Why Global Peace Eludes Us in the Nuclear Age

A Dangerous Imperial Hangover: Why Global Peace Eludes Us in the Nuclear Age

By Prof. Suresh Deman, Centre for Strategic Affairs, London*

Professor Jeffrey Sachs is one of the most popular speakers among the audience, transcending boundaries, due to his deep insight into current geopolitical and economic issues that impact people worldwide. He does not hesitate to express concerns and forewarn countries to avoid being sucked into China-bashing by the United States. Prof. Sachs is a Professor at Columbia University and the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The list of his engagement in Russia, Ukraine and other countries following the collapse of the USSR is well-known.  He is also an intellectual fighter and speaks out against Injustice and evil wherever they emerge. He, indeed, is awesome, loud, articulate and highly reasoned voice for the collective conscience of those who cannot sepak for themselves.  A voice of the last, lost and the least. 

In January 2024, the Doomsday Clock moved to just 89 seconds before midnight—the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe. This isn't hyperbole. With nine nuclear powers and escalating conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and East Asia, we are sleepwalking toward disaster. The world is gripped by a systemic crisis rooted not in military necessity but in the persistent imperial mentality of the Western world, particularly the United States.

After the Cold War ended in 1991, we had an extraordinary chance to build a peaceful, cooperative world. The Soviet Union dissolved peacefully. Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, sought Western friendship. China opened its economy and began the most spectacular economic transformation in modern history. The world could have chosen partnership.

Instead, Washington chose dominance.

Rather than diplomacy, it expanded NATO to Russia’s doorstep. Rather than embracing China’s rise, it launched a trade war. Rather than promoting a just peace in the Middle East, it doubled down on military support for Israel—even as it commits what many international lawyers are calling a genocide in Gaza.

The Crisis Is Not Just Regional—It’s Systemic

Each of today’s crises is interlinked by a single thread: an unwillingness by the U.S. and its allies to accept a multipolar world. From Ukraine to Gaza, from Iran to Taiwan, Washington behaves not as a cooperative leader, but as a global enforcer—using economic pressure, military alliances, and covert operations to maintain supremacy.

This is not a new story. The U.S. inherited the tools and tactics of empire from Britain. The 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the Balfour Declaration that gave rise to Israel-Palestine conflict, and the dozens of regime-change operations that followed throughout the Cold War—these are not anomalies. They’re part of a pattern: if a government does not serve Western interests, it must be overthrown, contained, or destabilized.

As the former U.S. General Wesley Clark famously said, shortly after 9/11, the U.S. had plans to “take out seven countries in five years,” including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Two decades later, most of these countries lie in ruins, with ongoing civil wars, foreign occupations, and collapsed economies.

A Nuclear World Cannot Be Ruled by Imperial Instincts

The U.S. is, by geography, one of the most secure nations in the world. It is flanked by friendly neighbors and vast oceans. Its only real existential threat is nuclear war—yet its policies are making that risk worse.

Russia and the U.S. are already in direct conflict via Ukraine. China and the U.S. are heading toward confrontation over Taiwan. Israel and Iran are edging closer to war, drawing in nuclear-capable Pakistan. How many red lines must be crossed before miscalculation leads to catastrophe?

What’s striking is that none of this is necessary.

China, for example, poses no military threat to the U.S. It simply developed faster than Washington expected. Its “Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative and “Made in China 2025” technological drive were seen as threats not because they were aggressive, but because they were successful. Economic insecurity, not military aggression, fuels U.S. hostility.

An Opportunity Still Exists—But Time Is Short

The world desperately needs a new mindset—one that sees development, not dominance, as the goal of global affairs.

We have enough technology, knowledge, and resources for all regions—from Africa to Latin America—to experience decades of economic growth, just as China did from 1980 to 2020. But this requires a turn away from militarism, regime change, and ideological arrogance.

Unfortunately, every U.S. administration since 1991—from Clinton to Biden—has continued the imperial tradition, bringing us ever closer to “midnight.” This is not a partisan issue; it is systemic.

As an economist, I know that shared prosperity is possible. As a geopolitical analyst, I know that peace is achievable. But only if we abandon the fantasy of unipolar dominance and accept that cooperation, not coercion, is the only path forward.

If we fail, we may soon discover that in the nuclear age, imperial arrogance is not just immoral—it’s suicidal.

---

* Artisle is based on Prof Sachs' many lectures and the author's own views. Prof. Suresh Deman is Director of the Centre for Strategic Affairs, London. He has advised governments on economic and geopolitical policy and writes regularly on international relations and political economy.

---