It presents a perspective that understands current global conflicts as the latest round of an ongoing historical struggle between land-based and maritime powers.
From the continentalist viewpoint, land is the currency of power, so they are always inclined to expand territory, as Russia has done with Ukraine. In contrast, money or wealth is the currency of power for the maritime system led by the United States, whose main foundation is freedom of navigation and free trade.
In an article published in Foreign Affairs, Sarah B. Paine, a senior professor of history and strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, pointed out that major conflicts over the past two centuries have determined the ownership of maritime hegemony. First, Britain (naval) defeated France (continental) under Napoleon; then Germany failed in both World Wars; finally, Japan's continental expansion ambitions were crushed after World War II, and the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed the United States to gain absolute global hegemony. This hegemony even prompted traditional continental powers like China to integrate into the global maritime system, even though they still maintain continental expansionist practices.
The author argues that the main issue is that in recent years, the global maritime prospects have been increasingly criticized, not only from continental powers such as Russia or China, but also from within the United States itself, as America is returning to an expansionist continental model and threatening to seize lands from neighboring countries such as Canada, Greenland, and Panama.
She warned that if this trend continues, the United States will become a lonely, abandoned, and even weak country, and will voluntarily give up its strong and prosperous foundations.
Notably, this article expresses a viewpoint that adopts Western values in its political terminology and historical interpretation, so readers need a critical perspective. However, the cognitive importance of this article lies in its provision of a way to understand the current struggle for global order through a geopolitical perspective.
Intense competition among great powers is redefining international relations in today's world, but the overall outline of this competition remains controversial. On one hand, some observers cite ideological precedents from the Cold War era, while others focus on changing military balances, and some emphasize the personal traits and choices of global leaders.
But the fact is that contemporary international order conflicts stem from long-standing disagreements over the sources of national power and prosperity (although not yet fully recognized), which have created two opposing worldviews geographically: one is the continental view (land-centered), and the other is the maritime view (centered on maritime control).
In the continental world, land is the currency of power. Most countries, due to their geographical location, live in the continental world, which is adjacent to multiple neighbors, and these neighbors have historically been each other's main rivals.
Nations with sufficient strength to conquer other countries - such as continental hegemons like Russia - believe that the international order should be divided into large spheres of influence. They invest heavily in their armies to defend borders, conquer neighboring countries in wars, drain their wealth, and consolidate authoritarian rule domestically, placing military needs above civilian ones.
This creates a vicious cycle, as sustained internal repression requires dictators to create a main enemy and manufacture security threats that lead to more wars.
By contrast, countries with moats (i.e., surrounded by oceans) are relatively safe and less likely to be invaded, so they can focus on increasing wealth rather than fighting neighboring countries.
These maritime nations regard money rather than land as the source of power, so they strive to increase wealth through international trade and industry, thereby alleviating the difficult balance between military and civilian needs.
Although continental hegemonies tend to adopt zero-sum strategies, where winners take all and losers lose everything, maritime system stakeholders prefer wealth multiplication and mutual benefit, infinite games, so they see neighboring countries as trading partners rather than enemies.
The maritime worldview originates from the ancient Athenians, whose empire accumulated wealth through coastal trade. Maritime-oriented countries wish to see the ocean as a public resource, allowing everyone to safely share and trade it.
It is no coincidence that Hugo Grotius, the father of international law - a judge, philosopher, and theologian - came from the Dutch Republic, a commercial (seafaring) empire. Since World War II, commercially oriented countries have developed regional and global institutions to promote trade, reduce transaction costs, and increase wealth. They coordinate coast guard and naval operations, combat piracy, and ensure smooth trade.
This has formed a well-established, rule-based maritime system, with dozens of member states jointly enforcing the rules and protecting the safety of all members.
The competition in today's world is the latest evolution of the conflict between continents and seas. Since World War II, American strategy has consistently reflected its status as a maritime power. Thanks to its economic structure, the United States has an interest in maintaining trade and commercial freedom. With its geographical position and strength, the United States can prevent some countries from harming the sovereignty of others.
At the same time, countries such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea attempt to undermine the rule-based order because their leaders believe that more open societies pose a threat to their rule and national security vision.
The United States can win the second Cold War by adhering to a successful maritime strategy, just as it did in the first Cold War. However, if the United States returns to a continental model - setting up barriers, threatening neighboring countries, and undermining global institutions - it is likely to fail and may never recover.
American Map (Al Jazeera)
How Has Maritime Trade Changed the World?
During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain developed a modern naval strategy to counter continental powers. This strategy made London the world's dominant power, and its success lay not in deploying armies to eliminate opponents, but in becoming wealthy through trade and industry, while other European countries destroyed each other militarily. All continental countries had to maintain large armies, either invading neighbors or deterring and preventing invasions. These countries usually organized their economies around military needs rather than merchants' priorities.
However, Britain, surrounded by the sea and with a strong navy, was less afraid of invasion, so it did not need a large, expensive, and politically unstable army (which could cause coups). This situation allowed it to focus on increasing wealth through trade and rely on the navy to protect trade routes.
Britain was a permanent member of several alliances fighting against France. After the Royal Navy defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 near the Spanish coast, the French leader implemented an economic strategy known as the "Continental System" to block British trade.
However, this blockade harmed the French and its allies' economies more than it did London's, as London had access to other markets worldwide. The blockade prompted Napoleon to launch a destructive invasion of Russia, which was still trading with Britain at the time.
Instead of directly confronting Napoleon's large army, Britain used its growing wealth to fund and arm Austria, Prussia, Russia, and several smaller countries, which together encircled Napoleon's main forces in Central or Eastern Europe. Subsequently, Britain opened a side front in the Iberian Peninsula, which Napoleon called the "Spanish ulcer," further straining France's resources.
The cumulative losses from this front and the main front weighed heavily on Napoleon, leading his army to be devastated when attacked simultaneously by enemies. At that time, almost all European countries suffered severe war damage, except for Britain, whose economy remained unscathed (the United States also experienced a similar situation, suffering only minor losses in both World Wars).
After the Napoleonic Wars, the Industrial Revolution brought complex economic growth, making the balance even more favorable for maritime powers. Suddenly, power through industry and trade became easier to obtain through wars that destroyed wealth.
This was achieved by relying on the external transport lines provided by the sea, rather than the internal transport lines of continental powers that protected and expanded empires, as in Napoleon's time. Therefore, the current world order is essentially a maritime order, although few people truly understand this.
Today, about half of the world's population lives in coastal areas, and coastal regions account for nearly two-thirds of global wealth. 90% of traded goods (by weight) reach their final destination via the sea, and submarine cables carry 99% of international communications. International institutions and treaties regulate trade freedom.
Although the ocean connects everything, no single country can keep the ocean open on its own; only a coalition of coastal nations can ensure the safety of maritime transportation.
This system benefits the world's people, reduces congestion, lowers costs, and promotes economic growth, improves living standards, and allows people to travel, work, and invest abroad.
Billionaires are the biggest beneficiaries of the maritime order, as they are most vulnerable when rules are canceled, since their economic interests are global, and the countries participating in the maritime order are much wealthier than those trying to undermine it.
Even those who want to overthrow this order benefit from it, with the most prominent example being East Asia, which began to rise after joining the maritime order at the end of the Cold War.
If Iran and Russia both abide by international law and participate more in the global trade system, their economies would be much larger than they are now.
Expansion, Then Decline
In the continental world, power is closely related to territory and its control. Neighbors are always a source of danger, and continental hegemon countries constantly try to destabilize neighboring countries. In modern times, they exacerbate internal discontent and regional disputes by flooding neighboring countries with false news.
At the same time, weaker neighbors are also seen as sources of threats, as terrorism and chaos can spread across common borders. Ultimately, (strong) continental countries often invade and annex neighboring countries, eliminating potential threats from the map.
Successful continental hegemonies follow two rules when expanding their scale and strength: avoiding fighting on two fronts simultaneously and suppressing their powerful neighbors. However, continental security theory does not provide guidance on when to stop expansion or how to build lasting alliances.
Therefore, continental countries often find themselves burdened by expansion, isolated, and ultimately facing the risk of collapse due to continuous loss of wealth from wars.
For example, in the 20th century, Germany could have dominated Europe economically due to its faster growth rate than its neighbors, but it launched two expansionist world wars, violating the rules of continental security theory by fighting on multiple fronts against different powers.
These wars did not consolidate Germany's dominance but delayed its rise for generations, causing huge losses of life and wealth across Europe.
Japan also prospered under the maritime trade system, but in the 1930s, it rapidly adopted the continental model and established a vast empire in Asia.
As in the case of Germany, its expansion initially resulted in gaining more territory, but it created multiple enemies and excessive military and economic expansion, resulting in devastating consequences for Japan and the countries it invaded.
After the war, Japan returned to the maritime model based on international organizations and international law. This gave rise to Japan's economic miracle, as this devastated country quickly rose to become one of the richest in the world (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan also created economic miracles under the maritime system during the Cold War).
Excessive expansion was also a key factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union. After World War II, the Soviet Empire was not satisfied with conquering Eastern Europe, imposing an economic model favorable to authoritarian rule, and barely considering economic growth. Subsequently, the Soviet Union extended this model to as many developing countries as possible, but the stagnant Soviet economy eventually could not withstand Moscow's imperialist adventures and unrealistic plans.
During World War I, all European powers, including Britain, followed a continental strategy, needing to use large armies to establish overlapping territorial empires. Even within the same alliance, each country had different main opponents and different main battlefields, leading to a series of parallel wars.
European powers, including Britain, suffered losses because they allowed military officers to oversee war efforts without fully listening to the advice of civilian leaders who had a deep understanding of the economic basis of power.
It can be said that no European country fully recovered from the losses of World War I. This war destroyed the continental empires that had fought: the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, and Russia.
Although France and Britain won, their situations were worse afterward, while the United States adopted an isolationist policy, paving the way for early advocates of "America First," who imposed tariffs, deepened the Great Depression, and set the stage for a new world war.
In stark contrast, during the long peace between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I, Europe's prosperity doubled. Similarly, when the United States followed the naval model to win World War II, it ushered in unprecedented prosperity.
Differently from after World War I, Washington did not retreat into isolationism. Instead, it took a leadership role, helping its partners rebuild and acting as a guarantor of the international order it co-created with its post-war allies. These institutions were successful in Europe until Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.
Map of Ukraine and Russia (Al Jazeera)
War Mongers
It should be emphasized that most countries in the world are located on the continent, lacking a moat that can completely isolate threats. This means that only a rule-based maritime system can provide comprehensive protection for these countries.
The institutional and alliance systems integrate the diverse capabilities of countries to deal with minority threats and provide "insurance" for the rule-based order. Although this cannot completely eliminate risks, it minimizes them as much as possible.
But there are still many traditional continental powers in the world, including Russian President Putin, who has clearly expressed the intention to expand Russia's borders. Controlling Ukraine is just the beginning. Putin summarized all of this, saying there is an old rule: "Where Russian soldiers step, that is our land."
This at least includes Central and Eastern Europe occupied by Soviet troops after World War II, and possibly even reaching Paris, where Russian troops arrived at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
Just as during the Cold War, Moscow is now trying to dismantle the West from the inside out. Since the Bolshevik Revolution, Russians have been skilled in propaganda and have successfully used it to promote ideology worldwide, causing many countries to experience decades of economic decline. Now, Russia is using propaganda to spread "illusions," suggesting that NATO is threatening Russia, rather than Russia threatening NATO.
Social media has greatly enhanced Russia's ability to spread propaganda overseas, doing so by escalating tensions on many contentious issues.
For example, Moscow tries to turn the Ukraine war into a divisive issue, splitting the United States and Europe, dividing different European countries, and weakening NATO and the EU.
It also pushed for the UK's exit from the EU, leading to deteriorated relations between the UK and its continental neighbors.
Russia supported the dictator Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian civil war (Syrian revolution*), and now undermines stability in Africa, causing refugees to flood into Europe, thus creating a large influx of immigrants. These refugee flows severely disrupt stability and fuel the rise of right-wing populist forces on the European continent.
Meanwhile, other continental powers are trying to undermine the existing global order. For example, North Korea aims to control the entire Korean Peninsula and eliminate South Korea. Iran's main battlefield is the Middle East, with Tehran trying to extend its influence into Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.
Then there is China, which decided to integrate into the current global order to pursue wealth, which may indicate that it is taking a maritime perspective, even building a large navy fleet.
However, due to its narrow, shallow coastline and numerous islands, Beijing cannot effectively deploy its ships during wartime. This is similar to Germany, which built a massive navy fleet but could not reliably use it during both World Wars.
At that time, Britain blockaded the narrow North Sea and Baltic Sea, cutting off German shipping, forcing Germany to rely on submarines. Berlin even needed the long coastlines of France and Norway to provide more reliable exits for its submarines, but this was far from enough for its navy, let alone its merchant fleet.
Now, China's dependence on trade and imports is higher than that of Germany at the time, especially in energy and food, and economic bottlenecks caused by interrupted long-distance trade could weaken its economy.
As demonstrated by Ukraine, which successfully sank Russian ships, even (cheap) drones can block narrow seas. China has 13 land neighbors and 7 maritime neighbors, and these countries are not without disputes. These neighbors - using submarines, coastal guns, drones, and fighter jets - can block China's commercial traffic and make maritime traffic around China dangerous.
By contrast, many nearby neighbors do not need to cross the South China Sea to reach the high seas. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand have alternative high-sea coastlines that are difficult to block.
Avoiding Catastrophe
To counter continental powers, the United States and its allies do not need to go another way. The strategy that won the Cold War is still effective today. This strategy starts with recognizing that this conflict will be a protracted war, just like before.
The victors did not try to find quick solutions that could trigger nuclear war, but instead controlled the first Cold War over several generations. The same advice applies today: maritime powers should be patient and maintain the calm of the current conflict.
They should avoid "hot wars" in areas without sufficient ports and in countries surrounded by potentially intervening hostile opponents. These characteristics apply to Afghanistan and Iraq, which help explain why Washington's interventions there failed.
The United States and its partners should not fight losing "hot wars," but instead use the world's powerful maritime forces to counter the greatest weakness of the continents: different capacities for wealth creation.
They should impose sanctions on continental powers, preventing them from enjoying the benefits of the maritime system until they stop violating international law, stop wars, and resort to diplomacy. Unlike tariffs aimed primarily at protecting domestic producers, sanctions aim to criminalize specific transactions and punish "bad actors."
Even mild sanctions, which lower economic growth rates by one or two percentage points, can have devastating long-term compounding effects, as evidenced by the contrast between sanctioned North Korea and un-sanctioned South Korea. Sanctions are like "economic chemotherapy." They may not remove the tumor, but they can slow its growth. Sanctions are particularly effective in hindering technological development, as seen during the Soviet era.
At the same time, Washington and its partners must consider non-hostile countries. The winners of the Cold War knew that the essence of alliances is cumulative, and partners enhance each other's new capabilities. Therefore, the United States must strengthen and expand its alliance network, not only focusing on maintaining its own prosperity but also maintaining that of its partners.
It must also assist allies that are surrounded by two continents and unable to resist alone. Just as the West armed Moscow's enemies until the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan and subsequently collapsed, the West must now assist Ukraine, regardless of how long it takes. The longer the Ukrainian conflict lasts, the weaker Moscow becomes, making it vulnerable to Chinese exploitation.
If the current Russian regime falls, the succession struggle will force it to reduce its foreign commitments, just as happened during the Korean War, when Joseph Stalin's death led to the rapid end of the conflict.
If any continental power stops coveting the territories of other countries and contributes to improving international laws and institutions, the United States and its partners should welcome them into the rule-based order. But if these countries do not change, containment is the solution.
Washington did not win its previous confrontation with Moscow through significant military victories, but through economic prosperity, while the Soviet Union fell into its own economic decline. In the 1980s, while Soviets were queuing up to buy basic necessities, Americans were enjoying luxurious family vacations.
The current goal of the United States should be to maintain the prosperity of other democracies and its partners, while weakening continental powers. Although continental powers will not disappear soon, if they cannot keep up with the economic growth of countries supporting the maritime order, their relative threat will diminish over time.
The Crisis of American Decline
The risk of conflict between the continental order and the rule-based maritime order is unprecedentedly high. Today, numerous nuclear powers are on high alert, and the United States is increasingly abandoning its role as the ultimate guarantor of global order by supporting allies and expanding its nuclear umbrella.
If the conflict in Ukraine, across Africa, and between Israel and Iran expands and merges, a catastrophic third world war could erupt. Unlike previous wars, nuclear strikes and their toxic radiation would threaten everyone.
The United States has taken major measures to defeat its continental rivals, implementing strict sanctions and export controls, and providing funding and weapons to countries facing a common enemy.
However, criticism of the rule-based order is growing, even among high-ranking American officials. In the past year, the United States seems to have adopted a "continental strategy," despite having natural waterways - the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans - to protect its homeland. However, the United States also has long borders with Canada and Mexico, and Washington is involved in conflicts with both countries.
The United States harshly criticizes many friendly democratic countries, imposes tariffs on its trade partners, and weakens international institutions that promote global economic growth. It also signals intentions to annex Canada, seize Greenland from Denmark, and reclaim the Panama Canal - actions that, in the long run, will tear apart the Western alliance and may turn the United States from a key power into an edge power, as its former partners will form new alliances without the United States.
Map of Greenland (Al Jazeera)
This transformation takes time, but once it occurs, its impact will be long-lasting. European countries will grow together, while the United States will become weaker and more isolated. The worst-case scenario is that Washington may become the main common enemy of Iran, North Korea, and Russia, without the support of its allies.
But even if this does not happen, it may have to compete alone with Beijing, which it will not be able to win. China has approximately three times the population of the United States, a manufacturing base far exceeding that of the United States, and nuclear weapons capable of striking American territory.
For Washington, its inevitable failure and isolation will be the tragic outcome of the past eight decades. After World War II, the United States gained friends around the world, but this moral capital, obtained at great cost, is now being squandered.
Like France in the Napoleonic era, the recent revival of the "America First" principle is angering allies around the world, while Washington's enemies are pleased to see the United States decline.
Many Americans underestimate the advantages of the maritime system and focus on its disadvantages, thus wasting many of their geographical and historical advantages, but they will only realize what they have lost when this system is eroded. At that time, the lament of Pericles, the leader of Athens, who made a series of mistakes that ended the city's hegemony, will apply to them: "I fear our own mistakes more than the conspiracies of our enemies."
*Translator's Note
This article is translated from Foreign Affairs and does not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
Source: Foreign Affairs
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561291439829746203/
Disclaimer: The article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion in the 【Up/Down】 button below.