2022.03.12 NEWS ARTICLES

The Collapse of Empires and the Ukraine War

The hypothesis that shifts in imperial hegemony tend to trigger large-scale wars has persisted over time. However, historical analysis reveals that contrary to popular belief, the transition between empires has not always involved major conflicts.

In reality, empires tend to weaken during their decline due to “overreach” and the “burden of military expenses.” In other words, the typical pattern of decline is more about self-destruction than defeat in hegemonic wars.

The primary causes of imperial decline are fiscal and economic. Heavy military expenditures and the loss of industrial strength lead to fiscal crises, making it difficult to maintain a military presence. If an empire can respond wisely by retreating at the right time, it may avoid disaster. Still, the risk of war lingers until a “power vacuum” is filled. Moreover, because imperial decline progresses gradually, it’s often difficult to perceive the entire picture in real-time.

Three Perspectives on Understanding the Invasion of Ukraine

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which began on February 24, can be analyzed in three ways within the context of international politics.

First, it can be seen as an empire in decline that has overextended itself, resulting in a state of deadlock, and resorting to military action akin to “suppressing a rebellion” within its sphere of influence.

Second, it can be interpreted as a lightning strike by a “revisionist” or “aggressive state” aiming to disrupt the existing international order.

Third, it can be viewed as a war provoked by the outburst of an authoritarian leader in a dictatorship.

These perspectives are not mutually exclusive; they simply represent different angles on the same event. However, the chosen perspective influences how we respond to the event.

Shattered Hopes for a Peaceful Century

The first perspective focuses on the unique concept of an “empire”—a structure that integrates multiple ethnic groups and often has indistinct geographical boundaries. Imperial borders can be drawn for various reasons: ethnicity, religion, “lebensraum,” or political ideology.

After World War II, with the establishment of equal national sovereignty and the prohibition of aggressive war, many colonies gained independence, and imperial wars became less frequent. Of course, imperial military actions didn’t disappear entirely. The Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan and various wars waged by the United States reveal clear imperial elements.

In The Empire of Democracy, Kiichi Fujiwara discusses modern-day America, highlighting the expansive nature of a democratic “empire” and the persistent difficulty in preventing democracies from waging wars deemed legitimate domestically. However, unlike historical empires, America’s wars have not resulted in annexations.

In contrast, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a military action that feels reminiscent of the 19th century, evoking shock worldwide as though the ghost of the pre-WWI era has returned. The sweet hope that the 21st century would be more peaceful than the turbulent 20th was ruthlessly shattered.

Post-Cold War Russia and “Overreach”

If one views Russia’s invasion through the lens of an empire in decline, one must consider not only NATO’s “eastward expansion” but also Russia’s own actions.

Despite frequent military interventions post-Cold War, Russia has struggled to maintain imperial control. From renewed Chechen conflicts, the South Ossetia war, and the annexation of Crimea to the intervention in Syria, each case has devolved into stalemates or quagmires.

For empires, borders are often ambiguous, and refraining from aggression is rarely an option. If Russia claims Ukraine as a “brother nation,” why is it attacking Ukrainians? The imperial mindset justifies this by stating that Ukraine “rebelled.”

While the empire might argue it was “forced into intervention,” those being intervened upon see their resistance as a fight for freedom. When an empire is strong, surrounding regions are subjugated; when it’s weak, they rebel.

Thus, a declining empire bears the heavy burden of war. Until it retreats within its core state and logic overrides ideology, conflicts will persist.

The British Empire’s Peaceful Dissolution

Yet, it’s essential to recognize that while the Russia-Ukraine conflict may drain Russia’s power, it’s not a war that directly threatens Moscow’s survival. The war will likely weaken Russia’s imperial status but may not lead to an immediate collapse.

Actions like banning Russian artists who don’t denounce Putin may reinforce, rather than weaken, Russia’s imperial mindset. While younger generations may not support Putin, true generational change will take decades. The Ukraine war may continue for a long time, and even if it pauses, similar conflicts may emerge in former Soviet states.

The British Empire provides a recent example of peaceful imperial withdrawal. Britain managed to exit its empire without significant bloodshed, leaving its former territories economically intact while the U.S. moved into military and economic spheres left by Britain.

The final blow to the British Empire came after World Wars I and II when the U.S. withheld substantial aid until Britain was thoroughly exhausted. The decline of the British Empire took considerable time, with many wars accompanying its retreat.

Imperial Decline Takes Time

If we interpret Russia’s current situation as imperial decline, we need to examine it over a much longer timeline, during which multiple wars may arise.

In the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, nuclear deterrence exists between major powers, and NATO cannot intervene directly due to collective defense agreements. Instead, the strategy is to support Ukraine financially and militarily to avoid early defeat, effectively bogging down Russian forces and exhausting them through protracted warfare, including guerrilla tactics.

In this scenario, Ukrainian casualties would become massive, as seen in Syria and Chechnya. Despite these sacrifices, a dictator like Putin, securely protected, information-censored, and in control of a resource-rich empire, is unlikely to collapse swiftly from within.

To hasten an empire’s self-destruction, the world would need to move toward a bloc economy, which could prolong war and conflict. China, seeing its interests align with an economically weakened but prolonged Russian empire, would likely assist in sustaining Russia. In the meantime, the world faces severe food and energy shortages, leading to domestic instability.

When adopting an imperial framework, we cannot expect an easy self-destruction scenario; we must view events on a century-long scale.

Aggressive States and Authoritarian Regimes

The second perspective frames the conflict as a blitz by an “aggressive state” bent on disrupting the current order.

An aggressive war, distinct from what is often termed “invasion,” is one where military action isn’t backed by UN Security Council resolutions, involves military force beyond self-defense, or carries disproportionate retaliation.

In international relations, aggressive states are understood as those with a “revisionist” or expansionist mindset, preferring adventurous military actions over maintaining the status quo.

Historically, the U.S. has considered Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as aggressive states. Among these, only Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Iraq were toppled by force.

Aggressive states are often associated with authoritarianism and despotic leaders, viewed as drivers of aggressive wars. However, it’s worth noting that authoritarian regimes are not necessarily aggressive. In The Civilian’s War: On the Origins of Aggressive Democracy, I discuss the phenomenon of democracies supporting aggressive wars through legitimate domestic procedures.

Indeed, the only clear case of a military government initiating an aggressive war was Argentina in the Falklands War. Research indicates that the propensity to start wars does not differ significantly between autocracies and democracies.

Confronting Aggressive States

Nevertheless, aggressive states undeniably exist, and there is no question that Russia fits this description.

Facing an aggressive state is exceptionally challenging and arguably more demanding than dealing with an empire. Aggressive states reject reconciliation or rational negotiation, and their actions often provoke preemptive wars and military sanctions from opposing states.

With prominent American senators like Lindsey Graham calling for Putin’s assassination, we see a tendency to believe that aggressive states can only be subdued by force—a view exemplified by the Iraq War.

The recognition of Russia as an aggressive state spurred unprecedented economic sanctions against it following the invasion of Ukraine. Yet, Russia’s status as a nuclear power complicates direct intervention.

The historical lesson from World War I, where harsh reparations on Germany led to the rise of Nazi Germany, suggests that Western powers may hope for increased domestic criticism within Russia. However, coexistence with an aggressive state remains unacceptable for public opinion, fueling demands for harsher sanctions and exclusions.

Already, Russian musicians are banned from performances, sports figures face dismissal, and Russian conductors have resigned globally. Germany may not be able to immediately cease energy imports from Russia, but plans to reduce dependence on Russian energy are underway.

Economic Decoupling and the Long-Term Effects

The separation from Russia—both economically and culturally—seems to be solidifying, with long-lasting effects. As the war drags on, the lack of financial autonomy within Russia’s system exacerbates the situation.

Russia attempted to reduce dollar reserves and increase gold holdings post-2014, but sanctions barring access to SWIFT, suspending transactions with its central bank, and freezing overseas assets have effectively left it unable to access its “last-resort” foreign currency reserves.

Though Russia can turn to China and other alternatives, the economic loss is likely greater than Putin anticipated. Putin kept the full invasion plan highly secretive, likely missing informed advice and expecting a quick blitzkrieg—a miscalculation.

Lessons for China and the Importance of Economic Autonomy

It is worth noting that Russia isn’t the only concern; China stands as a much larger power. While driving a wedge between Russia and China may be impossible, encouraging China to prioritize international order is essential, as it remains a primary beneficiary of the current system.

Many draw comparisons between Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s stance on Taiwan, yet the latter is a far more complex issue. For China, Taiwan is an “domestic matter,” and maintaining the “One China Policy” is far more pressing.

China is likely to view sanctions on Russia as a valuable “case study.” They are particularly aware of the critical need for financial system autonomy, which will become a top priority over the next decade, elevating the “internationalization of the yuan” alongside initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative.

A Return to 19th and 20th Century Warfare in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine war appears to signal a reversion to 19th and 20th-century styles of conflict, even in the 21st century. The devastating images we see through media and online channels are alarming.

Cities are besieged, historical buildings destroyed by shelling, and civilians are perishing. There are assassination attempts on President Zelensky by Russian agents, and those identified as Russian spies are publicly executed. Towns of hundreds of thousands face surrender without water or electricity.

From the Age of World Wars to the “War-in-a-Cup” Era

The early 20th century was marked by total war, with conscription for all-out combat, indiscriminate bombings, and annihilation battles. Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, massacres occurred in Nanjing, and historic cities like Dresden became ruins, with a widespread plan of genocide against Jewish communities.

At the end of the era, the UN Charter sought to contain conflicts within regional bounds. In the case of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the boundaries are so far limited to Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has shifted. Beliefs that we had “overcome the 20th century” and “won the Cold War” have lulled the West into overlooking the dangers inherent in imperial collapse and underestimating China’s ascent. Additionally, the two-decade War on Terror drained American power.

The narrative that “history has not ended” is evident as we face the uncertainties of the 21st century. It’s our collective responsibility to engage thoughtfully and shape this century to avoid repeating the brutal cycles of the past.