causes of war essay

• Senior Fellows
• Research Fellows
• Submission Guidelines
• Media Inquiries
• Commentary & Analysis

Upcoming Events

• Past Events
• October 2021 War Studies Conference
• November 2020 War Studies Conference
• November 2018 War Studies Conference
• March 2018 War Studies Conference
• November 2016 War Studies Conference
• MWI Podcast
• Urban Warfare Project Podcast
• Irregular Warfare Podcast
• Social Science of War
• Urban Warfare Project
• Irregular Warfare Initiative
• Project 6633
• Shield Notes
• Rethinking Civ-Mil
• Competition in Cyberspace Project
• Book Reviews

Select Page

The Five Reasons Wars Happen

Christopher Blattman | 10.14.22

Whether it is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats of nuclear strikes or Chinese belligerence in the Taiwan Strait , the United States seems closer to a great power war than at any time in recent decades. But while the risks are real and the United States must prepare for each of these conflicts, by focusing on the times states fight—and ignoring the times they resolve their conflicts peacefully and prevent escalation—analysts and policymakers risk misjudging our rivals and pursuing the wrong paths to peace.

The fact is that fighting—at all levels from irregular warfare to large-scale combat operations—is ruinous and so nations do their best to avoid open conflict. The costs of war also mean that when they do fight countries have powerful incentives not to escalate and expand those wars—to keep the fighting contained, especially when it could go nuclear. This is one of the most powerful insights from both history and game theory: war is a last resort, and the costlier that war, the harder both sides will work to avoid it.

When analysts forget this fact, not only do they exaggerate the chances of war, they do something much worse: they get the causes all wrong and take the wrong steps to avert the violence.

Imagine intensive care doctors who, deluged with critically ill patients, forgot that humanity’s natural state is good health. That would be demoralizing. But it would also make them terrible at diagnosis and treatment. How could you know what was awry without comparing the healthy to the sick?

And yet, when it comes to war, most of us fall victim to this selection bias, giving most of our attention to the times peace failed. Few write books or news articles about the wars that didn’t happen. Instead, we spend countless hours tracing the threads of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, America’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the two world wars. When we do, it distorts our diagnosis and our treatments. For if we follow these calamitous events back to their root causes and preceding events, we often find a familiar list: bumbling leaders, ancient hatreds, intransigent ideologies, dire poverty, historic injustices, and a huge supply of weapons and impressionable young men. War seems to be their inevitable result.

Unfortunately, this ignores all the instances conflict was avoided. When social scientists look at these peaceful cases, they see a lot of the same preceding conditions—bumblers, hatreds, injustices, poverty, and armaments. All these so-called causes of war are commonplace. Prolonged violence is not. So these are probably not the chief causes of war.

Take World War I. Historians like to explain how Europe’s shortsighted, warmongering, nationalist leaders naively walked their societies into war. It was all a grand miscalculation, this story goes. The foibles of European leaders surely played a role, but to stop the explanation here is to forget all the world wars avoided up to that point. For decades, the exact same leaders had managed great crises without fighting. In the fifteen years before 1914 alone, innumerable continental wars almost—but never—happened: a British-French standoff in a ruined Egyptian outpost in Sudan in 1898; Russia’s capture of Britain’s far eastern ports in 1900; Austria’s seizure of Bosnia in 1908; two wars between the Balkan states in 1912 and 1913. A continent-consuming war could have been ignited in any one of these corners of the world. But it was not.

Likewise, it’s common to blame the war in Ukraine overwhelmingly on Putin’s obsessions and delusions. These surely played a role, but to stop here is to stop too soon. We must also pay attention to the conflicts that didn’t happen. For years, Russia cowed other neighbors with varying degrees of persuasion and force, from the subjugation of Belarus to “ peacekeeping ” missions in Kazakhstan. Few of these power contests came to blows. To find the real roots of fighting, analysts need to pay attention to these struggles that stay peaceful.

Enemies Prefer to Loathe One Another in Peace

Fighting is simply bargaining through violence. This is what Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung meant in 1938 when he said , “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.” Mao was echoing the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz who, a century before, reminded us that war is the continuation of politics by other means.

Of course, one of these means is far, far costlier than the other. Two adversaries have a simple choice: split the contested territory or stake in proportion to their relative strength, or go to war and gamble for the shrunken and damaged remains. It’s almost always better to look for compromise. For every war that ever was, a thousand others have been averted through discussion and concession.

Compromise is the rule because, for the most part, groups behave strategically: like players of poker or chess, they’re trying hard to think ahead, discern their opponents’ strength and plans, and choose their actions based on what they expect their opponents to do. They are not perfect. They make mistakes or lack information. But they have huge incentives to do their best.

This is the essential way to think about warfare: not as some base impulse or inevitability, but as the unusual and errant breakdown of incredibly powerful incentives for peace. Something had to interrupt the normal incentives for compromise, pushing opponents from normal politics, polarized and contentious, to bargaining through bloodshed.

This gives us a fresh perspective on war. If fighting is rare because it is ruinous, then every answer to why we fight is simple: a society or its leaders ignored the costs (or were willing to pay them). And while there is a reason for every war and a war for every reason, there are only so many logical ways societies overlook the costs of war—five, to be exact. From gang wars to ethnic violence, and from civil conflicts to world wars, the same five reasons underlie conflict at every level: war happens when a society or its leader is unaccountable, ideological, uncertain, biased, or unreliable.

Five Reasons for War

Consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. What do these five tell us about why peace broke down?

1. Unaccountable. A personalized autocrat , Putin doesn’t have to weigh the interests of his soldiers and citizens. He can pursue whatever course helps him preserve his regime’s control. When leaders go unchecked and are unaccountable to their people, they can ignore the costs of fighting that ordinary people bear. Instead, rulers can pursue their own agendas. That is why dictators are more prone to war .

2. Ideological. Consider Putin again. Most accounts of the current war dwell on his nationalist obsessions and desires for a glorious legacy. What costs and risks he does bear, Putin is willing to pay in pursuit of glory and ideology. This is just one example of intangible and ideological incentives for war that so many leaders possess—God’s glory, freedom, or some nationalist vision.

Societies have ideological incentives too. Unlike the people of Belarus or Kazakhstan, the Ukrainians refused to accept serious restrictions on their sovereignty despite what (at first) seemed to be relative military weakness. Like liberation movements throughout history—including the American revolutionaries—they have been willing to undertake the ruin and risks of fighting partly in pursuit of an ideal.

3. Biased. Most accounts of Russia’s invasion stress Putin’s isolation and insulation from the truth. He and his advisors grossly underestimated the difficulty of war. This is a story of institutional bias—a system that is unwilling to tell its leader bad news. Autocrats are especially prone to this problem, but intelligence failures plague democracies too . Leaders can be psychologically biased as well. Humans have an amazing ability to cling to mistaken beliefs. We can be overconfident, underestimating the ruin of war and overestimating our chances of victory. And we demonize and misjudge our opponents. These misperceptions can carry us to war.

4. Uncertain. Too much focus on bias and misperception obscures the subtler role of uncertainty. In the murky run-up to war, policymakers don’t know their enemy’s strength or resolve. How unified would the West be? How capably would Ukrainians resist? How competent was the Russian military? All these things were fundamentally uncertain, and many experts were genuinely surprised that Russia got a bad draw on all three—most of all, presumably, Putin himself.

But uncertainty doesn’t just mean the costs of war are uncertain, and invasion a gamble. There are genuine strategic impediments to getting good information . You can’t trust your enemy’s demonstrations of resolve, because they have reasons to bluff, hoping to extract a better deal without fighting. Any poker player knows that, amid the uncertainty, the optimal strategy is never to fold all the time. It’s never to call all the time, either. The best strategy is to approach it probabilistically—to occasionally gamble and invade.

5. Unreliable. When a declining power faces a rising one, how can it trust the rising power to commit to peace ? Better to pay the brutal costs of war now, to lock in one’s current advantage. Some scholars argue that such shifts in power, and the commitment problems they create, are at the root of every long war in history —from World War I to the US invasion of Iraq. This is not why Russia invaded Ukraine, of course. Still, it may help to understand the timing. In 2022, Russia had arguably reached peak leverage versus Ukraine. Ukraine was acquiring drones and defensive missiles. And the country was growing more democratic and closer to Europe—to Putin, a dangerous example of freedom nearby. How could Ukraine commit to stop either move? We don’t know what Putin and his commanders debated behind closed doors, but these trends may have presented a now-or-never argument for invasion.

Putting the five together, as with World War I and so many other wars, fallible, biased leaders with nationalist ambitions ignored the costs of war and drove their societies to violent ruin. But the explanation doesn’t end there. There are strategic roots as well. In the case of Russia, as elsewhere, unchecked power, uncertainty, and commitment problems arising from shifting power narrowed the range of viable compromises to the point where Putin’s psychological and institutional failures—his misperceptions and ideology—could lead him to pursue politics by violent means.

The Paths to Peace

If war happens when societies or their leaders overlook its costs, peace is preserved when our institutions make those costs difficult to ignore. Successful, peaceful societies have built themselves some insulation from all five kinds of failure. They have checked the power of autocrats. They have built institutions that reduce uncertainty, promote dialogue, and minimize misperceptions. They have written constitutions and bodies of law that make shifts in power less deadly. They have developed interventions—from sanctions to peacekeeping forces to mediators—that minimize our strategic and human incentives to fight rather than compromise.

It is difficult, however, to expect peace in a world where power in so many countries remains unchecked . Highly centralized power is one of the most dangerous things in the world, because it accentuates all five reasons for war. With unchecked leaders , states are more prone to their idiosyncratic ideologies and biases. In the pursuit of power, autocrats also tend to insulate themselves from critical information. The placing of so much influence in one person’s hands adds to the uncertainty and unpredictability of the situation. Almost by definition, unchecked rulers have trouble making credible commitments.

That is why the real root cause of this current war is surely Putin’s twenty-year concentration of power in himself. And it is why the world’s most worrisome trend may be in China, where a once checked and institutionalized leader has gathered more and more power in his person. There is, admittedly, little a nation can do to alter the concentration of power within its rivals’ political systems. But no solution can be found without a proper diagnosis of the problem.

Christopher Blattman is a professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. This article draws from his new book, Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace , published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: Oles_Navrotskyi , via depositphotos.com

25 Comments

War, in the end, is about Armed Robbery writ large; whether Committing it, Preventing it, or Redressing it. It is all about somebody trying to take somebody else's stuff.

Peace is the time of waiting for war. A time of preparation, or a time of willful ignorance, blind, blinkered and prattling behind secure walls. – Steven Erikson

That is the right reason, I do not know about the others, but I will give you a+ on this one

its beeches thy want Resorces

Wars often come when a group of nations (for example the USSR in the Old Cold War of yesterday and the U.S./the West in New/Reverse Cold War of today) move out smartly to "transform"/to "modernize" both their own states and societies (often leads to civil wars) and other states and societies throughout the world also (often leads to wars between countries).

The enemy of those groups of nations — thus pursuing such "transformative"/such "modernizing" efforts — are, quite understandably, those individuals and groups, and those states and societies who (a) would lose current power, influence, control, safety, privilege, security, etc.; this, (b) if these such "transformative"/these such "modernizing" efforts were to be realized.

From this such perspective, and now discussing only the U.S./the West post-Cold War efforts — to "transform"/to "modernize" the states and societies of the world (to include our own states and societies here in the U.S./the West) — this, so that same might be made to better interact with, better provide for and better benefit from such things as capitalism, globalization and the global economy;

Considering this such U.S./Western post-Cold War "transformative"/"modernizing" effort, note the common factor of "resistance to change" coming from:

a. (Conservative?) Individual and groups — here in the U.S./the West — who want to retain currently threatened (and/or regain recently lost) power, influence, control, etc. And:

b. (Conservative?) states and societies — elsewhere throughout the world — who have this/these exact same ambition(s).

From this such perspective, to note the nexus/the connection/the "common cause" noted here:

"Liberal democratic societies have, in the past few decades, undergone a series of revolutionary changes in their social and political life, which are not to the taste of all their citizens. For many of those, who might be called social conservatives, Russia has become a more agreeable society, at least in principle, than those they live in. Communist Westerners used to speak of the Soviet Union as the pioneer society of a brighter future for all. Now, the rightwing nationalists of Europe and North America admire Russia and its leader for cleaving to the past."

(See "The American Interest" article "The Reality of Russian Soft Power" by John Lloyd and Daria Litinova.)

“Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West.”

(See the “National Review” item entitled: “How Russia Wins” by David French.)

Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:

In the final paragraph of our article above, the author states: "That is why the real root cause of this current war is surely Putin’s twenty-year concentration of power in himself."

Based on the information that I provide above — which addresses the "resistance" efforts of entities both here at home and there abroad — might we beg to differ?

From the perspective of wars between nations relating to attempts as "transformation" by one party (and thus not as relates to civil wars which occur with "transformative" attempts in this case) here is my argument above possibly stated another way:

1. In the Old Cold War of yesterday, when the Soviets/the communists sought to "transform the world" — in their case, so that same might be made to better interact with, better provide for and better benefit from such this as socialism and communism:

a. The "root cause" of the conflicts that the U.S. was engaged in back then — for example in places such as Central America —

b. This such "root cause" was OUR determination to stand hard against these such "transformative" efforts and activities — which were taking place, back then, in OUR backyard/in OUR sphere of influence/in OUR neck of the woods.

2. In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, however, when now it is the U.S./the West that seeks to "transform the world" — in our case, so that same might be made to better interact with, better provide for and better benefit from such things as market-democracy:

“The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement, enlargement of the world’s free community of market democracies,’ Mr. Lake said in a speech at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University.”

(See the September 22, 1993 New York Times article “U.S. Vision of Foreign Policy Reversed” by Thomas L. Friedman.)

a. Now the "root cause" of the conflicts that Russia is engaged in today — for example in places such as Ukraine —

b. This such "root cause" is now RUSSIA'S determination to stand hard against these such "transformative" efforts and activities — which are taking place now in RUSSIA'S backyard/in RUSSIA'S sphere of influence/in RUSSIA's neck of the woods.

(From this such perspective, of course, [a] the current war in Ukraine, this would seem to [b] have little — or indeed nothing — to do with "Putin's twenty-year concentration of power in himself?")

It’s easy to put the whole blame on Putin himself with his unchecked power . But this is a gross simplification of the reality in case of the Ukraine war. NATO expansion everywhere and especially into the very birthplace of Russia was a huge irritator , perceived as unacceptable, threatening, arrogant with no regard to Russia’s interests. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 was a clear warning, that was completely ignored. Without NATO’s ambitions there would be no war in Ukraine. Or Georgia .

When the Soviet Union installed missles in Cuba , the democratic and presumably the country with all checks and balances in place almost started a nuclear war with the Soviets. It was a reckless gamble that could end the world Why expect anything less from the modern Russia that feels threatened by NATO encroachment?

In the end, whether it's about committing, preventing, or rectifying, war is all about armed robbery. The main plot is around a thief trying to steal from another person.

One of the main causes of war is nationalist garbage. This nationalist site conveniently omits this as they push their preferred chosen nationalist enemy(cold war leftovers in this case) on the reader. What do you expect from OVRA/NKVD reruns?

In addition to the reasons explored to further explain the cause of war, there are also self-defeating schema in thought structures that deteriorate over time. They become compromised by the wear-and-tear grind of life of individuals seeking natural causes and solutions collectively and apart. This is particularly relevant to the matter of war dynamics. When energies used to pursue peace are perceived as exhausted, unspent warfare resources appear more attractive. Particularly in the instances of deteriorating leaders who are compromised by psychopathy, war can quickly become nearly inevitable. Add a number of subordinated population that are unable to resist, and the world can quickly find itself following in the footsteps of leaders marching to their own demise. On the broader sociopolitical battlefield, with democracy trending down and the deterioration in global leadership increasing, the probability of both war and peaceful rewards increase. The questions that arise in my mind point to developing leaps forward to the structures of global leadership, particularly for self-governing populations, leveraging resources that mitigate the frailties of societal and individual human exhaustion, and capping warfare resources at weakened choke points to avoid spillovers of minor conflicts into broader destruction. Technology certainly can be used to mitigate much more than has been realized.

Wow, I could say all those things about the U.S. and its rulers.

We don't have a dictator.

Trump came pretty close to being a dictator, what with the way people were following him blindly, and the ways that all parties, (Both republicans AND democrats) have been acting lately I wouldn't be surprised if a dictator came into power

War happens because humans are predatory animals and preditors kill other preditors every chance they get. The 3 big cats of africa are a prime example. We forget that we are animals that have animal insticts. There will always be war.

The cause of war is fear, Russia feared a anti Russian Army in Ukraine would come to fruitinion in the Ukraine threatening to invade Moscow!

it takes one powerful man in power to start war and millions of innocence people to die, to stop the war . / answer!,to in prison any powerful person who starts the war , and save your family life and millions of lives, / out law war.

The biggest cause of war is the demonstration of weakness among democratic nations facing a well-armed dictator with irrational ambitions. In the case of Russia, the democratic world turned weak on Vladimir Putin at a time when both democratic institutions and peace might have been preserved. Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first-ever freely elected president, had given the newly democratic Russia a real chance to enter the community of free nations in 1991. But when Putin was elected in 2000, we saw the warning signs of trouble. Putin already was undermining democracy. In Russia’s transition from socialism, he used his old KGP connections to buy up all the political parties (except ironically the Communist Party, which now was tiny and unpopular). He also declared he yearned for the old greater Russia, with those Soviet Union borders. The U.S. and NATO didn’t take Putin’s greater-Russia statements too seriously. After all, once their economy stabilized after the transition from socialism, the Russian people were pleased with their new and free Russia, the removal of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, and the new openness to the West. There was no popular call for retaking old territory. But Putin had his own plans, and as Christopher Blattman’s article observes, when you’re dictator (and even with ‘elections’ you are dictator if you own all the political parties) you can go your bloody way. Then came America’s ‘Russian re-set.’ As Putin consolidated his power, and forced the parliament, the Duma, to give him permission to run for several unopposed ‘re-elections,’ the U.S. decided to go gentle on Putin, in hopes he’d abandon his authoritarian course. This was the fatal mistake. When the U.S. should have been publicly encouraging Putin to commit himself to international borders and to democracy in Russia, the U.S. leadership instead was asking what it could do to make Putin happy. Putin saw this as weakness, an opening for his insane territorial desires, which focused mainly on Ukraine. He let a few more years go by, prepared secretly, and then in 2014, he ordered the invasion of Ukraine, killing about 14,000 people and claiming Ukraine’s Crimea for Russia. The U.S. imposed economic sanctions on Russia, but the terrible damage had been done. Because the Free World’s leaders had let down their guard, an awful precedent had been set. A new Russian dictator had murdered to steal territory. To him, the price was low. That told him he could do it again someday. And in 2022, again sensing weakness from the West, Putin invaded Ukraine once more. Not only have tens of thousands of Ukrainians been killed in this new war, but the Russian people themselves are now locked in an even tighter, more brutal dictatorship. Peace through Strength is not just a slogan. It’s as real as War through Weakness. My father, who fought in Europe in World War II, said an American soldier’s first duty was to preserve America’s rights and freedoms, as described in the Constitution. He said an American soldier also has two jobs. A soldier’s first job, he said, is to block the tyrants. Just stand in their way, he said, and most tyrants won’t even try to pass. That’s Peace through Strength. A soldier’s second job, he said, is to fight and win wars. He said that second job won’t have to be done often if we do enough of the first job.

I hope there will be no more wars in the world

This, pandemic of wars will soon make us realize and accept the fact that the global society’s compassion towards its individuals is numbed and will eventually be completely absent as it is transformed into a human super-organism, just as one’s body is not concerned about the millions of cells dying daily in it, unless it affects the body as a whole like the cancer cells where we consider them to be terrorists and actively kill them.

Boghos L. Artinian MD

I hope there is no more war in this world

war it not good for all humans

Ultimately, be it engaging in, averting, or resolving, war can be likened to organized theft. The central theme revolves around a thief attempting to pilfer from someone else.

In the end, whether involving, preventing, or resolving, war can be compared to organized theft. The core idea centers on a thief attempting to steal from someone else.

No nation would wage a war for the independence of another. Boghos L. Artinian

And I will give you one word that sums up and supersedes your Five Reasons: Covetousness James 4:2, ESV, The Holy Bible.

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The articles and other content which appear on the Modern War Institute website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

The Modern War Institute does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, the Modern War Institute provides a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Comments will be moderated before posting to ensure logical, professional, and courteous application to article content.

Most Popular Posts

• The Return of the Tactical Crisis
• Iran’s Neutralized Counterstrike: Israel’s Air Defense Operation Was Effective—Just Not Necessarily Replicable
• The Illusion of Conventional War: Europe Is Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Conflict in Ukraine

Announcements

• Join Us Friday, April 26 for a Livestream of the 2024 Hagel Lecture, Featuring Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary Jeh Johnson
• Announcing the Modern War Institute’s 2023–24 Senior and Research Fellows
• Essay Contest Call for Submissions: Solving the Military Recruiting Crisis
• Call for Applications: MWI’s 2023–24 Research Fellows Program

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

War is generally defined as violent conflict between states or nations.

Social Studies, Civics

Tank in Iraq Invasion

A United States Army 3rd Infantry Division M1/A1 Abrahms tank during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. While the use of force was authorized by Congress, like many U.S. military conflicts, war was not declared.

Photograph by Scott Nelson/Getty Images

War is generally defined as violent conflict between states or nations. Nations go to war for a variety of reasons. It has been argued that a nation will go to war if the benefits of war are deemed to outweigh the disadvantages, and if there is a sense that there is not another mutually agreeable solution. More specifically, some have argued that wars are fought primarily for economic, religious, and political reasons. Others have claimed that most wars today are fought for ideological reasons. In the United States, the legal power to declare war is vested in Congress; however, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, so he or she holds power to conduct a war once it has been declared. In many instances, the president has used military force without declaring war . Just War Theory In Western tradition, there is a sense that the reasons for war must be just. This idea dates back to ancient times, but is most clearly traced to the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. They attempted to justify war, and reconcile it with the Christian belief that taking a human life is wrong. To Aquinas, a war must be just in both the reasons for going to war and how war is fought. Reasons for going to war— jus ad bellum —are just if (1) war is declared by an appropriate authority; (2) the war is waged for a just cause; and (3) the war is waged for just intentions. An appropriate authority is a proper, governing authority. A “just cause” may include self-defense or a response to injustice. “Just intentions” mean that it must not be fought for self-interest, but for justice or a common good. In addition, (4) there must be a reasonable chance of success; (5) the good that will be achieved must outweigh the bad; and (6) war must be a last resort. Once just reasons for going to war are satisfied, conduct in the war— jus in bello —must be just as well. Just conduct in a war means that it must be specific and proportional. That is, noncombatants and civilians must not be deliberately targeted. Further, only such force as is necessary must be used, and harms must be proportionate to the goal sought. Law of War Some of the just war theories have been adopted as parts of international agreements and incorporated into the law of war (i.e., international law) that regulates the resort to armed force, the conduct of hostilities, and the protection of war victims. The Geneva Conventions , for example, are a series of international treaties that are designed to protect noncombatants, civilians , and prisoners of war . The treaties were negotiated in Geneva, Switzerland, between 1864 and 1977. The First and Second Geneva Conventions apply to sick and wounded soldiers and sailors. They contain provisions related to protecting the wounded and sick, as well as medical personnel and transports. The Third Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war , and the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to people in occupied territories. The Third Convention requires humane treatment of prisoners, including adequate food and water. The Fourth Convention includes provisions that forbid torture and the taking of hostages, as well as provisions related to medical care and hospitals.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Recent Articles
• Journal Authors
• El Centro Main
• El Centro Reading List
• El Centro Links
• El Centro Fellows
• About El Centro
• Publish Your Work
• Editorial Policy
• Mission, Etc.
• Rights & Permissions
• Contact Info
• Support SWJ
• Join The Team
• Mad Science
• Front Page News
• Recent News Roundup
• News by Category
• Urban Operations Posts
• Recent Urban Operations Posts
• Urban Operations by Category
• Tribal Engagement
• For Advertisers

Causes of War: A Theory Analysis

Kyle Amonson

            “ To expect states of any sort to rest reliably at peace in a condition of anarchy would require the uniform and enduring perfection of all of them ” (Waltz, 2001, pg. 9).

War and conflict has been as much a constant in human history as humans. As Kenneth Waltz states, “there is no peace in a condition of anarchy,” and there will always be a form of anarchy as long as human nature is a variable in our complex domestic and international systems. Many scholars have analyzed the causes of war on a state-by-state-basis, other writers believe that it is possible to provide a wider, more generalized explanation (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 239).  Additionally, many well-known international relations theorists have applied forms of theoretical framework to understand how and why we create friction in our societies, focusing on a variety of aspects, from international institutions to gender. For neorealist writers such as John Mearsheimer, international politics is not characterized by these constant wars, but nevertheless a relentless security competition, as we will discuss in this essay (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 242).

There are many immediate contributing factors of war, and this essay will discuss them, but it will initially focus on the generalized explanation of human nature in the pursuit of security as the primary cause of war. This essay will define war in the international and historical sense, then analyze human nature’s role in conflict, followed by human nature’s projection on the nation state and finally conclude with the most frequent manifestations of conflict and conclusion.

Defining War

“War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale…war therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will ” (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 12).

In order to understand the causal factors of war we have to define what war is and reverse engineer how and why these parties escalated their relations to a violent level of conflict. War is organized violence among groups; it changes with historical and social context; and, in the minds of those who wage it, it is fought for some purpose, according to some strategy or plan (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 225). War may seem simple to define yet encompasses a variety of conflicts with many types and forms of war displayed throughout history and modern times. The two most common forms of warfare are high intensity conflict and low intensity conflict. High intensity conflict is defined through concepts consistent with linear warfare, symmetric combat, combined arms maneuver and unified action through multiple domains. This type of warfare is engaged with “near-peer” capable parity between states. Low-intensity conflict is consistent with asymmetric, permissive battlefields, irregular guerilla tactics, counter-insurgency operations and typically involves non-state actors. Within the concept of war as a whole there also exists the concept of “total war,” where a state is fighting for its very existence. Total war is relative to the concept of “limited war,” which is fought for any lesser goal than political existence (Baylis et al, 2017, 228). Additionally war can either be international, involving more than one sovereign state, or a civil war, existing within a state.

Escalating a conflict to a state of war is never a lighthearted decision, regardless of the type and level of violence. By nature, war escalates, each move is checked by a stronger counter-move until one of the combatants is exhausted (Baylis et al, 2017, pg.230). War takes a significant toll on both the economy and the society of the warring nations, often irreparably changing their culture and shaping their politics for years to come. As Clausewitz famously stated:

War is always a serious means for a serious object….Such is War, such the Commander who conducts it; such the theory which rules it. But War is not pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 30).

Human Nature’s Role

“Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity. Other causes are secondary…” (Waltz, 2001, pg. 30).

War is a creation of human nature. The psychological variables, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind are just a few of the wide range of variables that comprise what is the basic human experience. One common trait to all humans in any society is our flaws and the inherent differences established among society that have developed our cultural norms throughout history. While humans are not “hard-wired” for war and destruction, war is a by-product of envy, selfishness, and self-preservation. As Kenneth Waltz stated in his analysis of “the first image” in his book, Man, the State, and War , all “other causes are secondary.” In order for a state to wage war, “the passions which break forth in War must already have a latent existence in the people” (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 33).

Another common trait is the innate need for safety, most easily described through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow states that “if the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety set of needs” (Maslow, 1943, pg. 6). Additionally, Liberty Hobbes stated “everyone in a state of nature fears for his safety, and each is out to injure the other before he is injured himself” (Waltz, 2001, pg. 93). In the field of international relations, prominent theoretical frameworks refer to this need for safety among people groups as the concept of security.

Security most closely resonates in the subjective state of mind of the people group in that given state. As stated by Arnold Wolfers "security, in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquire values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked" (Baylis et al., 2017, pg. 240). One can attempt to quantify state power and military capability as it relates to security, but primarily security is a feeling, often felt as a lack of threat-based anxiety on the individual level.

Regardless of the reason for conflict, human’s arrogance that their morality is the ultimate morality has justified conflict since the beginning of time. St. Augustine of Hippo set a precedence of justifying violence in the sake of the common good, a “common good” that is based on societal norms. The commonly accepted just war tradition suggests that any conflict in the name of an end state of peace is acceptable, based on the tenants of jus ad bellum , jus in bello , and jus post bellum , which all encompass varying levels of subjectivity (Baylis at al, 2017, pg. 215).

Human Nature’s Projection as a State

“A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wished to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war” - Walter Lippman (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 240).

In order to understand the causes of war we have to first analyze human nature and the common traits of individuals. But individuals do not wage war, states and non-state actors wage war. These groups of individuals, bound by a common idea that compels them to violence, represent the human condition that projects on a state to cause conflict. As stated by Waltz in his second image, “men live in states, so states exist in a world of states,” explaining that states mimic human nature, and the international community subsequently mimics states (Waltz, 2001, p. 20). International relations scholars have applied frameworks to war to assess its root cause and have distilled a variety of conclusions. Realism focuses on ideology based on the pessimistic school of thought that human nature will inevitably lead to war while attempting to develop power to support a state's national interests. Realists believe no one can be trusted to protect your state but yourself, security can only be guaranteed through self-help, and regardless of a state's personal goals, the one common interest is survival. Additionally, neorealists focus on the anarchical concept of states existing in a community lacking central authority, where nationalism and security competition leads to inevitable conflict.

Liberal theorists believe that because of the inherent flaws in human nature that humans project onto states, that states will become less and less relevant, resulting in the increased influence of institutions in conflict. These theorists emphasize the positive consequences of globalization in creating deepening interdependence and spreading prosperity, thereby reinforcing global stability (Baylis et al., 2017, Page 30). Liberal institutionalism focuses on the major role that institutions and non-state actors play in international relations and their capability of mitigating security competition through the concept of collective defense. Marxists point towards conflict generated through social divides and class friction, on a domestic and international scale while constructivists focus on the social and cultural variables.

 A consistent narrative in many major theories is the emphasis of the basic need for security. Clausewitz stated that “as long as the enemy is not defeated, he may defeat me; then I shall no longer be my own master” (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 15-16). This type and level of fear continues the perpetual security competition. Inherent to this competition is that, regardless of the level of state aggression, an increase in security by one state is perceived as a decrease in personal security by another. One example of this in recent history is nuclear proliferation. Our text confirms that the "globalization has also facilitated the proliferation of weapons technologies, including those associated with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 250). These WMDs have directly resulted in the continued escalation of security competition, evident in events such as the Cold War. Each increase in capability directly creates a perceived decrease in rival states security climate. This competitive technological cycle has been present ever since the start of conflict as stated by Clausewitz, “the necessity of fighting very soon led men to special inventions to turn the advantage in their own favor” (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 90).

What we have therefore established is a security-based cycle, which is bound to the subjective feeling of safety within the individuals and culture of the represented state. This has effectively continued to affirm conflict as both a form of international relations and a political tool. War will continue to be of the oldest and most common forms of international relations…war is both older than the sovereign state and likely to endure into any globalized future (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 223).

Similar to Maslow’s hierarchy at the individual level, states feel as though they cannot focus on developing their ideal society until security is assured. Once security has been established, a civil society can begin (Baylis et al., 2017, Page 108).  In addition to this cycle of security competition, and the coinciding arms race, states have historically utilized the theory that they can attain security through offensive action to prevent future conflict. Pre-emptive war is as ingrained in war far as back as Sun Tzu’s ancient military strategies. Around 500 B.C. Sun Tzu stated that “standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength” (Tzu, 1910, pg. 68). States would consistently rather conduct conflict away from their civilian populace, on their terms, when conditions permitted.

Manifestations of Conflict

Accepting that human nature’s inherent requirement for safety is projected onto the state, thus driving security competition through weapon development, pre-emptive action and power balancing to ensure a state’s ideological continuance, we can further evaluate the manifestations of this friction. However, the secondary motives are typically very different than the primary pursuit of security. Historically, war has revolved around either a society or people group attempting to apply their beliefs to a fellow society, economic or territorial gain and to obtain independence. We will specifically analyze the variables of economic gain, territorial gain, religious ideals, civil war, revolution and pre-emptive war. 

Territorial and Economic Gain

Historically, the pursuit of territory and resources has been one of the most prominent secondary reasons for conflict. The increase in land and the subsequent resources on that land directly correlates to a state’s power, thus increasing the invading states security. As stated by the Athenians to the Melians in Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War , “besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection,” demonstrating the belief that an invasion to expand territory and conquer people groups enables security (Thucydides, 1810, p. 389).

A modern example would be Russia, who has engaged in illegal annexations in both Ukraine and Georgia for the simple purpose of expanding territory. Related to this example, Waltz states that:

An explanation may be made in terms of geographic or economic deprecations or in terms of deprivations too vaguely defined to be labeled at all. Thus a nation may argue that it has not attained it “natural” frontiers, that such frontiers are necessary to its security, that war to extend the state to its deserved compass is justified or even necessary (Waltz, 2001, pg. 91).

War has historically decided which ideologies dominated (Baylis et al, 2017, pg. 236). The ideologies that have resulted in some of the greatest levels of conflict are those based in religion. The belief in the promise of a specific afterlife has driven people groups to escalate and justify conflict in the name of their ideologies for thousands of year. The desired end state of many of these groups is the secure establishment of a stable society to institute their religion of choice. Just like a government, they need security for stability. The most well know example of religious conflict are the medieval crusades during the 10 th – 12 th centuries. However, even in modern times religious conflict is still prevalent across the globe.

One prominent example of religious based conflict is the persistence of Islamic extremism in the Middle East through violent non-state actors. Many radical Muslims believe in a society defined by a purified Islam, a return to the Islam “practiced and preached by Mohhammed…in the early 7 th century…which would bring with it the diving blessings these early believers enjoyed” (Suarez, 2013, pg. 14). In modern society, these extremists have demonstrated time and time again their willingness to resort to violence to try to achieve this religious goal.

Civil War and Revolution

Marxists, based on the manifesto of Carl Marx, often focus on the domestic conflicts of civil wars that drive states to violence. While their conclusions mostly revolve around class friction it is common for states to have ideological differences within their territorial borders leading to an attempt to establish a majority or revolution through violence. Another significant example of a revolution is the United States’ own Revolutionary War, establishing independence from Great Britain, based on the concept of “no taxation without representation.” In order for the United States to establish their own democracy and create a stable society, based on their ideals, they needed to escalate conflict to the point of war to gain independence.

Even after a revolution is successful or civil war is resolved the lingering ideology may still exist, dormant, in that society, leading to future conflict. Clausewitz stated “even the final decision of a whole War is not always to be regarded as absolute. The conquered State often sees in it only a passing evil, which may be repaired in after times…(Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 20).

Preemptive War

One scenario that prematurely escalates conflict is the act of pre-emptive

war. Though a state may want to remain at peace, it may have to consider undertaking a preventive war; for if it does not strike when the moment is favorable it may be struck later when the advantage has shifted to the other side (Waltz, 2001, p. 21). Sun Tzu stated “he will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. He will win who has the military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign” (Tzu, 1910, pg. 68). Any military strategist knows that seizing the initiative and maintaining tempo and audacity on the offensive is one of the most significant advantages in battle. Often these strategies are elevated to the level of the state, where to ensure security, a state strikes first.

“The art of war is of vital importance to the State…it is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or ruin” (Tzu, 1910, pg. 46).

States engage in war to satisfy their human need for safety and security. This allows states to establish stable societies where they can live in status quo with their ideology, religion and culture of choice. The human aspect of society directly reflects in the state and the decisions that state makes. The international body of states, operating with the same human aspects, exists in the anarchic community that exists in constant competition for security through balancing power to ensure their continued existence. Alexander Leighton once said "for world peace we must start on the community level" in that we need to understand regional needs before we can appeal to them in the pursuit of peace (Waltz, 2001, Page 67). On analysis of the inherent flaws in human nature, the only way to effectively target the original source of war is to recognize, target and understand the human nature and needs drive humans to create war. The challenge in addressing this human nature circles us right back to the inherent need for safety. Until individuals can be reasonably assured of their safety and security, without the use of violence, we will continue to escalate conflict to war. Donnelly, M. (Ed.). (2012). Critical conversations about plagiarism (Lenses on composition studies). Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press.

Baylis, J., Owens, P., Smith, S. (2017). The globalization of world politics: An introduction       to international relations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 7th edition. Print.

Marx, K., Engels, F., & Likes, S. (2012). The communist manifesto (Rethinking the western tradition) (J Isaac, Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. eBook.

Maslow, A. H., (1943). A theory of human motivation . Psychological Review , 50(4), 370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346.

Qutb, Sayyid. (1964). Milestones , 2nd ed . Damascus, Syria: Dar al-Ilm. eBook.

Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else . New York: Basic Books. eBook.

Suarez-Murias, A. (2013). "Jihad is the way and death for the sake of allah is our highest aspiration": A narrative analysis of sayyid qutb's milestones . Retrieved from https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/handle/10339/38576.

Thucydides, Smith, W., & Crane, T., Rev. (1805). The history of the peloponessian war: Translated from the greek of thucydides, to which are annexed three preliminary discourses (4 th ed./ed., Wol. 1., il., ill, on the life of thucydides. On his qualifications as a historian. a survey of the history) . London: W. Baynes.

Tzu, S., Evans, M., & Giles, L. (2017). The art of war. (Knicker bocker classics). Laguna Hills: Race Point Publishing.

Von Clausewitz, C., Howard, M., & Paret, P. (2008). On war . Princeton: Princeton University Press. eBook.

Waltz, Kenneth. (2001). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis . New York: Columbia University Press. eBook.

About the Author(s)

Kyle Amonson is an active duty Army Major and graduate student at Royal Military College of Canada. Major Amonson received his undergraduate degree from Virginia Tech and holds a master’s degree in International Relations - International Security from Norwich University. He has deployed in support of various operations throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Opinions expressed in his articles are those of the author's and not those of the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. Army.

Understanding the causes of…

Understanding the causes of war is a complex endeavor, requiring in-depth analysis and comprehensive theories. For an insightful exploration of this topic, visit nursingpaper.com . While primarily focused on nursing resources, this platform also provides valuable insights into various subjects. Exploring the theory behind war can deepen our understanding of historical conflicts and foster discussions on peace and diplomacy. Expand your knowledge by delving into the causes of war and contribute to a more peaceful future.

Thanks for this blog, I find…

Thanks for this blog, I find history quite interesting, besides that I am a history college student and besides this blog I use https://essays.studymoose.com/buy-college-essays to have the best essays, I buy college paper because I find it more convenient that way because I work and don't have enough time for it, but in general I love to write and read something new!

I find this essay rather…

I find this essay rather conflicted (pun intended).

Firstly, if Capt. Amonson is going to use the structure of Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” to explore human motivations that drive war, it should be used in its entirety.  Although basic needs (i.e. access to resources and security) are important, the human needs to belong, for self-esteem, and for self-actualization should not be discounted.   In fact, the drive to satisfy these more advanced or higher needs is invariably found in war, and these motivations tend to attract more support for war among a population than appeal to basic needs.  Despite the economic and security rationales behind the German war effort in the Second World War (creating a fully self-sufficient/autarkic and secure German Empire in Eurasia), Germany fought the war on a primarily ideological basis and regarded both the final victory and final solution as the actualization of Germany as a nation.  During the American Civil War, the abolition of slavery became the “Higher Object” that motivated the United States to fight for total victory and overcome a lack of morale, poor tactical leadership, and both confusion and dissension regarding the aims of the war as well as the war itself.  Even during the Second World War, when the rather obvious need to survive should have been the prime mover, the Allied states motivated their populations by appeals to these higher needs (e.g. Churchill’s rousing speeches, Stalin’s “Great Patriotic War”, the American “Why We Fight”).  In addition, the Western Allies glossed over their differences with the Soviet Union and Soviet collaboration with Germany for the first two years of the war, despite the basic necessity of cooperating with rivals and adversaries in the interests of security.  In addition, one cannot dismiss the romance of war for individuals who had not served or for those who had and were exhilarated by it (e.g. Churchill, again): military service fulfilled many men’s needs for belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization.  Rather than see Maslow’s hierarchy as a pyramid, perhaps a more dynamic perspective is required...

Secondly, the historical references in this essay are rather cursory.  Russia did not invade Georgia or Ukraine for territorial expansion, and Georgia was invaded as part of a counteroffensive against a Georgian attack on South Ossetia.  In both cases, Russia wanted people not territory, and additionally it sought to prevent the incorporation of either country into Western security (NATO) or supranational (EU) structures.  I find it curious that Capt. Amonson refers to the Crusades in the 10th to 12th Centuries, but not the Muslim Conquests of the 7th to 8th Centuries, which ended six-hundred or more years of Christianity, twelve-hundred years of Judaism, and millennia of other Mediterranean and Near Eastern belief systems. The Mediterranean was the center of the West and of Christendom until the Muslim Conquest, with the northern coast of Africa, Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia as integral as Iberia, Italy, Greece, and Anatolia; and Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as integral as Rome and Constantinople. 

Thirdly, there should be a distinction made between ‘power to’ and ‘power over’.  There is a difference between waging a war in self-defense (e.g. against external invasion or internal oppression) or self-determination (e.g. independence, freedom), and waging a war to impose oneself on others, whether foreign or domestic.  The contemporary popular narrative of Islamism is curious in this regard as Muslims are perceived as victims of Christian European empires, when in fact Muslim empires were fierce competitors for superiority if not supremacy, and only ceased being a state threat to the West in the early 20th Century.  Both secular Arab Nationalism and Islamism are in fact responses not to oppression by the West, but to the loss of empire.  In Northern Ireland, the Catholic Republicans included: separatist supremacists who wanted a united Ireland where Protestant Unionists were subject to tyranny of the majority; separatist egalitarians, who wanted a united Ireland with equal treatment for all; and integrationist egalitarians, who wanted equal treatment whether in a united Ireland or as part of the UK.  Eventually, the “Troubles” came to an end after some thirty years due to appeal to the integrationist egalitarians, who were the vast majority of Catholic Republicans, who had campaigned unsuccessfully for equal treatment prior to the “Troubles”, and whose verifiable oppression had driven the formation of non-state militant organizations (e.g. the PIRA, INLA, etc.).  Yet Muslims are not and have not been subject to verifiable oppression by the West, and in fact it is Westerners themselves who are integrationist and egalitarian.  At best Islamists want to be separate but equal; at worst they want to be supreme (i.e. ‘power over’). 

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Causes Of War And Conflict (Essay Sample)

War has continuously been part of human history since before its documentation existed, and it presently exists becoming more severe and destructive as industrialization and advancement of technology occasions. War is the clash of interests among citizens of a country, parties and countries against others by the use of force, resulting in minimal or massive destruction and loss of lives. War and conflict occasions due to several reasons as discussed below.

The primary cause of war and conflict is economic gains. All countries always want to control territories where numerous expensive resources are present. In most cases, these resources reside in other nations and its access is impossible. Therefore, to have access to them, countries invade others and instigate wars, in most situations often disguised, to take control of other’s wealth and to satisfy their shortage of said resources. Among the resources fought for, include gold, silver, and livestock in the early days and oil, minerals and manufacturing products in present times. For instance, the presence of oil fueled the Gulf War of 1990 to 1991. Politics is another key contributor to the onset of war and conflict. Different governments hold extreme views different from other governments. These views in most cases create rifts, disagreements, and lack of cooperation among countries when one declines to agree with another or fail to consider the other country’s opinion. Thus, when collaboration and agreement fail country’s cause to war as a measure to publicize their stand. For example, in World War II, the Germans invaded Poland, thereby consequencing Britain to join the fight in support of Poland who was their allies.

Religion influences the onset of various wars and conflicts. In a world full of different faiths, there lies different rules, regulations, beliefs, and views. Different religions obey different gods such as God for Christians and the bible, Allah for Muslims and the Koran among others. The diverse views and observation of the society often lead to conflicts because of the different religious groups failing to exercise tolerance and understanding of each other and instead, question and challenge other religions. For example, The Crusades war came up through the attempt of the Catholic Church trying to restore their right of entry to holy places in Jerusalem.

Nationalism is the belief that countries accrue profits by acting independently instead of working together and asserting their dominance among others. Nationalism provokes war and conflict by countries inciting others to violence in particular through invasion. Since they do not want other countries to dictate to them what to do or share with them, they, therefore, opt to suppress other nations by imposing their will on them hence, provoking war. For instance, the Second World War and the Cold war between Russia and America.

The historical rivalry continuously accentuates war and conflict. Some countries have for a long time failed to solve their long-standing differences with each. England and Scotland for example, whose rivalry began between the Scottish Kingdom and the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, have had a long-standing rivalry. The lack of peace between them government after government leads to these countries carrying forward these differences and making more along the way. As a result, the disagreements have caused several wars perceived as payback for previous grievances that in turn attract retaliation thereby creating endless attacks back and forth.

War is conflict occasioning from the use of force and weaponry between countries and states. Humankind has continuously depicted war as part and always will be part of its nature. When aspects such as economic dominance, religion, politics, nationalism, history, and perceptiveness create differences among them, they become the fueling aspects of warfare.

First World War: Causes and Effects Essay

Introduction, the causes of world war one, the effects of the war.

World War one seems like an ancient history with many cases of compelling wars to many people, but amazingly, it became known as the Great War because of influence it caused. It took place across European colonies and their surrounding seas between August 1914 and December 1918 (Tuchman, 2004). Almost sixty million troops mobilized for the war ended up in crippling situations.

For instance, more than eight million died and over thirty million people injured in the struggle. The war considerably evolved with the economic, political, cultural and social nature of Europe. Nations from the other continents also joined the war making it worse than it was.

Over a long period, most countries in Europe made joint defense treaties that would help them in battle if the need arose. This was for defense purposes. For instance, Russia linked with Serbia, Germany with Austria-Hungary, France with Russia, and Japan with Britain (Tuchman, 2004).

The war started with the declaration of war on Serbia by Austria-Hungary. This later led to the entry of countries allied to Serbia into the war so as to protect their partners.

Imperialism is another factor that led to the First World War. Many European countries found expansion of their territories enticing.

Before World War One, most European countries considered parts of Asia and Africa as their property because they were highly productive. European nations ended up in confrontations among themselves due to their desire for more wealth from Africa and Asia. This geared the whole world into war afterwards.

Competition to produce more weapons compared to other countries also contributed to the beginning of World War One. Many of the European nations established themselves well in terms of military capacity and eventually sought for war to prove their competence.

Desire for nationalism by the Serbians also played a crucial role in fueling the war. Failure to come to an agreement about Bosnia and Herzegovina led the countries to war. Both countries wanted to prove their supremacy.

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Austria-Hungary sparked the war. Tuchman (2004) reveals that the Serbians assassinated Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914 while protesting to the control of Sarajevo by Austria-Hungary. The assassination led to war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. This led to mobilization of Russian troops in preparation for war.

The already prepared Germany immediately joined the war against Russia and France. On the other hand, Russians declared war on Austria and Germany. The invasion of the neutral Belgium by Germany triggered Britain to declare war against Germans.

Earlier, Britain had promised to defend Belgium against any attack. The British entered France with the intention of stopping the advancement of Germany. This intensified the enmity among the countries involved (Tuchman, 2004).

Tuchman (2004) argues that the French together with their weak allies held off the fighting in Paris and adopted trench warfare. The French had decided to defend themselves from the trenches instead of attacking. This eventually gave them the victory.

Although The British had the largest number of fleet in the world by the end of 1914, they could not end the First World War. The Germans had acquired a well-equipped fleet. This helped them advance the war to 1915. However, many countries participating in the war began to prepare for withdrawal from the conflict. The war had changed the social roles in many of the countries involved.

For instance, women in Britain performed duties initially considered masculine so as to increase their income (Tuchman, 2004). In the Western Front, the innovated gas weapons killed many people. In the Eastern Front, Bulgaria joined Austria-Hungary as the central power leading to more attacks in Serbia and Russia. Italy too joined the war and fought with the allied forces.

The British seized German ports in 1916. This led to severe shortage of food in Germany. The shortages encountered by the Germans led to food riots in many of the German towns. The Germans eventually adopted submarine warfare. With the help of this new tactic, they targeted Lusitania, one of the ships from America.

This led to the loss of many lives, including a hundred Americans, prompting America to join the war. On 1stJuly the same year, over twenty thousand people died and forty thousand injured. However, in the month of May the same year, the British managed to cripple the German fleet and eventually take control of the sea (Tuchman, 2004).

The year 1917 marked a remarkable change in Germany. Attempts to convince Mexico to invade the United States proved futile. Germany eventually lost due to lack of sufficient aid from their already worn-out allies. Towards the end of 1918, British food reserves became exhausted. This reduced the intensity of the warfare against Germans. It was in this same year that they established “Women Army Auxiliary Corps”.

It placed women on the forefront in the battlefield for the first time. On the Western Front, the Germans weakness eventually led to their defeat. The war came to an end. The British eventually emerged the superior nation among all the European nations.

The signing of the Treaty of Versailles on twenty eighth June 1919 between the Allied powers and Germany officially ended the war. Other treaties signed later contributed to the enforcement of peace among nations involved in the war (Tuchman, 2004).

First World War outlined the beginning of the modern era; it had an immense impact on the economic and political status of many countries. European countries crippled their economies while struggling to manufacture superior weapons. The Old Russian Empire replaced by a socialist system led to loss of millions of people.

The known Austro-Hungarian Empire and old Holy Roman Empire became extinct. The drawing of Middle East and Europe maps led to conflicts in the present time. The League of Nations formed later contributed significantly in solving international conflicts.

In Britain, a class system arose demarcating the lower class from the advantaged class whereas, in France the number of men significantly reduced (Tuchman, 2004). This led to sharing of the day to day tasks between men and women. First World War also caused the merger of cultures among nations. Poets and authors portray this well. Many people also ended up adopting the western culture and neglecting their own.

In conclusion, the First World War led to the loss of many lives. These included soldiers and innocent citizens of the countries at war. The First World War also led to extensive destruction of property. The infrastructure and buildings in many towns crumbled. It contributed to displacement of people from their homes. Many people eventually lost their land.

The loss of land and displacement of people has substantially contributed to the current conflicts among communities and nations. However, the First World War paved way to the establishment of organizations that ensured that peace prevailed in the world. It also led to the advancement of science and technology. It led to the realization that women too could perform masculine tasks.

Tuchman, W. B. (2004). The Guns of August : New York: Random House Publishing Group.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 19). First World War: Causes and Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/

"First World War: Causes and Effects." IvyPanda , 19 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'First World War: Causes and Effects'. 19 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "First World War: Causes and Effects." April 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "First World War: Causes and Effects." April 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "First World War: Causes and Effects." April 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

• Events Leading Up to WWI
• The First World War's Long- and Short-Term Causes
• The Causes and Effects of World War I
• Outbreak of War in Europe in 1914
• World War 1 Origins (How and Why the War Started)
• World War 1 and Technological Improvement
• World War I, Its Origin and Allies
• World War I as the Catastrophe of the 20th Century
• First World War Issues and Causes
• First World War: German and Austrian Policies' Response
• Was the birthplace of Canada at Vimy Rigde
• United States and World War I
• Why Europe Went to War
• WWI-War: Revolution, and Reconstruction
• World War I Technology

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

The causes of wars and other essays

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

contains skewed text inherent from the source

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

151 Previews

7 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station62.cebu on May 22, 2021

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Patriarch Sabbah: The real cause of the war in Gaza—and the only path to peace

Editor’s note: America is committed to publishing diverse views on the pressing issues of our time. For additional perspectives on the war in Gaza, read “ There Is a Right and Wrong Way for Catholics to Criticize Israel ,” by Karma Ben Johanan, and Gerard O’Connell’s interview with David Neuhaus, S.J.

We have already seen six months of war in Gaza. Now, it seems that Israel is beginning its last phase of conquest, after ordering a million and a half people to take refuge in Rafah, a border town with Egypt. Soon, there may be almost no one left in the rest of Gaza.

There have been several wars in Gaza, but this time there are thousands of human victims, and ruins like never before, and peace does not seem to be near. More than suffering, more than the loss of men and women, children and babies, humanity is lost.

Why this new war? The immediate cause is the horrific Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. But another direct cause is the permanent siege imposed upon all Gazan territory in 2007, when the Hamas political party became the governing authority of the enclave. Since then, the entire territory—2.5 million people over an area of 141 square miles​​—has been under total military siege imposed by Israel and Egypt. And since Oct. 7, Israel’s military operations have limited even the most necessary humanitarian aid for Gaza, to the point that it now stands on the cusp of famine.

The real cause is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, begun in 1948, which no peace agreement has been able to end and which the international community seems to have neglected.

Under Israeli military occupation, Gaza—and all of Palestine—has suffered thousands of deaths, thousands more taken as political prisoners, demolished houses, military checkpoints on all roads that disrupt freedom of movement and daily life, and a paralyzed, dependent Palestinian economy. In short, we are in a permanent state of war. This is the root cause of all wars in Gaza, including the one following Oct. 7. And despite the useless, inhuman violence of the present war, more will come if a just and lasting peace is not reached between the two peoples.

The war must stop without further delay because it is no longer a war. It is a massacre. But what comes after the war?

Israel, as the occupier of Gaza, must take responsibility for seeking a sustainable peace with equal justice for all. Otherwise, we will see an unnecessary defeat for all. It is time for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be put back on the international agenda and for the global community to take responsibility for building peace, which has seemed impossible until today.

Peace means the security of Israel and, at the same time, the security of the Palestinian people. In fact, the fundamental question that arises today is: Do the Palestinian people have the right to stay at home, on their own land, in their own towns and villages? To this question, the current government in Israel has said no. Instead, Israel has been trying to forcibly displace the Palestinian people, making it virtually impossible for them to live a normal, humane life and raise their families on their own land. That cannot be a path to peace or security for anyone.

To achieve peace, we must simply admit that even in this conflict, human beings are equal. Israelis and Palestinians are equally created by God, in the image of God, and are capable of loving as opposed to killing. On this holy land, there is room for both peoples to exercise the same political rights: two states, each at home, independent, free and capable of resisting a return to war. We have experienced war for decades; we now need a new way of thinking that brings about a lasting peace.

Who is responsible for building this peace? First, the two peoples themselves, Israeli and Palestinian. Then, the international community, the friends of Israel and Palestine. The true friends of Israel are those who help Israel achieve peace. Making Israel militarily stronger, to win wars but remain insecure, is not friendship or true help to Israel.

One can ask the question: Are the two peoples capable of living in peace, each in their own state? Why not? There is much suffering and injustice in living memory, that is true. But there is also the will to live and the fundamental goodness that God has placed in everyone. God created the human being capable of life rather than death, love rather than killing.

The surest path to peace is direct engagement with the enemy, especially when two enemies share the same land. A sustainable peace cannot be brokered by outside forces. So for Israel, peace must be made first with the Palestinian people, then with all the nations in the region. But improving relations with other nations in the region, in what has been called the “ Abrahamic alliance ,” while maintaining hostilities with the Palestinian people, does not ensure peace. First comes peace at home, then it is possible with the neighbors.

It should also be noted that peace among current regimes in the region is not the same as peace with the peoples of the region. Peoples can remain enemies despite peace treaties between governments. Peace will come only when peace is made with the Palestinian people . The world powers can try to impose solutions, but these do not erase the determination of the oppressed.

Therefore, the international community must finally take the necessary steps to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, and end the 1948 war with a peace treaty between the two peoples.

The world’s religions can and must help. Pray, raise your voice and act. The Holy Land is both Israeli and Palestinian, and the Christian community there is part of the two peoples. Everyone needs peace. You can help them. Christ came to bring peace to the world—and to his Holy Land, too. The church has the same mission today.

Patriarch Emeritus Michel Sabbah served as the archbishop and Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem from 1987 to 2008, the first native Palestinian to hold the office for centuries. He is a co-author of the Kairos Palestine Document and a member of the Kairos Palestine board.

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

Essay on War and Its Effects

Students are often asked to write an essay on War and Its Effects in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on War and Its Effects

Introduction.

War is a state of armed conflict between different countries or groups within a country. It’s a destructive event that causes loss of life and property.

The Devastation of War

Wars cause immense destruction. Buildings, homes, and infrastructure are often destroyed, leaving people homeless. The loss of resources makes it hard to rebuild.

The human cost of war is huge. Many people lose their lives or get injured. Families are torn apart, and children often lose their parents.

Psychological Impact

War can cause severe psychological trauma. Soldiers and civilians may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

War has devastating effects on people and societies. It’s important to promote peace and understanding to prevent wars.

250 Words Essay on War and Its Effects

War, a term that evokes immediate images of destruction and death, has been a persistent feature of human history. The consequences are multifaceted, influencing not only the immediate physical realm but also the socio-economic and psychological aspects of society.

Physical Impact

The most direct and visible impact of war is the physical destruction. Infrastructure, homes, and natural resources are often destroyed, leading to a significant decline in the quality of life. Moreover, the loss of human lives is immeasurable, creating a vacuum in societies that is hard to fill.

Socio-Economic Consequences

War also has profound socio-economic effects. Economies are crippled as resources are diverted towards war efforts, leading to inflation, unemployment, and poverty. Social structures are disrupted, with families torn apart and communities displaced.

Psychological Effects

Perhaps the most enduring impact of war is psychological. The trauma of violence and loss can have long-term effects on mental health, leading to conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder. Society at large also suffers, with the collective psyche marked by fear and mistrust.

In conclusion, war leaves an indelible mark on individuals and societies. Its effects are far-reaching and long-lasting, extending beyond the immediate physical destruction to touch every aspect of life. As we continue to study and understand these impacts, it underscores the importance of pursuing peace and conflict resolution.

500 Words Essay on War and Its Effects

War, an organized conflict between two or more groups, has been a part of human history for millennia. Its effects are profound and far-reaching, influencing political, social, and economic aspects of societies. Understanding the impact of war is crucial to comprehend the intricacies of global politics and human behavior.

The Political Impact of War

War significantly alters the political landscape of nations. It often leads to changes in leadership, shifts in power dynamics, and amendments in legal systems. For instance, World War II resulted in the downfall of fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, giving rise to democratic governments. However, war can also destabilize nations, creating power vacuums that may lead to further conflicts, as seen in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

Social Consequences of War

Societies bear the brunt of war’s destructive nature. The loss of life, displacement of people, and the psychological trauma inflicted upon populations are some of the direct social effects. Indirectly, war also affects societal structures and relationships. It can lead to changes in gender roles, as seen during World War I and II where women took on roles traditionally held by men, leading to significant shifts in gender dynamics.

Economic Ramifications of War

Economically, war can have both destructive and stimulating effects. On one hand, it leads to the destruction of infrastructure, depletion of resources, and interruption of trade. On the other, it can stimulate economic growth through increased production and technological advancements. The economic boom in the United States during and after World War II is an example of war-induced economic stimulation.

The Psychological Impact of War

War leaves a deep psychological imprint on those directly and indirectly involved. Soldiers and civilians alike suffer from conditions like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Moreover, societies as a whole can experience collective trauma, impacting future generations. The psychological scars of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings continue to affect Japanese society today.

In conclusion, war is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon with profound effects that can shape nations and societies in significant ways. Its impacts are not confined to the battlefield but reach deep into the political, social, economic, and psychological fabric of societies. Therefore, understanding its effects is not only essential for historians and political scientists but also for anyone interested in the complexities of human societies and their evolution.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Kargil War
• Essay on Disadvantages of War
• Essay on Consequences of War

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Religious Conflict — Does Religion Cause War?

Does Religion Cause War?

• Categories: Religious Beliefs Religious Conflict

About this sample

Words: 638 |

Published: Sep 16, 2023

Words: 638 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Religion as a motivator, complex factors, interpretations and misinterpretations, religion as a source of peace.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Religion Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1472 words

6 pages / 2635 words

7 pages / 3279 words

4 pages / 1887 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Religious Conflict

The book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, is one of the most widely read and studied texts in religious and academic circles. Within Genesis, the first two chapters are particularly [...]

Many scholars and historians consider Martin Luther to be one of the most influential figures in Western history. Luther's role in the Protestant Reformation had a profound impact on not only religious beliefs but also on [...]

The idea of the Crucified God has been a prominent theme in various religious traditions, representing sacrifice, redemption, and the divine suffering of a higher power. In this essay, we will analyze the concept of the [...]

Religion has been a cornerstone of human society for centuries, providing solace, moral guidance, and a sense of purpose. In Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World, however, the concept of religion is conspicuously [...]

The politico-economic interests of states – behind the contemporary combats – to topple unfavorable governments abroad, to seek easy trade deals, to utilize natural resources across the world and to establish a desired world [...]

The Thirty Years” War (1618-1648) first began with when the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II of Bohemia tried to reduce the religious activities of his subjects, provoked rebellion among Protestants. The war involved the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Are we heading for World War Three? Experts give their verdicts

International allies are counselling restraint after the Iranian barrage against Israel, and Russia continues to make gains in Ukraine. So are we on the cusp of another World War? Sky News asks experts to weigh in.

Tuesday 16 April 2024 21:25, UK

In a world that has grown more dangerous in recent years, the nightmare scenario of a Third World War is in the public consciousness.

Earlier this year, UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps warned the world could be engulfed by wars involving China, Russia, North Korea and Iran in the next five years, and said we are moving "from a post-war to pre-war world".

The relief felt at the end of the Cold War in the late '80s has been replaced with increasing alarm at Russia's invasion of Ukraine , and there is outcry at the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza .

Sky News spoke to experts about whether World War Three is a possibility - and if we really are living in a "pre-war world".

Here's what they had to say...

'The international order is fraying'

Hugh Lovatt, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations thinktank

"The reassuring news is we are not heading towards the Third World War," he says.

While there are conflicts in tensions in various theatres - Ukraine, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific - these are all "separate and not connected", according to Mr Lovatt.

"The Gaza war has been going on for six months and is driving regional escalation - Iran's retaliation against Israel is just the latest example of this."

There are implications for the international community, including the UK, for example in terms of the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and the impact that has on global trade.

There is, he says, a risk that British troops become sucked into a conflict in the Middle East.

"We need to see these risks in a certain context which is they do impact the UK but they are not existential risks.

"This is also happening at a time when the international order is fraying, is under considerable strain. This is something that we should be very troubled by."

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

'More likely now than at any time since the end of the last world war'

Deborah Haynes, Sky News security and defence editor

Given the scale of the turmoil shaking parts of the globe - in particular in Ukraine and the Middle East - the potential for a spark that ignites World War Three already exists.

That does not mean an escalation to global confrontation is inevitable but it is arguably more likely now than at any time since the end of the last world war.

A decision by Iran to launch an unprecedented barrage of missiles and drones against Israel has just raised the stakes even higher.

Israel has vowed to respond though its allies, including the UK and the US, are urging restraint especially as they helped ensure the vast majority of incoming munitions were blasted out of the sky before they could cause harm on the ground.

Should Israel choose to retaliate, the crisis could yet be contained if its return strike is limited and any further Iranian response triggered by such an attack is also curbed. But they are two big ifs.

Read more: Sunak facing further calls to proscribe IRGC Cameron urges Israel not to retaliate to Iran What impact would proscribing Iran's IRGC as a terrorist organisation have?

Also, every time even limited military action is taken there is the risk of error or miscalculation that leads to uncontrolled escalation to regional war.

What happens in the Middle East also has a global impact, especially because Iran is backed by Russia and has close ties to China, while Israel's strongest allies, led by the US, are predominately Western nations.

It means the crisis pitches authoritarian states against democracies - just as the concurrent war in Europe does.

Despite vows of Western support, Russia is slowly gaining ground in Ukraine. Western allies are failing to deliver the weapons and ammunition the Ukrainian military needs - leading to an almost inevitable retreat unless the balance of military strength on the ground changes.

Success by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine may embolden the Russian president, whose country is on a "total war" footing, to test the strength of the NATO alliance by invading a member state.

Again, this would create a direct war between authoritarian Moscow, armed by Iran, North Korea and also with assistance from China, against the West's NATO alliance.

Evidence that military force has proved effective against Western powers could further harden China's resolve to make good on a pledge to reunite the island of Taiwan with the mainland even if that means invading.

Such a move could also plunge Asia into conflict, again along the same dividing line of authoritarian states versus democracies.

'Diversion of attention'

Edward R Arnold, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) thinktank

"I think people really need to understand what the North Atlantic Treaty is, which is the foundation of NATO," he says.

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Mr Arnold argues that the public seem to believe that NATO's Article 5 (the principle that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all) is automatic.

"That's not the case or certainly does not have to be the case... escalation is not automatic and there are measures to de-escalate things."

Looking to the situation in Ukraine, where NATO has been providing weapons and assistance, he says the risk of a miscommunication between the West and Russia has increased.

"The chances of a miscommunication where one ship accidentally fires on another, I think that goes up.

"We need to be really prepared about what that means."

He also argues that in some ways the threat of a wider conflict with Russia is reducing at the moment. Kremlin forces are starting to make progress in Ukraine, but the quality of their troops has been degraded significantly such that they are not in a position to present a threat to NATO.

Mr Arnold continued: "Vladimir Putin will be looking pretty closely at what happens in the Middle East: how each nation responds and just the diversion of attention (from Ukraine).

"It's all helping Putin at the moment because while focused on the Middle East we are not as focused as we have been on Ukraine."

'Donald Trump could undermine NATO'

Dr Luigi Scazzieri, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform thinktank

"It depends on your definition of World War Three. A possible conflict between Iran and Israel has the potential to expand into a major military conflagration in the Middle East, with global implications.

"The US would almost certainly be drawn in on Israel's side and other Western countries, including the UK, may do the same to a lesser extent.

"But their involvement would be limited and this would not be World War Three, not least as Russia can ill-afford to support Iran and because China is unlikely to.

"The impact of such a conflict on Europe would be primarily economic, through further disruption in energy flows and trade.

"The primary pathway to a World War Three scenario remains a direct Western clash with Russia. That scenario will be more likely if Donald Trump wins and undermines NATO, tempting Vladimir Putin into an attack on the Baltics.

"A clash with Russia would also be quite likely if Western forces become involved in supporting Ukraine in frontline combat roles."

Related Topics

• Israel-Hamas war

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.