In a fundamental conversation between political analyst Yuriy Romanenko and philosopher Andriy Baumeister, the "Thucydides Trap" concept is analyzed — a theoretical model describing the inevitability of conflict between a rising and dominant power. The discussion reveals deep mechanisms of contemporary geopolitical confrontation through the prism of historical parallels and philosophical concepts.
Theoretical Foundations: From Thucydides to Allison
The conversation begins with defining the concept introduced by American political scientist Graham Allison. As Baumeister notes: "Allison analyzed 16 cases starting from the 16th century. Only in four cases did they avoid war. That is, he built his model specifically for US-China relations." This statistic demonstrates the structural inevitability of conflict under certain force configurations.
The fundamental idea goes back to ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who, describing the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), formulated a key principle: "The true cause of the war, though not openly stated, was the growth of Athenian power and the fear it instilled in Sparta, which made the war inevitable." The Lacedaemonians, fearing further strengthening of Athenian power, understanding that most of Hellas was in Athenian hands, were forced to start this war.
Chinese Perception of the West: Civilizational Confrontation
Baumeister introduces a critically important perspective into the discussion — viewing the conflict through the eyes of Chinese political scientists and historians. "In the last six months to a year, I have been following publications of Chinese political scientists and historians. And for them indeed, the Western model or image of the West is a model of expansion," the philosopher explains.
He develops this thought: "For them, the West, starting from the Roman Empire, is always expansion, always aggression. In the eyes of China, the West is fundamentally aggressive. This is inherent, in fact, in the fundamental mentality and actions of the West. And China is harmony." This dichotomy defines Chinese self-perception as a civilization of harmony opposing Western aggression.
Baumeister provides specific statistics: "We can count how many times, for example, the United States has artificially created governments in different countries or invaded these countries after World War II. That's 57 times. Since 1945, approximately 57 times. We can count how many times China has done this. Naturally, indeed, there will be a very strong imbalance."
Paradoxes of Contemporary Geopolitics: Ideological Inversion
One of the central discoveries of the conversation becomes the analysis of ideological inversion in the modern world. Baumeister formulates the paradox: "Autocratic China has come to the necessity of protecting the liberal order formed after World War II, and democratic states have come to the necessity of creating a fundamentally new model, autocratic in its essence."
The philosopher explains historical roots of this phenomenon: "Until the 19th century, indeed, China did not have expansionist ideas. They did not have texts where expansion was described." However, China was "infected by the West through trauma and through assimilation of liberal ideas. And initially, the idea of trade became the foundation of expansion that China is now defending."
Today, paradoxically, "China is a defender of the liberal economy, the free market, a defender of ideas that can even be called neoliberalism." Meanwhile, the US under Trump transitions to harsh realpolitik, where, as in Thucydides' Melian Dialogue, "the strong do what their power allows them and the weak agree with what they must accept."
Triad of Geopolitical Resources: Will, Tradition, Resources
Baumeister proposes an original analytical model for understanding the positions of major players. "China, on one hand, has the will to work, this drive, vitality, which Europe no longer has. That is, China has drive and Europe does not. But China also has a long history and understanding of its 3000-year tradition... And this tradition, which I refer to as the second element, is a chance and prospect for China to strengthen."
The philosopher develops the concept: "China has two things combined that are individually absent in the states and in Europe. Europe lacks will, the states lack a long tradition."
Romanenko expands this model, adding a third element — resources: "When you have will, tradition plus resources, the situation starts to take on different shades. For example, take the USA. There is will, there are resources, but there is no tradition... In China there is will, there is tradition, there are resources, but not in all areas. For example, in rare earths they are leading overall and have created a monopoly situation."
Ukraine's Three Deceptions: Structural Analysis
A central part of the discussion becomes a painful analysis of Ukraine's geopolitical position for Ukrainian society. Romanenko formulates the concept of "three fundamental deceptions."
The first deception — Western: "The West's deception regarding Ukraine becoming a member of NATO and to a lesser extent the European Union, but primarily NATO. When in the West, everyone understood that due to the positions of Germany, even the states themselves, Ukraine would not be there, as they considered it a buffer."
The second deception — Russian: "Deception from Russia, which, understanding exactly the same thing, knowing that Ukraine would not become a NATO member, used this fake... Russia understood this perfectly well, but used this NATO facade as a decoy to justify its claims as the right of the strong in a purely Thucydidean manner to attempt to enter here by force."
The third deception — internal: "Deception by national elites who use the topic of European integration and joining NATO as a facade to simply manage these assets, to the maximum extent delay, allow penetration of some external forces, transnational corporations, in order to once again manage these assets."
Ukraine's Demilitarization: Joint US-Russia Project
Romanenko advances a provocative thesis: "Since 1991, we have been observing the process of Ukraine's demilitarization and reduction of its military potential. And when the United States needed to strengthen Ukraine, and it was already about during Trump's first term, it was extremely challenging to accomplish this task quickly."
He specifies: "Demilitarization was started by the USA with Russia actually. Russia started with the USA at the moment when the Soviet Union collapsed and the USA turned a blind eye to Ukraine selling a huge amount of weapons somewhere in Africa and elsewhere... Why? Because it served the interests, it served this basic interest from the perspective of demilitarizing Ukraine."
Baumeister adds historical context: "In Budapest, there was a record of these negotiations, of this position. Ukraine went through a series of negotiations under intense pressure from the very beginning... The pressure was very intense both from the Russians and from the Americans, and even more so from the Americans than the Russians."
The Concept of Bilateral Buffering
Romanenko introduces the concept of "counter buffering of Ukraine from the West and East": "The West viewed Ukraine as a buffer but filled it with promises of westernization. And Russia viewed Ukraine as a buffer using this NATO bogeyman. And now Russia is directly using the idea of buffering by severing our territories from our state."
This concept reveals Ukraine as an object trapped between two buffering projects, where both players pursued their own strategic goals while only formally recognizing Ukrainian sovereignty.
Crisis of Western Soft Power
Baumeister diagnoses a fundamental crisis of Western soft power: "What we used to call Western values or indeed Western soft power is literally rapidly losing its value. And now it can no longer be said that, for example, Trump operates precisely with the value-based and meaningful images of the West."
He cites an example of conflict within the West: "Between Europe and the United States, as we observed in February and early March, a serious, I would say, even cultural war emerged. When Europeans began increasingly accusing the United States of attacking Western values, such as freedom, democracy, and human rights, and betraying Western ideals."
Romanenko supports this with an observation: "When Trump started demanding various forms of rent from different countries, including Ukraine, there was a statement from the Prime Minister of Indonesia who said the following: 'For decades, the United States was an ideological beacon for us because they said that we are a city on a hill to which anyone can come if they have the appropriate set of characteristics. And now it seems we observe that they are solely focused on rent. Nothing else concerns them.'"
Triangles of Power and the Role of Jokers
Romanenko proposes a conceptual model of the contemporary world order through a system of triangles: "In modern world politics, when we carefully analyze it, it is necessary to understand the balance of power and dynamics in triangles. There is a power triangle: China, USA, Russia. There is a major economic triangle: USA, Europe and China."
The key idea — the joker's role: "In each of the triangles, there is a joker. In the first power triangle, the joker is Russia, because depending on its alignment, the positions of either one or the other player are significantly strengthened. In the second economic triangle, the joker is Europe, because if it aligns with the USA or China, it forms an alliance that accounts for about 40% of the world's GDP."
Trump's Trade Wars: Strategic Mistake?
Baumeister expresses bewilderment about Trump's strategy: "Many believe that while Trump is pushing, for instance, his own natural allies like South Korea, the Philippines, Japan, speaking of the Asia Pacific region, and the European Union to some extent into China's embrace, then a very strange model emerges. The hegemon or leader of the United States is now taking measures and actions in a manner that significantly weakens the Western Bloc and strengthens China."
Romanenko analyzes the European response: "Notice how the Europeans played with great skill the tariff strike against the Americans the day before yesterday. They specifically targeted the businesses of Republicans who advocated for raising tariffs. They particularly targeted, in particular, Johnson's district, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They export soybeans to the European market from there."
Multipolarity: From Bipolar to Pentapolar World
Baumeister emphasizes the complication of the world system: "Today indeed even China and India are also claiming a fairly strong role. Therefore, in the confrontation of two powers today, there is quite a shift. India is trying to play its role. Islamic countries are trying to play their role in diplomacy, in the economy, and even in soft power, in terms of ideas."
He compares with the bipolar world: "Back then there were only two powerful forces and everything revolved around them. In fact everyone else was a satellite. There were indeed two such suns around which other planets revolved. Now there are several such suns emerging and therefore it is harder to predict."
Romanenko summarizes: "This is a fundamentally different situation than anything that has ever existed in human history, that it is truly necessary to have the absolutely comprehensive and complete global picture in mind in order to protect even your regional interests."
Strategies from Sima Qian's "Records of the Grand Historian"
Romanenko draws a parallel with Chinese strategic thought: "Sima Qian wrote almost at the same time as Thucydides, about two centuries later than Thucydides, but he described the Warring States period, which took place almost at the same time as the Peloponnesian War."
He quotes ancient Chinese strategy: "Qin Huiwang asked Zhang Yi how Qin could conquer the world. Zhang Yi replied: 'Show generosity to more distant states and severity to those nearby. This way, you divide them, use force where it is advantageous, and refrain where it is not.'" This strategy, according to Romanenko, is being applied by Trump to Europe.
Conclusions: The Need for New Thinking for Ukraine
In the concluding section, Romanenko formulates a critical necessity for Ukraine: "Most Ukrainians, even members of the elite, are not interested in what's happening in Syria, what's happening in Pakistan or Peru, or perhaps in some Venezuela. Our interests were focused only on the United States, occasionally on Brussels, and Moscow always occupied our minds. So we only had three points of focus."
He emphasizes: "The politicians who come to power, I hope, in the coming years should drastically change the outlook of Ukrainians and understand that a broader corridor to strengthen their position is sometimes playing on the different feelings and emotions of our partners. And for us at the start of the large-scale invasion, there was no one to play our cards with. We tied ourselves so closely to the West that we didn't have any additional trump cards."
Baumeister agrees with the need for a broader view: "One should have natural curiosity which has always been somewhat neglected or excluded here indeed towards the most diverse countries and peoples, even marginal ones, because even in the margins you can find a source of future strength, see or find a resource."
Romanenko concludes: "Without the ability to understand the world in its various manifestations, it is impossible to hold any serious position in the world... Without curiosity we are doomed."
