Why Washington Keeps Choosing War | D. Klein & C. Coyne

## A statement for peace and multipolarity The conversation makes the case that peace and multipolarity are not utopian fantasies but practical, recoverable political options. Framed as a manifesto—“For Peace and Multipolarity”—the discussion urges a reorientation of foreign policy away from an assumed Western primacy and toward a world in which multiple centers of power coexist without constant coercion. Far from simply asserting a moral preference for nonviolence, the exchange places peaceful multipolarity in the realm of policy realism: it is presented as an empirically grounded, historically attested order that once held and can be sustained again if elites choose different incentives and narratives. What emerges from the exchange is a twofold rhetorical move. First, the conversation insists that certain ideas—sovereignty, restraint, tolerance—should be resurrected into legitimate political debate, not dismissed as naive or unserious. Second, it reframes “peace” as a public good on par with other political demands: like clean water or healthcare, peace requires institutions and deliberate, often mundane policymaking. This reframing matters because it forces advocates to think in terms of systems and leverage points rather than only moral exhortation. The video positions the statement as a nucleus around which a broad coalition might cohere; not a doctrinaire party line but a common platform for diverse actors who share a presumption in favor of avoiding war as the default instrument of policy. ## US primacy and the multipolar world The discussion contends that the world is already multipolar; the debate is over how to respond. One posture treats rising powers as threats to be contained, deploying military alliances, economic coercion, and persistent competition to sustain a unipolar advantage. The alternative embraces a world of multiple centers of authority and seeks predictable rules, mutual recognition of sovereignty, and institutional means to manage conflict. The video argues that the former posture—pursued by many current policymakers—creates a self-fulfilling spiral of confrontation that undermines the very stability it claims to secure. A central consequence of insisting on primacy is the erosion of soft power. The conversation notes survey evidence showing a decline in global perceptions of Western leadership, implying that coercive policies corrode legitimacy and long-term influence. In other words, attempting to preserve primacy through force and interference can strip away the goodwill and normative authority that made influence durable in the first place. The critics in the exchange urge policymakers to weigh the loss of soft power alongside the immediate tactical gains of coercion. The suggestion is that multipolarity, properly managed, can produce more predictable cooperation and reciprocal restraint than costly, open-ended dominance. ## The incentives behind the war machine A major theme is the political economy of militarism: war-making is not merely a product of abstract geopolitical logic but of entrenched institutions and incentives. The conversation sketches a “war machine” that is self-perpetuating—military establishments, industrial interests, bureaucratic routines, and career incentives combine to privilege preparedness, intervention, and the projection of power. These structures were reinforced by the experience of global conflict and the Cold War, creating a mindset that treats continuous mobilization and global policing as normal functions of statecraft. The participants highlight that rhetoric matters: when leaders habitually frame international relations in terms of threats and enemies, they prime publics and institutions to accept militarized responses. Moreover, the war machine feeds on ambiguous threats—long-term, diffuse dangers are converted into near-term crises that justify intervention. The result is a political ecology in which restraint appears politically weak and muscular responses appear decisive. The conversation implies that breaking this dynamic requires altering incentives at multiple levels: budgetary disciplines, greater public scrutiny of intervention rationales, and cultural shifts in how security is discussed. Without such changes, the institutional momentum toward war remains powerful. ## The regime-change playbook The exchange offers a stark account of how contemporary influence operates short of formal empire: networks of pressure, patronage, and interference that depose or remake governments while preserving a façade of sovereignty. Regime change is presented as the clearest expression of modern imperial strategy: rather than annexing territory, powerful states aim to render other governments dependent and compliant. Tools range from economic carrots and conditional aid to propaganda, electoral interference, trade weaponization, covert action, and sometimes direct military force. Beyond cataloging methods, the conversation emphasizes the corrosive logic of regime change: it transforms “democracy promotion” into a rhetorical cover for external manipulation. Where regime change succeeds, local institutions and public trust are often weakened, producing instability and long-term resentment. Where it fails, the backlash can entrench adversarial blocs and fuel cycles of retaliation. In both outcomes, the legitimacy losses for the intervening power are substantial. The participants suggest that renouncing regime-change tactics would require a foundational shift in strategic thinking—valuing the procedural integrity of other societies even when their policies are disagreeable, and accepting the mundane truth that sovereign inequality and difference are part of political life. ## Building peace through everyday cooperation If grand designs and top-down peace schemes are suspect, the conversation turns to micro-level practices that sustain peace: commerce, diplomacy, cultural exchange, and ordinary human interactions. The claim is simple and empirically robust: millions of daily interactions—trade relationships, scientific collaboration, student exchanges, cross-border families—create patterns of mutual benefit and pain that make violent conflict less likely. The task for policy is not to engineer utopia but to cultivate and protect these channels of cooperation. Practical suggestions offered include changing language and posture, increasing low-cost diplomatic engagement, resisting inflammatory sanctions that sever commercial ties, and prioritizing people-to-people exchanges. The idea is to leverage existing peaceful norms rather than override them with top-down coercion. This approach also reframes security as reciprocal perception management: a state that emphasizes non-threatening behavior and mutual gain invites less aggressive counterposturing. Thus the work of peace is often ordinary—norm-building, habit-shaping, institutional scaffolding—rather than dramatic. The conversation advocates for policies that reduce frictions in cross-border life, protect non-governmental exchanges from politicization, and make cooperation the default rather than the exception. ## Capitalism, corporate interests, and state power The dialogue complicates simplified narratives about capitalism and war. Corporate interests can both drive and deter conflict. On one hand, certain firms profit from militarized states and can lobby for hawkish policies. On the other hand, integrated commercial networks create interdependencies that raise the cost of open conflict. The conversation stresses that understanding the relationship between market actors and state power requires nuance: economic incentives do not automatically produce peace, nor do they inexorably produce war. A key contention is that state power often distorts markets through subsidies, protectionism, and the militarization of foreign policy—turning trade policy itself into an instrument of coercion. This impinges on private actors who would ot

Why Washington Keeps Choosing War | D. Klein & C. Coyne We want peace and multipolarity! And we want it now! That's what every sensible politician SHOULD be striving for. But well, as usually, the West does not follow what makes good sense. Profs. Daniel Klein and Christopher Coyne join Pascal to discuss their statement for peace and multipolarity. They challenge American primacy, examine the incentives behind militarism and regime change, and explore how trade, diplomacy, and everyday cooperation can sustain peace. The conversation considers corporate interests, government power, Adam Smith, and Western and non-Western intellectual traditions. Rather than demanding ideological agreement, the guests call for a broad coalition committed to sovereignty, restraint, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence among different societies and political orders. Daniel and Chris's Links: Daniel Klein's website: https://cjdjej.org/ Christopher Coyne's website: https://www.ccoyne.com/ For the Peace and Multipolarity statement: https://neutralitystudies.com/files/f77c5d77-4269-4baf-830e-a5e2e982280e-peace-and-multipolarity- statement_v12b.pdf Signatures so far: https://neutralitystudies.com/files/f341f174-3c7b-493a-ad5c- 11325353e7d4-signatures-so-far.pdf Neutrality Studies Links: Neutrality Studies Substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Support Neutrality Studies: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Neutrality Studies shop: https://neutralitystudies.com/shop Time Stamps 00:00 A statement for peace and multipolarity 04:33 US primacy and the multipolar world 11:04 The incentives behind the war machine 15:31 The regime-change playbook 18:37 Building peace through everyday cooperation 24:13 Capitalism, corporate interests, and state power 36:58 Grotius, Adam Smith, and traditions of peace 48:00 Tolerance, coexistence, and a broad peace coalition #Pascal Welcome back, everybody, to Neutrality Studies today with Dr. Daniel Klein and Dr. Christopher Coyne, both of them professors of economics at George Mason University. Dan, Chris, welcome. #Christopher Coyne Hello. Thank you so much for having us. #Pascal Thank you for coming online, because you are actually the authors of a manifesto, or a general letter statement, for peace and multipolarity. And I signed that one as well. And we want to talk about this one. What is your manifesto, your statement, and why do we need multipolarity? #Christopher Coyne -- 1 of 17 -- Well, thank you. You know, the statement is titled "For Peace and Multipolarity." That's the overarching title of the statement. And we'll delve into the details in a moment. But what motivated Dan and I to get together and draft this up, and then share it amongst colleagues and friends and members of a broader network, is twofold. First, we wanted to reorient the conversation around foreign policy, international relations, and what is required for peace in the world. And the purpose of a statement, in the broadest sense, is to delineate what is socially and intellectually legitimate and acceptable to discuss and talk about. And so the statement is an attempt to say, look, there are these ideas, concepts, and principles which deserve to have a voice within the legitimate range of political discourse. We believe that those ideas are currently underemphasized and underrepresented. And we are trying to bring together a large coalition of intellectuals and thinkers from across the ideological spectrum who share a presumption and commitment to peace. #Pascal Dan, could you maybe tell us the main points that you're trying to make in that statement? And then maybe later, why does that even need to be said? Why is it not self-evident? But let's go into the points first. #Daniel Klein Yeah, I would say the big theme is that Chris and I affirm that we live in a moral universe, that there is higher law, and that there is another way forward that, you know, many of our leaders are systematically avoiding, foregoing, and [unclear] for all of us. And that is a system of peaceful multipolarity, which existed and worked to a great extent for centuries and can work again. And it's an option that's out there, and they are trying to almost deny its existence. But we believe it's a reality. It's a focal reality, whether you want to take a theistic view of it, or a natural law view, or an allegorical view. It's a reality. There's a lot of truth Chris and I will admit to the principle that might makes right. But there's also a lot of truth to the principle that right makes might, and that there's a focalness to equality of sovereignty, to peaceful coexistence, to getting along with your neighbors, essentially. In fact, the whole idea of sovereigns getting along is naturally parallel to neighbors getting along and respecting each other's stuff. So I'd say that's the broad thing, is there's a reality, there's an option that's being systematically foregone. And almost eclipsed by the media, by the governments, you know, by the warmongers, and, of course, you and your guests. And, you know, I'm a big fanboy of these guys. I'm not officially associated with them, but I also have a hat, by the way. The Duran, The Duran. Chris studies this stuff. Chris is a real scholar of militarism and the political economy of war. I'm an intellectual history guy, but I've turned my interest in Adam Smith and others. But I follow all of you guys so much. So -- 2 of 17 -- Chris and I got together and kind of worked out a kind of statement that we're learning from all of you, really. #Pascal So that's kind of what the statement is. You know, something that I'm realizing at the moment is that we do have a—we are coalescing around social media and around places where people with ideas actually gather, and also the peaceful part, I would say, of the West. And that's maybe my next question: where are we in that process of trying to form the post-unipolar foreign policy of the collective West, the West or collective West or whatever you want to call it, this kind of agglomeration of Euro-American Atlantic states that seem to be running toward more and more war? Where are we in that process? And what do you think that this kind of working together can help achieve in the medium and long run? Maybe Chris. #Christopher Coyne Well, I'm not sure where we are in the process exactly, but I do know there are powerful forces. The political elite, certainly in the United States and elsewhere, are actively pushing back against efforts to extend neighborly ties and bonds with countries around the world, their leaders and their people. And you see this both through a militaristic foreign policy. You see it through trade policy, which I would suggest is an extension of military policy, the way it is used by political leaders in the West. And so, from that standpoint, I think you can make an argument that certainly the present, but you can go back decades, I think, certainly the United States and other countries as well. But I'll emphasize the United States government here is taking active steps to attempt to maintain primacy. That is the stated goal of their foreign policy. So it frames the world as a not zero-sum, negative-sum situation where it's not just that we win and they lose, but it's actually the world's going to be even worse off if the United States does not maintain its standing of primacy. And one of the things Dan and I are trying to highlight, as he mentioned, is that a hegemon, the kind of striving to remain a hegemon, actually breeds chaos and disorder in contrast to the promise of harmony and order. And so, unfortunately, if based on my estimation, where we are in the process is not close to a world of multipolar cooperation in terms of accepting that reality. And that's one of the interesting things about the statement, to complement what Dan was saying. You know, we start from the premise that we live in a multipolar world. So it's not, for us, a fact that needs establishment. It is a reality of the world. And then we can choose how to deal with that. And one way, of course, which I would argue is the current dominant view in the U.S. government, is that it's something that needs to be pushed back through coercion. We're trying to get people to think about this alternative that Dan was mentioning, that actually we can embrace that reality, and it doesn't have to mean chaos and disorder. #Pascal -- 3 of 17 -- Hey, just a very quick note. The best way to support this channel is by signing up for my free Substack. You can also help with a paid subscription there, or you can get some of our new merch on neutralitystudies.com. Links below. See you there. I think that sounds very sensible to anyone who would like to live in a peaceful world. Now, the other side is arguing, as you're saying, that, you know, primacy is needed for the United States to be safe. And there are two very different arguments. One is, of course, the Mearsheimer argument, kind of offensive realism. Oh, we need, you know, in order to maximize security, we need to be forceful. Yes, but he would never go the way where he would say that, you know, war is inevitable. He would go to the point where he says, like, security competition is inevitable, but that can remain peaceful. But then there's another vision, which is like, oh no, how about the West just joins the rest of the world in the BRICS approach of saying, like, yeah, managed and balanced international relations, right, where you work together in order to create more than a zero-sum outcome, but benefits for everybody, especially benefits for the population. Why do you think it is that the current discourse, mainstream media discourse in the West, but especially in the United States, but also, you know, think tank discourse and so on, is just so far removed from this idea of peaceful coexistence and dominated so much by security and deterrence and the threat and weapons in order to be safe? Why not cooperation to be safe? #Daniel Klein Let me jump in. So as far as, like, what is being foregone, you know, I'm a little bit maybe in between Mearsheimer and a more Jeffrey Sachs kind of cooperatist hope. I mean, I love the hope, you know, of course. And all of the realism has to be—I mean, hope, and like we say, we live in a moral universe, so that is part of reality, actually. But I think there's going to be, of course, security competition all the time. It's always going to be great powers. We just want them to be better, like they had been in the past when there was, when there was, you know, fairly peaceful periods of balance of power, coexistence, Westphalia, and so forth. Yeah. To go to your question about why the current actors are so far from either of these more peaceful approaches, you know, that's like the psychology of vice. I don't know. I don't know what, you know. You know, you can go to a layer and say it's vanity. You can go to a layer and say it's power. You can go to a layer and say it's greed. And then you ask, like, well, why are you so greedy? Like, what are you going to do with another million dollars? You know, like, what's it going to buy you? Or, you know, so I don't know what it is. I kind of remain mystified by what to think of what these people are doing or why they're doing it. I always ask myself that. So I don't have great answers for that. I just go in circles over that. #Pascal -- 4 of 17 -- Chris, what's your approach there? I mean, to understand where these people are coming from—the ones who are driving us toward war and not this peace. #Christopher Coyne Certainly. Well, I think Dan hit the nail on the head. I think it's a mix of factors, so it is hard to pin down. But I think at the end of the day, it is a function of vision. So it is one of your vision of the world. If you view the world as a kind of Hobbesian jungle, that the only way out is to have a Leviathan ruling over everyone and imposing order, then that's going to be what you foreground in terms of you