Warning: War is humanity’s darkest mirror. It shows us what we’re capable of when fear, power, and self-preservation take over. This article delves into some of the most unsettling aspects of human nature, touching on the darker side of our psychology. While it ultimately offers a message of hope, it exposes the grim realities present in us all.

Peace Through Power

The tragedy of war is that it devastates the innocent. People are often manipulated into fighting for causes built on lies, and civilians bear the heaviest costs. Although we’ve made progress towards achieving longer periods of peace in many regions of the world, that peace has largely been maintained by the threat of overwhelming force. The reality is that peace often comes not from goodwill, but from possessing the firepower to enforce it.

But despite this ugly side of things, I still believe in the good in people. There’s a light in humanity that refuses to go out, no matter how much darkness surrounds us. We have the potential for incredible kindness, love, and unity. But, like everything, that light comes with shadows. One doesn’t exist without the other, and ignoring that duality is to ignore the truth of the universe.

The Scale of Conflict is Beyond Our Comprehension

Humans have been social, and competitive, beings since the dawn of our species. Evolutionarily speaking, competition is hardwired into us—tribes that were more competitive would win against more relaxed ones. However, humans are adaptable, and we have the ability to dial down our aggressive instincts depending on the environment we’re in.

What we’re not evolutionarily equipped to handle is conflict on a massive, global scale—wars fought thousands of miles away, beyond our immediate understanding. When an immediate threat looms, the instinctive response is fight or flight. But when we’re disconnected from the conflict, the psychological responses vary wildly. Activists take to the streets, trolls spread hate online, dark humor thrives, and social media forms bubbles where likeminded individuals share their biases. Some attempt to raise awareness, others create rage bait to incite online aggression for their own selfish needs of attention.

Social media makes things worse. It simplifies complex conflicts into “us versus them” narratives. Instead of dialogue, we often get polarisation. People pick sides quickly, often without fully understanding the context. It’s easier to condemn or cheer from a distance, but war is far messier than the narratives we cling to.

Simplifying Responses to War

Responses to war are shaped largely by how directly it affects you. Having visited several war museums this summer, I’ve come to observe a range of experiences and reactions.

Direct Impact – Soldiers For soldiers on the front lines, things get dark quickly. Few want to engage in violence, but war twists reality. When friends die or families are displaced, sanity and morality often take a back seat. They are put in situations where they must kill or be killed, and that changes a person. They see their friends fall, and they’re driven by both loyalty and rage. Both sides may commit atrocities, justifying their actions by pointing to the horrors inflicted by the enemy. Soldiers often carry scars, physical and emotional, long after the war ends.

Direct Impact – Civilians For civilians, it’s a nightmare of uncertainty. They lose everything and are forced to live through unspeakable horrors. War doesn’t just destroy cities; it destroys lives, families, and generations. Civilians who endure war often internalise these horrors. What once seemed unthinkable becomes normalised, as the only way to survive is to adapt. There’s a deep anger—not only towards the enemy but towards the world, because war is never just between two sides. It’s a complex world game of power, often orchestrated by politicians who, in order to play, must themselves desensitise to the immense suffering involved.

Indirect Impact – Relating to One Side When you’re connected to one side but not directly involved in the fighting, the truth often becomes secondary. You may defend that side, or at least avoid engaging with people who support the opposing view. This is human nature—most of us can’t easily turn our backs on our communities, religions, or countries, even when we know they might be wrong. It’s like defending a family member who’s committed a crime. You might normally condemn such acts, but if it’s someone you love, you’ll likely justify or defend them. The more you relate to someone, the stronger this effect becomes—until it reaches its peak in self-justification. Everyone has some level of narcissism and a lack of self-awareness where they blame others for things they do themselves.

Indirect Impact – Not Related to Any Side Some people choose sides anyway—perhaps because they have friends involved, or because they see one side as more humane. Others avoid the issue altogether, either because the sadness is too much to bear or because they feel lucky to be far from the conflict. Personally, I believe that unless you’re deeply passionate about one side, I believe it’s best to focus on living your own life to the fullest. The best way to advocate for peace is by showing the world that a peaceful life is worth aspiring to. I respect those who take action, protest, and try to bring about change—the world certainly needs them—but not everyone can get involved in every world issue. In fact, spreading yourself thin across every issue can become counterproductive. Don’t feel pressured by social media’s insistence that “you’re either with us or against us.” The world isn’t so black and white.

Indirect Impact – World Leaders Even world leaders can’t fully comprehend the complexities of war and international politics. It’s like a game of chess, combined with rolling dice, played with dozens of other nations—all with their own agendas.

Though I’m largely indifferent to politicians, credit must be given where it’s due. Even if their motivations are selfish, the decisions they make in times of war carry immense weight—decisions I would not want to be responsible for. Politicians are often accused of hypocrisy, and while they’re probably aware of it, they’re human too. No one wants to bear the burden of innocent deaths, even if they believe it’s for the greater good. They convince themselves that it’s simply the way of the world. Yes they start using human lives as pawns in their games, but what alternative is there? Diplomacy talks can delay violence, but eventually physical competition is inevitable.

Competition as a Driving Force

What happens to a society that has never faced the direct horrors of war? Complacency. People begin to believe in the illusion that global cooperation can be achieved without conflict. Yet, history has shown that conflict and competition are inevitable.

When we feel threatened or challenged, we push ourselves to succeed. Whether it’s meeting a deadline, facing adversity, or cheering for the underdog, competition drives innovation and progress. But it also fuels conflict.

Look at history—every empire has eventually fallen. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome—they all became complacent, and in time, an underdog rose to challenge them. This fate will likely befall the West as well, as new challengers emerge. If they are left unchecked, the decline could happen sooner. This is why I would not want to be a politician. You are put in impossible positions, even if you want to genuinely help people. What happens when it seems that the best way to help your people is to condemn others to death?

Every war now, and that will happen in the future, small or big is not just a war between 2-3 sides. It’s a proxy world war. It’s a test of strength between the big players.  It’s a constant test of game theory and who will come out on top.

Game Theory and the Hypocrisy of Politics

Game theory helps explain why politicians act in seemingly hypocritical ways during times of conflict. Winning the long game requires losing some battles, and no global power can win every confrontation. But by weakening opponents strategically, you can maintain a dominant position. Here are some effective examples of the tactics often employed:

1. Media Manipulation: Flooding the media with language that subtly paints one side as “good” and the other as “bad” has a lasting subconscious effect. Even when people know they are being manipulated, the constant messaging seeps in, much like brand advertisements that influence our buying decisions. Ever noticed how the bad guys in Hollywood movies are always from ‘enemy states’? You may think that doesn’t have an effect on you, but it’s exactly these subtle things that can slowly infiltrate the subconscious.
2. Enabling Support for the Opposition: Allowing protests and a level of dissent within your own country gives the appearance of superiority. It gives the vision of an open and democratic society, which can sway foreign perspectives. Western governments often give scholarships to journalists and other educated talents from other regions to study and work in the West, subtly indoctrinating them into its way of life. This is incredibly powerful because you can convince some of the smartest people from the opposition to join your cause, or at least not be actively helping them against you. It also helps limit the extent of the conflict. If everyone is set to hate the other side, you will cause a full-scale world war. That’s not desirable when nukes are involved, so eventually, once you’ve achieved your targets, or things become too hot, you “listen” to the protesters and let them get a win. Keeping them relatively happy until the next operation.
3. Strategic Hypocrisy: Politicians often make public statements that support one side of a conflict, even when they know they’re being hypocritical. It’s symbolical and also abstains the guilt from the everyday people. No body wants to rule a world of people filled with guilt. When the war eventually ends, those politicians have to take the blame. This is why even if a political leader is liked during war (most often they are not), they lose the elections after a war. People don’t want to be associated with violence.
4. Supplying Both Sides: Superpowers like the USA and Russia often supply weapons to opposing sides in a conflict, profiting from the war while ensuring that neither side grows too strong. They fuel the war just enough to keep their profits up, draining the natural resources of the conflicted countries.
5. Economic Warfare: Globalisation has made countries interdependent, which allows powerful nations to impose sanctions or tariffs to cripple their rivals. A recent example is the European Union’s tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, which threaten to undermine China’s massive investments in EV production. Why is this so bad for China? Because they invested a lot of money to increase the scale of their ability to manufacture lots of EV vehicles to meet supply from the world so now there will be a lot of wasted resources. China can of course fight back with its own tariffs but the view is that China would lose more than the EU would in case of retaliation.
6. Divide and Conquer: One of the oldest strategies in warfare is to incite divisions within your enemy. By exploiting existing religious or cultural tensions, powerful nations can destabilize their opponents without direct intervention. This is another subtle operation. The west doesn’t usually get directly involved early on. They just add spices to the fuel that already exist naturally in every country. Most of the time, that’s enough to eventually reach boiling point.
7. Financial Pressure: Smaller nations often become reliant on money from wealthier countries. If the USA or EU decides to pull subsidies or investment in your country if you do not support them in a particular conflict, what are you supposed to do as a leader of said country? You can’t exactly tell the truth, because you are seen as weak. So you secretly (or not so) give in to the demands.

Of course, there are many others too, and I’m sure there are some that are so subtle and deceptive that very few people figure them out. Sometimes, even within the same country, there can be conflicting goals. That’s when things can get real messy and confusing because politicians may have to go back on their word, if they are convinced that a certain goal is more important than the previous.

All strategies have targets and sometimes the real targets are not what is said by politicians. This happens all the time (see my article on Covid and vaccines) and it’s because telling the truth is not as effective as misdirection. Imagine if the west said the truth that they invaded a country to steal resources. Who would support such a thing? Very few. But what if the dilemma was “We have to invade to steal resources or we risk losing them to other nations, who may then use those resources to make our way of life hell, so yeah it’s horrible but we have to do it”. How convincing will this truth be? Not much. Instead, you misdirect that the enemy country is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and even if people know it’s unlikely, the fear that there is a small chance of this being true allows the population to sleep easy at night.

A Message of Hope

Here’s the thing—despite all of the negative things happening right now in the world, I still believe in a future where humanity rises above the darkness. I’ve seen the good in people. I’ve experienced it. And I believe that we can create more moments of connection, more opportunities for cooperation. We have come a long way to get to where we are now, but we need to go further. To become better versions of ourselves and to look internally rather than looking to find blame in others. To be a little more humble and open, and be vulnerable enough to admit when we make mistakes.

We may not be doomed to this endless cycle of conflict. Maybe there is a way to channel our dark energy in a non violent manner. We can decide to break the pattern, to seek out win-win solutions instead of tearing each other apart. The future is uncertain, yes, but hope will always be our strongest weapon. Hope that we can focus the ingenuity of humanity for positivity. curiosity, art, sport, exploration… love.