There are many layers to conflict, and many readings of it. The basic, factual explanation given is that this is a conflict of security and energy interests, mostly pitting the West (led by NATO) against an autocratic Eastern World (Russia). While not necessarily untrue, this is a somewhat rudimentary interpretation, and not a very interesting one at that.

Looking at the larger picture, wars often have a significance that transcends their immediate historical context. The Greco-Persian Wars told by Herodotus, in the 5th century BC, are the story of two warring nations alright, but also the story of how the Athenian social and economic model came to be, with all its echoes throughout the ages. Times of war often crystallize the success of certain social classes, technologies and economic practices, bringing about transformations much deeper than changes in political rule or border configurations.

The two World Wars seem, to many, a single conflict. Taken as whole, it tells the story of the ascent of mass industrial production, the oil economy, global supply chains, and the technocratic liberal consumer class. To make room for this new world, regional competition, animal and coal power, local production and semi-formal elitist rule had to be replaced. Thus, the losers in this conflict were the old world aristocracy and authority, individual craftsmanship, and traditional agriculture.

In a sense, the two formal factions – the Allies and the Axis– were just performing the ritualized theatrics of war, a massive blood sacrifice to bring about the next avatars of Technoeconomic Evolution: the centralized military-industrial complex, and cybernetically-governed bureaucratic corporations. If you ever wonder why Germany and Japan made it back so quickly into the international community, no hard feelings, this is it.

That is to say, the most important consequence of global conflict was that a bunch of exiled scientists (from all sides) ended up working for the US government, inventing things like the atom bomb, the rocket, fertilizers, the pill and ARPANET. Before the war, there was simply no market nor incentive for these things, nor the human resources and intellectual capital necessary to invent them.

Why Robert Oppenheimer's Atomic Bomb Still Haunts Us

In other words, the central phenomenon of war is that it allows for a set of conditions to be achieved, so that Progress is forced against the preferences and interests of the owners of Capital. Funnily, O Fortuna, these owners of Capital tend to be the ones who brought about the previous step, and who are doomed to obsolescence and oblivion.

The war that is now starting might render unattractive and unprofitable things that used to be otherwise. A few candidates: fossil fuels; proven-to-be unreliable renewables; fiat currency; unhindered global mobility; and mass production of cheap, low-quality goods. It is always wise to follow Cicero’s advice and ask ourselves: Cui bono? Depending on how the next few years go, we might find out that the lines of conflict had the US and Russia on one side, and the EU and China on the other.

Elon Musk Is on the 2018 TIME 100 List | Time.com

The Outpost

Central phenomenons of war and Technoeconomic…