Welcome to a new era. It is something different compared to the past.
In the 20th century, the years were divided into two camps. Between the times of the two World Wars, the planet is in a hot war. After the end of WW2, the geopolitical battle between the United States and the then USSR ushered in decades of cold war.
Now, welcome to the warm war.
It is not dissimilar to the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story, but in this situation, the temperature is not too hot enough to see a heated world war, but events are not cooled down to reach the purely diplomatic rows we have seen during the Cold War. Things are just right, and events are chaotic enough, that a genuine hot war can be ignited between countries just based on the current conflicts around the world. But at the same time, if dealt with properly, things can simmer down to a cold war, or better, peace.
Looking at the current situation, a warm war is an appropriate term for the tinderboxes that could cause a wider conflict. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza involve major power players in both Europe and the Middle East, and we have seen a realignment that has been reflected in the geopolitical landscape. Some call it “West vs. Rest” while others call it a disparity between the “Global North” and the “Global South.” In these conflicts, the aggressors and the defensive side can coalesce with either party, without fear of impunity, criticism, or ostracised from decent diplomatic society for their actions.
Major conflicts aside, other forms of tension exist that can escalate. There is an ongoing civil war in Sudan, relations between China and the US are still fraught despite slightly warming relations in recent months, the growing tensions alongside the South China Sea and Taiwan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Kosovo escalations, populist leaders, coups in Africa, not to mention the potential threats caused by AI and climate change.
But what you might pick up from this warm war is the sentiments and rhetorics involved. You will hear grandiose statements from both the global north and south claiming their side is the side of justice, human rights, and history. They aren’t completely wrong in their statements, but the level of double standards and hypocrisy is staggeringly obvious once you know the details.
What makes this era different from the past is the symmetry of hypocrisy. In the past, Western hypocrisy often dominated the global political narrative, for more details see the war in Iraq. But now, thanks to a growing coalition in the global south that features countries such as Russia and China, all sides can muddy the waters by filling the airwaves with their proclaimed morality.
Throughout the war in Gaza, the US has been unequivocally sided with Israel. It is understandable, given that Israel is a long-time ally of the superpower. And ever since the October 7 attacks, Biden has been a steadfast supporter of Israel, including bypassing Congress to send aid to Israel multiple times and visiting Israel days after the Hamas attack to show support for the country. But what has been conspicuously lacking is the amount of criticism towards Netanyahu’s government and Israel in its conduct of war. We have learned in recent weeks that a US intelligence assessment finds nearly half of Israeli ammunition dropped on Gaza are dumb bombs that are imprecise. And IDF officials have proclaimed their efforts in Gaza focus on maximum damage, saying, “The emphasis is on damage, not accuracy.”
What has the US responded with? At best, tepid criticisms and warnings in public towards Netanyahu. While in the United Nations, the United States has repeatedly shot down resolutions calling for a ceasefire and is greatly isolated in general assembly votes being one of the only countries in the world not supporting calls for a ceasefire. And that has caused subtle but not insignificant reputational damage to the US credibility, especially in its efforts to persuade other countries to support Ukraine.
Read this statement after Russia launched one of its deadliest airstrikes on Ukraine in late December 2023.
Overnight, Russia launched its largest aerial assault on Ukraine since this war began. This massive bombardment used drones and missiles, including missiles with hypersonic capability, to strike cities and civilian infrastructure all across Ukraine. Strikes reportedly hit a maternity hospital, a shopping mall, and residential areas—killing innocent people and injuring dozens more. It is a stark reminder to the world that, after nearly two years of this devastating war, Putin’s objective remains unchanged. He seeks to obliterate Ukraine and subjugate its people. He must be stopped.
The pundit Mehdi Hasan made an interesting challenge for people on social media to try this thought experiment in the same paragraph you read above.
I challenge you to read this statement from the White House today but change the words Russia, Ukraine, and Putin to Israel, Gaza, and Netanyahu. Go on.
Do it. See for yourself.
In case you are a bit too lazy to read the change, here you go.
Overnight, ISRAEL launched its largest aerial assault on GAZA since this war began. This massive bombardment used drones and missiles, including missiles with hypersonic capability, to strike cities and civilian infrastructure all across GAZA. Strikes reportedly hit a maternity hospital, a shopping mall, and residential areas—killing innocent people and injuring dozens more. It is a stark reminder to the world that, after nearly two months of this devastating war, NETANYAHU’S objective remains unchanged. He seeks to obliterate GAZA and subjugate its people. He must be stopped.
What is shocking about the change in the phrase is that it is not wrong. Over the past few weeks, we have seen Netanyahu’s intentions are less on releasing hostages (some of them have been killed by friendly fire by the IDF) and more on destroying Gaza in the name of wiping out Hamas. I will be fair here, it is important to eliminate Hamas to prevent a tragedy like October 7 from happening again, and to remove a large roadblock that can lead to a two-state solution. However, Hamas does not equate to Palestinians. Yes, there is a chance of civilian casualties in a densely populated area like Gaza, and there are a lot of complicated factors involved. But what the IDF is doing is not accidental casualties caused during targeted operations against Hamas, but throwing bombs to the ground believing it will hit people who are from Hamas and recklessly ignoring the consequences to innocent civilians. Not only that, Netanyahu has recently rejected plans from even the US for a two-state solution or a plan after the war on who should run Gaza, and it has continued to block potential ceasefire proposals offered by other Middle Eastern countries.
Patrick Wintour wrote in the Guardian in a brilliant article titled “Why US double standards on Israel and Russia play into a dangerous game,” he noted an important problem in international reception with the US showing a double standard in Ukraine and Gaza.
At a time when multilateral institutions are fighting what António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, calls “the forces of fragmentation”, how the US handles Gaza matters, not just to Gaza, but to multilateralism.
If the US defence of Israel continues to go wrong, one or two outcomes are likely. The trend to shifting transactional non-ideological alliances will grow. Forum shopping by countries or strategic hedging, requiring active portfolio management like financial hedging, will become even more the norm. Alternatively, America could find itself confronting larger and more assertive alternative blocs, whether it is an expanded BRICS, led this year by Putin, or other Chinese-led alliances.
Biden’s “Hug Bibi” plan has failed. Biden can and has to do more. He could be a moderating influence again in temporary ceasefire talks (Which I am in support of now, given that it is an achievable possibility) that are similar to the hostage exchange deal made last year. Biden can personally visit Israel again, but bypassing Netanyahu and address the Knesset, talk to the families of the hostages and send a louder signal to the world that is opposed to Netanyahu’s ideas on how the war should continue. If Biden wants to go further, he has a unique role nobody else has in influencing Israel’s policies in its war, and that is playing a role in forcing Bibi out of power. Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian that “Biden might be the one person in the world who can heed that plea and act on it. He must.”
Turning to the global south, you might naively perceive they can hold a higher moral ground in geopolitics, given they are a newer coalition and have a chance to clear itself from the muddled moral credibility of the global north. But as we have seen in recent weeks, any pretense of that has been wiped out.
On December 29, South Africa filed a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging Israel’s role in the Gaza war constitutes genocide. CNN reported:
South Africa accuses Israel of being “in violation of its obligations under the Genocide Convention” in its application and argues that “acts and omissions by Israel … are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent … to destroy Palestinians in Gaza,” according to the ICJ.
Over 21,507 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7, according to the enclave’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry. Among the dead are at least 308 people who were sheltering in United Nations shelters, per the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees.
For context, in the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II writes the definition of what the UN constitutes as genocide.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
A case for Israel committing genocide against Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank can be made, but I would argue the intent of Israel in the Gazan war might be more complex and not what some think as a simple intention to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza. But if you see Israel’s involvement in Gaza as genocide, surely you will apply the same standards to Russia’s role in Ukraine. According to a report by Time magazine, there are several instances in which Russia’s war effort against Ukrainians can constitute genocide and is working its way through international courts.
Russia has shown an “annihilating mindset” by attacking civilians who are evacuating and forcing people into “filtration” camps, she says. The treatment of children particularly points to genocide, says Yonah Diamond, an international human rights lawyer at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. The “forcible transfer” of children to another group—by having them reeducated or adopted by Russians—violates the Genocide Convention. Over 6,000 children have been put in camps or placed up for adoption in Russia, according to a Feb. 14 report by Yale’s Conflict observatory.
Another red flag is Russia’s aggression towards symbols of Ukrainian identity, including the Ukrainian language, says Hook. Human rights experts appointed by the United Nations warned on Feb. 22 that they are concerned about “the continued denigration of the history and identity of Ukrainian people as a justification for war and hatred,” citing attacks on Ukrainian museums, churches, and libraries. Especially in occupied Ukraine, they said, Russia has worked to “erase local culture, history and language”—including by seizing Ukrainian literature and history books. In occupied Russian territories, people were arrested last year for playing Ukrainian music at a wedding, while a DJ who played a Ukrainian song in a café was sentenced to 10 days in prison.
Russia’s discourse about the war also allegedly violated a specific tenet of the Genocide Convention: making false allegations of genocide. In the past year, Putin and the Kremlin have falsely accused Ukraine itself of committing genocide against ethnic Russians, declaring Ukrainians to be “Nazis,” and used that claim as a pretext to justify its invasion.
What has South Africa done about the claims of genocide against Ukrainians? Actions speak louder than words, and the sound is particularly clear when it comes to the BRICS summit held in Johannesburg last year. Vladimir Putin is expected to attend the annual summit, but South Africa faces a legal dilemma. The country is part of the International Criminal Court, which months ago had released an arrest warrant for Putin over his alleged involvement in potential war crimes in Ukraine. South Africa had spent months trying to dodge that issue, going up to proposing a law change so that it has the power to decide whether or not to arrest a leader wanted by the ICC. In the end, Putin did not visit South Africa in person and joined in through video conference instead.
South Africa’s proclaimed neutrality in the Russo-Ukrainian war extends more with frequent visits between diplomats from the two nations to each other’s capitals, and that should be an undermining factor when compared to the country’s tough stance on Israel. As a vocal member of the global south, the coalition is flimsy when it comes to a more concrete stand on geopolitical issues compared to the West, and its hypocrisy is no less damaging than those from the global north. However due to the lack of attention paid to the global south and its double standards, many brush such issues away.
The warm war era of the 2020s is an entirely new development with few historical references, but we are living in the moment, and its influence will extend for the decades to come.