Does War Save Economies?

This is a theory that I quite dislike but it is one of the most embraced theories by most people in the world.

- There will definitely be a war.

- Why?

- Because no government is able to repay this much debt.

This is a straightforward fact - that Indebtedness rates had reached a peak in many countries before the Second World War. The fact that a war broke out right after the Great Depression of 1929 may seem inevitable. In fact, in retrospect, everything seems rational.

Today, the debt stock of the world’s leading countries has reached the same levels of World War II. Indebtedness rates in both developed and developing countries are simply not sustainable. A 2010 report by the IMF tells us that, at this rate, the GDP to debt ratio of the G7 countries will soon hit 441%. There is also another important fact:

Every year, an amount of USD 16 trillion, which is almost as much as Chinese GDP, is spent on military expenditures, personal armament, legal disputes and security investments.

More precisely, 6 trillion dollars are spent on military expenditures and 5 trillion on internal security, while the damage that people inflict on each other in wars or criminal incidents is around 3 trillion dollars. And damages arising out of disputes are nearly 1 trillion dollars. In total, it corresponds to more than 12% of global GDP.

But most deaths in the world are caused by air pollution. Even the number of people killed in military conflicts ranks 7th in the report.

There are previous diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS, which are ranked higher on the list. as well as Deaths by alcohol use and traffic accidents are also ahead, which means despite all this intense level of armament and the efforts of the arms industry, diseases, traffic, alcohol and tobacco prove to be more effective in killing the population.

War cannot save economies

So, with the above mentioned data in mind, the natural conclusion is that war cannot save economies. On the contrary, it could take several decades to eliminate the negative outcomes of its aftermath.

For instance, the world was not able not able to shake off the disruptions of the Second World War before the end of the 1970s. The possible nuclear nature of a next great war could require a minimum recovery time of five decades and that would be the most optimistic projection.

The fact that governments spend so much money on nuclear armament, "weapons of mass destruction" is regarded as the risk factor that people are most afraid of

Obviously, the fact that governments spend so much money on nuclear armament, "weapons of mass destruction" is regarded as the risk factor that people are most afraid of, according to people who responded to a 2017-2018 survey by the World Economic Forum, which is the year when Trump was inaugurated as the President of the United States.

Although this fear has diminished a little with the outbreak of the 2020 pandemic, it has grown again due the possibility of a terrible war which showed its first indications with Russia-Ukraine conflict and Gaza attacks.

On the other hand, in a world that is struggling with recession, a group who does not want all the weapons they have manufactured do not go to waste is continuously trying to pit NATO and the US against Russia.

In the meantime, they are also blocking Trump, who is publicly saying that the US warships and aircraft carriers are deployed all over the world, that it is a waste of trillions of US dollars and that money could have been used for healthcare. As the US elections draw near, there is a feverish activity to deploy 500 more US troops in Romania and Greece. Apparently, no one wants to have peace.

The establishment of peace was obstructed

Unfortunately, the terrorist attack in Russia took place just before Turkey declared that it would invite Russia and Ukraine to Istanbul for a ceasefire. Although both countries seemed willing to negotiate the option of a ceasefire, the establishment of peace was obstructed by certain parties who do not want the war to end.

Since last month, Putin has been drawing attention to the likelihood of an assassination, terrorist attack and social unrest in Russia. But he obviously did not expect his country to be a target of Salafi terrorism. It was the Agence France-Press to first report that DAESH claimed responsibility for the attack.

Ukraine did not take responsibility for the attack but no one could know how Putin would react. In the meantime, Turkey has suggested to Russia "to take action to capture the real perpetrators". In a statement, Putin said that they know who did it and now they would find the person who gave the order”.

That’s what happened, as far as we know. However, not many people know that Pope Francis said both Russia and Ukraine should come to the table to initiate peace talks, adding that Ukraine should not be ashamed to negotiate, in an interview he granted to a Swiss TV station a few weeks before the terrorist incident.

The first response to this interview was a statement by France, convinced that Zelensky would lose, "We will send troops to Ukraine", which was released after the Pope's speech. This decision by the French tells us an important and clear fact: the United States and France do not want this war to end yet.

Macron's move to send troops reminds me of the time when Sarkozy carried out air strikes on Libya. After it was revealed that Gaddafi financed Sarkozy’s election campaign, NATO was forced to get involved in French military operations in Libya, aimed at misleading the public. Now, first France and then NATO could build up troops this time in Ukraine.

All these developments indicate that the DAESH’s assumption of responsibility for the Moscow concert hall attack is poorly credible but it has been clearly successful in carrying out its mission which is to delay the Ukraine-Russia Peace.

All these details tell us that a great war is approaching and how important it is to encourage peace, just like Turkey is trying to do.