Today reminds me of the 1937
In an earlier life I was a history student fascinated by the history of warfare as I understood that there was no greater risk to humanity than another world war – this time with thousands of nuclear weapons on all sides.
Although ex-President Medvedev is seen as a fool in the west his 2023 comment explains the dilemma facing President Putin and his clique:
“If Russia ends the special military operation without a victory, then Russia will cease to exist, it will be torn to pieces.”
- from Ukrainska Pravada
If we don’t acknowledge this thinking we will not understand what is at stake in Ukraine’s fight with Russia and why we all need to do more to support Ukraine. If Russia thinks it is losing this war it will continue to escalate. There are many suggestions for what Russia may do next. Some of them are shown in the table below:
What about the UN?
As the recent UN meetings have shown, the UN is completely irrelevant to the question of war in 2026 and is just a place where leaders can speak and sound important without influencing anything. The only hegemon who attended the UN President Trump made the US position clear:
“The United States will no longer permit threats to America to gain a foothold anywhere in the Western Hemisphere — and if necessary, we will use our unmatched military might to secure the vital national interests of the United States… We are reasserting American power, including American military power where necessary, in our region and around the world to create a safer future for all of us.”
White House Press Release “While Others Have Talked, I Have Acted”
There were, however, some important speeches at the UN, one which really resonated with me:
Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide captured my understanding exactly when he recalled the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, imprisoned under Mussolini, and quoted a popular version of his writing:
Norwegian Foreign Minister’s speech at the UN
Mr Eide went on to say that the UN was essential and that reform of the UN was needed – I disagree with him on this point – reform of the UN is not possible as the three hegemons do not want an effective UN.
Only a coalition of democracies can be an alternate to the UN & successfully oppose the three hegemons
I am sure many people will disagree with lumping the US with President Putin’s Russia and President Xi’s China – my response if President Trump talks like a hegemon, acts like a hegemon – he is hegemon
Australia is a great example of a nation that thinks that the US will be its protector despite everything President Trump has done – how hard is it to image a scenario where President Trump and President Xi do a deal – The CCP stop supporting Iran and the US agrees to giving the CCP a de-facto equivalent of what it demands for the Americas - control over Taiwan and dominance in Asia. Does anyone think that President Trump could not make this sort of deal?
Unlike Australia, Japan and South Korea are strong enough to defend themselves in the short term at least from a rampant China – Australia has zero trade resilience with China and it almost totally reliant on the US for its defence equipment, logistics and protection. What happens if/when Australia has to choose between the two hegemons? Canada shows what can be done, can Australia accept the very real risk that it may have to choose and treat 2026-2027 like 1937-38?
What can you do?
Look at what happened in 1937 and 1938 and just consider if today is in similar. Is now ‘the time of monsters’? Can the UN do anything to prevent war? Will Russia go further – think about 2022 when the US was warning of an imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russians and even the Ukrainians didn’t believe they would be invaded.
If the old world order is broken how can we help a new world order by democracies working together - not just on trade but on real defence agreements. If the US is no longer our senior partner, how can our countries build resilience by moving away from both China and the US?
And to the most important question right now – how can our country help Ukraine and prepare for war before January 2029 when a new US President takes office (we hope). The risk of war is highest over the next two years as Russian will do anything it thinks can help it win the war in Ukraine and the US military is at its weakest.
Every country that supports Ukraine needs to look at its defence expenditure and its reliance on the US defence industry:
The UK shows the way - under Project OCTOPUS, Ukraine has transferred combat-proven interceptor-drone technology to the UK for joint development and mass production in Britain, with thousands intended for Ukraine each month.
Japan, South Korea and Australia should urgently develop similar projects with Ukraine focusing not just on land drones but on naval drones, ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles as quickly as possible.
Both the UK and France started major and accelerated rearmament programs in 1936 after Germany’s rapid rearmament program began in 1933 and then re-militarised the Rhineland on 7 March 1936.
Russia seized Crimea in February 2014 and invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Spending billions of dollars on submarines or other equipment that might not arrive before the early 2030s is exactly the wrong decision. If Australia cancelled AUKUS the Defence Department would have anywhere between $12-$15 billion to reallocate to a partnership with Ukraine over the period 2026-2028.
The threat is real, it is imminent and if Russia wins in Ukraine the consequences will ripple around the world.