Zaluzhnyi: Why wars repeat and global leaders fail to act

At the time of the opening of this museum in 1917, the author of this statement, George Santayana, one of the leading representatives of American critical realism, a recognized classic of American philosophy, a famous writer and publicist, was 54 years old. However, the inscription itself would appear only 19 years after the opening of this museum and 14 years (in 1936) after the publication of this slogan in his world-famous Soliloquies in England.

Perhaps, thanks to a visit to this museum, one day a person who is involved in global decisions will be able to understand for himself, for example, what are the main factors that make wars possible at all?

And most importantly, if there is no time for long lectures and sleepless nights while studying at the university, understand that the cyclical nature of history exists precisely in order to avoid these mistakes that lead to large-scale victims.

This cyclical nature has now brought us to the point where it is still possible to make a decision on what to do next. Because if it is possible to agree that the war that has been going on for 13 years in the center of Europe was perceived by those who could have made a global decision, but did not, due to an attempt to carefully deal with Russia's desire for unlimited expansion and historical regularity, then the recent events in the Middle East, which are the largest conflict of the 21st century in this region, simply cannot be attributed to any reasons specific to this region. And by all appearances, this is not the end.

Is there any connection between these two largest conflicts of the 21st century in Europe and the Middle East? Is there any common feature that has led and will continue to lead to numerous victims, probably not only in this region? In my opinion, yes. Firstly, all this became possible precisely because of the lack of will, responsibility, and courage to make any global decision. Or maybe there is no one to make it.

Both Munich and Davos, unfortunately, instead of producing global solutions in the field of economics and security, have confidently become media platforms where the analysis of speakers' speeches is the only thing left for the still existing think tanks. But both the war in Europe and the war in the Middle East, although they do not demonstrate millions of allied armies fighting heroically, are definitely a global problem. It was clear and obvious that if the Russian-Ukrainian war could not be stopped by a global solution, we would become witnesses and participants in a new major confrontation.

This has already happened in history. The inability or unwillingness to make timely decisions and relying on someone else's luck or wisdom always carries the risk of gradually escalating conflicts.

Because it was our war, the largest in Europe, that led first to the inability to resolve conflicts diplomatically, and later to the destruction of international law both de jure and de facto. Then indeed, a destroyed balance in one part of the world, of course, brings the desire and necessity to destroy the balance in another place. And so on until global war. Or to a war in which the number of local conflicts will approach the Third World War in terms of intensity and consequences.

It is about global solutions based on history and its lessons, which are left by generations that are leaving forever. It is precisely the understanding of the essence of war and its consequences that should prompt those who start wars and those who will try to end them, that any war as a process will always have two consequences.

First: as a result of it, someone won and captured something or defended something. Some side lost something, but found its victory in this. War has implemented and continues to implement someone's state policy through violence. In this process, someone became a hero, someone tried to rewrite history to hide mistakes, someone became a general or marshal. Someone saw the end of their war because they died. It seems like everything is clear. But what about people who have separate exhibits in the same museum? For example, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Bernard Montgomery.

The answer is very simple. These people were responsible for peace and the future.

The second consequence of every war is that each of them, like an epidemic, carries the mission of starting the next war. It is here that these people, as a result of upbringing, difficult and persistent study, and experience, were involved in creating global solutions that required circumstances and responsibility for the future.

For example, including the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, caused discontent in Germany and, as a result, led to World War II. Because it was this country that lost significant territories and was forced to pay reparations, which led to an economic crisis and the growth of nationalist sentiments.

That is why Russia, which lost the Cold War and was forced to accept the independence of its former possessions, is trying to take revenge through brute force, regain its dominant role in Europe, and maintain its influence in other regions of the world, in particular the Middle East.

It was thanks to such people and their knowledge that developed countries managed to avoid external aggression and prevent civil war due to post-war crises for a fairly long period of time. Therefore, Ukraine does not need time to prepare and hold elections, but peace that will ensure a future for our children. Like, for example, our grandfathers, my generation, did it with their blood. It is this kind of blood that is justified.

By resorting to present-day expertise, especially regarding the options for the development of events, many experts return us to the implementation of the first function of war and try, as in the summer of 2023, to make a show of events that ultimately lead to disaster. Regarding these expert assessments, let me remind you that in 2022, Russia expected to defeat Ukraine in a matter of days, or even hours. This confidence was dispelled only when the Russian Guard fighters in parade uniforms, with rubber batons and orchestras, remained forever on the outskirts of Kyiv.

Retired American generals, writes Sean McFate, flaunted themselves on television, predicting that Russia would inevitably defeat Ukraine by Friday. 

Most of the world perceived Russia's victory as inevitable, albeit tragic. However, something went not according to expectations, but according to a harsh truth that could change everything. The Ukrainian people themselves took the chance and made a global decision. And we are still fighting.

It is the game of soldiers by politicians and the media that eventually distracts the first one from responsibility for the main thing, but what will we ultimately get? The outcome of Versailles, while perhaps the only possible one, lasted only 20 years and brought my homeland final occupation, famine, and ultimately war. The world has got another global war with spectacular catastrophic consequences. Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, although they brought us freedom only after 45 years, brought stable peace for 63 years, until the now-defunct signatory state attacked Georgia, dissatisfied with the results of the Cold War and the Belovezha Accords. 

Exactly six years later, the same disgruntled country attacked my homeland without any obstacles. It is precisely as a result of the Cold War that another country has become an economic power, and it is obviously striving to gain political influence that will correspond to its level. We will soon see how it will achieve this influence, because there are no obstacles to this either.

These obstacles may arise, but based on how this process called war will end. The outcome is simply impossible to predict.

All world attention is now focused on the escalation in the Middle East. The rapidity of past wars and their systematic involvement in this region have given rise to many variations and fantasies. At the same time, showmen were looking for their niches, economists were looking for theirs, and the media, fighting AI, were drawing out their own scenarios. But presumably, all these people, both politicians and military personnel, who were preparing for the last war, also took the standard of past valor and measured their own rightness. I am forced to disappoint everyone. Today it is impossible to predict and forecast the course and options for the end of this war.

The large-scale changes that have occurred on the battlefields of the Russian-Ukrainian war have completely changed the paradigm of how warfare is waged and, as a result, have changed the very essence of the combat capabilities of those who would like to test them. It's a pity that some people looked at our war through rose-colored glasses. It's completely in vain. Because today, in a relatively cheap way, any country can have combat capabilities that are completely incompatible with its economic or demographic situation. If there is a desire and political will. This is the first thing that could be key in this already war-torn region. It is this that will determine the further fate of this war.

Traditionally, according to forgotten textbooks, this war will have only two strategies in realizing its political goal. These are the strategy of defeat and the strategy of attrition.

With the first strategy, everything is clear, as with “Kyiv in three days”. Probably someone thought that this was possible in this region also. However, it is definitely not about three days. How many days exactly – let the experts analyze.

But then, if at least the defending side switches to a strategy of attrition, the attacking side will definitely have big problems. Because cheap and highly effective technologies will not only destroy the oil industry, but will also destroy the economy of anyone who tries to test Ukraine's experience.

There is one more thing that can be foreseen. It is very dangerous if one of the sides tries to test how the “kill zone” works in desert terrain. This will be a disaster. I'm talking about a ground operation. Because let me remind that the most important thing about the “kill zone” technology is that it not only makes no sense for living people to be in this zone, but there is no possibility. Because this area is completely controlled by drones that hunt people and machines.

It will be a big mistake if someone tries to turn a soldier into a machine. Because as one Ukrainian commander said, this technology works for some, but it is very harmful. Of course, it will probably not reach the point of understanding this and scaling up various machines that will fight against machines in combat zones and deep in the rear on logistical routes due to its own pride and grandeur. Because according to their logic, this is a war of the poor. By the way, I warned an American official about this, just before the events in Venezuela.

Regarding Ukraine, there is perhaps only one clear positive, apart from the invitation to help organize an air defense system and the soon-to-be obvious invitation to organize combat operations on the ground, eventually someone will come to understand the very concept of security guarantees and the capabilities of some peacekeeping contingents. I hope this is still remembered. 

So, if you hear that this is another war – a war between the major world powers for influence and power, think carefully about whether everyone is physically ready to fight for this. It is certain that at least three countries are already ready for it – one of them is constantly ensuring this war and improving technologies, another one of them is Ukraine. This is the most important positive for us. Everything else: war is the most terrible thing that humanity has invented.

Finally, I would like to note that if it is difficult to get to the museum in London, then it is quite easy to find the British-American film, the historical military drama directed by Ridley Scott in 2001 – Black Hawk Down. It is enough to watch the credits to this sad story. Behind these credits are the fates of thousands of people who were looking for their truth and, apparently, never found it. Except those who saw the end of that war. And it will be the same. It will be necessary to find a way to live longer until the next war, regardless of how it ends.

As for Somalia, as of 2025, the federal government controls only part of the territory, while Somaliland in the north functions as an independent state with its own currency and elections, although not recognized by the world – a paradox that highlights Somali ingenuity in survival and another lesson of war.

Therefore, when noting the crisis of global governance and reflecting on the future, those who even dream of this future need to remember the following:

• What mistakes and who made them on the eve of, for example, the last global war?
• What role do politicians and the military play in war?
• What are the characteristics of wars and what was decisive in them – human resources or weapons?
• Is it possible for both politicians and military personnel to make mistakes in war?
• How crucial is, for example, institutional learning and the ability of the system to learn faster – compared to individual commander skill or heroism?
• What from the experience of wars is most dangerous today for misinterpretation and can lead to wrong strategic decisions?

 

Perhaps this is what will help to perceive the reality and logic of the processes even for those who are not yet at their epicenter.

By the way, entrance to the museum is free. It is open daily from 10 am to 6 pm. For the convenience of visitors and for reflection, there are three shops and a cafe on the museum territory, where you can taste fresh pastries with English tea or aromatic coffee.

Valerii Zaluzhnyi