Opinion | The End of Peace in Europe (1945-2022)

By Tom Fowdy

77 years ago, World War II came to an end in Europe, with Nazi Germany having been destroyed by the allies. Whilst the immediate aftermath of that conflict would see new tensions arise in the new geopolitical layout of Europe, fostering a Cold War between the Soviet Union and the west, there was nonetheless a balance of power achieved which as a whole fostered peace, stability and security in Europe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the Warsaw Pact, the western led political order encompassing the US and NATO, subsequently became the dominant force on the continent, and sought to expand eastwards in order to make that order permanent.

At the time, this seemed to be destiny. It was as Francis Fukuyama termed it: "the end of history" and argued, albeit erroneously now that liberal democracy was the final form of government and human progress, assuming that the world would transition peacefully to this outcome and "great power conflicts" and destructive wars would be a thing of the past. It goes without saying that the article now exists in infamy for its failed predictions even if Fukuyama continues to be a well-regarded scholar. The events in Ukraine today not only affirm his predictions even more wrong, but in addition abruptly end this 77-year lull of relative peace in Europe where no major war occurred, with the exception of the Balkan wars following the dissolution of former Yugoslavia.

But why did this happen, exactly? What made Vladimir Putin believe that he had no other option other than to pursue what is the largest conflict in Europe since 1945? And to impose on himself in turn large-scale sanctions from the US and its allies? War is typically understood in modern international politics as a "last resort"- a taboo option which is used when all other means to secure the national interests of a state have been completely exhausted and those pursuing it believe that the weighed benefits are larger than the inevitable costs. It is assumed for the most part in international relations theory that states are "rational actors"- even though western discourse may portray caricatures of madmen or insane dictators as formed with the historical legacy of Adolf Hitler.

From Russia's own point of view, it has argued that the expansion of NATO and the EU eastwards provide an unacceptable threat to its own security. In a geopolitical historical analysis, Russia is a land-based military power that does not possess the maritime invulnerability enjoyed by the United States and the British Empire which allowed them to feel secure in their pursuit of global hegemony. Instead, Russia's position in the middle of the Eurasian landmass has made it subsequently vulnerable to land-based attacks which were historically devastating to it. Russia was invaded by Napoleon's France, by the German Empire in World War I and later the Nazis. Whilst it was never conquered, the human toll of these conflicts was catastrophic, with WW2 claiming 10% of the population of the USSR.

This geographical and historical conditioning has led Russia to seek to preserve its security by upholding military hegemony over its westward flank, which has continually led it into a geopolitical struggle against the other powers of Europe. Hence after World War II, it built the Warsaw Pact and the Eastern Bloc to shield itself from the US-led alliance. But the subsequent end of the Cold War would see the USSR and its sphere of influence dissolved. However, Russia did not integrate itself with the west, and saw the utilization of NATO and EU expansion as a means of encirclement. The end of Communism was in fact brutally punishing Russia's economy, sinking standards of living, creating vast inequalities as new oligarchs became mega-rich, and seemingly giving the conjure that Russia was a historical power which had made a vast mistake.

The United States and their allies on other hand. Believe their ideology and values are universal, and so believed that since 1991 the expansion of these institutions in Europe was a form of "manifest destiny" and a permanent order. But the reality is that expanding a military bloc around another state raises tensions and distrust, and regardless of what side one is on that should be acknowledged as a fact of politics. Ukraine of course, is not simply a "puppet of the west" despite this- but is emboldened by its own nationalism and seeks independence from Russia, which has also had the inevitable development of deepening its ethnic divides, which contributed to the first crises in 2014. But now, Russia has taken this path because it has calculated that there is no other way than by force to attain this path, as devastating as that might be. In doing so, it affirms the end of 77 years of peace in Europe and the end to unilateral NATO hegemony over the continent. A new world has emerged, we can only wait and see how it pans out.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | Hong Kong needs zero-COVID, the West doesn't understand why

Opinion | Let's talk about Wikipedia: The chaotic encyclopedia that anyone can manipulate