Martin van Creveld: US withdrawal from Eurasia will mean a number of conflicts

Read it in Russian

The Russian Journal editorial board presents an exclusive interview Russian Journal editorial board presents an exclusive interview with Martin van Creveld, a renowned Israeli historian and expert on military strategy, and most prominent military analyst of our time.

Do you think that President Obama’s announcement of the exact date of withdrawal from Iraq reflects a general trend of the American Administration to reduce their strategic presence outside of the USA?

The United States will not reduce its strategic presence around the world if it can possibly be helped. In the last week alone, we have learnt that there are ongoing negotiations with Romania concerning the stationing of an antiballistic missile defense system in that country, that American missile destroyers have been sent to the Gulf with a similar purpose in mind, that America is going to sell $6 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan, and that Obama is going to meet with the Dalai Lama. To me this does not appear to be a planned withdrawal from the Eurasian continent. As for Iraq, given that elections are due in seven months, I think that Obama is simply keeping his campaign promise to end what has become an extremely unpopular war. If anything, the American presence in the Gulf will be increased so as to safeguard the oil reserves there against possible Iranian adventurism. As I have just said, to some extent this is already happening.

Does the USA have a longterm strategy that it will look to in the event of a situation that is unfavorable for them developing in the Middle East? If America withdraws from Eurasia, how would relations between Europe and Russia develop once such a plan became clear?

I doubt it. Long term planning in foreign policy has never been America’s forte. Even if they do work out such a strategy, as George W. Bush thought he did in respect to Iraq, it can go „mighty wrong“, as Shakespeare would have said. As for relations between Russia and Europe, there are basically two possibilities: either a rapprochement, or intensified conflict. However, I can only repeat that I consider a complete US withdrawal extremely unlikely.

In that case, however, what new developments in terms of a rapprochement or a clash of interests might appear for Russia and Europe?

I would envisage developments in two areas. First, there is the question of trade in energy and raw materials: Russia could try to use its leverage in this respect as it already does to some extent. Secondly, problems could arise on Russia’s frontiers as the Kremlin might try to increase its influence in the Baltic States and Poland. If the US did in fact move away from Europe in this area, then I think that we would probably witness conflict between the EU and Russia over who really calls the shots in the affected regions. It is even possible to imagine a situation where Russia would fight a border war in the Baltic, just as recently happened with Georgia.

Do you think Europe would have to revise its defense policy, its policy in the ‘soft power’ sphere, its migratory policy, and its vision of security in general, if an unfavorable situation were to develop for the USA in the Middle East?

The answer is yes. There would have to be a lot of changes. However, whether this could be done is another question entirely. The population of Europe is getting older by the year. As I know from experience – I am almost 64 – all old people want is peace and quiet. I therefore do not expect to see Europe being remilitarized or adopting a more aggressive foreign policy. Besides, which Europe are we talking about? As Kissinger once put it, “if I want to talk to Europe, which number do I dial?” I also think that, in the future, Europe will face some very serious problems in respect to its Muslim population. In fact, I consider a return to the Huguenot Wars of the 16th century much more likely than any fundamental change in foreign policy.

Martin van Creveld (born March 3, 1946) is a renowned Israeli historian and expert on military strategy, a military analyst, professor of military history, and consultant for the US Department of Defense. He has taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem since 1971. He has written more than 17 books on history and military science strategy and his books have been translated into 14 languages. Three have been translated into Russian: The American Riddle, The Rise and Decline of the State, The Transformation of War. In its time, the publication of The Transformation of War in Russian aroused burning indignation from the General Staff of Russia. In this work, Creveld suggests leaving behind the paradigm of viewing the war as continuation of the policy of ‘big states’ that was popular in the times of Clausewitz. Such an approach, the author thinks, does not reflect the transformation of war as ‘culturally conditioned human activities’, within the framework of which organized violence is limited by certain rules. New forms of weapons and new forms of war have appeared, about which Clausewitz did not know. Accordingly, social and cultural characteristics of military conflicts have changed. Creveld posits that the refusal of modern armies to adapt to the transformed conditions of war could even result in the disintegration of modern states.