World War II Must Be the Last World War Ever

The year 2013 marks 70 years since the Teheran conference, which had such a momentous effect on the outcome of World War II, post-war Europe, and the world. On the eve of the anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War, we consider the importance of the agreements reached by the Big Three, about the post-war world order, and the possibility of new world wars with Major General Evgeny G. Nikitenko and with Georgy A. Kumanev, director of the Military History Centre at the RAS Institute for Russian History.

The year 2013 marks 70 years since the Teheran conference, which had such a momentous effect on the outcome of World War II, post-war Europe, and the world.

On the eve of the anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War, we consider the importance of the agreements reached by the Big Three, about the post-war world order, and the possibility of new world wars with Major General Evgeny G. Nikitenko, formerly first deputy chief of the Military Science Division of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff, and with Georgy A. Kumanev, RAS Full Member, director of the Military History Centre at the Institute for Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, and chairman of the RAS Military Science Council.

Evgeny Nikitenko Major General, formerly first deputy chief of the Military ScienceDivision of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff

Georgy Kumanev Director of the Military History Centre at the Institute for Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, and chairman of the RAS Military Science Council

Evgeny Nikitenko
Major General, formerly first deputy
chief of the Military ScienceDivision
of the Russian Armed Forces
General Staff

Mr. Nikitenko, what relevance do the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam agreements have today? Do they have any impact on international relations?

History should be a lesson to us, and indeed it is. These agreements are a demonstration of the right way to address such a huge issue as World War II was. The conferences managed to find a way, through international law, to secure the future and map out the route for global progress with the aim of preventing a third world war. So far, we have succeeded.

At the same time, certain aspects of the decisions taken at the Yalta and other conferences had their role to play at a certain time in history but later became obsolete and required changes. Some agreements, due to facts of history, need updating today.

The end of World War II marked the beginning of a bipolarity that ended in 1991 with the disintegration of the USSR. In your opinion, how stable is the present world order, and what will the future order look like?

Nothing can be stable in this world, as it evolves by resolving differences which are a kind of constant. Conflicts emerge that nobody could have foreseen. Thanks to the Yalta Conference we avoided a third “hot” world war but could not avoid a cold one. This Cold War had a “hot” leading edge. By this I mean certain local wars such as those in Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Resolving conflicts by force will never lead to a multipolar world order: there will always be bipolarity. Also, multipolarity cannot last long, because contradictions arise and it is difficult to grasp where a particular conflict could lead. That is why scholars of international relations, statesmen and academics need to study, as well as to monitor, the field of foreign policy.

I could name three outstanding contributors who have been involved in carrying out applied analysis, they are: the late Mark Khrustalev from the Moscow Institute (University) of International Relations (MGIMO); Evgeny Primakov and Igor Ivanov. Igor Ivanov, in his recent papers, has shared thoughts on modeling, monitoring and forecasting foreign policies based on external factors after Russia’s new Foreign Policy Concept was published.

Do you think new world wars can happen in a multipolar world?

Resolving disagreements by force is always fraught with the risk that weapons of mass destruction may be used. Any incident similar to the Caribbean Crisis or today’s situation in Korea may prompt some “hawk” of a politician, like John McCain, to push the world towards another world war. The possibility of this actually happening cannot be ruled out so long as we face certain contradictions; armed conflicts emerge and become uncontrollable while we are looking for new approaches to solving armed conflicts such as symmetrical, systemic wars, which are simply new ways to use weapons to resolve differences. Informational weapons should not breed wars, but we have witnessed evidence to the contrary: the Arab Spring. Or take, for example, the war on terror, which arguably should not involve large-scale operations. That said, it is now the US that seems to be continuing the disastrous Soviet policies in Afghanistan.

It is through the armed resolution of global contradiction that states, blocs, alliances or even civilizations collapse. Take all the new nations states in Europe, or the many new states that were created through violent extremism in the Arab world. Any information war conceals a certain form of political extremism that often leads to violent extremism, and opens up new ways and means of taking military action in the future, during which some new kinds of weapons will be used.

Do you think that states will continue to be key actors in world affairs in the future, or will they be supplanted by other actors (such as corporations, multilaterals, terrorist groups or others)? Could this decentralization cause international relations, as we know them now, to vanish?

I think that as long as there are governments that unite people across the world, the risk of a world war is mitigated: states today, in the multipolar world, cherish their independence and their future. Look at what is happening in Syria and how resilient it has been. Take Afghanistan: this country has been at war for as long as it has existed, it has offered resistance but still prizes its statehood.

China presents a very interesting example, with the revival of the world’s most ancient civilization, that has come about largely due to its economic performance. However, the economy is grounded in ideology. The essence of both ideological and economic foundations in China is to bring people together. They want to work, believe and succeed. This may be something new that we may want to consider and learn from.

I suggest you look at the successes our international relations achieved during WWII and after. What diplomats and the intelligence services did helped to bring the war to its end faster and with fewer casualties. Diplomacy has not lost its significance today. I teach the masters course at the Moscow Institute (University) of International Relations (MGIMO) , and I feel I need to point to one thing about this university. Whatever ideas Russia may be entertaining today – liberal, democratic, or pseudo-democratic – education and an understanding of the future at this university are steeped in the interests of the state. Much like international relations, this university cannot exist without the state. International relations are the manifestation of state interests.

Georgy Kumanev
Director of the Military History
Centre at the Institute for Russian
History, Russian Academy of
Sciences, and chairman of the
RAS Military Science Council

Georgy Aleksandrovich, how important were the agreements reached in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam to international relations?

As is known, during the Second World War and immediately after it, the leaders of the Soviet Union, United States of America and Great Britain held three meetings. The decisions adopted at these conferences were of great importance formankind’s destiny. Undoubtedly, those decisions are still high on today’s agenda because one cannot overestimate their impact on the entire period of post-war development. They determined many aspects of relations between the Soviet Union and its former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, primarily the United States and Great Britain.

Why, do you think, the Big Three (the USSR, USA and Great Britain) failed to sustain allied relations after the war?

Above all, I would like to point out that our former allies, the countries in the West, were the first to violate many of agreed-upon decisions. Suffice it to remember Churchill’sspeechat the ceremony in Fulton in 1946 attended by US President Truman. At the time he declared that, in his opinion, the Soviet Union had long been striving to expand its territory, and the West had to be prepared there to.

Today certain “connoisseurs of history” put the blame on the Soviet Union, claiming that it was the main violator of arrangements reached at the Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, as well as was the initiator of the Cold War. However, thefactsprove that, namely, our allies were the first to violate the agreements. Though, onehastopointoutthatas the Soviet Union (after the United States) acquired nuclear weapons, they were of outstanding importance in preventing a new world war. Thiswaswhat formed and sustained the post-war statusquo.

Are new global wars possible in the future?

We all believe that we will be able to preserve peace, though certain facts look visibly alarming. Among them is the deployment of the US anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe under the pretext of preventing aggression from Iran and North Korea. However, those countries are located far away from the actual positions of anti-missile defense systems; therefore, in my view, the system is aimed at Russia. We believe that such unfriendly steps against our country, if pursued, might entail the most unwanted fallout.

Besides, one cannot rule out the possibility of bilateral military conflicts between other states possessing nuclear weapons (for instance, between India and Pakistan). Such conflicts can also develop into a new world war, which is completely unacceptable. Naturally, I cannot be absolutely sure that this would ever happen, as I am a natural optimist, and I believe that the human mind will prevail over aggressive ambitions of various countries.

Letus hope that the development of world civilization, which we have managed to sustain primarily due to the efforts of our Armed Forces, will continue. Winston Churchill once said that there was no force in the world capable of stopping Hitler’s expansion and preventing the end of civilization; however, such a force materialized. The force was the Soviet Union and its valiant Red Army. Of course, we have to be ready to build such a defense system so that our potential enemy will be fully aware that an attack against Russia would bring him no good. At the same time, we have to remember that a new world war could be the last one and turn into the end of humanity.

Interviewer: Nikolay Markotkin, RIAC program coordinator.