Hacker News Reader

Comment by cirgue | Hacker News Reader

Safer for whom? A part of the security logic of neoliberal globalization, whatever it’s other flaws, is to force strategic interdependence between states specifically to make conflict an absolute last resort. Like I want Chinese dependence on foreign markets and I want EU dependence on Russian oil, because as soon as that economic codependency dries up, military intervention is now feasible as a response to crisis. The reason we’re not in a world war right now is because Europe must tread carefully and so must anyone who might align themselves with Russia for reasons that have nothing to do with the possibility of military force, which we all know is subject to uncertainty and an attractive prospect for leaders who like to gamble.

View on HN

Interdependent trade was theorized to promote peace, but it was only ever a theory, and one that’s becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day that Russia remains in Ukraine. Certainly there are aspects of the concept that are true, but Germany’s dependence on Russian gas is now limiting its ability to respond to a crisis. They’ve handicapped themselves and can no longer promote peace and in fact are funding a war.

The same thing was assumed right before the first world war. Back then we also had globalization. It didn’t prevent the war and globalization didn’t return until after the second world war.

>it was only ever a theory, and one that’s becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day that Russia remains in Ukraine.

This seems like a bit of a silly point, given that the war in Ukraine is, at least so far, nothing compared to the conflicts of the past. Do we wanna rush head first back into something that reliably produced worse conflicts than we see today simply because what we have going now isn't perfect?

>Germany’s dependence on Russian gas is now limiting its ability to respond to a crisis. They’ve handicapped themselves and can no longer promote peace and in fact are funding a war.

A bunch of western companies are pulling out of Russia over this and it looks like the whole thing is going worse for the aggressors here than they expected. I'll take this over Germany and Russia engaging directly in armed conflict.

That's the wrong take, and here's why. Interdependent trade doesn't promote peace as much as it discourages outright war. Russia is beating on Ukraine, but it has crossed a field of knives to do it, and will bleed out very soon. Russia will be the example that everyone will point to when their leader starts rattling their sabers.

You're assuming that Russia is all but defeated, but that's an assumption that may not hold. China has recently agreed to provide military assistance to Russia, likely drawing out the conflict further. Rather than prevent war, we may have given our adversaries the economic means to wage a way more intense war than would have been possible otherwise. Surely, Russia wouldn't have as much support had we not bankrolled Russia and its allies for decades. America's trade policies have greatly enriched hostile nations. America has enjoyed global hegemony for a long time, but other countries are sick of picking up the scraps. They want America's seat at the table.

In many ways, the theory that interconnected trade promotes peace is similar to the neo-liberal economic view that globalization promotes lower prices and thus more efficient economies. Such a view has been shown to be an over-simplification and ignores important side-effects of changing trade balances, such as rising economic inequality and the rise of populism.

Yeah I had a similar discussion with a friend. If China was serious about trade and the international "balance" they wouldn't be sending money and arms to Russia, which looks like they probably already agreed to

> force strategic interdependence between states specifically to make conflict an absolute last resort.

The problem with that logic is that it only kinda works for large, powerful, rich countries as they are the only ones with any leverage. This is also highlighted by your own comment when you refer to China, EU, Russia, and we can add US and a few other countries to the mix.

Everyone else is screwed, as shown by the Ukraine invasion, China's constant sea-land grab in the South China Sea, China trying to land grab against India and Bhutan, and so on. So, regardless of how we may want the above to work, the old rules still apply.

In fact I'll say it's made it worse, since now US and China are dependent on each other to not engage in a direct war, but that means China is now free to screw around everyone else without worrying about US interference.

In case of Russia and EU's dependence on its oil, Russia tried to call the bluff and failed, but the EU is still not interfering and Russia oil was sanctioned just recently. So, it turned out bad for Ukraine.

The security logic was just as you say, but it never seemed very compatible with the facts of history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars), as there have been plenty of wars started _because_ of global trade. But regardless, current events ought to put the final nail in the coffin of this wishful-thinking (but commonly held) piece of logic. Regardless of whether or not it _should_ make countries less likely to go to war, it doesn't in fact actually seem to.

Safer for whom?

Not Ukraine. If trade interdependence keeps democracies from defending other democracies, but doesn’t deter Russia, then it is counterproductive.

There is probably value in interdependence, but it can’t be blind interdependence - it needs to be conditional and truly multilateral. If EU depends more on Russian fossil fuels than Russia depends on EU imports, it isn’t really interdependence.

Trade is not what's keeping Europe from joining the fight with Ukraine. It's nuclear weapons. If the Russians didn't have nukes, they would have already been forcibly expelled from Ukraine, and we'd be debating about whether to push them out of Crimea.

If Russia didn't have nukes the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 wouldn't have been allowed to stand and we wouldn't be talking about another one in 2022.

To save you some typing,

>The reason we’re not in a world war right now is

Nukes.

I like this idea in theory, but in practice I'm not sure if it does much to prevent major conflict.

If I recall correctly, the "interconnectedness" of Europe of the Early 1900s was thought to be the reason that a large war was not possible.

Perhaps increased trade will help nations to settle smaller disputes via diplomacy but the outbreak of war seems to be something can defy rational explanation. That is, we can't always expect that the leaders and citizens of aggressor countries are making rational decisions.

I think nuclear escalation is the thing keeping russia and china from starting an all-out war. Russia has been employed to try to incrementally conquer territory that China wants more control of, the challenge is to try to avoid nuclear war while doing so. I dont understand why china doesn't just buy what it wants, but maybe the cost basis has become important to keep their industry going.

With Russia invading Ukraine it shows that EU's dependence on Russian oil and gas means nothign to Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com