The age of adventurism and its cost for nations

Hindustan Times

4 hours ago

Russia invaded Ukraine. It hasn't been easy. It isn't over. Moscow is mired in the war. It lives with increased, almost crippling, dependence on China. And it suffers setbacks of the kind it did with Ukraine's recent drone attacks.
But Russia hasn't lost. It is arguably stronger than it has been at any point since February 2022. The project to internationally isolate Russia is dead. The main protagonist of that project, the US, now so desperately wants to do a deal with Russia that it is willing to barter away its investments in European security and Ukrainian unity and sovereignty.
If Russian President Vladimir Putin isn't yet taking the deal, it isn't surprising. A man is shaped by his experiences. And Putin's experience probably tells him something simple: Adventurism pays. He invaded a country. He has got away with it so far. And he may well be tempted to see how far he can go in wresting more Ukrainian territory, dictating its future foreign policy choices, and shaping the security architecture of eastern and central Europe.
Israel invaded Gaza. To be sure, it was Hamas's terrorism that triggered the crisis. But Israel's wildly disproportionate response cost the State global credibility and radicalised a generation globally that will continue to see Israel as a genocidal power. It has drained Israel of national resources and undermined its democracy. It has eroded prospects of normalisation with Arab neighbours. It has jeopardised ambitious connectivity projects. And it has probably undermined Israeli security in the long term in ways that are hard to envisage at the moment.
But Israel hasn't lost. Indeed, from the narrow perspective of Israel's planners, Israel has won by eliminating the Hamas leadership and crippling its military infrastructure. It has won by eliminating the Hezbollah leadership and military infrastructure and forcing a change in Lebanon. It has won by indirectly contributing to regime change in Syria.
If Netanyahu has then decided to go ahead and attack Iran, it is not surprising. A man is shaped by his experiences. And Netanyahu's experience probably tells him something as simple as the one Putin has internalised: Adventurism pays. He launched and sustained an invasion with no regard for human life. He defied a large part of his own country and its democratic institutions. He violated every tenet of international law. He stared down an international warrant for his arrest on charges of being a war criminal. He got away with it. And Netanyahu may well be tempted to see how far he can go in not just ending the Palestinian dream of survival, dignity and statehood but also invading another country, reshaping its strategic and nuclear choices, and even attempting a regime change operation.
China made Xinjiang a prison, changed the demographic complexion of Tibet, took over Hong Kong (undermining a sovereign promise of maintaining two systems), militarised islands in the South China Sea, expanded its power projection across East Asia and vis-à-vis Taiwan, stepped into Indian territory, and bullied governments far and near with its predatory economics. To be sure, none of this compares with outright invasions. But put it together and it does amount to more than incremental aggression.
All of this has cost China reputationally. It has led to a range of countries forming countervailing coalitions to stem Chinese power. It has generated momentum for supply chain diversification away from China. It has led to aggressive military build-ups by other countries to create some degree of balance of power.
But China hasn't lost. In fact, Beijing has succeeded in making all of its aggression a part of a new normal. If Xi Jinping then thinks he can continue to engage in power projection in the waters, or that he can invade Taiwan, it is not surprising. A man is shaped by his experiences. And Xi's experience probably tells him what Putin and Netanyahu feel: Adventurism pays. He took over the Communist Party of China and conveniently appointed himself as the country's permanent president. He used anti-corruption campaigns to purge rivals. He bid farewell to Deng Xiaoping's dictum of hiding your strength and biding your time and engaged in a mix of visible economic and strategic coercion. He got away with it. And Xi may well be tempted to go further, be it in the Himalayas or the oceans, the Pacific or Eurasia.
Pakistan's proxies conducted yet another terror attack against India, in Pahalgam on April 22. Such an incident and its aftermath only reinforced Pakistan's reputation as a terror export hub. It only drained its already limited economic capabilities. It exposed Pakistan's weaknesses in the military domain. And it made the prospects of a more integrated region, a prerequisite to prosperity, even more distant.
But Pakistan does not think it lost. Indeed, from the perspective of the generals in Rawalpindi, Pakistan won. If Field Marshal Asim Munir thinks he can get away with a belligerent unapologetic posture on terror, it is not surprising. A man is shaped by his experiences. And, just like Xi and Putin and Netanyahu, his experience perhaps tells him something as simple and stark: Adventurism pays. He gave hate speeches. He encouraged terror proxies. He baited a rival into a military confrontation. He screamed escalation and danger. He solicited an international role. He used a ceasefire to declare victory. He got away with it. And Munir may well be tempted to go further with the same trail of terror that has traumatised generations but fetched Pakistan the attention and rent it so craves.
Adventurism can involve invading another country or starving a people. Adventurism can involve sponsoring terror or taking over someone else's territory. Adventurism can involve spurning all international norms and laws or rejecting tribunal orders. Adventurism has been around for as long as human societies have interacted with each other. But the biggest deterrent against adventurism is never law or custom or self-restraint. It is the fear of failure and the cost of overreach. The tragedy of this moment is the end of the fear of failure, for it is the age of adventurism, the age when adventurism pays.
Prashant Jha is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal.