New realities of war

Europe’s cautious avoidance of remilitarization, despite war on its doorstep in Ukraine, is over. Since the US threatened to withdraw its commitment to European security, political leaders across the continent have increased defence spending, formed the Coalition of the Willing and are strategizing nuclear deterrence. The Trump administration’s provocative stance – on Greenland, siding with Russia and supporting European far right parties – has flipped the US position as ally to antagonist. That Europe’s rearmament may land in persecutory far-right hands is seen as a secondary concern. And with no official body governing defence nor a unified army, European politicians are turning to prime contractors and tech developers for military guidance.

War and technological advances have always been inseparable. But what was once a race to increase speed, endurance and might has this century turned into the rush for not only territorial gains but also temporal control: autonomous AI weapons predict violence, a move more reminiscent of domination narratives from science-fiction than flesh and blood reality – but with real life consequences. Anthony Downey, in what he calls an ‘occupation of the future’ in the Middle East, writes: ‘This ambition to “see further” supports the neo-colonial ambition to see that which cannot be seen – or that which can only be seen through the algorithmic gaze and its rationalization of future realities.’

Agri Ismaïl, also recognizing the powerplay behind high-tech weaponry, writes on Kurdish persecution: ‘Colonial powers have always waged asymmetrical warfare …, selecting battlefields as though they were laboratories, sites of experimentation for new weapons.’ Media technologies also alter perceptions of warfare, as Ismail describes: ‘The dated night-vision war game … has been replaced by an immersive 3D spectacle, a gamified hyper-reality. The TV screen has since shrunk into a screen that fits into our palm and we’re encouraged to “react” to what we are seeing; “heart”, “haha”, “wow”, “sad” and “angry” are the alternatives’. The emotional distance created via both new media and weaponry leans into dehumanization.

The West’s ‘War on Terror’ reconfigured language and interpretations of International Law to legitimize attacks on Arab countries after 9/11 in 2001, which have since been proven illegal. Now, with the US waging war alongside Israel on Iran, having already abandoned the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Trump is actively destabilizing the Middle East by reigniting tensions and enabling Netanyahu’s expansionist drive rather than liberating nations from dictatorships. While the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens despite a tenuous ceasefire, new waves of civilians are being displaced across the region.

Diplomacy is also a victim of pre-emptive action and conflict escalation. Negotiating peace between state and non-state actors that target civilians to command power becomes a gargantuan task. As Mary Kaldor, author of New & Old Wars and Global Security Futures, says in a wespennest and Eurozine exclusive: New wars ‘are incredibly difficult to end, because warring factions benefit from the violence itself rather than from winning.’ However, civic action, in upholding human rights, focusing on accumulative steps and engaging in a different kind of future thinking, can improve the long-term situation of those who have suffered war crimes. Conflict resolution requires a care-focused approach encouraging community and environmental reparations rather than settling on ethnic and territorial divides.

Understanding the new realities of war presents a multi-layered challenge. But ignorance risks encouraging old patterns of fear and retaliation in lieu of awareness, knowledge and measured, collective responses. Eurozine’s new focal point, which will be developing over the coming months, provides valuable reflections, helping demystify the chaos and uncertainty of contemporary warfare.