As global tensions proceed to rise, it can be seen that they are the consequence of nonsubjective contradictions between powers, as well as intentional and cynical force from political, militaristic and media circles.
Few people are aware of the intensification of the hazard of a global war, although all these environments are preparing us for the already begun or waiting for the threshold of planet War III. This tamement of people with the coming Armageddon is part of a phenomenon that can be called escalationism.
Its basis is escalation, referring to successive phases of conflict situation, characterised by an always higher degree of antagonisation of the parties. Intensification of antagonistic attitudes is accompanied by the logic of the necessity of hostile exchange of punches, maneuvers and countermanoeuvres, attack and retaliation, sabotage and terror. These processes take place in an emotional and verbal dimension as in physical and material terms. The first is expressed in the rhetorical-propagand sphere, criticisms, invectors, insults, difamation erstwhile the second means acts of physical violence, material destruction, repression, persecution, genocide.
It seemed that the Cold War Age should teach mankind to be careful how to avoid dangerous tensions and how to entrust power to prudent and liable politicians. In the end, despite mad ideas for the demolition of the enemy, we managed to keep "armoured peace" for decades, which gave the basis for the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems and ideological systems.
All the more reason, now that immense advancement has been made in the field of demolition technology, is that conflicting players in the power game should put force on them to de-escalate and even on fresh "relax" ones. The awareness of the hazard of common annihilation should find any decision that brings humanity closer to disaster. However, there is not only a deficiency of restraint in reaching out to utmost means of destruction, but simply calling for them. It is not only cognitive aberration and conscious contempt for the rules adopted after planet War II. It is the moral defeat of human reason and the announcement of the "end of everything."
Although there are many conflicts in the world, the top threats of escalation are associated with the Russian-Ukrainian and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. In fact, the full region of the mediate and mediate East is presently in turmoil and crises, specified as in Israeli-Iranian relations. This gives the concept of escalationism a sinister character. It carries out all the risks: from evasive conflicts, destabilization of markets and economical collapses, geopolitical polarisation, humanitarian crises, uncontrolled waves of emigration, epidemics and famines.
Fixed factor
Escalationism is no longer a tendency, it is simply a permanent correctness in global relations, expressed in increasing hostility between Western powers, taking care of their superiority and advantage, and the "revisionist" powers that the global order would like to base on the mechanisms of balance of forces in the multipolar system. These include mainly China and Russia, but besides a large group of Global South countries. Splitting the global strategy around the largest centres of Western and South forces becomes a fact.
The U.S. seeks to keep its hegemonic position without having a coherent strategy on this. The differences can be seen from the example of the democratic internationalism of Joe Biden and the imperialist transactionism of Donald Trump. The 2 strategies do not avoid reaching out to the politics of force, and the accompanying rhetoric invariably creates the illusions of America as the basis for peace, freedom and democracy. All in all, we have been dealing with the same aggressive America for years, which cannot imagine losing its patronage in the hierarchical Atlantic community and the function of an arbitrator and intervened in the global strategy of forces.
The most unfortunate thing is that democratically legitimized politicians have lost control of political processes for the benefit of the spiritual forces, to which peculiar services belong. These are real decision-making, initiating and resorting to force, acting in hiding and having no democratic mandate or no responsibility. In addition, the governments of Western powers, including the US presidential administrations, have become hostages to large capital and militarists who have a powerful influence on the definition of national interest and aggressive way of implementing abroad policy. They have besides succumbed to ideological enslavement, whose origin dates back to the old ideas of the request to lead others and regulation over strangers (religious crusades, colonial conquests, criminal expeditions, humanitarian missions, peculiar operations, etc.).
Two open war theatres in Ukraine and the mediate East exposed the power of Zionist lobbying in the United States. Against this background, the decision-making limitations of the president of the United States and the accompanying paradoxes and contradictions are clearly visible. It is highly likely that Trump is committed to gradually normalising relations with Russia, in order to increase counterweight against China, but is at the same time plunged into further supporting Ukraine's losing war. The deficiency of determination and submission to the force of proukrain "hawks" greatly weakens Trump's position. Yet, without the aid of the US, European support will no longer be adequate to defend Ukraine against surrender. This all means that American diplomacy occupies a kunktatory and reactive attitude, alternatively of determined initiatives and actions to halt this insane war.
The US can effectively influence Ukraine's policies, which they are incapable to do with Russia. The political circles of Washington are aware of how strong the determination of the Russian authorities, with the overwhelming support of society, to accomplish the strategical objectives set. Among them is the construction of a ‘neutral’ safety zone, in which Ukraine must choose an unaliened road. Despite the illusions of any of Ukraine's partners, including the Polish president and the government, the chances of accepting this country into Western structures will decrease alternatively than increase.
Russia in its alliance with China and another BRICS+ countries appears to be a atomic power, opposed to the claims of the Washington rulers, advocating a deconcentration of Western hegemony for polycentrism and multipolarity in the global system. Restoring the mechanisms for balancing forces would be a stabilising function and a warrant of peace. Since neither organization wants to take a compromise approach, nor can it resolve a conflict of interest through armed clashes, there is simply a “escalation trap”. This is primarily intellectual blackmail, erstwhile there is no area for manoeuvre, and the temptations to outsmart the enemy, to increase emotional strength, to increase atavistic hatred, and yet to be ready to usage extremes.
Escalation limits
It turns out, however, that there are limits to escalation that must not be exceeded. advanced voltages propose a real anticipation of utmost reactions. These include the threat of atomic warheads being made available to the affected state. The Russian doctrine of "nuclear parasol", which presently covers Belarus, can in future besides cover another countries. This position of Moscow is an crucial informing to the West against involving Ukraine in NATO's atomic warrant system.
On the another hand, the example of the implementation of the strategical agreement between Russia and Iran shows that the US, despite its military commitment to Israel in the 12-day war with Iran, is afraid with the force Russia has exerted on each other's countries. In Poland, these signals are underestimated, but they prove – and this is optimistic – that the parties active in both conflicts – in Ukraine and the mediate East do not lose their sense of rationality.
Donald Trump's administration realizes that the biggest obstacle in the transactional approach is blocking communication channels. In direct contact, we can rebuild the conditions of trust that have fallen to zero. It became an urgent necessity to reconstruct the function of “special envoys” for a reason (Steve Witkoff). Direct communication not only helps to quench negative emotions, but helps to make a coherent communication infrastructure based on the building of situational, partnership and information links. Especially in the case of the latter, the aim is to admit straight the intentions of the opposing party, not to trust on the messages, innuendos and suppositions.
However, the problem of communication between Russia and the West is more complicated than many experts in global relations. The point is that alleged communication competence has been lost, i.e. the parties to the confrontation deny each another credibility, and the strategy of excluding Russia from all major consultative bodies contradicts the logic of diplomatic efficiency. There's a reason Trump regrets that Russia was wrongly removed from G8. Not only was contact lost, but besides the anticipation of persuasion.
Western leaders have benefited in the last decade from the comfort of moral condemnation of Russia and contempt for the Russians, but in time this proved to be a origin of sad dissonances. alternatively of humiliating and isolation, Russia regained its vigor in its relations with the Global South countries. The sanctions brought the other effect to the intended, and the shift of the Russian economy to war mode resulted in its strengthening alternatively of the expected degradation. This is reported by various reports, but there has been a constant communicative in Poland over the years about “a ellipse on clay legs”.
In the trap of rusophobia
The modern generation of Western leaders does not realize the Russian strategical culture, based on a large deal of patience, but besides the ability to ruthlessly repost erstwhile its hard to admit boundaries are exceeded. This happened after repeated Western provocations to Russia, erstwhile this was busy with interior consolidation problems, and the West, breaking earlier declarations, shifted its organization influences towards Russia, especially in the military field. The expansion of NATO to the countries of Central and east Europe and the Baltic States had an freezing effect. Russia was limited to warnings and warnings. However, erstwhile the borders of the erstwhile USSR were crossed, placing influences in Ukraine after the Western coup in Kiev in February 2014, it became apparent that the borders of Russian patience were exceeded. The outbreak of the open war in Ukraine in 2022 was an apogee of an expanding conflict.
However, the results of the 3 years of war are ambiguous. Neither side suffered a severe defeat, but neither side had a decisive victory. Ukraine without the aid of the West would have long lost this war, possibly with a better consequence than today. Russia, on the another hand, gains further positions at the price of major human and material losses. As there is no coherent strategy to support Ukraine on the western side, there is much evidence that escalationism will shortly be reviewed. For now, the Ukrainian side has motivated an unequal conflict of passion, based on hatred, revenge and retaliation. It is crucial to keep a "war dictatorship" in Ukraine, which does not take into account the social fatigue and exhaustion of resources leading the Ukrainian state to ruin.
The Russian side is characterised by the belief in the inevitable triumph in the ongoing war, which seems to be possible in the light of the facts. It is not even about subjugating Moscow to all Ukraine. The game is about its "geopolitic distance" towards Euro-Atlantic military-political structures, excluding the western affiliations of Ukraine. After the last NATO summit in The Hague, it all indicates that the deadline for Ukraine's admission to this alliance was set aside ad calendas gracecas. possibly this is simply a signal to Vladimir Putin to agree to start diplomatic negotiations.
International relations of the 3rd decade of the 21st century match a dangerous and breathtaking game of large powers that strive for a fresh hand of leadership roles and a fresh correlation of forces among themselves. The fact that this is happening at the expense of smaller and weaker states does not worry anyone among the powers. The main concern is how from this terrible constellation conflicting forces and interests to appear alive, how to avoid utmost confrontation.
The tragedy of the situation is that both sides of the conflict – the West with Ukraine and Russia became hostages to their own explanation schemes, which were disseminated and internalized in broad masses after each party. due to this, we are faced with a peculiar phenomenon of cognitive inertia, as well as a deficiency of courage to admit our mistakes. As a consequence of the volt done by Donald Trump, it is already visible on the hand that dominant narratives about causes and actions in the war in Ukraine are not the only ones. Under the influence of inexorably penetrating truth, many mainstream media tend to carry out “critical tests” so as not to lose their credibility completely. Slowly, but effectively, many minds realize that in a complex planet of different values and interests there is no single prescription for solving common problems, not one, but only the right answer to human questions.
Nuclear deterrence
It is comforting that despite strong geopolitical passions, atomic deterrence is inactive effective. Contrary to the mass propaganda run of the West against Russia, the main players did not lose control over the course of events. I'm certain if there wasn't a atomic striker, the war between Russia and NATO would have gone off a long time ago. A circumstantial phenomenon of the strategy of deterrence is that atomic weapons, or proverbial "nuclear bomb", are primarily a warrant against the usage of specified atomic weapons. This held the sides of the Cold War confrontation in the position of a "nuclear pact". The same mechanism, expressing the paradox of the useless "bombs", besides regulates modern relations between atomic powers. Escalationism has its apparent limits. Although they are subjective, due to the fact that resulting from the calculation of human nature, they save humanity from full war, creating among strategical decision-makers a sense of futility and senselessness of reaching for these weapons.
Escalationism as a consequence of a blind retaliatory strategy is most dangerous erstwhile decision-makers fall into a trap of irrationality, i.e. they commit suicide. It is not essential to prove that specified situations are most frequently influenced by fanaticism and utmost ideology. They mention alternatively to terrorist groups alternatively than to serious states that are sooner or later de-escalating measures, in the name of more crucial targets than the demolition of the enemy itself. An example of a regulation of war against Iran shows that both the US and Israel had to be aware of the strength of opposition from another atomic powers, especially Russia and China, and in turn Iran adopted an accommodation attitude, realizing the scale of the losses suffered. This did not prevent each conflicting organization from rejecting the “great victory”.
The process of escalation processes in global relations is presently influenced by technological innovation in the military field. There is another revolution in the field of arms before our eyes, and battlefields are a useful experimental ground for manufacturers of modern weapons and weapons. Wars in Ukraine and the mediate East show how hypersonic, supercomputer and quantum technologies and "drone swarms" utilizing artificial intelligence undermine strategical stability, understood as a situation of deficiency of stimulus for the first strike under atomic deterrence conditions.
Intensification of the arms race in qualitative and quantitative terms almost small surprises anyone, and anyone who expresses clear opposition is regarded in the eyes of pro-war media and "haunted" politicians as a traitor or a rebel. Getting people utilized to war as a “natural” way of practicing crippled politics and demolishing human consciousness, based on respect for Community values and peaceful management on Earth. It besides promotes the simplification of assurance and degradation of hazard simplification mechanisms in areas where endemic ethnic, racial, spiritual or territorial conflicts have been plagued for centuries.
Breakthrough weapons technologies carry the threat of the apocalyptic end of the planet we know. But there are opportunities to avoid disaster. The condition is to return to a rational control of arms, based on systematic and specialised dialog and fresh Treaty commitments that are made in good faith.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 27-28 (6-13.07.2025)
