It’s a question that these days, many are asking. From Ukraine to the Middle East, Taiwan and North Korea. Crises in these countries have at various stages, dominated the headlines and shook the financial markets, crises further compounded by climate change, immigration, and the resurgence of political extremism.
John Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance never seemed so distant...or has it?
In the midst of all this, the Doomsday clock is ticking and has remained at 90 seconds to midnight for a second year in a row citing worry about Russia’s potential use of nuclear weapons amid its invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s war on Gaza and worsening climate change as factors driving the risk of global catastrophe.
The closest it had ever been, was when it was positioned at two minutes to midnight – initially in 1953, following thermonuclear weapon tests by both the US and the Soviet Union, and then again in 2018, attributed to “a breakdown in the international order” among nuclear players, alongside persistent inaction regarding climate change.
In these times of constant news bombardment, what a few years back would have been a routine minor incident between two nations would now be presented as a worrying escalation.
Before the internet and social media, which often present skewed perspectives, our access to news was more limited. With no 24-hour news channels constantly needing content, we relied on evening broadcasts, neatly packaged.
The BBC World Service offered deeper dives for the curious. Those brief moments of news held weight as the primary window to the world, fostering a greater respect for journalism.
Therefore, one can only speculate about what would have been the prevailing sentiment during World War I or as regions liberated themselves from colonial rule, or more recently, with the collapse of the USSR, which laid the groundwork for many of today’s crises especially Ukraine, though not only.
The way things stand, it is very doubtful as to who the clear-cut winner will be in the theatre of war that presented the world with hybrid warfare when Russia took over Crimea. This might as well present us with a hybrid victory for one side or the other, or both.
Doubtful as to who the clear-cut winner will be in the theatre of war
All this notwithstanding some major surprises. Ukraine still has to put into service the F-16s it has been donated, which albeit a formidable fighting machine, is not expected to deliver that decisive blow necessary to win the war.
Now, one must observe the outcomes of the military aid package provided to Ukraine by the United States. Russia, in a sense, holds the advantage, with its military forces stationed on Ukraine’s doorstep, benefiting from a continuous supply line that may be disrupted but not completely eradicated. Whether it’s drones from Iran or missiles from North Korea, the flow persists.
North Korea, situated on the other side of the globe, continues to worry the world with its unpredictability. Amidst missile tests and nuclear threats directed towards South Korea, Pyongyang remains as enigmatic as ever. With its persistent belligerence and calls for readiness for war, predicting what each new day may bring remains a challenge. Patterns have however, emerged.
The US maintains a strong alliance with South Korea, primarily driven by security concerns regarding North Korea. The presence of U.S. forces in South Korea acts as a deterrent against North Korean aggression and helps maintain stability in the region. Additionally, South Korea is a crucial economic partner to the US, with bilateral trade and investment ties benefiting both countries’ economies.
Taiwan represents another volatile hotspot in the region, where tensions could escalate with significant and far-reaching consequences.
Like many of the above crises, even the Taiwan issue has long been festering with China in no way giving the slightest intention of backing off.
The situation involving Taiwan and China is indeed complex and has significant implications for regional stability and U.S. interests. The United States has historically supported Taiwan, through arms sales and defence agreements, due to its strategic importance in the Asia-Pacific region.
The potential reunification of Taiwan with mainland China, whether peacefully or through force, would undoubtedly impact U.S. foreign policy and security commitments in the region. It’s crucial for the U.S. to carefully navigate its relationship with both Taiwan and China to uphold its interests while promoting stability and peaceful resolution of disputes.
In each of the scenarios involving Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan, the United States has significant vested interests due to strategic, geopolitical, and historical reasons.
Predicting specific outcomes is challenging due to the multitude of factors at play all with the potential to easily escalate a situation, especially in the absence of any “Hot Line” agreement between Washington, Moscow and now Beijing. A hot line which during the Cold War saved the world from many far-reaching confrontations.
This article was first published in the April issue of The Corporate Times