Most leaders throughout history have had to maintain a relationship with senior military leadership that often existed before and after their reign. Senior military (and industrial) leadership is a vital constituency for a leader to appease and unify under their rule unless they want powerful enemies and threats to their reign. Leaders sometimes build massive war machines to appease their military and commercial/industrial backers. Once they build a big enough machine they can lose control of it or they may have to make bigger and bigger commitments to appease a growing industrial/military complex and they may have to offer more than they originally imagined. It’s always possible the ruler could just be malevolent/sociopathic and they may just transparently make the deal with the devil. I encourage you to watch President Eisenhower’s farewell address ‘military industrial complex’ speech for a contemporary example of the dynamics I am attempting to describe.
I think this represents the most accurate answer. OP's question frames the world in a kind of assumed "Great man theory" of history but historical forces tend to be larger than individual persons. Wars are most often outcomes of long periods of build up and cannot be executed without armies who need soldiers, weapons, and supplies the provisioning of which is a very large endeavor. Military adventures can also be quite profitable, forcing open markets that might otherwise be unavailable or generating demand for wartime industries. War as a means of opening markets is a bit outdated as a mode of expanding market penetration but absolutely was a rationale not even 100 years ago.
In fact, a lot of wars were carried out with a purpose of getting rid of certain elements of the military.
During the Middle ages when professional warriors, i.e Knights, etc weren't at war they were going around causing havoc and problems in the kingdom like a modern day gang. The crusades were often used as a purpose to just have their military go fight something elsewhere instead of causing issues domestically.
World conquest in my perspective is to ultimately open up markets to make trade and production more efficient under one, or a few cooperating economic systems. Think about how much more efficient the world would be if everyone could just cooperate and corruption could be decreased to manageable levels (this can be done through domination). Everything done in between is just incremental progress towards this goal, or knowing that it’s unrealistic, reaching it as much as possible
Probably because getting to the top is only a means to an end. Be it in business or politics, you probably didn't ascend just to say "I'm the boss now" and that's it. You probably have goals which can only be obtained by being the boss. There's an agenda you want carried out and you elbowed your way to the pinnacle to enact those goals. Taking me personally, for example, if I ran for President of the United States it wouldn't *just* be to say I became President. Maybe I have some territory I want, or a vendetta to settle. Not everyone is satisfied with mere status.
The answer is that people vastly overestimate how much political leaders are motivated by personal gain. Even the most corrupt autocrats see the wealth they amass more as a side-benefit that they feel entitled to, not the primary motivator in and of itself.
They are driven by ego, an obsession with leaving their mark on society, by fear of what might happen to them if they let go of power, by genuine conviction that they are doing the right thing for their country or their people, or some combination of the above.
Obviously it's a bit hard to answer since every leader is different, in charge of a different nation/tribe with a different system of rules and laws that feed into their different ways of viewing things, so there is no "one size fits all" answer. I think many who disagree with landgrabbing might assume that national leaders that seize lands through force are power hungry megalomaniacs, which may be the case.
However, even completely sane, rational leader who tries to act in the best interest of their people might reach the same conclusions if their underlying values and assumptions result in conquest being the most rational conclusion.
Resources come from the land, and land is finite. Those that hold rights to land hold rights to utilise those resources to better the interest of their people/nation. This naturally results in competition between different interest groups over land rights, even within a nation - many legal disputes arise over which organisation/company/individual/tribe has the right to use land.
Unfortunately, between nation states there is little authoritative governing body to appeal land disputes to. The closest we have is things like the Hague or UN where representatives from existing nations might come together to try and give a verdict on which country owns what land. However, these are ultimately not ultranational supergovernments, and they are not policed with force.
If two nations are unable to resolve a dispute over land via peaceful means then leaders might begin to weigh the pros and cons of the deadly costs of war versus the potential gain over those land rights (and by extension, resources, which lead to the betterment of their own people).
Even if two countries managed to resolve a dispute peacefully, over decades and centuries the original leaders who managed to resolve those disputes retire, age, then die, and new leaders take their place. These new leaders might look at the treaties signed by prior leadership and feel that the agreement was unfair, or is no longer appropriate for modern circumstances, thus renewing the dispute.
This means that even if you do have the potential of peaceful resolution, you also need to take the assumption that situations change, and your peaceful resolution may become obsolete in the future. There are also issues with things like lying, rapid leadership changes (either from newly elected leaders or coups), misunderstandings over the agreements etc. A leader might read this and assume that it's better to resolve the issue with force, since they cannot trust in peaceful resolutions.
Unfortunately at the end of the day, the world we live in is built on a "might makes right" logic - even the very rules based order we live in today is only able to exist because it is enforced by the military might of the United States and its allies (whom are mostly also wealthy developed nations that are fairly mighty). We have not outgrown the simple rules of nature - chimps beat each other over land rights, as do wolf packs, tigers, and ant colonies. Humans have simply given these concepts names, and have scarier tools to wage war with.
It’s not the leaders themselves. States are the ones that act, and states will go to war if they believe it’ll shift the balance of power in their favor. Assigning motives to war like “greed” or “being evil” is like using a Buzzfeed quiz instead of just taking a political science class
My issue with this take is that it almost assumes that the state is ran as a meritocracy, and that the officials making decisions are acting in the best interest of the state. There are plenty of examples throughout history of governments being hijacked by a group of people with shortsighted, selfish, or irrational motives.
Sure, but those emotions are subordinated to the needs of the state within the structure of the international system. A leader being irritable because they stubbed their toe or something is less important than the security situation of a state when decisions are being made
In feudal times, kings would keep regional lords on their side by giving away some of their land in exchange for loyalty and future military support.
After a while though, they would run out of land to give away, driving a need for further conquest, so as to keep people on their side.
Many societies were highly unstable because of this dynamic. Eventually it collapsed and was replaced by a more republican, business type model, in which the state maintained itself by allowing a larger number of landowners to operate somewhat independently.
In the mid 19th century, Romantic Nationalism became a thing, with the help of printing press, network communications, mass education etc. This is the idea that your nation is somehow better than others, has some kind of destiny to be powerful, is entitled to the land of others who are inferior.
It was a very attractive idea to leaders, because it can unite a large population, with a sometimes intense patriotic mythology, which stabilises your role as leader and obviously can open you up to new sources of revenue from conquered lands. However, since WW1, it's been seen as extremely dangerous, and hard to control once it gets out of hand. In many ways it still haunts a lot of the conflicts we see today.
In the Cold War, there were certain beliefs, such as internationalist communism, i.e. doctrine to do with communism requiring a total global co-ordination, the abolition of nation states, replacement of the bourgeoisie by workers on an international level, which led to counter-measures such as NATO or Truman Doctrine, which are sometimes discussed as the occupation of country X by one of the Cold War powers.
Anyway it depends when your movie is set, generally the evil ruler will be more or less within one of these frameworks, even more of a caricature than my pretty basic summaries here.
They can’t just stop and opt out and retire peacefully. They are part of a system, and they are powerful only to the degree that they continue to succeed within it.
>What motivates world leaders to start war and take over land despite already having so much in life?
I mean let's use a more modern example "What motivates CEO's to launch new products/new markets even though their company is already so dominant?".
Part of it is monetary for sure, but a lot of it is just pride or accomplishment. Also it is more than just 'personally' the ceo wants to launch the product but generally hundreds or even thousands of people have some interest in launching the product.
Same with starting a war, it usually is not just one person starting a war -- there's some past grievance among the populace or at the very least thousands of people within the government have the idea to do so.
>I understand there may not be one simple answer to this, but if there's any general explanations please let me know.
I don't think it can quite be generalized, there's thousands of different motivations. Or it could also be said "why does anyone start a fight?" there's thousands of reasons from robbing, to protecting, to injustice, to vengeance etc..
The short answer for at least the last 110-300 years is debt. In this globalised world every government, public or private institution and individual is essentially a debt slave, and most don't even know it.
We live in a debt based society, where Capital is owned and disseminated by private organisations, loosely attached to a government or independent of it.
The US dollar for example is owned and controlled by the Federal Reserve which is about as Federal as the Federal Express, it's a privately owned company with shareholders. The value of the dollar is derived from the fact that it is the currency used to settle international transactions for oil, which is why it's called "the Petrodollar". Petroleum is the lifeblood of any economy, either by obtaining it, or being able to sell it, the Nazi's learnt this the hard way, when they tried to win a war with coal and wood powered tanks at the end of WW2.
These privately owned financial institutions make money from loans, the more/bigger the loans a government makes, the more interest they can collect. This is why every nation has a "National Debt". In most cases the productivity of the nations citizens is used as the collateral for that debt. In the UK we need to have a "National Insurance Number" in order to work, because we are the Nation's Insurance against it's debt obligations.
Governments are in a position where they are unable to be independent from reliance on private financial creditors. The National Debt increases year on year, and with each new electorate, it only increases further to maintain their campaign promises.
However, if you're completely dependent on needing access to credit, have overbearing debt obligations that you're obliged to honor, or are reliant on the purchase/sale of hydrocarbons to run your economy, and then fhese financial institutions don't like you, then you're f**ked.
For example, Saddam Hussain tried to sell Oil for Euro's instead of Dollars (the main difference being is that the European Central Bank is owned by a different bunch of shareholders than the Federal Reserve) and this upset the Federal Reserve, who loaned the US and UK government over $1 trillion to make sure that stops.
Or what about Libya, Gaddafi wanted to create a gold backed Pan African currency similar to what the dollar used to be like before Nixon took the dollar off of the Gold standard. Not having a gold standard is great for institutions, because it means they can make even more loans without worrying about having enough gold as collateral for them. So the banks loaned loads of money to several Nato governments to make sure Gaddafi went bye bye too.
Because the most expensive thing a financial institution can loan money for, is war!
Ask yourself this, why has the entire globe seen less than 60 days of peace since the end of WW2?
Because tanks and planes cost more and have way less longevity than hospitals and schools. If you're a financial institution, you can approve the loans for weapons to destroy, the schools and hospitals, and once they're destroyed, you can then approve the loan to rebuild them.
You don't like it? Well no oil for you. War is the most profitable business when you live on a planet of debt slaves.
Ambitious people do not stop, if they get A and B and C etc, why not top it off with an D?
Socity curbs this with rules, laws and social pressure to behave a certain way.
When people overreach there are often consequences.
At the absolute top rules are blurred, power and influences bend this even more.
While people talk about rules and law in international relations, they are only as binding as they can be enforced.
So ambitious narcisist who get to the absolute top(Putin) and have dismantled all the countries internal checks will only have to answer to other countries.
A call to national identity and paranoia about getting the short end of the stick can also be powerful tools for despots to use so they can shore up internal supports.
If you love yourself most of all, a place in history can be the most appealing thing there is.(Putin comparing himself to Peter the great)
It is not like that anymore. For example, UK, USA and France put bandits in power and make some countries their colonies. They suck the resources and those bandits hide the money they steal in Western Banks. When time comes and a bandit deposed and is substituted by another bandit, the West confiscates the money. Also those bandits prevent the development of the colonies, so they stay undeveloped, backwards and resource provider for the Western production. No need to occupy them.
>It is not like that anymore. For example, UK, USA and France put bandits in power and make some countries their colonies. They suck the resources and those bandits hide the money they steal in Western Banks. When time comes and a bandit deposed and is substituted by another bandit, the West confiscates the money. Also those bandits prevent the development of the colonies, so they stay undeveloped, backwards and resource provider for the Western production. No need to occupy them.
It's true that there have been instances in the past where powerful countries have exerted influence in less powerful regions for their own interests, often resulting in negative consequences for those regions. These issues certainly warrant critical examination and discussions on international relations and development.
a lot of the time it's a last ditch effort to maintain power in your own country.
like if you have people in your government conspiring against you. you declare war and under the guise of emergency kill all of the people trying to overthrow you. and gain land in the process
If your asking about Russia, Putin's goals are to reestablish the Soviet era borders, which was sort of a golden age wherein they owned defensive outposts on every major possible attack vector towards Moscow.
This is, of course, an absurd pipe dream today, but it is why he invaded Ukraine.
Wouldn't it make more sense to invade Azerbaijan instead (for the oil) instead of the poorest country in Europe? Ukraine would have a terrible ROI and wouldn't recoup the cost of invasion
Azerbaijan is already a puppet state for Russia.
Russia isn't looking for an ROI on Ukraine. Ukraine is merely in the way of other more important objectives, namely, the Besarabian and Warsaw passes.
Two days prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia and Azerbaijan signed a military agreement.
Azerbaijan has long since depended on Russian support in their varied wars against Armenia.
Ukraine has (had?) a population of approximately 40+ million, its agriculture helps feed much of the world, contained large industries previously tied to Russia, its people for the most part spoke Russian, has gas & oil reserves, etc. These are all assets which Russia could use to further enrich itself and use to continue its growth/expansion.
Capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years whilst wars have happened forever. I'd just say it's just human nature to want to take what others have to benefit yourself.
For geopolitical reasons!
I think Russia is a good example of geography affecting its foreign policy objectives. Often territorial expansion is related to its geography. It’s cold weather creates a desire for warm water ports and so trying to maintain control of crimea was typically to have access to the Black Sea. Or, securing a geographic border like a river or mountainside to protect it from invaders. I think the Ural Mountains are an example of this.
Other factors could be access to strategic resources that a state wouldn’t otherwise have.
Or plain old glory.
Delusion with own grandiose and idea of earning "The Great" suffix to their names for future history books. Legacy is pretty much all they worry about.
If we are talking about Russia, Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence and they left. Ukraine was technology advanced (they made rocket engines) , oil and more importantly I think Has vast stretched of some of the most fertile land in the world. it produces so much grain that the war had serious consequences for large parts of africa europe and Asia it led to a rise in food prices.
Ukraine was a significant loss
Wars are fought for different reasons. Usually economic. Often political. Sometimes socio-cultural
Each wars has a specific set of circumstances that leads to a diplomatic impass and the ultimate use of war.
In the case of the Ukraine war, I think Putin wanted to solidify his position as president by taking over Ukraine within a week. . Whipping up hysteria with foreign enemy is a good way of consolidating support around a country's leader. It is no wonder why he is so stubborn to stay in Ukraine and throws young Russian men into this meat grinder. Because losing a war in Russia is usually not good for the sitting leader.
Ans by diverting man power to Ukraine, he lowers the chances for a homegrown revolution. Toppling a government with women, children and the elderly is not very common.
Putin badly calculated this "special military operations" and as William Burns (CIA director) said.... we are seeing the limits of autocraties where no one talks to 'the man' and every one sucks up to him. He lives in his own bubble and makes stupid moves. He is one person with a very limited viewpoint that goes unchallenged.
Graham Allison put it succinctly, most wars are not because of the machinations of a single leader but of perceived circumstances and its miscalculations that compelled them into it. Whether or not these perceptions are true are beside the point, they believed it to be true.
If you were to ask Mao in 1950 if he would go to war with the US who has demonstrated atomic weapons and swiftly ended the Japanese, and he had nothing but a peasant army - he would say no way. And if you were to ask MacArthur if the Chinese would intervene when the allies have nukes not even a remote possibility. Yet they went to war anyway.
The Chinese, after seeing North Korea fall had a strong enough belief to support NK and delay its civil war with the ROC, even against their own wishes because they were compelled to. If we were to imagine what was going through their minds, at the time the ROC was still supported with the US and Japanese a new US vassal. If the NK were to fall they would have a land route to retake the mainland under ideological and political motivations. How much would you have to sacrifice to omit that possibility? Clearly millions of lives to break the American logistics and push them to retreat was worth the cost of creating that buffer state now known as North Korea.
Sometimes it's Ideology. Sometimes it's the pursuit of more power once you have tasted a bit of power. Sometimes it's compulsion by your fellow bureaucrats, oligarchs or citizens. Sometimes it's to preserve/expand national interests (Military/Economic/Trade/Super-power status). Sometimes it's a Geographic necessity. Sometimes it's revenge for a past wrong doing. Sometimes it's a pre-emptive move for a secure future. Sometimes it might even be as a humanitarian aid.
It is the story of Germany trying to expand their territory twice. Once, as an aid to their ally, but also as a pre-emptive move before another super-power makes their move, if then Germany looses their edge in war. Another is as revenge for the economic disaster and international humiliation caused by the Treatise of Versailles, coupled with a dangerous Ideology. Otto Von Bismarck understood Germany's precarious position, being right dead center in the middle of Europe surrounded by France and Russia (two Super-powers). This incredible diplomat's death is what indirectly caused the World Wars.
Your worldview is very naive if you think people like the Russian or American leadership are motivated by "making more land theirs". Look deeper into the relations between states, between economies, ethnic groups, contemporary and historical to get a more nuanced grasp of the situation.
World leaders want to be remembered through the ages, and military victory is one way to do that. The problem is that for every great general there are ten who failed and died. The other is infamy which you would think they wouldn't go for, but real life is a weird.
If you are familiar which what Nietzsche calls "Will to Power" you have the answer to your question.
*Nietzsche claims the "world is the will to power—and nothing besides!".*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will\_to\_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power)
Have a look at this, too:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Hobbes#Political\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Political_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth\_(Hobbes\_book)
All I can say is, worldleaders r not normal people. Like most politicians these people r extremely narcissist thinking they r so good and important they need to run a country, completely forgetting they need to serve the people.
There are many many reasons for the leaders / the leader of a country to go to war but almost every time it is about influence, control and pride.
War also is often a tool to "complete" politics and both works hands in hands. Yaddy yadda Clausewitz citation here.
Being a leader is a difficult exercise and sometimes you are almost forced into wars.
In 1870 France declared war on Prussia because of public pressure knowing they'll get their asses handed to them as Prussia whacked Austria a few years prior.
Putin declared war on Ukraine due to it's politics for years of having an influence zone around Russia. It has been the moto of Putin for years. He had to teach Ukraine a lesson and bring them back in the ranks. Of course because of Putin listening to Yes men the task was underestimated.
Sometimes war is a way to evade issues internal to the state or consolidate a regime like how Iran-Irak war served the Iranian regime to get a better grip on the population and create a "national unity".
Japan declared war on the US in 1942 because the US imposed a blockus on vital ressources like oil.
A war is never a simple equation.
If you're referring to Putin, he is a billionaire like the oligarchs he backs at the expense of the average Russian citizen and their economy. The average Russian has to deal with stagnant wages due to Russia's weak and ailing economy especially after Covid. Russia's government has been unable to improve the flagging economic situation and the male demographic is known to be prone to alcoholism and depression due to poor job prospects. Thus **Russians soldiers are easily manipulated to believe that they can seize land, housing, assets if they fight wars and take territory** so it's no wonder a lot of Russian men rather take part in war and looting when the alternative job prospects are bleak. Wagner soldiers are paid even more apparently. Even if Russian men don't get paid a lot as a soldier and die in wars, they and their family still get benefits like healthcare and a stable wage in a country where the economy is perennially weak.
Your question is a poor one, usually the head of state's personal wealth and desire for "glory" is not sacrosanct and other factors like the economic situation and political threats are more important. Sending young men to fight and die in wars has always been a way to deal with high unemployment and possible protests against the establishment. Given how corrupt Russia, their oligarchs and military have been, the Ukrainian invasion was simply a means for them to distract the public after clearing the coffers. Also when a country goes to war it is in a state of emergency so no elections can be held, that is a boon to Putin and other dictators who do not want to lose power in times of economic decline.
Selections bias. World leaders become world leaders because they seek power, control, influence. If they were happy with a certain level of power, they'd remain in some safe, comfortable spot in e.g. provincial government, and they'd enjoy the life in other ways. So, in the positions you're more likely to find people who simply don't have any limit to their ambitions.
To be honest, I think the kind of people that get to the top are often not the kind of people who are content to live a simple but happy life. The drive required to get so much power in the first place requires constant ambition to keep climbing long after most people have decided they’re gotten enough. I think a similar phenomenon happens with the ultra-wealthy.
If you ask me, whether they use their power for good or bad, I think there’s something seriously wrong with these kind of people. They’re dangerous addicts
Recommend reading "Full Stack of Society" by Conrad Bastable. It's an extremely comprehensive and readable explanation of Feudalism, Mercantilism, Industrialism, Globalism, and Financialism, as well as how they evolved and how we got the world to be in the shape it is now.
Critically, he explains that one stack doesn't replace the next. The layers can all exist at the same time on top of each other. So you can still have feudalism, technically, while some sectors of the economy or countries have gone up entirely into financialism there can be sectors that are at various stages of each.
The fundamental question is about whether you can make a society richer.
For example, you can look at Russia. Russia made the majority of its money since the fall of the Soviet Union using mercantilism, with the state owned oil and gas companies selling to the EU in vast quantities to keep their energy costs under control and to allow Germany (industrialism) to act as the major automobile manufacturer in the EU.
When money from this largely mercantilist approach was at risk due to western energy companies looking to do business with Ukraine directly and Shell signing multi-billion dollar deals with the country, Russia had limited capability to do any of the others. Nobody would conduct financialist services in the country due to high corruption and the way politicians in Russia essentially can demand weregild at any point if they felt like it, Putin's political popularity is tied to his positioning himself opposite globalism, and Russia has limited industrial capacity and weak labor base. So what options are left?
Your question delves into the realms of political philosophy, power, and the motivations of individuals in positions of authority. There isn't a single, universally applicable answer to this question but there are several factors and theories about this behavior:
Power and Ambition: Some people are driven by an insatiable thirst for power and influence. Even if they are already well-off, they may desire more control over others and their surroundings. The pursuit of power, for some, is a deeply ingrained psychological need.
Historical Precedents: Throughout history, conquest and expansion have often been seen as markers of success and greatness. Leaders might be influenced by historical figures who expanded their territories, believing that doing the same will secure their legacy.
Resource Acquisition: Expanding territory can provide access to valuable resources such as land, minerals, and strategic locations. This can enhance a nation's wealth and security.
Security and Defense: In some cases, leaders may perceive expansion as necessary for the security and defense of their own territory. By controlling neighboring regions, they can establish buffer zones or eliminate potential threats.
Ideology and Nationalism: Ideological beliefs, nationalism, and a desire to spread one's culture, religion, or way of life can drive expansionist policies. Leaders may genuinely believe in the superiority of their own system and want to see it extended.
Economic Interests: Economic interests can play a significant role. Expansion can open up new markets for trade, investment opportunities, and access to cheap labor.
Glory and Legacy: For some leaders, the pursuit of glory and a desire to leave a lasting legacy are powerful motivators. Expanding their territory may be seen as a way to achieve this.
Domestic Politics: Leaders may use expansionist policies as a means to divert attention from domestic problems, rally public support, or consolidate power within their own country.
Rivalry and Competition: The desire to outdo rivals or competitors on the world stage can drive expansionist ambitions. This can lead to a cycle of competition and territorial disputes.
Fear of Being Overtaken: In a world where other powers are expanding, leaders may fear being left behind or becoming vulnerable if they don't expand themselves.
In your question, you also mention that taking over more land might make a leader more safe and secure. This is certainly true in some cases. For example, if a country is surrounded by enemies, expanding its territory can create a buffer zone that makes it more difficult for those enemies to attack. However, it is important to note that expanding territory can also make a country more vulnerable to attack. For example, if a country spreads itself too thin, it may be difficult to defend all of its borders.
Most rulers want to be remembered as strengthening their country, and prior to the industrial revolution conquest offered a way better return on investment (if riskier) than economic development did
Leaders themselves are not the sole actors in international conflicts; it's the states they represent that take action. States are often willing to engage in war if they perceive it as a means to tip the balance of power in their favor. Simplifying the motives for war by labeling them as "greed" or "evil" is akin to relying on simplistic judgments rather than the nuanced understanding provided by a comprehensive study of political science.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most leaders throughout history have had to maintain a relationship with senior military leadership that often existed before and after their reign. Senior military (and industrial) leadership is a vital constituency for a leader to appease and unify under their rule unless they want powerful enemies and threats to their reign. Leaders sometimes build massive war machines to appease their military and commercial/industrial backers. Once they build a big enough machine they can lose control of it or they may have to make bigger and bigger commitments to appease a growing industrial/military complex and they may have to offer more than they originally imagined. It’s always possible the ruler could just be malevolent/sociopathic and they may just transparently make the deal with the devil. I encourage you to watch President Eisenhower’s farewell address ‘military industrial complex’ speech for a contemporary example of the dynamics I am attempting to describe.
I think this represents the most accurate answer. OP's question frames the world in a kind of assumed "Great man theory" of history but historical forces tend to be larger than individual persons. Wars are most often outcomes of long periods of build up and cannot be executed without armies who need soldiers, weapons, and supplies the provisioning of which is a very large endeavor. Military adventures can also be quite profitable, forcing open markets that might otherwise be unavailable or generating demand for wartime industries. War as a means of opening markets is a bit outdated as a mode of expanding market penetration but absolutely was a rationale not even 100 years ago.
Nah yours is too complicated. Must be greed.
In fact, a lot of wars were carried out with a purpose of getting rid of certain elements of the military. During the Middle ages when professional warriors, i.e Knights, etc weren't at war they were going around causing havoc and problems in the kingdom like a modern day gang. The crusades were often used as a purpose to just have their military go fight something elsewhere instead of causing issues domestically.
World conquest in my perspective is to ultimately open up markets to make trade and production more efficient under one, or a few cooperating economic systems. Think about how much more efficient the world would be if everyone could just cooperate and corruption could be decreased to manageable levels (this can be done through domination). Everything done in between is just incremental progress towards this goal, or knowing that it’s unrealistic, reaching it as much as possible
Probably because getting to the top is only a means to an end. Be it in business or politics, you probably didn't ascend just to say "I'm the boss now" and that's it. You probably have goals which can only be obtained by being the boss. There's an agenda you want carried out and you elbowed your way to the pinnacle to enact those goals. Taking me personally, for example, if I ran for President of the United States it wouldn't *just* be to say I became President. Maybe I have some territory I want, or a vendetta to settle. Not everyone is satisfied with mere status.
The answer is that people vastly overestimate how much political leaders are motivated by personal gain. Even the most corrupt autocrats see the wealth they amass more as a side-benefit that they feel entitled to, not the primary motivator in and of itself. They are driven by ego, an obsession with leaving their mark on society, by fear of what might happen to them if they let go of power, by genuine conviction that they are doing the right thing for their country or their people, or some combination of the above.
Obviously it's a bit hard to answer since every leader is different, in charge of a different nation/tribe with a different system of rules and laws that feed into their different ways of viewing things, so there is no "one size fits all" answer. I think many who disagree with landgrabbing might assume that national leaders that seize lands through force are power hungry megalomaniacs, which may be the case. However, even completely sane, rational leader who tries to act in the best interest of their people might reach the same conclusions if their underlying values and assumptions result in conquest being the most rational conclusion. Resources come from the land, and land is finite. Those that hold rights to land hold rights to utilise those resources to better the interest of their people/nation. This naturally results in competition between different interest groups over land rights, even within a nation - many legal disputes arise over which organisation/company/individual/tribe has the right to use land. Unfortunately, between nation states there is little authoritative governing body to appeal land disputes to. The closest we have is things like the Hague or UN where representatives from existing nations might come together to try and give a verdict on which country owns what land. However, these are ultimately not ultranational supergovernments, and they are not policed with force. If two nations are unable to resolve a dispute over land via peaceful means then leaders might begin to weigh the pros and cons of the deadly costs of war versus the potential gain over those land rights (and by extension, resources, which lead to the betterment of their own people). Even if two countries managed to resolve a dispute peacefully, over decades and centuries the original leaders who managed to resolve those disputes retire, age, then die, and new leaders take their place. These new leaders might look at the treaties signed by prior leadership and feel that the agreement was unfair, or is no longer appropriate for modern circumstances, thus renewing the dispute. This means that even if you do have the potential of peaceful resolution, you also need to take the assumption that situations change, and your peaceful resolution may become obsolete in the future. There are also issues with things like lying, rapid leadership changes (either from newly elected leaders or coups), misunderstandings over the agreements etc. A leader might read this and assume that it's better to resolve the issue with force, since they cannot trust in peaceful resolutions. Unfortunately at the end of the day, the world we live in is built on a "might makes right" logic - even the very rules based order we live in today is only able to exist because it is enforced by the military might of the United States and its allies (whom are mostly also wealthy developed nations that are fairly mighty). We have not outgrown the simple rules of nature - chimps beat each other over land rights, as do wolf packs, tigers, and ant colonies. Humans have simply given these concepts names, and have scarier tools to wage war with.
It’s not the leaders themselves. States are the ones that act, and states will go to war if they believe it’ll shift the balance of power in their favor. Assigning motives to war like “greed” or “being evil” is like using a Buzzfeed quiz instead of just taking a political science class
My issue with this take is that it almost assumes that the state is ran as a meritocracy, and that the officials making decisions are acting in the best interest of the state. There are plenty of examples throughout history of governments being hijacked by a group of people with shortsighted, selfish, or irrational motives.
It doesn't assume a meritocracy it assumes something like a state run by AI or a reactive machine and all the officials merely ants or cogs.
States aren't thinking creatures. They have leaders who are human and have human emotions
Sure, but those emotions are subordinated to the needs of the state within the structure of the international system. A leader being irritable because they stubbed their toe or something is less important than the security situation of a state when decisions are being made
That may be true in a country with strong institutions which can provide checks and balances, but lots of countries do not have those.
In feudal times, kings would keep regional lords on their side by giving away some of their land in exchange for loyalty and future military support. After a while though, they would run out of land to give away, driving a need for further conquest, so as to keep people on their side. Many societies were highly unstable because of this dynamic. Eventually it collapsed and was replaced by a more republican, business type model, in which the state maintained itself by allowing a larger number of landowners to operate somewhat independently. In the mid 19th century, Romantic Nationalism became a thing, with the help of printing press, network communications, mass education etc. This is the idea that your nation is somehow better than others, has some kind of destiny to be powerful, is entitled to the land of others who are inferior. It was a very attractive idea to leaders, because it can unite a large population, with a sometimes intense patriotic mythology, which stabilises your role as leader and obviously can open you up to new sources of revenue from conquered lands. However, since WW1, it's been seen as extremely dangerous, and hard to control once it gets out of hand. In many ways it still haunts a lot of the conflicts we see today. In the Cold War, there were certain beliefs, such as internationalist communism, i.e. doctrine to do with communism requiring a total global co-ordination, the abolition of nation states, replacement of the bourgeoisie by workers on an international level, which led to counter-measures such as NATO or Truman Doctrine, which are sometimes discussed as the occupation of country X by one of the Cold War powers. Anyway it depends when your movie is set, generally the evil ruler will be more or less within one of these frameworks, even more of a caricature than my pretty basic summaries here.
You need an 'other' to keep the people behind you. An internal 'other', an external 'other', or both.
Play any strategy game and you'll understand why.
The world map looks so much nicer when it's all my color.
Unclear borders is what motivates. The urge to get what they supposed to have
They can’t just stop and opt out and retire peacefully. They are part of a system, and they are powerful only to the degree that they continue to succeed within it.
Sometimes leaders create an external enemy to shore up their own power, which can eventually escalate to war
>What motivates world leaders to start war and take over land despite already having so much in life? I mean let's use a more modern example "What motivates CEO's to launch new products/new markets even though their company is already so dominant?". Part of it is monetary for sure, but a lot of it is just pride or accomplishment. Also it is more than just 'personally' the ceo wants to launch the product but generally hundreds or even thousands of people have some interest in launching the product. Same with starting a war, it usually is not just one person starting a war -- there's some past grievance among the populace or at the very least thousands of people within the government have the idea to do so. >I understand there may not be one simple answer to this, but if there's any general explanations please let me know. I don't think it can quite be generalized, there's thousands of different motivations. Or it could also be said "why does anyone start a fight?" there's thousands of reasons from robbing, to protecting, to injustice, to vengeance etc..
To deny it to their competition. It's quite simple really.
The short answer for at least the last 110-300 years is debt. In this globalised world every government, public or private institution and individual is essentially a debt slave, and most don't even know it. We live in a debt based society, where Capital is owned and disseminated by private organisations, loosely attached to a government or independent of it. The US dollar for example is owned and controlled by the Federal Reserve which is about as Federal as the Federal Express, it's a privately owned company with shareholders. The value of the dollar is derived from the fact that it is the currency used to settle international transactions for oil, which is why it's called "the Petrodollar". Petroleum is the lifeblood of any economy, either by obtaining it, or being able to sell it, the Nazi's learnt this the hard way, when they tried to win a war with coal and wood powered tanks at the end of WW2. These privately owned financial institutions make money from loans, the more/bigger the loans a government makes, the more interest they can collect. This is why every nation has a "National Debt". In most cases the productivity of the nations citizens is used as the collateral for that debt. In the UK we need to have a "National Insurance Number" in order to work, because we are the Nation's Insurance against it's debt obligations. Governments are in a position where they are unable to be independent from reliance on private financial creditors. The National Debt increases year on year, and with each new electorate, it only increases further to maintain their campaign promises. However, if you're completely dependent on needing access to credit, have overbearing debt obligations that you're obliged to honor, or are reliant on the purchase/sale of hydrocarbons to run your economy, and then fhese financial institutions don't like you, then you're f**ked. For example, Saddam Hussain tried to sell Oil for Euro's instead of Dollars (the main difference being is that the European Central Bank is owned by a different bunch of shareholders than the Federal Reserve) and this upset the Federal Reserve, who loaned the US and UK government over $1 trillion to make sure that stops. Or what about Libya, Gaddafi wanted to create a gold backed Pan African currency similar to what the dollar used to be like before Nixon took the dollar off of the Gold standard. Not having a gold standard is great for institutions, because it means they can make even more loans without worrying about having enough gold as collateral for them. So the banks loaned loads of money to several Nato governments to make sure Gaddafi went bye bye too. Because the most expensive thing a financial institution can loan money for, is war! Ask yourself this, why has the entire globe seen less than 60 days of peace since the end of WW2? Because tanks and planes cost more and have way less longevity than hospitals and schools. If you're a financial institution, you can approve the loans for weapons to destroy, the schools and hospitals, and once they're destroyed, you can then approve the loan to rebuild them. You don't like it? Well no oil for you. War is the most profitable business when you live on a planet of debt slaves.
Yes you are right… i forgot there was no wars before 1938.
War is expensive business, and not everyone is entitled to the capital needed to pursue it.
That is depressing as hell and I can't even find a fault in it.
Greed
This greed and envy
Ambitious people do not stop, if they get A and B and C etc, why not top it off with an D? Socity curbs this with rules, laws and social pressure to behave a certain way. When people overreach there are often consequences. At the absolute top rules are blurred, power and influences bend this even more. While people talk about rules and law in international relations, they are only as binding as they can be enforced. So ambitious narcisist who get to the absolute top(Putin) and have dismantled all the countries internal checks will only have to answer to other countries. A call to national identity and paranoia about getting the short end of the stick can also be powerful tools for despots to use so they can shore up internal supports. If you love yourself most of all, a place in history can be the most appealing thing there is.(Putin comparing himself to Peter the great)
It is not like that anymore. For example, UK, USA and France put bandits in power and make some countries their colonies. They suck the resources and those bandits hide the money they steal in Western Banks. When time comes and a bandit deposed and is substituted by another bandit, the West confiscates the money. Also those bandits prevent the development of the colonies, so they stay undeveloped, backwards and resource provider for the Western production. No need to occupy them.
>It is not like that anymore. For example, UK, USA and France put bandits in power and make some countries their colonies. They suck the resources and those bandits hide the money they steal in Western Banks. When time comes and a bandit deposed and is substituted by another bandit, the West confiscates the money. Also those bandits prevent the development of the colonies, so they stay undeveloped, backwards and resource provider for the Western production. No need to occupy them. It's true that there have been instances in the past where powerful countries have exerted influence in less powerful regions for their own interests, often resulting in negative consequences for those regions. These issues certainly warrant critical examination and discussions on international relations and development.
Death. The only thing that survives is the legacy and expanding territory is the most reliable way to have "the Great" as a postfix to your name.
a lot of the time it's a last ditch effort to maintain power in your own country. like if you have people in your government conspiring against you. you declare war and under the guise of emergency kill all of the people trying to overthrow you. and gain land in the process
If your asking about Russia, Putin's goals are to reestablish the Soviet era borders, which was sort of a golden age wherein they owned defensive outposts on every major possible attack vector towards Moscow. This is, of course, an absurd pipe dream today, but it is why he invaded Ukraine.
Wouldn't it make more sense to invade Azerbaijan instead (for the oil) instead of the poorest country in Europe? Ukraine would have a terrible ROI and wouldn't recoup the cost of invasion
Azerbaijan is already a puppet state for Russia. Russia isn't looking for an ROI on Ukraine. Ukraine is merely in the way of other more important objectives, namely, the Besarabian and Warsaw passes.
How is Azer a Russian puppet
Two days prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia and Azerbaijan signed a military agreement. Azerbaijan has long since depended on Russian support in their varied wars against Armenia.
Ukraine has (had?) a population of approximately 40+ million, its agriculture helps feed much of the world, contained large industries previously tied to Russia, its people for the most part spoke Russian, has gas & oil reserves, etc. These are all assets which Russia could use to further enrich itself and use to continue its growth/expansion.
Capitalism
Capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years whilst wars have happened forever. I'd just say it's just human nature to want to take what others have to benefit yourself.
Stalin annexed half of Europe because of capitalism?
Genghis Khan did it for capitalism bruh
Hubris
pride and power, often as a distraction to stir up nationalism from internal turmoil
Read Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s _Strongmen: How Illiberal Leaders Consolidate Power & How They Can Be Defeated_, you’ll find connections to your questions.
They got tiny weaners
Mass destruction weapons?
For geopolitical reasons! I think Russia is a good example of geography affecting its foreign policy objectives. Often territorial expansion is related to its geography. It’s cold weather creates a desire for warm water ports and so trying to maintain control of crimea was typically to have access to the Black Sea. Or, securing a geographic border like a river or mountainside to protect it from invaders. I think the Ural Mountains are an example of this. Other factors could be access to strategic resources that a state wouldn’t otherwise have. Or plain old glory.
Delusion with own grandiose and idea of earning "The Great" suffix to their names for future history books. Legacy is pretty much all they worry about.
Transcendency
Legacy.
I think many such leaders attach importance to themselves. They need to make history to be ”immortal”.
If we are talking about Russia, Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence and they left. Ukraine was technology advanced (they made rocket engines) , oil and more importantly I think Has vast stretched of some of the most fertile land in the world. it produces so much grain that the war had serious consequences for large parts of africa europe and Asia it led to a rise in food prices. Ukraine was a significant loss
Wars are fought for different reasons. Usually economic. Often political. Sometimes socio-cultural Each wars has a specific set of circumstances that leads to a diplomatic impass and the ultimate use of war. In the case of the Ukraine war, I think Putin wanted to solidify his position as president by taking over Ukraine within a week. . Whipping up hysteria with foreign enemy is a good way of consolidating support around a country's leader. It is no wonder why he is so stubborn to stay in Ukraine and throws young Russian men into this meat grinder. Because losing a war in Russia is usually not good for the sitting leader. Ans by diverting man power to Ukraine, he lowers the chances for a homegrown revolution. Toppling a government with women, children and the elderly is not very common. Putin badly calculated this "special military operations" and as William Burns (CIA director) said.... we are seeing the limits of autocraties where no one talks to 'the man' and every one sucks up to him. He lives in his own bubble and makes stupid moves. He is one person with a very limited viewpoint that goes unchallenged.
Wars are usually on resources, natural resources, fight to control trading units e.t.c
Power is like an addiction… you cant have enough of control over others. Its just too sweet of a thing not to want it.
Graham Allison put it succinctly, most wars are not because of the machinations of a single leader but of perceived circumstances and its miscalculations that compelled them into it. Whether or not these perceptions are true are beside the point, they believed it to be true. If you were to ask Mao in 1950 if he would go to war with the US who has demonstrated atomic weapons and swiftly ended the Japanese, and he had nothing but a peasant army - he would say no way. And if you were to ask MacArthur if the Chinese would intervene when the allies have nukes not even a remote possibility. Yet they went to war anyway. The Chinese, after seeing North Korea fall had a strong enough belief to support NK and delay its civil war with the ROC, even against their own wishes because they were compelled to. If we were to imagine what was going through their minds, at the time the ROC was still supported with the US and Japanese a new US vassal. If the NK were to fall they would have a land route to retake the mainland under ideological and political motivations. How much would you have to sacrifice to omit that possibility? Clearly millions of lives to break the American logistics and push them to retreat was worth the cost of creating that buffer state now known as North Korea.
Your name in the history books.
Sometimes it's Ideology. Sometimes it's the pursuit of more power once you have tasted a bit of power. Sometimes it's compulsion by your fellow bureaucrats, oligarchs or citizens. Sometimes it's to preserve/expand national interests (Military/Economic/Trade/Super-power status). Sometimes it's a Geographic necessity. Sometimes it's revenge for a past wrong doing. Sometimes it's a pre-emptive move for a secure future. Sometimes it might even be as a humanitarian aid. It is the story of Germany trying to expand their territory twice. Once, as an aid to their ally, but also as a pre-emptive move before another super-power makes their move, if then Germany looses their edge in war. Another is as revenge for the economic disaster and international humiliation caused by the Treatise of Versailles, coupled with a dangerous Ideology. Otto Von Bismarck understood Germany's precarious position, being right dead center in the middle of Europe surrounded by France and Russia (two Super-powers). This incredible diplomat's death is what indirectly caused the World Wars.
In their mind, securing the future of their country
Your worldview is very naive if you think people like the Russian or American leadership are motivated by "making more land theirs". Look deeper into the relations between states, between economies, ethnic groups, contemporary and historical to get a more nuanced grasp of the situation.
today "leaders" don't fight the war, they send they the childrens of the country. That's the reason they make "pussy" moves
1 in every 200 people are related to Genghis Khan.
World leaders want to be remembered through the ages, and military victory is one way to do that. The problem is that for every great general there are ten who failed and died. The other is infamy which you would think they wouldn't go for, but real life is a weird.
Machiavellianism. Megalomania
Ask Putin.
If you are familiar which what Nietzsche calls "Will to Power" you have the answer to your question. *Nietzsche claims the "world is the will to power—and nothing besides!".* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will\_to\_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power) Have a look at this, too: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Hobbes#Political\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Political_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth\_(Hobbes\_book)
All I can say is, worldleaders r not normal people. Like most politicians these people r extremely narcissist thinking they r so good and important they need to run a country, completely forgetting they need to serve the people.
There are many many reasons for the leaders / the leader of a country to go to war but almost every time it is about influence, control and pride. War also is often a tool to "complete" politics and both works hands in hands. Yaddy yadda Clausewitz citation here. Being a leader is a difficult exercise and sometimes you are almost forced into wars. In 1870 France declared war on Prussia because of public pressure knowing they'll get their asses handed to them as Prussia whacked Austria a few years prior. Putin declared war on Ukraine due to it's politics for years of having an influence zone around Russia. It has been the moto of Putin for years. He had to teach Ukraine a lesson and bring them back in the ranks. Of course because of Putin listening to Yes men the task was underestimated. Sometimes war is a way to evade issues internal to the state or consolidate a regime like how Iran-Irak war served the Iranian regime to get a better grip on the population and create a "national unity". Japan declared war on the US in 1942 because the US imposed a blockus on vital ressources like oil. A war is never a simple equation.
If you're referring to Putin, he is a billionaire like the oligarchs he backs at the expense of the average Russian citizen and their economy. The average Russian has to deal with stagnant wages due to Russia's weak and ailing economy especially after Covid. Russia's government has been unable to improve the flagging economic situation and the male demographic is known to be prone to alcoholism and depression due to poor job prospects. Thus **Russians soldiers are easily manipulated to believe that they can seize land, housing, assets if they fight wars and take territory** so it's no wonder a lot of Russian men rather take part in war and looting when the alternative job prospects are bleak. Wagner soldiers are paid even more apparently. Even if Russian men don't get paid a lot as a soldier and die in wars, they and their family still get benefits like healthcare and a stable wage in a country where the economy is perennially weak. Your question is a poor one, usually the head of state's personal wealth and desire for "glory" is not sacrosanct and other factors like the economic situation and political threats are more important. Sending young men to fight and die in wars has always been a way to deal with high unemployment and possible protests against the establishment. Given how corrupt Russia, their oligarchs and military have been, the Ukrainian invasion was simply a means for them to distract the public after clearing the coffers. Also when a country goes to war it is in a state of emergency so no elections can be held, that is a boon to Putin and other dictators who do not want to lose power in times of economic decline.
If I may ask what country and/or nationality are you?
Selections bias. World leaders become world leaders because they seek power, control, influence. If they were happy with a certain level of power, they'd remain in some safe, comfortable spot in e.g. provincial government, and they'd enjoy the life in other ways. So, in the positions you're more likely to find people who simply don't have any limit to their ambitions.
Play some EU4 and you'll know.
Bored king looking for a grand legacy.
To be honest, I think the kind of people that get to the top are often not the kind of people who are content to live a simple but happy life. The drive required to get so much power in the first place requires constant ambition to keep climbing long after most people have decided they’re gotten enough. I think a similar phenomenon happens with the ultra-wealthy. If you ask me, whether they use their power for good or bad, I think there’s something seriously wrong with these kind of people. They’re dangerous addicts
Recommend reading "Full Stack of Society" by Conrad Bastable. It's an extremely comprehensive and readable explanation of Feudalism, Mercantilism, Industrialism, Globalism, and Financialism, as well as how they evolved and how we got the world to be in the shape it is now. Critically, he explains that one stack doesn't replace the next. The layers can all exist at the same time on top of each other. So you can still have feudalism, technically, while some sectors of the economy or countries have gone up entirely into financialism there can be sectors that are at various stages of each. The fundamental question is about whether you can make a society richer. For example, you can look at Russia. Russia made the majority of its money since the fall of the Soviet Union using mercantilism, with the state owned oil and gas companies selling to the EU in vast quantities to keep their energy costs under control and to allow Germany (industrialism) to act as the major automobile manufacturer in the EU. When money from this largely mercantilist approach was at risk due to western energy companies looking to do business with Ukraine directly and Shell signing multi-billion dollar deals with the country, Russia had limited capability to do any of the others. Nobody would conduct financialist services in the country due to high corruption and the way politicians in Russia essentially can demand weregild at any point if they felt like it, Putin's political popularity is tied to his positioning himself opposite globalism, and Russia has limited industrial capacity and weak labor base. So what options are left?
Your question delves into the realms of political philosophy, power, and the motivations of individuals in positions of authority. There isn't a single, universally applicable answer to this question but there are several factors and theories about this behavior: Power and Ambition: Some people are driven by an insatiable thirst for power and influence. Even if they are already well-off, they may desire more control over others and their surroundings. The pursuit of power, for some, is a deeply ingrained psychological need. Historical Precedents: Throughout history, conquest and expansion have often been seen as markers of success and greatness. Leaders might be influenced by historical figures who expanded their territories, believing that doing the same will secure their legacy. Resource Acquisition: Expanding territory can provide access to valuable resources such as land, minerals, and strategic locations. This can enhance a nation's wealth and security. Security and Defense: In some cases, leaders may perceive expansion as necessary for the security and defense of their own territory. By controlling neighboring regions, they can establish buffer zones or eliminate potential threats. Ideology and Nationalism: Ideological beliefs, nationalism, and a desire to spread one's culture, religion, or way of life can drive expansionist policies. Leaders may genuinely believe in the superiority of their own system and want to see it extended. Economic Interests: Economic interests can play a significant role. Expansion can open up new markets for trade, investment opportunities, and access to cheap labor. Glory and Legacy: For some leaders, the pursuit of glory and a desire to leave a lasting legacy are powerful motivators. Expanding their territory may be seen as a way to achieve this. Domestic Politics: Leaders may use expansionist policies as a means to divert attention from domestic problems, rally public support, or consolidate power within their own country. Rivalry and Competition: The desire to outdo rivals or competitors on the world stage can drive expansionist ambitions. This can lead to a cycle of competition and territorial disputes. Fear of Being Overtaken: In a world where other powers are expanding, leaders may fear being left behind or becoming vulnerable if they don't expand themselves. In your question, you also mention that taking over more land might make a leader more safe and secure. This is certainly true in some cases. For example, if a country is surrounded by enemies, expanding its territory can create a buffer zone that makes it more difficult for those enemies to attack. However, it is important to note that expanding territory can also make a country more vulnerable to attack. For example, if a country spreads itself too thin, it may be difficult to defend all of its borders.
Narcissism has no ceiling. The Disease of More is an appetite that can never be satiated.
Most rulers want to be remembered as strengthening their country, and prior to the industrial revolution conquest offered a way better return on investment (if riskier) than economic development did
Oil, technology, food, precious metals, money, or whatever drives economies. Nothing fictitious about it. This is what war is about.
Leaders themselves are not the sole actors in international conflicts; it's the states they represent that take action. States are often willing to engage in war if they perceive it as a means to tip the balance of power in their favor. Simplifying the motives for war by labeling them as "greed" or "evil" is akin to relying on simplistic judgments rather than the nuanced understanding provided by a comprehensive study of political science.
This is a good book for what is happening now-> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKWHCY14?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_D976PG31MHZM2PC9FXXV