Matthew Anthony Evangelista is President White Professor of History and Political Science Emeritus, Department of government, Cornell Universty. Matthew Evangelista teaches courses in international and comparative politics. His current teaching and research interests focus on the relationship between gender, nationalism, and war; ethical and legal issues in international affairs (particularly, just war theory and international humanitarian law); transnational relations; and separatist movements. In a written interview, he responded to our questions as follows:

Gulan: To what extent is nationalism inherently predisposed to conflict, and can it ever be reconciled with a vision of lasting peace in a pluralistic world?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: Benedict Anderson, my late colleague at Cornell, became known for his study of Imagined Communities, addressing the rise of nationalism. It was published during the period just before the breakup of the Soviet Union and the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia, and many interpreted it as a critique of nationalism. In fact, Anderson, who was a specialist on Southeast Asia, believed that nationalism also had positive attributes, bringing together multiethnic territories, such as Indonesia, and giving their peoples a common purpose and identity. For Anderson and others, nationalism did not inherently lead to conflict.

Gulan: Is it possible to foster national identity without invoking the "other"? How do narratives of belonging contribute to the logic of war?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: Scholars sometimes distinguish between “ethnic nationalism” and “civic nationalism.” The former tends to be exclusionary and can lead to considering non-fellow ethnics as the Other. The latter considers all residents of a territory to be equal members of the nation and holds the potential for avoiding conflict (although there could still be conflict between states).

Gulan: Do you believe the modern state system, rooted in national sovereignty, inevitably breeds war? Or are there alternative political structures that could transcend this tendency?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: Modern states that are premised on the assumption of territorial sovereignty defended by armed force create the risk of war, although it depends in part on the “security dilemma” and the perception of aggressive intent and offensive capability. Peace researchers have found that military forces structured for strictly defensive purposes—suitable for repelling invasions but not for invading and holding foreign territory--can reduce the security dilemma, even without changes to the international state system. Even better are regional associations such as the European Union where the prospect of war between its members becomes unthinkable, partly because of a mix of identities—pan-European and local, as well as national—and partly because of structural changes, integrated economies, and open borders.

Gulan: Do you see a future where global ethics—not national interest—become the driving force in international decision-making? Or is that an unrealistic ideal?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: These days the prospects for such a future seem bleak, but if people could recognize their common humanity and resist leaders who scapegoat others to excuse their own failings and promote their personal power—a big “if”—there might be a chance to achieve that ideal.

Gulan: Can we consider Russia-Ukraine war a symptom of deeper structural failures in post–Cold War diplomacy, particularly NATO-Russia relations?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: There was a major missed opportunity in not pursuing the vision of reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to create a “common European home,” demilitarized and democratized. If the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact had been accompanied by the dissolution of NATO, rather than its expansion, and their replacement by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, we might have seen a better outcome. An exacerbating factor, however, was the US promotion of “shock therapy” for the Russian economy and a lack of concern for abuses of human rights there, including the devastating wars against Chechnya. These developments led to the rise of an authoritarian, aggressive leader with visions of returning Russia to great-power status by regaining territory lost in the wake of the breakup of the USSR into fifteen independent states. The combination of NATO’s expansion and the demise of democratic rule in Russia—and Putin’s hostility to Ukraine’s attempt to leave behind the authoritarian and corrupt Soviet legacy and orient toward democratic Europe and its economic institutions—are among the causes of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Gulan:  How has the war in Ukraine forced the European Union to confront the limits of its political and strategic cohesion?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: Europe has responded to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with an unexpected degree of coherence (aside from Hungary, whose leader admires Putin and rejects the liberal values of the European Union) and support for Ukraine, a change from the feeble response to Russia’s intervention into Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. The return of Donald Trump to power in the United States has provided an additional impetus for European unity. The challenge will be how to maintain Europe’s democracies and social welfare systems as the member states increase their military budgets to confront an expansionist Russia.

Gulan: What are the long-term consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war on the credibility and future of nuclear deterrence theory?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: The short- and medium-term consequences of the war are likely to be an increase in interest in nuclear deterrence and further development of nuclear weapons and strategy, perhaps collaboratively among European states, given the perceived weakness of the US commitment of “extended nuclear deterrence” (known colloquially as the “nuclear umbrella”). But nuclear deterrence is not the solution for European security, so one hopes that a long-term consequence will be the recognition that the existence of nuclear weapons and plans for their use are too risky—because there is always the chance that deterrence will fail. Nuclear war in Europea would destroy what is meant to be defended, and even worse, with long-term dangers of radioactive poisoning and climate disaster worldwide (“nuclear winter”). Europeans should support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and work toward a nuclear-free zone on the continent that would include Russia.

Gulan: Do you believe the post-World War II international order is in irreversible decline, or can it be reformed to meet 21st-century challenges?

Professor Matthew Evangelista: It is hard to imagine a revival of the order that the United States dominated, and that is probably a good thing. But we should also hope to avoid a system dominated by large authoritarian-ruled states such as Russia, China, and increasingly India—not to mention regional hegemons such as Israel and Iran. A reform of the United Nations system that gave more power to smaller states might help, but they would have to insist that the great powers decrease their reliance on military forces, including nuclear weapons, and accede to a more egalitarian distribution of resources internationally. One would also hope, for their own sake, that those smaller states would be ruled democratically, peacefully, and with respect for human rights.