What do you think?
Rate this book
Moderne Ideer #7
Hvad er krig og fred i dag?
Er freden forbi? Ja. Fordi den fred som de internationale institutioner med FN i spidsen har sikret siden Anden Verdenskrig er slut. Ja. Fordi robotter og droner gør det lettere at føre krig. Et mere dystert svar på spørgsmålet er nej, freden er ikke forbi. Der har nemlig ikke været fred siden Anden Verdenskrig – på trods af vores insisteren på, at FN-pagten afskaffede krig. At vi kan svare både ja og nej på spørgsmålet er et udtryk for, at vi mangler en mere realistisk forståelse af vor tids krige og de midler, vi har til at opnå sikkerhed uden at tabe vores frihed.
Det er analysen fra professor Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, der er en af landets mest benyttede eksperter, når medier og politikere skal finde ud af, hvad krig, konflikt og militær strategi går ud på. I Hvad er krig og fred i dag? afdækker han krigens nye former og argumenterer for, at alternativet til vores frygt ikke er politiske løfter om mere tryghed. Men mere realisme.
Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen (f. 1973) er institutleder og professor i statskundskab på KU. Han er tidligere leder af udviklingssekretariatet i Forsvarsministeriet og oprettede Center for Militære Studier, som er en internationalt anerkendt tænketank på forsvarsområdet. Han er forfatter til et utal af artikler og bøger om krig og fred, bl.a. The West, Civil Society and the Construction of Peace (2003), The Risk Society at War (2007), Den gode krig (2011) og The Military’s Business (2015).
Det er analysen fra professor Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, der er en af landets mest benyttede eksperter, når medier og politikere skal finde ud af, hvad krig, konflikt og militær strategi går ud på. I Hvad er krig og fred i dag? afdækker han krigens nye former og argumenterer for, at alternativet til vores frygt ikke er politiske løfter om mere tryghed. Men mere realisme.
Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen (f. 1973) er institutleder og professor i statskundskab på KU. Han er tidligere leder af udviklingssekretariatet i Forsvarsministeriet og oprettede Center for Militære Studier, som er en internationalt anerkendt tænketank på forsvarsområdet. Han er forfatter til et utal af artikler og bøger om krig og fred, bl.a. The West, Civil Society and the Construction of Peace (2003), The Risk Society at War (2007), Den gode krig (2011) og The Military’s Business (2015).
76 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2017
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 4, 2017
Let ttilgængeligt og livligt skrevet overblik. Men også præget af tilsyneladende hastværk i redigeringen og manglende disciplin mhp. at skabe en historisk perspektiveret forståelsesramme.
July 27, 2017
I thought this was a pretty interesting little book. It discusses the inadequacy of our conceptions of war and peace in the context of the so-called "post-war period" after WWII, as if this period had not involved continuous wars all over the world. One major problem is that we (and the UN) conceive war as involving one state formally declaring war on another state but this is not the reality today. Far more common is states pursuing wars against populations (for example the war in Syria) or for states to pursue wars using proxy agents (for example Russia's proxy war in Ukraine).
One interesting concept he discusses is "combination-war" whereby a state uses many methods, both military and non-military to achieve its objectives. He traces the concept to a Chinese military textbook, but portrays Russia as a modern master in the technique, pointing out its machinations in Ukraine combined with cyber-war, financing of European right-wing parties and online manipulation of opinion.
I don't feel like I got much out of its conclusions however. In general he calls for realism in our approach to war, as opposed to optimism (a presumption that war can be avoided given enough welfare, foreign aid etc) or pessimism (that war is inevitable and terrorism cannot be defeated). One thing he notes in argument against the latter is that many terror groups have in fact been defeated by European states, for example ETA, IRA and RAF. While these groups claimed historical inevitability to their goals, the state was more robust than predicted and was prepared to suffer large losses in order to defeat them as well as to reform itself in order to undermine their social appeal. Furthermore, both these positions create more uncertainty and fear which in turn increases our susceptibility to the Trumps and Le Pens of this world.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret exhortations to realism. Everyone thinks that they are a realist, although others are likely to call them optimists or pessimists, depending on their own positions. Accepting the world as it is strangles the ambition to improve it for ourselves and others.
One interesting concept he discusses is "combination-war" whereby a state uses many methods, both military and non-military to achieve its objectives. He traces the concept to a Chinese military textbook, but portrays Russia as a modern master in the technique, pointing out its machinations in Ukraine combined with cyber-war, financing of European right-wing parties and online manipulation of opinion.
I don't feel like I got much out of its conclusions however. In general he calls for realism in our approach to war, as opposed to optimism (a presumption that war can be avoided given enough welfare, foreign aid etc) or pessimism (that war is inevitable and terrorism cannot be defeated). One thing he notes in argument against the latter is that many terror groups have in fact been defeated by European states, for example ETA, IRA and RAF. While these groups claimed historical inevitability to their goals, the state was more robust than predicted and was prepared to suffer large losses in order to defeat them as well as to reform itself in order to undermine their social appeal. Furthermore, both these positions create more uncertainty and fear which in turn increases our susceptibility to the Trumps and Le Pens of this world.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret exhortations to realism. Everyone thinks that they are a realist, although others are likely to call them optimists or pessimists, depending on their own positions. Accepting the world as it is strangles the ambition to improve it for ourselves and others.
January 13, 2025
Udmærket.
Interessante betragtninger om, hvordan krigsførelse har ændret sig de sidste 80 år. Jeg fandt dog forfatterens afsluttende bemærkninger om fred lidt sære. Måske forstod jeg det ikke ordentligt. Men jeg synes det er en underlig konklusion, at fred ikke er målet, men noget vi skal acceptere vi ikke får, og at alle ikke er interesserede i.
Interessante betragtninger om, hvordan krigsførelse har ændret sig de sidste 80 år. Jeg fandt dog forfatterens afsluttende bemærkninger om fred lidt sære. Måske forstod jeg det ikke ordentligt. Men jeg synes det er en underlig konklusion, at fred ikke er målet, men noget vi skal acceptere vi ikke får, og at alle ikke er interesserede i.
March 16, 2021
God opsummering af forskellen mellem krig og konflikter mellem stormagter, lande og befolkningsgrupper. Ligledes fin information af nutidens udvikling af teknik, som udgør en ny form for trussel i samfundet.
July 23, 2023
Kunne virkelig godt lide måden den var skrevet på, og argumenterne fra hver part. Mange gode pointer og en interresant optagelse af hvad krig og fred egentligt er og hvordan det kommer til udtryk i dag.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews