nrc.nl
Europe's Rearmament Debate: Echoes of 'The Great Illusion'
Sir Norman Angell's 1909 book, "The Great Illusion," warned against the economic folly of war, a view echoed today by some opposing European rearmament against Russia; however, Vladimir Putin's history of aggression, despite economic setbacks, shows that economic rationality is not always a deterrent.
- What are the immediate implications of solely relying on economic arguments to deter Russian aggression, considering the historical failures of such reasoning and Putin's track record?
- Sir Norman Angell's 1909 book, "The Great Illusion," argued that war between industrialized European nations was economically irrational. This argument is echoed today by those opposing European rearmament, believing the costs outweigh the benefits of defending against Russia. However, Vladimir Putin's actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and North Africa demonstrate that economic rationality doesn't always deter him.
- How does the comparison between Angell's initial argument against war and current debates about European rearmament highlight the limitations of purely economic perspectives on geopolitical conflict?
- Angell's central thesis, that economic interdependence would prevent major European wars, proved tragically wrong with the outbreak of World War I. Similarly, current skepticism towards European rearmament mirrors Angell's initial argument but ignores Putin's history of aggression despite economic consequences. The comparison highlights the limitations of purely economic analysis in predicting geopolitical actions.
- What long-term strategic adjustments should European nations make to account for the evident limitations of economic deterrents in preventing aggression by states that prioritize strategic goals over economic costs?
- The continued relevance of "The Great Illusion" lies in its demonstration of the fallacy of assuming rational actors in international relations. Putin's disregard for economic costs in his various conflicts suggests that relying solely on economic deterrents is insufficient to prevent aggression. Europe's choice between "butter or cannons" must consider that prioritizing economic growth might leave it vulnerable to military threats.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate around the economic rationality of war, heavily emphasizing the views of those who believe that war is economically irrational and thus unlikely. While presenting counterarguments, the framing gives disproportionate weight to the economic arguments against rearming, potentially influencing readers to underestimate the risks.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although words like "machtsbelust" (power-hungry) and descriptions of Putin's actions as "grof geweld" (brutal violence) carry negative connotations. While these terms are not inherently biased, they contribute to a portrayal of Putin and Russia in a negative light. More neutral alternatives could be used for greater objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the economic arguments against rearming, presenting the viewpoint that economic costs outweigh benefits. However, it omits discussion of potential non-economic factors that could influence a decision to attack, such as geopolitical strategy, national pride, or internal political pressures within Russia. The omission of these factors creates an incomplete picture and may lead readers to underestimate the potential for conflict.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between "butter" (economic prosperity) and "cannons" (military spending), suggesting that Europe must choose one over the other. This simplification ignores the possibility of balancing economic development with sufficient defense capabilities. The author later acknowledges this simplification to some extent, but the initial framing remains influential.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the ongoing debate about European rearmament in response to potential Russian aggression. The skepticism towards rearmament, mirroring arguments from Norman Angell's "The Great Illusion," highlights a failure of international institutions to prevent conflict and maintain peace. The reliance on economic rationality to deter aggression, as shown to be ineffective by Putin's actions, points to a weakness in the existing international security framework and the need for stronger, more effective institutions to prevent war and promote peace. The article also highlights the potential for miscalculation and escalation when relying solely on economic deterrents, further emphasizing the importance of robust international institutions and mechanisms for conflict resolution.