On “New War” Thinking: Moving Beyond the Current Debate

Abstract

Over the past three decades, “new war” thinking has become a significant focus in military debates. The central contention of “new war” thinking is that post-Cold War conflicts are essentially different from those of the late modern era, such as World War I and World War II. The alleged novelty of post-Cold Wars has been vehemently challenged. Critics have maintained that “new war” scholars underestimate the lasting influence of the past on today’s conflicts and attempt to radically change the way we think about war without providing empirically grounded arguments. The debate on the nature vs. character of war has significantly enriched the literature on the subject. However, there is a crucial oversight in the current literature: the power dynamics embedded in “new war” thinking. This article critically examines whether they rely purely on academic views of war by comparing Western, Russian, and Chinese perspectives. It argues that most exemplars of “new war” thinking are highly value-laden, based on certain national/civilizational security threat assessments that reflect the narrow strategic concerns of the great powers. So, playing on Robert Cox’s famous dictum on the role of theories, “new war” concepts are generally for some states and for some purposes.