By Helen Reynolds and Kirsty McNeil
At our last ladies’ monthly gathering – a forum for exchanging ideas and dissecting the news – the grim state of world affairs steered our conversation toward conflict. It was then that a challenging question was posed, one none of us could answer immediately: “Why do so many world leaders treat peace as a last resort?”
We debated whether the question was naive or deeply perceptive, ultimately landing on the latter. It strikes at the very core of international relations, forcing us to confront why humanity so often defaults to conflict over cooperation. This is an ancient dilemma, wrestled with by thinkers from Thucydides – who identified fear, honour, and interest as the roots of war – to modern analysts.
After two weeks of reflection, research, and discussion, here is what we concluded:
War as a Tool for Control and Survival
Leaders often view conflict as a proactive way to secure resources, territory, or influence before rivals do, especially in an anarchic world where there’s no ultimate enforcer of rules. Peace might require concessions that weaken their position, like giving up claims on disputed land or resources, which feels like a loss. For instance, finite resources (oil, water, fertile land) and strategic geography (buffer zones or access to ports) can make expansion seem essential for long-term security. This isn’t just greed – it’s a “might makes right” calculus where waiting for peace could mean being overtaken. Historical examples abound: Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was partly driven by fears of NATO encroachment and losing leverage over a neighbour aligning with the West, creating a “now or never” moment to lock in advantages. In essence, peace is the last resort because it demands trust in an unreliable system where commitments (like treaties) can be broken if power shifts.
Ideology, Ego, and Legacy
Many leaders are motivated by non-material factors like nationalism, glory, or a messianic vision of their nation’s destiny, which make the costs of war seem worth it. Peace might be seen as mundane or even cowardly, while conflict offers a shot at historical immortality – think of conquerors earning titles like “the Great.” Autocrats, in particular, might prioritise personal legacy or regime stability over public welfare, insulated from the fallout that ordinary people bear. Ego plays a huge role: fear of appearing weak, obsession with marking history, or simply addiction to power can push decisions toward escalation. Vladimir Putin, for example, has been described as driven by nationalist obsessions and a desire for a grand legacy, outweighing the economic and human toll on Russia. Discussions on this often point out that even rational actors get blinded by bias or overconfidence, underestimating war’s messiness while demonising opponents.
Systems That Reward Conflict
Beyond individuals, broader systems incentivise war. Military-industrial complexes, elite alliances, and debt-based economies can make conflict profitable or politically expedient. Wars generate demand for weapons, open markets, or justify borrowing, benefiting powerful lobbies while distracting from domestic issues like inequality or unrest. Leaders might create an “external enemy” to unify support and consolidate power – it’s a classic tactic. Moreover, in uncertain environments, misperceptions or lack of credible information about an enemy’s resolve can turn negotiation into a gamble, making preemptive action feel safer than waiting for diplomacy to fail. Critically, the idea that war is always a “last resort” is a myth; there are often viable nonviolent alternatives (diplomacy, sanctions, mediation), but governments withhold info about their potential success, and media biases toward violence obscure them, building public tolerance for force. This explains why peace feels like the fallback: it’s not exhausted first because systems don’t reward exploring it fully.
The Perceptive Side Wins Out
If it were purely naive, it’d dismiss the question as naive optimism in a dog-eat-dog world. But it’s profound because it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths: humans (and by extension, leaders) aren’t wired for perpetual peace when short-term gains from conflict loom large. Institutions that could prevent this – like the UN – often act as actors of last resort themselves, stepping in only after failures elsewhere. Countries with strong human rights and accountability are less war-prone, suggesting the issue is fixable through better governance, but that’s easier said than done.
In short, leaders see peace as a last resort because war aligns with deeper incentives – survival, ambition, profit – that peace often disrupts. It’s a cycle as old as civilisation, but recognising it is the first step toward breaking it.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
An interesting question.
I must admit that I wasn’t much of a History buff at school, but I do remember my Year 10 History teacher asking the same question.
After a few comments from various boys – yes it was an all boys class – she said that basically some men believe that violence is the only way for them to get their way.
50+ years later I suspect that she was correct.
The immediate cause of wars is the fetid imagination of the poor intellectual mammal known as man, who, along with all of his mammalian brothers, cousins and others, possesses a nervous system that responds to threats with either a fight, flight, or freeze reaction. However, and critically so, unlike all other mammals, man’s default threat response can also be triggered by imagination, ie., by non-existent threats. And therein lies the rub; threats of conflict can be conjured in imagination and then be brought into actual existence.
We can see something of this nature occurring right now with the hawks rabbiting on about Australia needing to be prepared to fight China. Madness, writ large.
Wonderful article Helen and Kirsty.
The reason for people going to war is often simply given as religion or money. Your article teases out and elaborates on the complexities of the question brilliantly.
Waging war allows a country’s leader to seem strong and decisive. It creates an atmosphere where nothing else matters: if we are are at war, there is no time or resources available for any other petty concerns, and all other problems become inconsequential. Human rights and freedoms can be constrained as threatening or undermining the war effort…look at how protests against the Vietnam war are still spoken of as having affected the morale of our soldiers.
War is the apex activity for capitalism. Capitalism thrives on waste and what can be more wasteful than spending billions on a piece of equipment to blow it up, or level a city or kill a young adult human
“War is the apex activity for capitalism.”
Lyndal has hit the nail on the head.
We were told a century ago that we had to choose between socialism and barbarism.
We chose barbarism.
We keep making excuses for capitalism.
We say Trump’s the problem, or our genes are the problem, or religion’s the problem.
Anything to stop us facing the fact that a financial system that sustains itself by theft and mass murder is the real problem.
The final sentence of the article came so close to the heart of the matter but veered off at the last moment.
What is it about capitalism that we feel a need to protect it?
“War is hugely profitable. It creates so much money because it’s so easy to spend money very fast. There are huge fortunes to be made. So there is always an encouragement to promote war and keep it going, to make sure that we identify people who are ‘others’ whom we can legitimately make war upon.”
Roger Waters
Because Homo sapiens is about the least accurate species name ever.
All the things heretofore mentioned, including capitalism, are further symptoms of the real problem: we really aren’t as clever as we like to think we are. If we were, we’d limit our numbers, our use of natural resources, our impact on the planet and the natural systems that sustain us … instead we prefer conflict and ease and more, more, more.
The answer to the question is simple, WAR turns a dollar and takes the public’s mind off the failure of their governments.
War is used by opportunistic, ruthless leaders and regimes who can’t achieve their objectives legally, ethically or diplomatically.
Putin, for example, (mis)calculated that-
• the US would be too distracted by the by the Afghanistan withdrawal/debacle to strongly support Ukrainian resistance
• the west was so strongly focused on the immediate aftereffects of Covid and the resulting economic challenges of lockdowns that it would not support Ukrainian resistance
• the limp/ineffective response to the invasion and annexation of Crimea
War isn’t necessarily due to capitalism, it is often caused by opportunistic miscalculation, vanity, testosterone and lust for a legacy
Putin miscalculated?
One day, in a galaxy far far away, AC will make a comment about Ukraine that has something of a resemblance to non-fiction.
The West is begging for a cease-fire, or a stalemate, or anything that will stop them looking like headless chooks, and it’s Putin who miscalculated?
Putin knew that the US would support Ukraine. Why would they not?
They orchestrated the coup, after all.
He also knew that the first weapon used against Russia would be sanctions.
He stated as much prior to the intervention.
So AC’s statement about the US being distracted is a fabrication.
AC needs to pay more attention to the ramblings of his over-excited imagination before hitting the keyboard.
His final point is a nonsense rant in which assumed intentions by Russia and the West, for which, as usual, no evidence is given, are mixed together to such an extent that the reader has no idea who did what to whom, or why.
The limp response to the annexation of Crimea he says, is down to vanity, testosterone and lust? And here was me thinking that testosterone, the primary male hormone, produced the exact opposite to limpness.
Is there something Freudian going on in the background here?
Does AC have a personal problem that’s itching for exposure?
Is this a plea for help?
Steve always tries to try to refute any criticism of Putin for choosing to invade Ukraine.
No one other than Putin made that decision.
His commitment to defending the Putin regime has caused him to misrepresent statements, deny actual/verifiable facts, claim opinion pieces represent qualified academic/expert findings, and generally demonstrate that he is the source of unreliable and untrustworthy information
He has routinely proved all that since February 2022, it is embarrassing for a verbose contributor with such an overblown sense of self importance
AC is emotionally torn.
On one hand he is delighted to have hijacked the thread, diverted it from the subject of the article.
But on the other hand he is crestfallen after finding out the hard way the 6th Rule of Blogging — When you are crouched in the corner mumbling to yourself, make sure you do not have a phone or lap-top handy.
Ridiculous Steve, I made some observations, and your behaviour is typically so compulsive, you had to post a reply.
But as you’ve just demonstrated, I’m hardly talking to myself when your compulsive need to reply takes over
“I made some observations, and your behaviour is typically so compulsive, you had to post a reply.”
There we have an example of “every accusation is a confession.”
AC did not make some observations.
Observations require thought, consideration, analysis, reflection, scrutiny and deliberation.
When that level of effort is put into observations, the need for misrepresentation is eliminated.
But these are alien concepts to AC.
He posted the first thoughts that came into his head, and it was all nonsense.
It was so garbled even AC lost track of it.
Flinging accusations around now will change nothing.
I’m an 82 year old Aussie and I distinctly recall the headlines of the Korean War and when Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett reported from North Korea and the headlines proclaimed “reds under the bed”. Burchett lost his Australian passport and citizenship for trying to show the other side of that conflict that ended with US humiliation. Later in the 1960’s with Indonesia’s “Konfrontasi” and the Malaysia Campaign it was “the yellow peril” (again) and then “the domino effect” – headlines all spouted by fear promoting politicians bolstered by a sycophantic press. The Viet Nam War Moratorium protests contributed to a change in government and withdrawal of Aussie troops from that conflict but not so with Iraq 1&2 and Afghanistan. Nowadays we use “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” depending on which side you hate or support. All of this is driven by unrepentant politicians supported by an unbridled media enterprise whose headlines bring advertising revenues. Meanwhile the undiscerning public meekly follow the bait like carp with a gaping mouth. Ultimately we are victims of our own inactivity when it comes to political manipulation. We did not protest loud or often enough when anti-protest legislation was first proposed then enacted now weaponised. So now any form of protest will bring the full weight of an unjust set of laws so that governments (lobbyists) can do whatever they want and claim that lack of protest means acceptance of government policy.
AC and Davis are having another converstation.
In one sense you could say, Russia, because it was their choice in the end. Were they justified, in the way the Israeli fell “justified in what they do.
Like the Gazans, I beleive the Russians were severely taunted, “lost it” and hit out. Fifty-fifty.
The reasons, I beleive, are more complex. I think I skimmed thru someone’s comment about people always needing to resort to war to acheive their ends. Perhaps so. We are only out of the trees a short time and the worst of our old simian traits have lingered.
Another few million years and the trend should have ameliorated somewhat- if the species can survive blowing itself out of existence in the meantime.
Paul Walter, you may have missed the comment I previously made , saying I’ve never argued that US/NATO is without any responsibility for the debacle in Ukraine.
I also said my significant objection is that so many of the pro Putin brigade simply deny the significant Russian culpability.
They misrepresent, use selective and cherry picked quotes and dress illogical opinion up as fact.
Their hatred of democracy is such that it has clouded their judgement and caused them to excuse regimes and systems that are less egalitarian, less tolerant and far more brutal
For example read any comment on Russia and Ukraine by Steve Davis.