Introduction
In 2022, Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to invade Ukraine in a so-called special military operation known as the Ukraine War. It was a rude wake-up call for Europeans like me who believed that a war in Europe had become unthinkable. Did we not have diplomats, councils, and treaties to prevent it from happening again? It is tempting to see Putin as an evil dictator who is the sole cause of the war, but it is not a fruitful perspective if you intend to prevent war in the future. Most leaders operate by principles, for instance, an ideology, and use a certain logic to choose their actions.
It is more helpful to see Putin as a leader who grew up in an authoritarian tradition and believes he is doing the right thing. Even Adolf Hitler had a justifiable cause when he tore up the Versailles Peace Treaty and ordered his military to reoccupy the Rhineland. And Hitler believed in his mission. After World War II, the Western allies realised the Versailles Peace Treaty was a historic mistake and likely had led to World War II. People make mistakes all the time, and leaders can go crazy.
For simplicity's sake, the main angle is politics and the logic of geopolitical competition, and the Ukraine War is a case study. Ukraine has been a stage for a geopolitical struggle between Russia and the West in recent decades. Propaganda, covert actions and violence are part of that game. I am not neutral. We are all part of a group somehow, and in a conflict, we tend to favour our group and justify its deeds. I support the Ukrainian cause if it must be. That is because I prefer Western democracy over Russian dictatorship.
Above all, I desire peace. This conflict is not worth the killing and suffering. Few conflicts are worth it, I try to understand Putin's motives. The Ukraine War might escalate into World War III. For the research, I did not primarily rely on Western mainstream media but on sources that appear reliable, which does not necessarily mean neutral. For the analysis, it does not matter which side I am on because it is not about who is to blame but why there are wars and what the requirements for permanent world peace might be.
Historical background
Russians and Ukrainians were once one people, but history separated them. Between 800 AD and 1240 AD, the Ukrainian capital Kyiv was the centre of a nation called Kievan Rus, which stretched to the north and comprised much of the European part of Russia. Around 1240 AD, the Mongols overran the area. When Mongol power waned, a new Russian state emerged around Moscow, while modern-day Ukraine became part of Poland and Lithuania. Poland and Lithuania became one country by 1400 AD, subsequently called Poland. Crimea and surrounding territories became part of the Ottoman Empire, which later became modern-day Turkey. Most notably, the Polish influence helped to create a distinct Ukrainian language. Polish and Turkish power waned from the seventeenth century onwards, and Russia expanded. In 1667, Kiyv came under Russian control, and by 1800, Russia had conquered most of Ukraine.
By then, Russia had become a large empire stretching from Poland to Alaska. It harboured many peoples, including Ukrainians. People in Ukraine spoke Ukrainian and Russian. The Russian government sometimes persecuted expressions of Ukrainian culture and banned the use of the Ukrainian language in schools. During World War I, the Russian Empire collapsed, and a civil war followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland became independent. Some countries gained independence for a while and lost it once the Bolsheviks won the civil war. They became republics in the Soviet Union. Among them were Georgia, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine. The most-western area of Ukraine, which never had been part of Russia, became part of Poland.
In 1939, Hitler and Stalin made a pact. They divided Poland, and the Soviet Union acquired Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the remainder of Ukraine. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, many Ukrainians in the former Polish territories had no loyalty to the Soviet Union and saw the Germans as liberators. The Germans recruited 250,000 of them for duty in police and army units. On the other hand, about 4.5 million Ukrainians entered the ranks of the Red Army. Crimea was not part of Ukraine but Russia until the Soviets transferred it in 1954 as part of the celebrations of Ukraine's unification with Russia. Most Crimeans are Russian-speaking. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine became an independent country in 1991. Crimea remained strategically important to Russia as it was the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet.
In 1990, the Soviet Union retreated from Eastern Europe. NATO leaders promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into its former sphere of influence. There was no formal agreement and no written document. Still, several NATO leaders have assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards. For instance, US Secretary of State James Baker did so on 9 February 1990.1 But Eastern European countries were eager to join NATO. Once liberated from Soviet oppression, they desired security guarantees against their powerful neighbour Russia, which joining NATO could provide them. Several policymakers in the West believed NATO expansion would be a historic mistake. Russia would see it as a violation of the bargain struck in 1990. It could undermine future cooperation between Russia and the West.2 NATO expansion proceeded nonetheless.
When Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia in 1999, he vowed to restore Russia's prestige and sphere of influence. It was a time when Russia appeared on a path towards democracy, but the economy was in shambles due to the collapse of the Soviet system and the subsequent neoliberal economic policies of the 1990s that had handed over much of Russia's wealth to a few oligarchs. Putin was pragmatic. He stripped the oligarchs that opposed him of their possessions. And there was an insurgency in Chechnya. The Chechens are an Islamic people living in Russia that have strived for independence. Russian troops brutally repressed the rebellion during a ten-year war. Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union and called it a major geopolitical disaster. His actions suggest Putin intends to retain or restore Russian hegemony in the former Soviet territories, and he proved to be a calculating geopolitical strategist. For instance, Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 after NATO promised to consider its bid for membership. Under Putin's leadership, Russia drifted away from democracy and became an increasingly repressive dictatorship.
Maidan Revolution
Ukraine has a multi-party system with numerous political parties in which oligarchs play a major role. With regard to international orientation, there were two political blocks, one seeking to more closely work together with the West, and another seeking closer relations with Russia. People in the West and the centre of Ukraine generally favoured the Western-oriented block, while people in the East and the South generally favoured the Russia-oriented block. By 2013, there was strong support for economic ties with the European Union (EU) in Parliament. After lengthy negotiations, a deal was in the making, but President Yanukovych decided not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the EU and instead chose to seek closer ties with Russia. Russia was Ukraine's largest trading partner and Putin had offered a loan on favourable conditions while threatening to harm the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians if they did not agree with his proposal.3
Protests erupted, calling for the resignation of the president and the government. The protesters agitated against government corruption, abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations. In response to a brutal police crackdown, protesters began fighting back with chains, sticks, stones, petrol bombs, even a bulldozer and, later, firearms. The police could no longer defend themselves from protesters' attacks, causing them to retreat.3 108 civilians and 13 police officers died. The Euromaidan protestors overturned the government, and President Yanukovych fled. Most Ukrainians did not want to sever ties with Russia at that point. And Yanukovych had won a free and fair election in 2010. Ukraine relied on cheap gas from Russia, but many oligarchs and politicians, including Yanukovych, had sought closer relations with the European Union. He had tried to keep the peace and Ukraine independent.3 Yanukovych was corrupt, but so were most other Ukrainian politicians. After the Maidan Revolution, pro-Russian protests and uprisings erupted in Crimea, the Donbas and Odesa.
The United States had supported pro-democratic Western-oriented groups that started the protests.3 But right-wing nationalists seized on the opportunity. Their numbers were relatively small, but their use of organised violence made them a significant political force, and likely a decisive one during the Maidan Revolution. Before the protests, they used force against foreigners, for instance, by removing Vietnamese, Uzbek and Gypsy traders from shops and markets in Vasylkiv in July 2010.4 After the Maidan Revolution, they patrolled the streets of Kiyv and provided fighters for the war against Russia-backed separatists when Russia took over Crimea and Russian-speaking people in the east rebelled with Russian support. Among the Ukrainian right-wing nationalists are Nazis. In 2014, they formed the Azov regiment, a group of approximately 900 fighters, that openly used Nazi symbols. The regiment fought against pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and succeeded in recapturing the strategic port city of Mariupol.5 Their bravery on the battlefield at a time when the army had difficulty defending Ukrainian territory made the far-right more widely respected, but their regular use of violence became increasingly problematic to Ukrainian society.6
For forty years, Putin lived in the Soviet Union under the banner of international socialism and the belief that nationalism was evil. Nazism is the most extreme and violent form of nationalism. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of Nazi warfare and atrocities during World War II, and twenty million people died. Putin grew up in Leningrad, now St Petersburg, which had been under siege by the Germans for 872 days, causing widespread famine and the death of 670,000 people. He was born shortly after the war and likely heard tales about the siege as a child. So, when Putin said he wanted to denazify Ukraine, he might have meant what he said. But the Ukrainian Nazis were also a propaganda tool of Putin as he employed the Nazi Wagner Group mercenaries to fight his war. There is a resemblance to the Iraq War. Its stated goal was spreading democracy in the so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Likely, other motives also played a role.
Prelude
The reasons for Putin to invade appear mainly geopolitical. Ukraine was the second-most-populous republic in the Soviet Union. It is one of the most important countries to Russia and culturally the closest together with Belarus. Most of Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries. Ukraine was drifting away from Putin's Russia and aligning itself with the West. To lose control of Ukraine would be a most damaging geopolitical loss for Putin. The Russian invasion of Crimea and the insurgency in the Donbas had soured Russian-Ukrainian relations. There had been a truce, but both parties violated it with regular shelling and targeting of civilian areas. A likely reason was a lack of discipline from the militia on both sides.7
A return of Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence was not to be expected, even more so because, since the Maidan Revolution, a significant portion of Russian speakers in Crimea and Donbas lived under Russian control. As a result, the balance of power inside Ukraine had swayed further to the Western-oriented block. Ukraine was building its military and might join NATO at some point. And even though NATO considers itself a defensive alliance, it is part of the Western sphere of influence and primarily an alliance against Russia, so Putin sees NATO as a threat. Time was not on Putin's side because Ukraine was integrating into the West, so he may have felt compelled to move. It may explain why he was not receptive to the peace efforts of European leaders before the war.
On the other side of the world, a similar conflict is brewing as China may invade Taiwan. Taiwan was Chinese until 1949 when the communists conquered the mainland. The former government fled to Taiwan and could remain independent with US support. Chinese leaders see the independence of Taiwan as a legacy of Western interference with their internal affairs that needs correcting. Unlike Russia, China seems to have time on its side. At some point, the United States might be unable or unwilling to defend Taiwan. China uses propaganda in combination with intimidation to win over the Taiwanese.8 Most Taiwanese do not want to give up their democracy and freedom, but the question remains whether they are willing to fight.9 The Taiwanese cannot trust China to honour an agreement about autonomy and democracy under Chinese rule. When the British handed over Hong Kong to China in 1997, China promised it would allow Hong Kong to retain most of its freedoms for fifty years, a promise China did not keep.10
War
When Russia invaded Ukraine, nearly everyone expected a short war and the Ukrainian army to collapse within weeks. In the first days of the war, Ukrainian President Zelensky rejected an evacuation offer from the United States, saying he needed ammunition, not a ride. Street fighting in Kyiv was about to commence, and the prospects for Ukraine seemed bleak. Zelensky, who had been an actor previously, proved a skilled communicator who unified the nation and extracted weapons and other support from his Western allies. It is a most peculiar coincidence indeed. He proved to be perfect for the role of wartime leader. And he had played the Ukrainian President in a comedy previously. And so, fiction has become a reality. Or is our reality fiction? The contrast with Putin could not be starker. He hardly appeared in public and did not inspire his nation. Zelenski's character and leadership qualities, as well as the resolve and quality of the Ukrainian army, proved to be among Putin's miscalculations, as were the morale of the Russian forces and the quality of its leadership.
During the first months of the war, there were peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. At first, Russia came with demilitarisation and denazification demands and did not show a willingness to compromise. That might have changed when battlefield fortunes changed in favour of Ukraine. Both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin made significant concessions. Putin gave up on his goal of Ukraine's demilitarisation and denazification, and Zelensky agreed not to pursue NATO membership. According to former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett, who tried to broker peace between the warring parties, there was a 50% chance of success, but Western powers blocked the peace deal. Ukrainska Pravda reported that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv and told Zelensky the West would not recognise the peace deal. Other Western leaders feared the peace deal would reward the aggressor state Russia. The discovery of the Bucha massacre in early April, in which Russian troops had murdered over four hundred civilians, might be another reason the peace talks failed.11
The peace talks did not resume. The war proceeded, killing tens of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers while destroying much of Ukrainian infrastructure. At present (September 2023), none of the parties seems interested in peace. Russia hopes to consolidate its conquests. Ukraine hopes to retake its lost territory, including Crimea and Eastern Donbas, which have a Russian-speaking majority. The West hopes to weaken Russia and sends weapons and ammunition.12 The West has imposed sanctions on Russia. The Ukrainians collect evidence of Russian war crimes. There is also evidence of Ukrainian war crimes, albeit on a smaller scale.13 The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued a warrant for President Vladimir Putin's arrest. At present, it seems a remote possibility that Putin will face trial in The Hague, but if it happens, it could create a precedent and, for instance, lead to the arrest of former US President Bush for ordering the invasion of Iraq.
Clash of civilisations?
Geopolitical actors operate by a logic that often is rational from their perspective. After the Maidan protests, the situation in Ukraine turned unfavourable or even threatening for Putin's Russia. Ukraine became another unfriendly power allied with the West. To protect itself, Ukraine was arming itself and seeking NATO membership. And Ukraine might try to retake its territories lost to Russia and the separatists. Western policymakers generally hold two views, the neoconservative view, with a drive to spread Western values with force if needed, and realpolitik. For instance, in The Clash of Civilisations, Huntington argues it is arrogant and dangerous to assume Western culture is superior and urges to respect different civilisations and their leading nations. Allowing spheres of influence implies Ukraine should align with Russia and Taiwan with China, so realpolitik could mean throwing Ukraine and Taiwan under the bus to prevent war.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neoconservative view has become the most influential because the United States found itself the hegemon in a unipolar world, and other powers did not seriously challenge it. It may explain why NATO broke its promise to Mikhail Gorbachev. If Russia had the willpower and the military means to invade and occupy Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania before they became NATO members, the United States would probably not have opposed the move militarily. But Russia probably did not have the means, nor was it willing. No one opposed the United States. It might also partly explain the drive of the neoconservatives to invade Iraq. Some documents about the strategy of the United States' geopolitical planners leaked to the press, so we can read about it. For instance,
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy and requires that we endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defence areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.14
From behind the desk of the geopolitical planners, it may all seem nice and dandy. If the world order 'holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests,' there would more or less be world peace, a Pax Americana provided by the hegemon. When the Roman Empire was at its prime, the Mediterranean lived under a Pax Romana. It is not peace but limited conflict as few dare to challenge the hegemon. Those who did challenge the hegemon were wiped out; for instance, the Jews in their uprisings between 66 and 135 AD and Saddam Hussein in the Iraq war of 2003. Japan and Germany did fine in the Pax Americana. China and Russia could have opted for that, but they aspire to a greater role and pursue a more aggressive posture. The Ukraine War signalled the possible end of the Pax Americana. As China's power is rising, neoconservative thinking becomes increasingly dangerous.
Like any order, the Pax Americana was not ideal. The United States is not the legitimate leader of the world, nor is it a moral example considering the ethical standards of its politicians and businesses. Only the others may not do better. And the clash-of-civilisations view does not provide a workable alternative. Ukraine is culturally aligned with Russia as both countries are Christian Orthodox and Slavic, but most Ukrainians aspire to align with the West rather than Russia. The same applies to Taiwan and a few other countries surrounding China that share China's Confucianist heritage, for instance, Japan and South Korea. They are democracies aligned with the West. The Clash of Civilisations predicted these countries might look for leadership from the leading nations of their civilisations, Russia and China. That did not happen until now, as countries also have economic and nationalist motives. It makes the geopolitical situation complicated and less stable.
If Confucianist countries accept China's leadership, Orthodox countries align with Russia, and Western countries follow the United States, the geopolitical situation would be less complicated and more stable, making World War III less likely. The underlying assumption of the Clash of Civilisations is cultural relativism, meaning that Western values are not superior to those of other civilisations and that these values are separable. If democracy is a Western value and Confucianism is benevolently authoritarian, Confucianist countries might discard democracy, but if democracy has universal appeal, is it Western?
And benevolent authoritarianism is not specifically Confucianist as it occurred in different civilisations, including the West. Even the Chinese Communist Party claims to base itself on Marxism and Leninism, invented in Europe. And if some Confucianist practices work better, why should the West not adopt them? China's economic and military power is about to surpass that of the United States. And China asserts itself by claiming sovereignty over Taiwan and the South Chinese Sea and using military force to back up that claim. If China's neighbours do not accept Chinese hegemony and seek an alliance with the United States, that could be another path to World War III. And so, having a single world order is preferable unless it is a terrible order.
Gang warfare
In a multipolar world, which is a world with several major powers, geopolitics resembles criminal gangs defending and expanding their turf. In tribal societies, a separate warrior caste emerged, and the most basic form of political organisation became the lord and his armed vassals. This type of political organisation dominated most of human history and still exists today in the form of warlords, militia, drug cartels and street gangs. If order breaks down, that will be the political organisation in most places.15 It is natural human behaviour. We operate in groups. Within the group, there is relative peace, and we have means to settle conflicts, for instance, police and courts. With other groups, we cooperate or compete, which often comes down to fighting. Gang warfare has a particular logic. If another mob takes over a part of your turf, your gang becomes weaker, and the other strengthens, so you must defend or expand your turf whenever you can. Otherwise, you might end up dead or enslaved. Gangs and warlords make agreements and honour or break them, so their fights can be about honour rather than turf. The same is true for nationalist wars like the Ukraine War.
In a unipolar world, which is a world where one power dominates, most countries fear and respect the hegemon. The United States was the hegemon between 1990 and 2010. Other countries did not seriously challenge that position. The United States invaded Iraq, partly because the US had the military to do it, and the neoconservative planners inside the US government thought Iraq would turn into a liberal democracy after the invasion,16 an assumption based on a belief in the superiority of Western values.
In a world with two major powers, a stable situation can emerge when both try to defend and expand their turf but find a way of dealing with each other and do not threaten each other's existence. That happened during the Cold War between 1945 and 1989. The United States did not dare to back the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian uprisings with military means, as it could threaten the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the United States carpet-bombed Vietnam for years, supported insurgencies and dictators and helped to overthrow democratically elected politicians, for instance, in Chile. These actions did not threaten the Soviet Union. In a multipolar world, power and alliances can shift. A stable situation is unlikely to emerge, agreements will not last, and war can become inevitable.
Europe was a multipolar continent on the eve of World War I. There were five major powers, two camps, and alliances were shifting. The future of the multinational Austrian-Hungarian Empire was on the balance as the nationalism of the different peoples living in it undermined it. So after a Serbian nationalist assassinated the Archduke, the leadership of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire believed it had no choice but to deal with the Serbian threat and attack Serbia before the menace grew stronger. Germany felt threatened as it was surrounded by its foes, France and Russia. And so, Germany saw no other option than to back the Austrian-Hungarian Empire as it was its only major and most trustworthy ally. Russia then felt it had to support its ally Serbia to prevent it from being overrun by the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. France and Great Britain backed Russia because it was their ally and Germany their foe. And so, an assassination and nationalism plunged Europe into a war that killed over ten million people. We are now drifting toward a multipolar world, hence, a politically less stable one.
Conspiring for world peace
Usually, parties in a conflict have legitimate concerns or believe they have them. Ukraine is just one case out of many. Conflicts come with a history and parties thinking they are doing the right thing. Leaders usually do not go to war for frivolous reasons or to merely test the prowess of their military. Ukraine is culturally and religiously close to Russia, so there is a case for political unity if you take the clash-of-civilisations view. Taiwan is historically Chinese territory. But there are no free and fair elections in Russia and China. So, is the leadership of Russia and China legitimate? If the West follows its logic, it must defend the democracies of Ukraine and Taiwan against these illegitimate regimes. In the past, conflicting legitimate concerns led to war. There have been conspiracies to create world peace, but they failed.
Before World War I, the socialist movements had declared their opposition to a war that meant workers killing each other in the interests of their bosses. Once the war had started, most socialists and trade unions backed their government and supported their country's war effort. The workers would have been better off if they had united and refused to fight. So, why did they go to war? First, workers in France did not know what workers in Germany would do, and if the German workers joined the army, but the French did not, Germany would have overrun France. And the emotions that come with nationalism proved more inspiring than the rational appeal to the self-interest of the international proletariat.
After World War II, the elites of the West tried to prevent future wars by creating a New World Order centred around Western institutions and the United Nations.17 Nationalists and socialists distrust the capitalist and internationalist Western elites. These elites may lack legitimacy, but they are correct about a single world order being a requirement for permanent world peace. Nowadays, Western power is in decline. A new peaceful world order does not appear to emerge anytime soon, not from peasants and workers joining hands nor from the scheming of the elites.
Will the Chinese do better when they become the hegemon? The West won the world by its superiority in applying organised violence. The military buildup of China and the bullying of its neighbours indicate China has caught up on that. History is a survival-of-the-fittest competition between groups who organise themselves for warfare. That will not change as long as there is no single global order. If the Chinese intend to rule in the future, they shall abide by this rule. Ideas and values can help us to organise ourselves for violence. For instance, a religion or an ideology brings peace within the group and can inspire group members to fight. Like on the eve of World War I, the elites, peasants and workers of all the nations might be better off when they set aside their differences and stop fighting.
Humans operate in groups. Within the group, there is order. Between groups, there is a survival-of-the-fittest type of competition. There can only be peace if there is order. Identity politics is the driver of conflicts. Nationalism, religion, race, gender, and even soccer clubs make us proud and can enlist rage and violence. Leaders make use of nationalist emotions. There will only be order in the world when we have a single world government, and humanity is one nation living in a world without borders, which means abolishing identity politics while accepting differences. In other words, you can use your language, express your culture, and dress in a costume, but you should not think you are superior to other people with different languages, cultures and costumes. And we need peace. We have weapons of mass destruction, and nations try to keep ahead of each other with the latest technology. Soon artificial intelligence may decide to go to war, whom to kill, and invent or improve new weapons by which to kill people.
Featured image: Destroyed Russian tank near Mariupol. Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Wikimedia Commons.
1. NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard: Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. George Washington University (2017). [link]
2. NATO expansion: 'a policy error of historic importance'. Michael MccGWire. Review of International Studies (1998). [link]
3. A US-Backed, Far Right-Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War. Jacobin (2022). [link]
4. Migrants were thrown out of the market in Vasilkiv. [link]
5. Profile: Who are Ukraine's far-right Azov regiment? AlJazeera (2022). [link]
6. Commentary: Ukraine's neo-Nazi problem. Josh Cohen. Reuters (2018). [link]
7. UN report on 2014-16 killings in Ukraine highlights 'rampant impunity'. United Nations (2016). [link]
8. China spinning a 'web' of influence campaigns to win over Taiwan. AlJazeera (2023). [link]
9. If Invaded, Will the Taiwan Public Fight? Don't Look to Polls for an Answer. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (2022) [link]
10. Hong Kong: Broken promises. Al Jazeera (2021). [link]
11. The Grinding War in Ukraine Could Have Ended a Long Time Ago. Branko Marcetic. Jacobin (2023). [link]
12. 'We want to see Russia weakened': Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says he wants Putin's forces depleted so he cannot repeat what he has done in Ukraine during his Kyiv trip. Daily Mail (2022). [link]
13. Ukraine must investigate alleged war crimes by its forces. Al Jazeera (2022). [link]
14. Defense Planning Guidance (1992). George Washington University. [link]
15. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. Francis Fukuyama (2011).
16. What the Neocons Got Wrong. Max Boot. Foreign Affairs (2023). [link]
17. Who pulls the strings? (part 3). The Guardian (2001): "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing." [link]
(Article changed on Sep 24, 2023 at 5:17 PM EDT)
