The Return of War as a Tool of Statecraft
Clausewitz's famous line "War is the continuation of policy with other means,"- The U.S. conflates the war on drugs and terror, escalating tensions with Venezuela over oil, gangs, and geopolitics.
- NATO expansion, Ukraine’s war with Russia, and Europe’s rearmament highlight a continent bracing for potential wider conflict.
- China, Taiwan, and other global flashpoints suggest nations are preparing for confrontation while professing a desire for peace.
We have the ancient Roman writer Vegetius to thank for the phrase: "If you want peace, prepare for war." The phrase itself was adapted from one found in Vegetius' book on Roman military strategy, De Re Militari (circa 450 AD), the only complete work on the topic to survive to the modern era. The phrase translated literally reads, "Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war."
Whether that is good advice seems less relevant than whether those who prepare for war actually desire peace. I am thinking of something Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, said to Colin Powell, the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to wit: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Which brings us to today: a world decidedly more under the sway of Albright than Vegetius, a world in which everyone seems to be preparing for war, but with little intention of preserving the peace.
I'll start with the recent attack on the alleged drug-smuggling boat blown to smithereens by the U.S. Navy in the Caribbean Sea. The United States is now conflating two failed wars into one: the war on drugs and the war on terror. The word "narco-terrorist" is ready-made for the occasion.
The Trump administration claims the boat was from Venezuela and operated by a notorious Venezuelan gang. But it offers no proof. The navy could have stopped the boat, searched it, and, if warranted, arrested the passengers. But that would involve actually mounting a legal case for which the U.S. might not have the necessary evidence.
The destruction of the boat, even though American sailors and ships were not at risk, is now being called "an act of war." But that was almost certainly the point. The Trump administration is trying to goad Venezuela into an attack on U.S. forces (or arrange a false flag incident) that will justify a full-on war with Venezuela. Importantly, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not rule out regime change in Venezuela as a goal of American military operations in the Caribbean.
Why war with Venezuela? In part, there is concern about growing Chinese and Russian influence in Venezuela and in the Americas in general. And then there's all that oil. Venezuela is purported to have the world's largest oil reserves (though much of that oil is expensive, hard-to-process extra-heavy crude that may not all be economical to produce except at much higher oil prices). Presumably, the Trump administration wants to deny that oil to China, a large importer, and direct that oil toward the United States. (For reference, the United States was a large importer of oil from Venezuela before crippling sanctions were invoked to topple the current regime, sanctions which forced Venezuela to look elsewhere, including China, to sell its exports.)
This military bravado is ironically coming from a president who promised to bring an end to America's "forever wars" and stay away from further foreign conflicts. But so far, Trump is moving in the opposite direction, ordering more air strikes in his first five months than Biden did in four years and rebranding the U.S. Department of Defense as the Department of War, a move that could cost billions to implement without adding one bit to the department's capabilities.
Earlier this year, halfway across the world, the United States bombed Iran ostensibly to eliminate or at least damage the country's nuclear facilities believed to be capable of eventually producing a nuclear bomb. Although that campaign was short-lived and ended with a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which Trump pushed for, there is every reason to believe that the conflict between Israel and Iran is not over and that the United States may be drawn in again. (For a long-form history explaining how Iran is likely to regroup, read this.)
Meanwhile, in Europe war continues to rage between Russia and Ukraine. The causes of the conflict are complex, but one of them almost certainly includes American unease with European dependence on Russian energy—something Europe and America (and Europe internally) have squabbled over for decades. This article from before the war provides a sense of how tangled and politically fraught the issue has been.
The Ukraine-Russia war, however, has dramatically curtailed Russian energy supplies (through policy and sabotage) and led Europe to become vastly more dependent on American supplies of oil, coal and especially natural gas in the form of relatively high-cost liquefied natural gas rather than the cheaper pipeline gas from Russia.
The Trump administration has now insisted that Europe pay for a larger share of its own defense, with military spending of 5 percent of the gross domestic product of each NATO country. At the same time, the United States is withdrawing special security aid for countries that border Russia, a move that could signal weakness to the Russians but is consistent with the idea that Europe carry a greater share of the burden defending itself.
In anticipation of a possible wider war with Russia, NATO allies in Europe are trying to increase the size of their militaries. But they are having trouble recruiting the necessary numbers for such an expansion. Germany has now passed a law that allows the government to reinstate a military draft if there is an emergency and not enough people volunteer to serve.
It seems doubtful that Russia wants a war with Europe. But the more each side believes that such a war is inevitable, the more likely it becomes. Ironically, the Russians have now achieved worse than the opposite of what they hoped to gain in Ukraine, outcomes which will make the Russian government feel less safe. First, Ukraine will never be a neutral country—either Russia will occupy the entire country OR what's left of Ukraine will seek membership in NATO. Either way, the borders between Russia and NATO will be greatly expanded.
When I say that it's worse than the opposite of what Russia had hoped to achieve, I mean the accession of Sweden and Finland, both formerly neutral, into NATO as a direct result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And, what had formerly been essentially a border managed by border guards between Russia and Finland is now increasingly militarized—so much so that there is concern the border could become a flashpoint for conflict between NATO and Russia.
And the news got even worse for Russia when Austria signaled that it is considering NATO membership. The country's neutral status was part of an agreement that led to the withdrawal of the Soviet military in 1955.
My survey of world conflicts would not be complete without mentioning the ongoing tension over Taiwan and the South China Sea. China, of course, has long maintained that Taiwan is part of China. It should be noted that the Chinese nationalist forces, which retreated to Taiwan at the end of the civil war, agreed only with themselves and not with the Chinese Communist Party in charge.
The Chinese, like the Russians, are unlikely to want a direct confrontation with the United States and its allies. But the Chinese may be channeling Vegetius, saying they want peace while preparing for a possible war. The hardware on display in a recent military parade has convinced some experts that China is now leading the United States in weapons innovation.
Just days before the parade, U.S. officials met with Taiwanese representatives in Alaska to discuss security for the island nation. How far the United States would go to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attempt to invade is something the Chinese would very much like to know. But to date, they are taking a wait-and-see attitude. Despite the frequent dust-ups concerning Taiwan, there is good reason for the Chinese to refrain from simply taking the island. Given the terrain of Taiwan and its current defenses, it would be very difficult to take and the Chinese might very well fail.
There are, of course, other conflicts which are getting worldwide attention, Israel's war in Gaza and the on-again, off-again Pakistan-India conflict, which was recently on again. The Pakistan-India conflict has the potential to bring a nuclear exchange as both sides have nuclear weapons. Fortunately, the countries are now in an "off-again" stage in the conflict.
Although we cannot be sure of the intent of all these actors, I'm inclined to think more like a Hollywood screenwriter would. If you show the audience a weapon, you are obliged to have someone use that weapon later in the script.
The title of my piece alludes to a phrase that comes from the Gospel of Matthew, which tells believers: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed." I'm not so sure that we should remain calm. After all, even Matthew tell us that "[s]uch things must happen." The context in Matthew is the Biblical "end times," a set of great convulsions preceding the second coming of Christ.
While I do not believe we are living in the so-called end times, I find it hard to imagine that all of these countries mentioned above will be able to guide events in ways that will allow them to refrain from Hollywood endings to their ongoing disputes with their adversaries.
By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights
Zayd Abdul-Mumin
I love the way brother lbrahim Traore has United a lot of Africa. Keep standing strong, because the powders that be is trying to wipe us off the planet.
Jeff
Thank you Mr. President for securing what is rightfully the people’s own. Strange when you are taking ownership of what is rightfully yours there is talk about destabilizing the gold market but when the demons are robbing the people it’s OK.
Make sure your country, Mali and Niger continues to stock pile large reserves of gold, it’s the best insurance policy for any country, ask the ones in the northern hemisphere.
Africa Emerges as the New Front in Critical Minerals Power Play
By Tsvetana Paraskova - Sep 08, 2025China and the West have taken their competition to secure critical minerals to a new battleground—central and southern Africa, where the race to secure critical routes to move the critical metals to demand markets is in full swing.
The United States, Japan, and China are backing three different railway corridors in Africa, where a large part of the global copper and cobalt supply is mined.
As the U.S. and its allies look to reduce their reliance on China in critical minerals supply, these three railway corridors – all starting in Zambia and planned to end at major ports for exports – have become key to who will be able to influence the direction of said exports. In other words, the race for railway projects now will shape where the copper and cobalt will end up in the future.
At the end of last year, the U.S. announced the commitment of a loan of up to $553 million to upgrade the Lobito Atlantic Railway in Angola.
“The project is expected to expand and protect critical mineral supply chains, increase rail transport capacity, and reduce freight transit times and costs,” the U.S. said as it looks to counter China’s presence in Africa.
China, for its part, will invest, via China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC), more than $1.4 billion in Tanzania-Zambia Railway Authority (TAZARA) to revitalize the railway infrastructure and operations.
Japan last month announced it would support the Nacala Corridor, an international corridor in southeastern Africa connecting landlocked Zambia and Malawi to the Indian Ocean via Nacara port in Mozambique.
Japan expects the Nacala project to become a transportation route for mineral resources and other goods and strengthen Japan’s resource supply chains.
“By backing railways and ports, countries are locking in long-term influence over how minerals flow,” Shahrukh Wani, an economist at the International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics, told the South China Morning Post.
Currently, China is winning the global race for critical minerals and rare earths.
China holds a dominant global position in the supply of critical minerals and rare earths, but its grip on the value chain – minerals processing and magnet production – is even tighter.
China is currently unbeatable in scale after building refining capacities over the past three decades. Early in the game, Beijing realized that refined products – not the raw materials – are the key to holding a strategically and economically dominant position in critical minerals and rare earths.
The heavily concentrated supply of critical minerals in a handful of countries and China’s export controls are raising the risk of “painful disruptions” in the market, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in its new annual report, Global Critical Minerals Outlook.
Despite major deals and government support in the West for building domestic supply chains, China has raised its market share over the past few years, the IEA’s report found.
In the past five years to 2024, while the rest of the world was looking for ways to bolster domestic supply, growth in refined material production was heavily concentrated among the leading suppliers.
China dominates refining for 19 of the 20 minerals the agency has analyzed, holding an average market share of around 70%.
“Three-quarters of these minerals have shown greater price volatility than oil, and half have been more volatile than natural gas,” the IEA said, noting that major risk areas include high supply chain concentration, price volatility, and by-product dependency.
The market is well-supplied with critical minerals, whose prices have dropped off from the highs seen in 2021 and 2022. In this sector, the risk is not supply itself, but its concentration in a few producers, especially China, the IEA noted.
Now the critical minerals race has expanded from mining the raw materials to control over the routes of the materials to markets.
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com