When the news brings another fresh report from Ukraine, another round of strikes in Gaza, another Chinese coast guard incident near the Philippines, another North Korean missile test, the mind reaches almost automatically for a single map that would explain it all. We want one shape that fits the chaos. One theory that sorts the actors into roles we can understand.
The geographic theory is one of the more attractive candidates. It comes in many versions, but the basic idea is that countries facing the sea, the so-called islanders like the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan, behave differently from countries with long land borders, the continental powers like China, Russia, and the states of the Middle East. The sea acted as a natural buffer for the islanders, so they developed economies and cultures organized around trade and openness. The continental powers, with sharp borders and no buffer, learned that survival meant either expanding or being expanded into. Their histories became cycles of dynasty and replacement, often written in blood. Today, the maritime powers talk about a free and open Indo-Pacific, while the continental powers see this language as the self-congratulating rhetoric of states that were lucky in their geography.
There is something to this. Halford Mackinder built an entire school of geopolitics on similar foundations more than a century ago, and writers like Robert Kaplan and Peter Zeihan have given the idea contemporary life. The framework captures a real pattern about how geography shapes strategic culture.
But the framework also fails in important places. Japan was extraordinarily aggressive from the late nineteenth century through 1945, despite being an island. The British ran a colonial empire of remarkable cruelty. The United States has been continuously at war for most of its existence. Switzerland is landlocked and famously neutral. So the equation of sea with peace and land with aggression does not really hold. What maritime powers often do is export their violence rather than experience it on home soil, which is a different thing from being peaceful.
The instinct to find a single map is understandable. Reality is exhausting. But every clean theory of these conflicts turns out, on inspection, to leave something crucial on the floor. Frameworks remain necessary; no one thinks without them. What seems less defensible is treating any one of them as sufficient. The discipline of holding several at once, even when they sit uncomfortably together, is closer to what serious thinking about these conflicts actually requires.
Why These Countries, Why Now
A different question, sharper than the geographic one, is why the specific group of regimes we associate with the current confrontation, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, are acting now. What changed? They have been authoritarian for decades. Why does the friction feel especially sharp at the close of the first quarter of the twenty-first century?
Part of the answer is that the post-1991 unipolar moment is ending, and these regimes are each, in their own way, responding to that shift.
It helps to notice first what they do not share. The label “communist” is misleading for most of them. China’s Communist Party retains Marxist vocabulary but runs a state-capitalist developmental model that Lenin would not recognize. Russia abandoned Marxism in 1991 and now runs on a mixture of Orthodox Christian nationalism, imperial nostalgia, and personalist autocracy, closer to Tsarism than to the Soviet Union. North Korea is essentially a hereditary monarchy wrapped in juche rhetoric. Iran is a Shia theocracy with revolutionary characteristics, ideologically further from Beijing than Beijing is from Washington in many respects. So the appearance of a coordinated “axis” is partly an optical illusion produced by their shared opposition to the American-led order, not by any genuine ideological alignment.
What they actually share is a diagnosis. Each has concluded, after decades of testing the proposition, that integration into the Western-led system on Western terms would eventually mean the dissolution of the regime. China spent thirty years trying integration and decided around 2012-2013, with Xi’s consolidation, that the price was too high. A genuinely open China would not have the Communist Party at the top, and the Party knows this. Russia under Putin made a similar bet earlier, around 2007-2008, after concluding that NATO expansion meant the West was not actually going to treat Russia as a peer. North Korea learned from Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 that giving up nuclear weapons is what gets your regime destroyed. Iran watched the same lessons and drew the same conclusions.
The timing is also driven by closing windows. China’s demographic crisis is severe and will deepen rapidly through the 2030s. Their growth model is exhausted. The next twenty years are, almost certainly, their best window ever to reshape the Pacific order. After that, they decline, perhaps sharply. Russia’s window is already closing, which is part of why Putin acted on Ukraine when he did rather than waiting. The actors are racing the clock.
This is why the appearance of coordination is real even when the regimes do not particularly like each other. Russia and China have a long history of mutual suspicion and a contested border. They are not natural allies. But the structural pressure of facing the same dominant order pushes them together, and each of them benefits from the others stretching American attention thin. North Korea provides shells to Russia. Iran provides drones. China provides economic lifelines. None of this requires ideological affinity. It requires only a shared interest in surviving the current order long enough to alter it.
So the answer to “why now” is not really about ideology, even though ideology is the language each regime uses domestically. It is about timing, demographics, and the closing of windows that none of these states believe will reopen.
The Middle East as a Different Kind of Tragedy
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians does not fit this great-power frame, and forcing it to fit produces analytical mush. The Middle East has its own logic, and it is a sadder logic.
Religion is the obvious surface explanation, but religion alone cannot do the work. Judaism and Islam share enormous theological ground. They are siblings within the Abrahamic family. For most of history, Jews lived more safely in Muslim lands than in Christian Europe. The current conflict is roughly a hundred years old, not a thousand, and its roots are in nationalism, colonialism, and territory rather than scripture.
The basic shape is this. European antisemitism, culminating in the Holocaust, made a Jewish state seem necessary to Jews and acceptable to a guilty West. That state was created on land where another people already lived. Those people were displaced. Neither side can give up its core claim without ceasing to be itself. Israelis cannot abandon the idea of a Jewish state without re-exposing themselves to the historical vulnerability that produced it. Palestinians cannot accept permanent dispossession without ceasing to exist as a national community. This is what the philosopher Bernard Williams might have called a tragic structure: two legitimate claims to the same finite thing, where the satisfaction of one requires the frustration of the other, and where neither party is simply wrong.
Religion enters as accelerant rather than as cause. Once a piece of land becomes holy, compromise becomes apostasy. Settler religious Zionism has made the West Bank theologically non-negotiable for parts of the Israeli right. Hamas’s charter sacralizes resistance and the recovery of all of historic Palestine. Religious vocabulary turns up the absolutism. But the underlying issues, land, security, political recognition, would still be there if both populations were secular. Northern Ireland was Protestant against Catholic but really about colonial settlement. Yugoslavia was Christian against Muslim but really about ethnic nationalism after Tito. Religion gives conflicts their absolutist vocabulary, but it rarely creates them on its own.
Iran adds a third layer. The Islamic Republic has built its legitimacy since 1979 on opposition to the United States and Israel. It funds Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various Iraqi militias partly out of Shia solidarity, though Hamas is Sunni, but mostly because asymmetric proxy warfare is the only effective tool a middle power has against a superpower and its regional ally. Iran’s nuclear program is, like North Korea’s, a regime-survival insurance policy. The clerics watched Saddam, then Gaddafi. They are not going to make the same mistake.
So in the Middle East we have at least three things happening at once: a tragic structure between Israelis and Palestinians, a regional cold war between Iran and the US-Israel-Gulf axis, and religious vocabulary layered over both. Removing religion would not remove the conflict. It would change the language. The structure would remain.
Why Frameworks Seduce and Fail
It is worth pausing here to think about thinking, because the temptation to grab one master framework and apply it everywhere is exactly what produces bad analysis of all of this.
Take Spiral Dynamics, the developmental model derived from Clare Graves and popularized by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan. It maps human value systems onto a spiral of increasing complexity, from survival concerns at the base through tribal, egocentric, traditionalist, achievement-oriented, communitarian, integrative, and holistic levels. Applied to geopolitics, the framework offers tidy explanations. ISIS and the Taliban are read as Blue (traditionalist) with Red (egocentric power) undercurrents. Putin’s Russia is Red and Blue. China is Blue and Orange (achievement). The United States is Orange and Green (egalitarian) in tension with itself. Western Europe is Green-leaning. The frictions in the world become, on this account, frictions between value systems at different developmental stages.
The framework has real uses. It captures something true about why “just have a dialogue” rarely works between actors operating from incompatible worldviews. A Blue traditionalist genuinely cannot read a Green communitarian’s tolerance as anything but weakness. A Green communitarian genuinely cannot read Blue’s certainty as anything but bigotry. They are not arguing about the same thing in the same value frame.
But the framework slides almost effortlessly into self-congratulation. If we say a regime is aggressive because it occupies the Red meme, and we know it occupies the Red meme because it is aggressive, we have constructed a tautology dressed as an explanation. Worse, the developmental ladder lets us position ourselves at the higher rungs and our adversaries at the lower ones, which is exactly the colonial mindset rebranded in psychological vocabulary. The Global South critique of this move is sharp and largely correct. Saying that countries in the Middle East or parts of Africa are at lower developmental stages, regardless of how carefully one phrases it, replays a very old story about civilized and uncivilized peoples.
The framework also cannot account for regression. By its own logic, societies should move up the spiral over time. But the United States and parts of Europe are clearly experiencing something that looks like a return of Red and Blue energies after decades of Orange and Green dominance. Either the directionality claim is wrong, or “development” is more reversible and contingent than the model suggests. Probably both.
Spiral Dynamics is one example, but the general lesson applies to every elegant single-frame theory. Geographic determinism flatters maritime powers. Civilizational frameworks (Huntington’s clash of civilizations, for instance) work as broad mood music but predict poorly when tested against specific cases. Pure realism explains state behavior but not why states sometimes act against their interests for ideological reasons. Pure constructivism explains the role of ideas but underweights material constraints. Each framework, used alone, illuminates one part of the picture and casts the rest into darkness.
Three Layers, Used Together
If no single frame is enough, what does adequate analysis look like? Probably something less elegant than any of the master theories, working in at least three layers simultaneously.
The first layer is structural and material. Who has what, who fears what, who needs what. Geography, demographics, resources, the basic positions on the board. Russia’s behavior is largely predictable from its geography (a vast plain with no natural barriers to invasion from the west), its demographics (declining and aging), and its resource economy (dependent on hydrocarbon prices). China’s behavior is largely predictable from its growth model (running out of headroom), its demographic crisis (population peaking and declining faster than projected), and the structure of the western Pacific (a chain of US-allied islands constraining its access to open ocean). Iran’s behavior is largely predictable from its position as the major Shia power in a Sunni-majority region with American forces on multiple borders. This layer answers the questions of “what” and “when.” It tells you the rough shape of what each actor is likely to want and roughly when they are likely to push.
The second layer is regime-specific. What does this particular ruling group need to stay in power? The Chinese Communist Party needs nationalist legitimacy because it abandoned communist legitimacy in everything but name. Putin needs external enemies because his domestic legitimacy depends on a siege narrative. Netanyahu needs perpetual emergency because his coalition collapses without it. The Iranian clerics need the Great Satan because the revolution is otherwise exhausted, with a young population that mostly does not believe in it. Hamas needs Israeli overreaction because that is how they recruit and how they retain relevance against the Palestinian Authority. This layer answers “who” and “why now.” It tells you which window each regime is acting through and what their internal incentives look like.
The third layer is cultural and ideological. The texture of conflicts. Why Russian aggression takes the form of imperial restoration rather than just power politics, drawing on a thousand-year story about Moscow as the Third Rome. Why Chinese assertiveness draws on Confucian hierarchies and the century-of-humiliation narrative running from the Opium Wars to 1949. Why Israeli-Palestinian violence is so absolutist, with both sides having internalized the worst lessons of their respective histories of survival. Why North Korean propaganda has the particular flavor of dynastic Confucianism crossed with mid-twentieth-century anti-imperialism. This layer answers “how” and “in what register.” It does not tell you why things happen, but it tells you what they look like when they do.
Spiral Dynamics, used carefully, fits in this third layer as one way to think about cultural texture. The geographic framework fits in the first layer. Religion mostly fits in the third, with second-layer effects (regimes that draw legitimacy from religious authority have specific dependencies). The error is treating any of these as the master frame. The discipline is using all three together, knowing that none of them alone tells you enough.
What none of this gives is moral comfort. The structural view tells us these conflicts are unlikely to resolve cleanly. It tells us the actors are mostly behaving rationally given their constraints, which means the “irrational dictator” framing beloved of Western commentary is mostly wrong and therefore mostly useless for prediction. It tells us “the mainstream world” is itself a participant whose actions look very different from inside Beijing or Moscow or Tehran than from inside Washington or Tokyo. Adequate analysis is harder and less satisfying than picking a side.
The Human Rights Question
This brings us to the moral frame, which deserves its own treatment because it is where the analytical and the ethical collide most directly.
Human rights are a real moral achievement. This needs saying first, because the cynical reading is so available that one can forget how much was actually accomplished. Slavery is now universally illegal, where for most of human history it was universally legal. Torture is at least officially prohibited everywhere, even where it is practiced, and the fact that regimes have to deny doing it concedes the moral premise. Women can vote in almost every country. Children have legal protections. Religious minorities have formal protections almost everywhere. The death penalty is in retreat globally. Mass atrocity, while still horrifyingly common, is no longer celebrated as a virtue the way it was in many premodern conquering ideologies. A person born today is statistically far less likely to die violently than at any previous point in human history. This is not nothing. Something real happened, mostly in the last 250 years, and pretending otherwise is its own form of dishonesty.
And yet. The Universal Declaration of 1948 was drafted primarily by Western powers, with significant non-Western input from figures like Charles Malik of Lebanon and P.C. Chang of China, but with a Western-dominant framing. The UN Security Council’s permanent five are the World War II victors, frozen in 1945. The IMF and World Bank are headquartered in Washington and run on weighted voting that favors the United States. The “international community” often means, in practice, the United States and its allies.
This produces predictable hypocrisies. Saudi Arabia chairs UN human rights panels. The United States invaded Iraq while citing human rights, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and faced no consequences. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is critiqued less harshly by Western governments than China’s treatment of Uyghurs, even when the substance is comparable in important respects. China and Russia point this out constantly, and they are not wrong to point it out, even though their motives in pointing it out are largely self-serving.
The deeper structural critique, made by thinkers like Makau Mutua, Talal Asad, and Samuel Moyn, is that the human rights framework is historically Christian and then liberal in its origins. It presumes a particular ontology, the autonomous individual as the basic moral unit, and when applied universally it can override genuinely different ways of organizing human life. Whether this is liberation or imperialism depends partly on where one stands. From inside a liberal framework, securing individual rights against collective claims looks like progress. From inside a communitarian or religious framework, it can look like the dissolution of the bonds that make a meaningful life possible. Moyn’s argument in The Last Utopia is sharper still: human rights as we know them only really emerged as the dominant moral language in the 1970s, replacing older frameworks like socialism and anti-colonial nationalism. They became powerful as utopian alternatives collapsed. So the framework is younger and more contingent than its universal language suggests.
How to hold all of this. I think the answer is something like a floor metaphor. Certain things appear to be wrong from almost every developed moral perspective: gratuitous cruelty, the killing of children, betrayal of trust, humiliation of the helpless. These near-universals do not give us a complete ethics, but they give us a floor. Above that floor, much is genuinely contested, and reasonable people in different traditions will weight things differently. Human rights documents are best understood as one attempt to articulate the floor plus some of the more contested content above it. The floor is probably defensible across cultures. The contested content is, well, contested, and pretending it is not is part of what produces the hypocrisy that makes the framework discreditable in the eyes of those it is wielded against.
What the meta-stance buys us is not neutrality but resistance to instrumentalization. The goal is not to refuse all judgment, which becomes its own moral cowardice and lets the worst actors off the hook. The goal is to apply standards consistently, including to one’s own side. A person who criticizes Chinese repression but not American mass incarceration is not actually committed to human rights. They are committed to anti-China politics dressed in human rights language. A person who criticizes Israel but not Hamas, or Hamas but not Israel, is doing the same thing in a different register. Consistency is the test of moral seriousness.
The UN itself is best understood not as the embodiment of universal human values nor as merely a Western tool, but as a forum where the contradiction between those two descriptions plays out continuously. Reforming it, especially the Security Council, is probably the right project, though almost certainly impossible because the permanent five will not vote to reduce their own power. The institution is what it is: useful and compromised, with normative functions worth preserving even when its enforcement functions fail.
No Alien View, but the Effort Matters
The honest closing is that there is no view from nowhere. The mainstream Western media often write as though they occupy a neutral, universal position, and they do not. No one does. The alien observer who could see the human story whole, without being inside it, is a useful fiction for clarifying what we are reaching for, but it is not a position any of us can actually hold.
What is possible is something more modest and probably more demanding. The discipline of holding contradictions without collapsing them. The willingness to say that the Chinese Communist Party is genuinely repressive and that Chinese resentment of Western lecturing is legitimate. That Putin’s invasion is genuinely criminal and that NATO expansion was genuinely provocative. That Hamas committed atrocities and that Palestinian dispossession is real. These are not contradictions in any logical sense. They are the actual structure of the situation. Frameworks that resolve the tension too cleanly are usually wrong, and the comfort they provide is bought at the cost of accuracy.
“Both are true” is not an evasion. It is a discipline. It means refusing the either-or that tribal thinking demands and accepting that adequate description of these conflicts will always feel less satisfying than partisan description, because reality is less satisfying than partisanship. It means applying the same standards to one’s own side, which is the part that hurts.
For those of us who write, translate, and think across worldviews, this is not just an analytical posture. It is a working condition. Moving between English and Japanese, between Western and East Asian framings, makes it impossible to pretend that any single perspective owns the whole picture. The same word lands differently in different rooms. The same event has different meanings depending on which history one is standing inside. This is uncomfortable, but the discomfort is information. It tells us that the smooth, confident takes on these conflicts that fill the major media in any country are smooth and confident because they have edited out the parts that would complicate them.
The more useful work, slower and less rewarded, is to keep holding the layers together. Material conditions and regime survival and cultural texture. Real human rights progress and real weaponization of human rights language. The maritime powers’ genuine commitment to openness and the genuine luck of their geographic position. The continental powers’ genuine grievances and their genuine repressions. None of this resolves into a single picture. The honesty is in the not resolving.
At the close of the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, the Taiwan Strait, the Korean peninsula, and across the wider Middle East are not going to be understood through any single master frame. They are going to be understood, if they are understood at all, by people willing to keep three or four lenses in their hands at once and to switch between them as the situation requires. That is not a satisfying conclusion. It is, I think, the true one.
Photo by Basma Alghali on Unsplash
Tom’s Blog 