamists, Nepalese mercenaries, and now North Korean soldiers. Frankly, this is one of the reasons why I am objectively optimistic about the very low probability of a global war. The balance of power is becoming less multilateral; Most alliances will be formed between two countries.
L"EXPRESS: Isn't there a growing confrontation between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, which are increasingly collaborating to change the world order in their favor?
FR. ANSEL: I have always believed that the gap between democracies and authoritarian regimes is only one of the explanatory variables of global power relations, and that it is not the main one. On the one hand, in recent decades, Western democracies have had as friends, clients and sometimes allies implacable dictatorships, especially in the Arab world and sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, what is now called the "global south" or the "pro-Russian bloc" has no integrity. China and India are technically at war over Kashmir, and while North Korea, a ridiculous dictatorship, has sent some (mediocre) troops to Russia, no other authoritarian regime has done so. And if you look at the results of the UN vote, the majority of authoritarian states have condemned Russia or abstained! Only seven countries have always supported it... So this is just a geopolitical variable, not an explanatory table for everything.
L"EXPRESS: According to a popular theory, the "Thucydides Trap", the two dominant powers, namely the United States and China today, are involved in a conflict...
FR. ANSEL: Unlike the two nonsensical concepts of the "clash of civilizations" and the "end of history", Graham Allison's theory of the "Thucydides Trap" is intellectually stimulating. But there are two main nuances to this thesis. First, in the time of Sparta and Athens, neither of the warring parties had as much destructive power as the other, which led to their own suicide. Nuclear weapons change everything. Very few political regimes agree to commit suicide, as was the case with the late Third Reich or ISIS. The United States and China, including under Trump and Xi Jinping, continue to be led by minimally rational leaders. Second, history has empirically proven that a clash between a leading world power and an emerging rival is not inevitable. In the 19th century, British strategists believed it necessary to prevent the rise of the United States, so as not to be overtaken by it. The United Kingdom, however, did not attack. When a world power is faced with the rise of a "challenger" whose values are not too far from its own, it does not automatically fall into this Thucydides trap.
L"EXPRESS: Why do you call the clash of civilizations pure "fantasy"?
FR. ANSEL: Regimes and governments can play on the terrain of civilizational fears and use them as a propaganda tool. However, from an empirical point of view, it is impossible to give an example of a war that started solely because of a civilizational split. Upstream, we are much more often confronted with political, ideological and sometimes economic issues. In any case, it would be absolutely stupid for a regime to lose its power or part of its wealth and its people because it wants to wage war outside its borders for the sole reason that the opposing population has a different skin color or adheres to different culinary, fashion or linguistic traditions...
L"EXPRESS: Donald Trump seems to have his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize in his attempt to impose a ceasefire in Ukraine. But isn't he a risk factor for global stability because of his unpredictability?
FR. ANSEL: One of the directions of his policy in international relations, besides mercantilism, is the refusal to send American troops beyond national borders. This automatically reduces the risk of military clashes between American troops and Chinese or Russian soldiers. Thus, the specter of World War III is receding. But, of course, Trump has constant contradictions. If he does not send troops, he will not be able to annex Greenland, expel the Palestinians from Gaza or politically take over Panama... We must again ask ourselves whether this American withdrawal is positive in the long run, knowing that throughout history there have been just wars. If, for example, a real genocide were to occur and the United States could not be relied on - as happened in Rwanda in 1994 - such American abstention would have morally disastrous consequences. But the specter of global conflict is inevitably receding. Moreover, Trump’s unpredictability can be perceived by America’s opponents as irritating and even dangerous. To orchestrate his unpredictability is to create a kind of diplomatic fog, just as there is a fog of war. From this perspective, it is possible that this could slow down the potential military ambitions of both China and Russia. If China attacks Taiwan, what will Trump do? We do not know anything about that. But if Putin does not respect the likely upcoming ceasefire in Ukraine, there is no guarantee that Trump will not become enraged and decide to radically change his Ukrainian policy, feeling humiliated. What is certain is that in Xi Jinping’s eyes, this unpredictability, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, is not good news. However, Trump is not at all unpredictable with regard to NATO and Europe, since he clearly wants the costly war in Ukraine to end and for European countries to pay for their own defense so that it no longer costs the United States anything. But he has never taken such positions on the Indo-Pacific. Why? Because Japan and South Korea are solvent and buy and invest a lot in the US! That is why China has not been very active for the time being.
L"EXPRESS: Vincent Bolloré's media accused Emmanuel Macron of maintaining a belligerent rhetoric that risks degenerating...
FR. ANSEL: Many of the president's initiatives in the field of foreign relations can be criticized. But his consistency with regard to Europe as a power cannot be questioned. He was elected twice with a platform that prioritized the need for strategic autonomy for Europe... Moreover, I am one of those who believe that a show of weakness is in reality belligerent and calls for war. Deterrence, regardless of its degree, remains the best obstacle to the imperialist will of authoritarian states. Given America's refusal to defend Europe, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the hybrid war waged by Moscow against France and European countries, the President of the Republic is fully fulfilling his role.
L"EXPRESS: Isn't it economically and socially increasingly risky to wage war?
FR. ANSEL: War has always had a very high price in history. Very few belligerent countries have achieved clear and substantial economic gains during war. Moreover, for a dictatorship, war is even more problematic. Few authoritarian leaders have managed to retain power after a military defeat. Sometimes the entire regime collapses. The return of thousands of coffins shocks public opinion, although it cannot be expressed openly in a dictatorship. If I were Xi Jinping, I would think twice before attacking Taiwan. Because of the number of potential victims of such an operation, it represents an absolutely enormous risk for the communist regime, which has been in operation for seventy-five years.
L"EXPRESS: You note that the enthusiasm for war is now much less than in the past, as the war between Ukraine and Russia showed...
FR. ANSEL: In 1914, at the beginning of the war, there was a real nationalist upsurge among the population of Europe. But the conflict in Ukraine, on the contrary, demonstrated the phenomenon of fatigue and rejection. On the ground, we observed above all the attempts of many young men to avoid mobilization. Although Ukraine showed admirable resilience in the face of the Russian invasion, there was no mass mobilization like that in France in 1793 or throughout Europe in 1914.
Overall, public opinion polls show that people today are much less likely to send their children to war than in other eras. Trump knows very well that after almost a century of interventionism, American society is categorically against sending troops abroad. Even in Turkey, despite its strongly nationalist regime, public opinion has always been negatively disposed towards such initiatives. That is why Erdogan has to use Turkmen mercenaries. And not a single Turkish soldier went to fight on the side of his Azerbaijani ally against the Armenian army in Nagorno-Karabakh. In Japan, the population remains extremely peaceful due to the trauma of World War II. In Morocco and Algeria, despite intense diplomatic hostility (for Algeria), there are no signs that the population is ready for military confrontation. There is no general tendency among the population of the world to send their own children to war. Another reason for optimism!