In 1 of the last books, the celebrated Anglo-Saxon historian Niall Ferguson already notes in the first conviction that “at present we have never been so insecure about the future and at the same time have not been as ignorant of the past as now” (Fatum. Politics and Disasters of the Modern World, Kraków 2021, p. 7).
This means that the forgotten and mythological past does not give a chance to learn from past mistakes, and the deficiency of imagination and cognition does not let for anticipating future risks. This conviction became peculiarly crucial due to the dangerous coronavirus pandemic, the tragic war in Ukraine and the recurring natural disasters, specified as earthquakes. Many people have realized that pandemic phenomena, volcanic eruptions, tectonic movements of the earth's crust and war, known from the predilections, can not only surprise with their strength and destructive effects, but mark unknown and dangerous economic, social, geopolitical or technological perspectives.
The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse
– Pestilence, War, Hunger and Death – they experienced humanity at different intervals throughout history. In pictorial terms, disasters and disasters frequently trampled on each other’s heels, sometimes even marching arm to shoulder. Interestingly, however, the effects of disasters, even those geological, ecological or biological, depended mostly on human activity. but possibly the hits of giant meteorites. Even earthquakes, as is now seen in Turkey and Syria, are all the more tragic, the worse the quality of construction, informing negligence and urbanism. Similarly, the negative effects of the pandemic exposed mediocre wellness care, the failure of the ruling and many years of preventive errors.
Interestingly, media publicity has made it possible to see an increase in panic and hysteric moods (infodemia) disproportionate to the number of victims, which various governments have utilized to reduce freedom or to dismantle democratic governance mechanisms. Together with IT technologies, the possible to spread misinformation, manipulate facts, supply ready-made assessments and bias judgments has increased dramatically.
Reaching into various historical associations, 1 can be tempted to say that pandemics did not halt people from causing another cataclysms. "Black Death" (the plague) in the mediate Ages did not prevent the escalation of the 100-year war, and the celebrated Spanish flu did not prevent the civilian war in Russia. Today, no 1 is amazed that coronavirus pathogen can spread faster due to mass displacements of the population, caused by war disasters and natural disasters.
War is for many people vis maior. It is treated in terms of paralyzing inevitability, even though politicians consciously origin it. abruptly all rational counterarguments lose their sense of this only right choice. Each, even the stupidest and most harmful, is justified by the action of a “force majeure”. From the point of view of a sober national interest assessment, this is absurd and harmful reasoning.
Clearly, even more dangerous effects than human organisms are caused by an infection of the head with a pathogen. These are more tragic in effect due to the fact that they lead to the physical demolition of people, but besides unimaginable suffering, moral and material destruction. By the way, there is simply a phenomenon known from the phrase Hannah ArendtThe banality of evil. People get utilized to war, so that in time it becomes an almost natural state of functioning. The narration imposed turns into a warlike ideology, in which it is worth sacrificing and even giving up its life. Terrified and confused people are subjected to the psychosis of war, and foolish propaganda makes them hostages of warring parties.
Sweep of confusion
The similarity of pandemics and wars is, therefore, to sow confusion in human minds on an unprecedented scale. Propaganda campaigns in both cases focus not on conveying the truth, but on bringing lies and nonsense to the undeveloped recipient, and above all on demonizing selective sources of disasters, without careful diagnosis of their circumstances. Bringing the outbreak of war to the will of 1 man is the top absurdity of today's propaganda.
Today, people are intimidated by various tragic consequences of climate change, rising sea levels, or hitting the Earth with another asteroid, while regular it is the folly and self-will of politicians and hidden stakeholders that brings real energy, communication or food disasters to people. The same is actual of any war. And no 1 is liable in practice.
At the same time, small is done to make mankind aware of the disastrous effects of another threats, specified as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence systems, the threat of open cyber warfare (exclusion of all delicate infrastructure for human life) or nightmare scenarios for the improvement of nanotechnology. The saddest thing is that fewer governments (if at all one) care about any remedies against threats of unknown probability and indefinite occurrence time.
Worse still, governments themselves, fearing unknown changes, are moving towards social disasters, subjecting people to ubiquitous surveillance and control that they never dreamed of. George Orwell. According to many problem experts, this is simply a simple way to global totalitarianism. Calling for the unification of humanity against various threats, "devils" are assumed for the erstwhile civilizational conquests, including civilian liberties. fresh ideologies, based on the tyranny of political correctness and pseudo-egalitarianism and the "beating in the breast" for the sins of erstwhile generations, deepen the processes of destruction. Degeneration of the quality of governance increases the negative effects of these processes.
Returning to war threats, their escalation is out of control. During the ongoing war in Ukraine, there was a terrible right of inertia, inability to think alternatively, bad will, desire for revenge and revenge. Governments lose their ability to break the bloodbath. On the contrary, they are trying to guarantee that the zeal of war does not weaken, that subsequent instalments of aid sustain the ability to destruct and that the tranches of sanctions limit it. There is simply a paradoxical momentum toward the abyss. The powerful of this planet from afar distant and calculatingly watch the theatre of shameful war at the expense of innocent people.
It besides turns out that wars don't teach anything. In the context of what is happening in Ukraine, it is hard to believe how willingly the Western planet supports a war confrontation. It is simply a war per-procure, in which Ukraine pays the biggest victim, but this does not change the fact that many governments with more or little social support denied the ideals of peace and political reason. It is only the experience of tremendous destruction, human exodus, and the spectrum of disasters that will lead to the search for remedies. Unfortunately, for many unnecessary victims, this will no longer matter. As Ferguson writes, “we are amazingly rapidly forgetting that we just stood face to face with death, and we start looking back into the future, trying to erase from the memory of those who have not been as fortunate as we were and not think of another disaster” (p. 513).
Since the 1950s, erstwhile leaders of opposing military-political blocs have gained access to mass demolition weapons, there is simply a threat of mass suicide by the will of conflicted parties. It seemed that the Cold War confrontation had taught the leaders of the powers of any restraint not only in pursuit of usage but even in the very thought of utilizing atomic weapons. The consequence of conscious activity was to reduce hostility and respect the rule of non-aggression. The usage of atomic weapons or another mass demolition was considered neither rational nor morally acceptable. The awareness of the effects of these weapons triggered the imagination of rational decision-makers that after the atomic war the planet would embrace atomic winter. Those who last would envy those who died in the fire.
In the light of what is happening in Ukraine, powers with these weapons, including Russia, the USA and the United Kingdom, are ready to relativize ethical intentions and actions. The very possession of atomic weapons allows not only to endanger it, but besides to declare its intention to usage it conditionally, even on a limited battlefield. So where are the earlier atomic weapons ban agreements? After all, they were voluntary commitments by each organization and were made in good faith. They created mechanisms to prevent any madman from causing utmost disaster.
The ban on atomic war is simply a categorical imperative for which governments, global organisations, churches, social movements, people of discipline and culture advocate. What happened to the anticipation of utilizing atomic weapons that political lunatics and incalculable generals mess again? And on each side of the Western-Russia confrontation. Dr. Strangelove from the celebrated movie satire Stanley Kubrick (1964) He again ceases to worry and begins to “love” the bomb.
All permanent members of the UN safety Council have the position of atomic powers (US, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France). They have absolute work for global peace and security. It is from them that the alleged global community has the right to anticipate that, in an emergency situation, they urgently call a gathering at the highest level, put everything on the same balance in order to save what is the most crucial value, that is, peace.
More war manifestos of the “highest leader” are of no usage if they deficiency the will to end this cruel war, threatening to escalate. On the occasion of another visit by the American president to Poland, it would be good to know all the likely consequences of Western war strategy towards Russia. It is not adequate for the masses to hope to completely defeat Russia as an aggressor, without a possible of post-war coexistence between conflicting states and nations.
It would besides be worth learning how the staff of US and NATO experts estimation the hazard of getting out of control of the war in Ukraine and turning it into planet War III. Russia is not going to specified a war, which is due to its declaration and material possibilities. Who, then, present is the threat of an escalation of war? The hazard of this condition is all of us.
“Partition to War”
More and more analysts wonder what is the most crucial origin in the popular “war support” in the West. Many technological seminaries will surely be devoted to explaining this phenomenon. Today, however, we request to ask questions not so much as the war, but how it can be completed without expanding costs and damages. It is worth asking specified questions publically to a distinguished guest from outside the ocean. It is hoped that control and sighting of the front runs will not consequence only from the paternalist function of the American hegemon, striving to defeat the enemy. You'd like to hear a different script from what it sounded like during the U.S. President's first visit a year ago. After all, no of the people of goodwill enjoys promising long and bloody warfare. Society expects – and this is shown increasingly by the results of the polls – to end the absurd war and launch an effective peace initiative.
So let us ask the president of the United States how he understands the "indivisibility of security" in the modern world. Why are any countries allowed more and others allowed less? Where does the unrestrained momentum of democratic America come from to lead others without asking them? After all, nations, including Poles, Ukrainians or Russians have their own right to specify national interests, without imposing on them from outside, how they should deal with neighbours and build their future.
The global strategy is based on the pluralism of participants, systemic diversity and multiculturalism. This complexity is an recognition feature of states and nations. It is impossible to subdue 1 ideology and 1 power. Unless, according to the eschatological belief of the end of humanity, the planet will plunge into full chaos, approaching inevitably the catastrophe caused by technology. Then the north of the “death watch” will mean atomic armagedon.
War, nevertheless fair, is never better than the worst peace. It is not actual that we will build peace through war. Recalling the “golden” thought of the Roman historian from the 4th century C.E. Vegetius: si vis pacem, a pair of bellums (you want peace, prepare for war) proves not so much about the deficiency of deep historical reflection, but about cognitive blindness. After all, under the conditions of atomic arsenals, any full - scale war threatens to annihilate all. Whoever starts it first dies second. The anticipation of a retaliatory blow to each side of the strategical balance is the essence of the atomic pata. And so far it has guaranteed the stableness of the "armoured peace".
Thus, those who mention to the expected timeless wisdom must realize that they most frequently mean same - fulfillment prophecy. If 1 of the parties to the competition is armed with the aim of deterring the other, 1 day he is likely to hazard a preventive blow. In the arms race there is simply a clear safety dilemma: who will attack whom first? Besides, how many weapons, ammunition and deadly equipment can be produced and collected for permanent deterrence? Finally, 1 side’s patience is over, and it is essential to usage the collected arsenals to replenish supplies again. This is the logic of the large arms complex, especially in the United States, whose production requires constantly fresh orders from countries. These must, therefore, cyclically organise “war expeditions” in the form of various armed interventions to sustain and even boost the improvement of the economy through militarisation.
“Possible for anything”
The middle-ranking countries, and among them Poland, will never be able to match the level of arms to large powers, including stronger neighbours. That's why they gotta make defence doctrines, not escalating and offensive. The designation of a hopeless conflict with a much stronger opponent as its specialty should yet affect the young generations of Poles soberingly towards realistic reassessment of safety policy, rejecting romanticist insurektionism and missionary prometeism. In order to keep a lasting peace with stronger neighbours, 1 must build compromise ties on a regular basis, in addition to arms and allied support, and apply strategies of arrangement through cooperation alternatively than competition. This sooner or later will lead to specified a state of tension that the collision will be inevitable. And the consequence of the clash is determined by the relation of forces. There is large political and historical cognition on this subject, but not all politician has any thought of it. Therefore, Poles are exposed to existential threats due to ignorance, naivety and crazy emotions of ruling amateurs and ignorant people.
Thus, in the context of various threats, there is simply a request for liable and effective leaders who, alternatively of being empty - mouthed and pompous, show human empathy and ability to respond rationally. Meanwhile, we have a unique deficit in the planet of wise leaders who would meet the challenges, stand up to madmen and stand up to the truth. At present there are besides people in Poland who are capable of everything, but that does not mean that they are competent and prudent. Following the political scene, it can be concluded that in certain situations even what seems improbable becomes possible. Since Cicero, it has been known that people are frequently swindled into terrible pranks. Then even trivial errors can have criminal consequences.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 9-10 (26.02-5.03.2023)
