In 1970, Edwin Starr released a song with a very simple question, apropos for the time when the U.S. was hunkered down in Vietnam. War, what is it good for? In his estimation the answer was simple, absolutely nothing. My question today is, was his answer comprehensive enough to be correct?
It used to be, principals in a war battled for lands that offered resources, routes to markets or simply more people to tax. The winning party suffered losses but they were economically worthwhile in their estimation. War was generally localized. If factions in Europe wanted to kill one another, people in the United States were more or less immune from consequences. But then the world changed. For the better we thought. Interconnectedness created interdependence and shared interests that would lead to unending peace and prosperity. However, we failed to see in that interdependence, we created a delicate balance where we not only share in prosperity, but also shared suffering during conflict.
As the war in Ukraine continues, and as a result of interconnectivity, the principals of this conflict are not just Ukraine and Russia. The European Union, dependent on Russia for natural resources and the United States, eager to reassert global leadership after an abdication of the throne for a few years are de facto principals, along with NATO.
Economically, much of the world is suffering high inflation. That inflation is only being exacerbated by the war’s resultant high costs of oil and natural gas. In Ukraine, the economic and humanitarian impact are unimaginable. In Russia, similar losses are being inflicted on a constituency that didn’t ask for war and have largely been immobilized from leaving Russia as a result. Europe and the U.S. have become embroiled in the fight for both economic and humanitarian reasons. The euro has cratered and while the U.S. dollar remains strong, it is increasingly vulnerable. In this sense it would seem Starr was right about the results of war. But what about the non-principal nations on the periphery?
It’s true, sanctions on Russia caused the ruble to all but collapse in the immediate aftermath of the war. But sanctions which blocked Russian exports were quickly rerouted to China and India. Before the war, India received about 1% of their oil from Russia. Today, Russia accounts for approximately 18% of Indian imports. Venezuela, too, increased oil exports and subsequently, increased their importance as a South American power in Russia’s absence. Saudi Arabia, a country that murdered and mutilated a Washington Post journalist and was largely isolated from the U.S. as a result, is now being asked to increase oil output. And in Israel, backchannel markets are being facilitated between Russia and other nations to keep the Russian economy growing, increasing the importance of Israel in the process.
In the 21st century, war is no longer isolated with respect to implications. Sure, natural resources, national security, etc. might initiate war, but the consequences extend beyond. Non-participants, who are not always what we might consider as favorable nations, can benefit. Intended consequences can backfire by empowering actors that had been marginalized for good reason. New alliances can emerge, such as we’ve seen with Russia vis-à-vis China and India, that not only stabilize but strengthen an aggressor, as has happened with the Russian ruble.
So to answer Edwin Starr’s initial question, war, what is it good for? I respectfully submit it’s good for non-principal actors who, whether by intention or not, were positioned to capitalize on the misfortune of others.
War is all about money & power, suffering those who have neither.
There is nothing good about it
Fro several decades now, I've been researching what is at the heart of why the world has always, and is continually, been lead in various self-destructive directions. A couple of years ago, I created a series of web pages that explain what I've found -- as well as solutions that, surprisingly, spawn more solutions! Here is my introductory site:
www.nomoreinsanity.org