Clausewitz on the Ukrainian and Iranian wars.
Clausewitz on the Ukrainian and Iranian wars
STATHAKOPOULOS DIMITRISThe great conflicts of our time bring back to the forefront the thinking of one of the most important theorists of war, Carl von Clausewitz.
In his classic work “On War,” the Prussian strategic analyst laid the foundations for understanding the relationship between politics and war, a relationship that remains central to the interpretation of today’s conflicts. His famous phrase that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” is not just a theoretical formulation, but a tool for analyzing international reality.
In essence, this idea means that wars do not start randomly, but are means by which states seek to impose their will when diplomacy is not enough. Today, two major geopolitical conflicts demonstrate in a striking way the timeless power of Clausewitz’s thought. In Clausewitz’s theory, every war must be interpreted in terms of the political goal it serves. Military action is the means, the political goal is the goal.
In the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Moscow seeks to rebalance the geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe, while Kiev fights for its national survival and territorial integrity. On the other hand, the Iran-Israel/US confrontation is more of a strategic deterrence and regional power struggle, where military pressure is used for political purposes, without necessarily leading to a direct, long-term, generalised war involving soldiers on the ground.
One of Clausewitz’s most important theoretical tools is the so-called “paradoxical triad”: people, army and government. According to his theory, war operates through the dynamics of these three elements. In the Ukrainian war, this triad appears in a strong way. Social mobilization, military resistance and political leadership function as a single system of defense. In Μέση Ανατολή, on the contrary, the conflict is often indirect, sometimes direct, which alters the relationship between state, military and society.
Clausewitz also introduced the concept of the “fog of war,” the uncertainty that pervades any military conflict. Incomplete information, miscalculations, and unforeseen developments make the actual conduct of war far more complicated than strategic plans suggest. This uncertainty is evident on the Ukrainian front as well as in the Middle East. Developments are often shaped by factors that were not fully anticipated by the parties involved.
The similarities and differences of the two wars
According to Clausewitz, every war has an inherent tendency to escalate. When a state increases violence to impose its will, the adversary tends to respond with greater intensity. However, in practice, wars are often limited by political and strategic calculations. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has reached a high level of intensity, but remains geographically limited. Similarly, the Iran-Israel confrontation is characterized by constant tension, without having turned into a full-scale interstate war with ground troops.
These two conflicts share some important similarities. In both cases, military power is used to achieve political goals. Moreover, both wars operate within a broader geopolitical context, involving great powers and regional alliances. However, there are also important differences. The Russia-Ukraine war is a classic interstate war with clear fronts and large-scale military operations. In contrast, the Iran-Israel/US conflict is often asymmetrical in nature and manifests itself through regional conflicts, strategic deterrence, and indirect operations.
His greatest contribution Clausewitz perhaps lies in his warning that governments must first understand the nature of the war they are engaged in. Misjudgements about the duration, cost, or will of the adversary have repeatedly led to strategic disasters throughout history. In today's international arena, where the great powers find themselves in a state of increasing confrontation, Clausewitz's thinking remains extremely relevant.
Modern conflicts show that, despite technological changes, the essence of war still lies in the complex relationship between political will, military power, and social mobilization. In other words, two centuries after his work was written, Clausewitz still offers one of the most powerful theoretical tools for understanding 21st-century wars.