I first met Ferguson in 2010, and our paths have crossed many times since at conferences across Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Now based at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, he has established himself as one of the world’s leading historians.
While Consilium operates under Chatham House rules, Ferguson has given me permission to share insights from his keynote address. I am glad he did because his warnings could not be more timely.
History, Ferguson argues, shows us that major conflicts typically arise from two conditions: economic volatility and imperial decline. Both are present in geopolitics today.
The collapse of the Soviet Union created a vacuum in Eastern Europe. Putin’s Russia, like Germany after World War I, emerged from this collapse with a sense of humiliation and revanchist ambitions.
Ferguson’s analysis was particularly striking because it systematically dismantled a narrative that has gained considerable traction in some Western policy circles. Indeed, last year’s Consilium conference featured one of that other narrative’s leading proponents, John Mearsheimer. The University of Chicago political scientist argues that NATO expansion provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Mearsheimer’s thesis, which aligns eerily with the Kremlin’s own propaganda, has found receptive audiences among those seeking to rationalise Western disengagement. Yet as Ferguson demonstrated, it was not NATO enlargement that led to war in 2022 – that is just Putin’s line. Instead, as Ferguson made clear, it was the ongoing appeasement of Russia which paved the way for Putin’s war against Ukraine.
As Western support for Ukraine wavers, Ferguson sees parallels between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon that should alarm allies. Like Nixon, Trump sees allies as freeloaders who must pay their way. Like Nixon, he sees the limits of American power and the importance of negotiating with adversaries.
But there is a crucial difference. Watergate destroyed Nixon. Meanwhile, Trump survived impeachment twice. As Trump himself noted: “He left. I do not leave.”
A second Trump presidency would likely reassess relationships with allies seen as not pulling their weight. That means foremost Europe. But it could also include Australia and certainly New Zealand.
We now face what Ferguson terms a new “Axis” – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions.
However, as Ferguson laid out, this is not a repeat of Cold War I, and that is mainly because modern technology has changed the game entirely.
The first Cold War offered limited choices for the big powers: either nuclear Armageddon or proxy conflicts. In contrast, today’s confrontation is more complex. Cyber warfare, psychological operations and economic coercion blur the lines between war and peace.
China’s actions around Taiwan illustrate this perfectly. No shots have yet been fired, but China’s constant pressure through military exercises, cyber-attacks and economic threats make this a new form of war.
The West’s response to the new geopolitical threats hardly inspires confidence. Germany’s regular defence budget amounts to just 1.2 percent of GDP – comparable to Weimar-era defence spending levels when the Treaty of Versailles deliberately constrained German rearmament. While Germany claims it will meet NATO’s 2 percent target this year, this is achieved only through a temporary special fund (Sondervermögen) and some creative accounting.
The comparison with more recent history is also telling. As Ferguson reminded the audience, relative to GDP, Germany spent more than three times as much on liberating Kuwait in 1990 as it does today on supporting Ukraine.
Ferguson shared a small but telling detail from his visit to Kyiv in September: it was a pizza place founded by war veterans, which displayed the ancient Latin maxim “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – if you want peace, prepare for war. It is a lesson that Ukraine and Europe have now learnt the hard way over the past two and a half years.
As I listened to Ferguson’s speech, the implications for New Zealand became clear, even though he focused his remarks on his Australian audience. But they apply to New Zealand just the same, if not more so.
There are some 17,000 kilometres between Wellington and Kyiv. That might tempt us to view the conflict as a remote European squabble. Yet Ferguson’s historical perspective reveals this as dangerously misguided.
World Wars, by definition, are not regionally limited affairs. And the new Axis that Ferguson identified between Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Pyongyang poses a global threat. Yet where is the response by those liberal democracies that should feel threatened?
Even Australia, our closest ally, commits just 0.05 percent of GDP to supporting Ukraine while maintaining defence spending at 1.99 percent of GDP – barely meeting NATO’s minimum threshold. And much of Australia’s projected defence increase will be absorbed by nuclear submarines under AUKUS – vessels that will not arrive until 2040.
Meanwhile, Australia’s permanent uniformed personnel has dropped to just 58,600. This is happening precisely when China tells its military leaders to prepare for war by 2027.
As the new Axis relentlessly adds to its combined nuclear arsenal, Western leaders seem more concerned by more conventional policy questions than the prospect of World War III.
To Ferguson, this is a dangerous misreading of priorities. Authoritarian regimes study Western responses carefully. They coordinate more than we might realise. They share technology, intelligence and strategic insights.
And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by NATO’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of NATO’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that Western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan.
When deterrence fails, war often follows. And so, the big question is whether the West still has the power and the will to create a credible threat against potential aggressors – and whether it can demonstrate this resolve early enough to the new Axis.
Ferguson at least remains optimistic that the West could prevail in this new era of power competition, not least because of its technological and economic advantages. But all this depends on learning the lessons of history.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
History, Ferguson argues, shows us that major conflicts typically arise from two conditions: economic volatility and imperial decline. Both are present in geopolitics today.
The collapse of the Soviet Union created a vacuum in Eastern Europe. Putin’s Russia, like Germany after World War I, emerged from this collapse with a sense of humiliation and revanchist ambitions.
Ferguson’s analysis was particularly striking because it systematically dismantled a narrative that has gained considerable traction in some Western policy circles. Indeed, last year’s Consilium conference featured one of that other narrative’s leading proponents, John Mearsheimer. The University of Chicago political scientist argues that NATO expansion provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Mearsheimer’s thesis, which aligns eerily with the Kremlin’s own propaganda, has found receptive audiences among those seeking to rationalise Western disengagement. Yet as Ferguson demonstrated, it was not NATO enlargement that led to war in 2022 – that is just Putin’s line. Instead, as Ferguson made clear, it was the ongoing appeasement of Russia which paved the way for Putin’s war against Ukraine.
As Western support for Ukraine wavers, Ferguson sees parallels between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon that should alarm allies. Like Nixon, Trump sees allies as freeloaders who must pay their way. Like Nixon, he sees the limits of American power and the importance of negotiating with adversaries.
But there is a crucial difference. Watergate destroyed Nixon. Meanwhile, Trump survived impeachment twice. As Trump himself noted: “He left. I do not leave.”
A second Trump presidency would likely reassess relationships with allies seen as not pulling their weight. That means foremost Europe. But it could also include Australia and certainly New Zealand.
We now face what Ferguson terms a new “Axis” – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions.
However, as Ferguson laid out, this is not a repeat of Cold War I, and that is mainly because modern technology has changed the game entirely.
The first Cold War offered limited choices for the big powers: either nuclear Armageddon or proxy conflicts. In contrast, today’s confrontation is more complex. Cyber warfare, psychological operations and economic coercion blur the lines between war and peace.
China’s actions around Taiwan illustrate this perfectly. No shots have yet been fired, but China’s constant pressure through military exercises, cyber-attacks and economic threats make this a new form of war.
The West’s response to the new geopolitical threats hardly inspires confidence. Germany’s regular defence budget amounts to just 1.2 percent of GDP – comparable to Weimar-era defence spending levels when the Treaty of Versailles deliberately constrained German rearmament. While Germany claims it will meet NATO’s 2 percent target this year, this is achieved only through a temporary special fund (Sondervermögen) and some creative accounting.
The comparison with more recent history is also telling. As Ferguson reminded the audience, relative to GDP, Germany spent more than three times as much on liberating Kuwait in 1990 as it does today on supporting Ukraine.
Ferguson shared a small but telling detail from his visit to Kyiv in September: it was a pizza place founded by war veterans, which displayed the ancient Latin maxim “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – if you want peace, prepare for war. It is a lesson that Ukraine and Europe have now learnt the hard way over the past two and a half years.
As I listened to Ferguson’s speech, the implications for New Zealand became clear, even though he focused his remarks on his Australian audience. But they apply to New Zealand just the same, if not more so.
There are some 17,000 kilometres between Wellington and Kyiv. That might tempt us to view the conflict as a remote European squabble. Yet Ferguson’s historical perspective reveals this as dangerously misguided.
World Wars, by definition, are not regionally limited affairs. And the new Axis that Ferguson identified between Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Pyongyang poses a global threat. Yet where is the response by those liberal democracies that should feel threatened?
Even Australia, our closest ally, commits just 0.05 percent of GDP to supporting Ukraine while maintaining defence spending at 1.99 percent of GDP – barely meeting NATO’s minimum threshold. And much of Australia’s projected defence increase will be absorbed by nuclear submarines under AUKUS – vessels that will not arrive until 2040.
Meanwhile, Australia’s permanent uniformed personnel has dropped to just 58,600. This is happening precisely when China tells its military leaders to prepare for war by 2027.
As the new Axis relentlessly adds to its combined nuclear arsenal, Western leaders seem more concerned by more conventional policy questions than the prospect of World War III.
To Ferguson, this is a dangerous misreading of priorities. Authoritarian regimes study Western responses carefully. They coordinate more than we might realise. They share technology, intelligence and strategic insights.
And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by NATO’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of NATO’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that Western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan.
When deterrence fails, war often follows. And so, the big question is whether the West still has the power and the will to create a credible threat against potential aggressors – and whether it can demonstrate this resolve early enough to the new Axis.
Ferguson at least remains optimistic that the West could prevail in this new era of power competition, not least because of its technological and economic advantages. But all this depends on learning the lessons of history.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
9 comments:
While I don't want to see the new axis of evil become dominant, I can also see Nixon's and Trump's point of view. Why should the US taxpayer be subsidizing the rest of the world's defense arrangements? If countries like NZ want to keep our fisheries, intellectual property and other resources we need to take responsibility for protecting them. Otherwise it's like someone leaving their belongings on the street hoping nobody will take them.
Good allies do not sit back and let one in the group spend all the money. Good allies do not cry about how unfair it is when it is pointed out they are breaking the agreement.
As for building up our armed services, absolutely. However, of those pushing for such an outcome, how many are suggesting their own family members sign up.
You lost me at “inspirational” and “think tank”.
I would not have paid money to listen to Ferguson’s story, his version of his-story that is.
Niall Ferguson is a "court historian" whose job it is to shore up and provide justification for US interests, just like Oliver does in his columns.
It's simply not credible to claim that 30 years of NATO expansion precipitated Russia going into Ukraine. Post-USSR, why does NATO even exist? It exists to keep Russia in check, because Russia is obviously a competitor to US (i.e. NATO) hegemony in Europe. This argument is based on observable reality (that is, NATO expanding Eastward) as well as logic (i.e. the rationale I posit for NATOs expansion).
Moreover, aside from the many CIA-led manufactured "Colour Revoultions" in former Soviet states to install US-friendly puppets, the US also instigated a coup in Kiev in 2014 to remove a Russia-friendly administration.
It's actually a wonder that Putin has been so restrained for so long, what with NATO/US/EU's intense attempts to subvert and diminish Russian influence in Europe (and last time I looked, the United States isn't even part of Europe, despite their invasion of Europe in 1943/44 and their continued occupation since then, militarily, economically and culturally).
By contrast, what does the alternative explanation (i.e. a vague idea of "appeasement" of Russia - as if Russia, and not NATO, is the aggressive expansionist party) have to do with observable reality and logic?
Can I align my comment to the one "posted by Anon @3.36 AM 1st Nov" (my tongue in cheek ?? someone wide awake at that hour - what was on TVNZ, Three, Sky News, YouTube).
What was written by the Author of the Article and especially in relationship to both Nixon ( who broke all the Rules as a President of the USofA and visited China) and then Trump (who also broke 'the rules and visited Korea & spoke with Kim Jong Un of North Korea) - but it is Trump that my focus turns to especially NATO.
There is a comment with the article [quote] - "Trump sees the allies as freeloaders who must pay their way.." [end quote] - which to means that some was watching and listening to the first 3 years of Trump's Presidency, when visiting Germany ( & NATO HQ) told the Europeans, that they need to up the anti on financing NATO, as America would "not continue to carry the financial burden" and Angela Merkel " laughed at him over this comment".
What was NOT revealed at the time, was the Germany financial support to their own Military had "been clipped".
As an aside, the amount of Military stock, held in "bone yards "in Germany ( and also Belgium) is amazing.
America had also commenced to reduce Military aspects, stationed in Germany since 1945, on the belief that NATO Nations would "take up the baton". That has, since been proven to be a "false premise".
You also need to look at how many Non NATO Nations "ran their application forms" - to NATO HQ, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which IF NATO had been on their toes, would have anticipated this move, because Master V Putin had already indicated what he was going to do. And that was put in print by many European Media.
An interesting article, we wait see "what unfolds" or are we seeing that in the Middle East at the moment?
Oliver, I’m guessing but I suspect you’ve never carried a rifle or worn the shredded brains of a fellow soldier on your beret. If that was so, you might be somewhat more in favour of ‘jaw, jaw,’ as Churchill put it, than war, war.
I amwith Mme Blavatsky. As I have noted elsewhere in these annals, NATO is simply an instrument of the US the foreign policy of which includes provoking Russia and seeking a showdown with Russia on European soil. Speaking as a [fellow] European, we don't need or want US meddling in our relations with Russia whom we have been able to deal with satisfactorily for many centuries before they even existed as a nation.
Whilst Roger Douglas’ otherwise excellent paper included in this week’s edition covered most matters requiring long term initiative and planning, the word “Defence” did not feature once. This is a deeply disturbing omission
The US and NATO caused the Russia/Ukraine war pure and simple. Many Russian leaders repeatedly warned the US and NATO not to encroach on the Ukraine - they ignored these warnings. Imagine what would happen if Russia invaded Canada and started building up arms on the US boarder. We all know the obvious answer to that particular scenario. Why then expect Russia to do nothing while the US and NATO set up camp on Russias boarder? It’s a no brainer isn’t it?
Post a Comment