How to Fight the Warmongers in the Time of Monsters | A Roundtable

## A clear diagnosis: an age of monsters and the task before us The roundtable at the Kyoto symposium delivered a blunt, shared diagnosis: we live in a precarious moment where institutional decay, rival great powers, resurgent nationalism, and technological and environmental stresses combine to raise the real possibility of catastrophic conflict. That sense of foreboding was not merely rhetorical. It emerged from concrete observations—an expanding appetite for proxy war, the fragility of democratic legitimacy, the persistence of nuclear arsenals, and the social and economic anxieties that fuel chauvinism. Yet the most important message of the conversation was not despair; it was a call to action. The question the participants posed to one another was straightforward: scholars, journalists and citizens can do more than explain the problem—they can change the politics that make catastrophe more likely. The discussion that follows synthesizes their proposals into a practical, ethically grounded roadmap for preventing another world war. ## Translate analysis into influence: research, media and networks One recurring theme was the need to turn careful scholarship into public traction. Participants noted that rigorous research still reaches attentive audiences inside policy circles, culture industries and the broader public. The roundtable emphasized three levers: precision, persistence, and platforms. Precision means doing the hard archival and fieldwork necessary to expose policy continuities and strategic designs—studies of historical systems of imperial strategy or the operational logic of proxy warfare were offered as examples. Persistence means keeping a steady drumbeat of analysis across formats and time; one-off critiques are less effective than sustained narratives that monitor policy shifts and hold actors to account. Platforms means using a mix of long-form writing, podcasts, public talks and targeted briefings to connect with both elites and grassroots audiences. Networking was repeatedly identified as a force multiplier. Building durable intellectual networks—across geographies and ideological fault lines—creates feedback loops that amplify credible critiques and inoculate publics against propaganda. That networking should be intentional: cross-regional exchange programs, translation initiatives, joint conferences and coordinated media campaigns can move insights from specialist circles into mass understanding. The roundtable observed that both permanent bureaucracies and political elites pay attention to independent analysis; scholarly influence matters when it is precise and persistent. ## Democracies, credibility gaps and moments of rupture Several participants argued that democratic institutions, even when weakened, remain central to long-term peacebuilding. The roundtable drew a comparison to the Vietnam-era credibility gap: when mainstream narratives lose legitimacy, new voices can reshape public opinion and policy. This suggests a strategic posture for scholars and journalists: cultivate readiness to provide accurate, ethical alternatives to false or frightened narratives when the cracks in authority appear. But the conversation also issued a sober warning: democracies are not uniformly resilient. Internal disorganization, economic convulsions (including possible financial crises), and elite fragmentation can produce aggressive foreign policy as a diversion or survival tactic. The proper response is twofold. First, strengthen public information ecosystems so citizens can assess policy honestly; second, support democratic renewal—legal protections for dissent, media pluralism, civic education and institutions that channel grievance into institutional reform rather than violence. Those working inside civil society should therefore prioritize both investigative clarity and coalition-building with nontraditional allies who can broaden the base for peace-oriented politics. ## Ethical principles, sincere dialogue and cross-ideological coalitions A striking strand of the roundtable was the insistence that unity cannot be built on shared opinions alone. Instead, participants called for organizing around ethical principles—especially intellectual honesty and the willingness to listen. When groups coalesce around a fixed set of opinions they risk becoming mass movements that silence internal dissent. By contrast, commitments to open inquiry, mutual respect, and sincere engagement create resilient coalitions that can withstand disagreement without fragmenting. Practical implications followed: create forums where adversarial perspectives are represented and moderated to foster rigorous contestation rather than performative shouting. Encourage media outlets to commission genuine debates where participants adhere to agreed rules of evidence and civility. Academics should model this ethic by making data and methods transparent, avoiding rhetorical exaggeration, and training students in dialectical skills. The roundtable’s appeal to ethical openness also had a civic dimension: it invites citizens to seek out—and fund—platforms that prize nuance over outrage, complexity over simplified enemy images. Cross-ideological coalitions require translating ethical commitments into political tactics. That means finding shared policy ground—nuclear risk reduction, humanitarian cessation of hostilities, economic relief for vulnerable communities, and climate cooperation—where left, center and even some conservative actors can converge. The historical examples invoked—nuclear test bans and arms control successes—show that diverse coalitions, when anchored by leadership and public engagement, can produce surprising outcomes. ## Nuclear danger and disarmament: leadership plus an informed public Nuclear risk threaded through the roundtable as existential and eminently preventable. Participants pointed to two ingredients necessary for progress: committed leadership and an informed public. Leadership here is not just top-down; it includes civic leaders, religious figures, influential intellectuals and journalists who can reframe nuclear policy as a moral and practical imperative. The public element is equally vital: mass movements that pressured governments to end atmospheric testing and later reduce arsenals were decisive in past progress. To operationalize this, the conversation suggested several steps. First, prioritize public education campaigns that explain modern nuclear doctrine, escalation dynamics and humanitarian consequences without scaremongering. Second, support international civil society initiatives that bridge East-West divides on disarmament—concerted, multilingual advocacy campaigns were highlighted as effective historically. Third, create policy briefs and backchannels that make clear to officials the domestic political benefits of restraint; elites respond to reputational and electoral incentives. Finally, journalists and scholars should persistently expose the falsehoods and miscalculations that normalize nuclear readiness, thereby producing the credibility gap that earlier participants identified as necessary for policy reversal. ## Paradigms, sovereignty and the need for new political language Several contributors urged a deeper intellectual reorientation. They argued that the political vocabulary we inherit—sovereignty, nation-state primacy, liberal democracy as the only template—constrains imagination and produces self-defeating strategies. Re-reading classical sources of republican thought and thinkers who distinguished republican freedom from uncritical sovereignty can help rebuild a vocabulary for cooperative pluralism. This is not an abstract exercise: it informs practical policies around migration, multilateral governance, and economic redistribution. The roundtable proposed cultivating a political horizon that escapes the reflexive "West vs. rest" framing. That requires scholars to study non-Western political traditions s

How to Fight the Warmongers in the Time of Monsters | A Roundtable How can scholars, journalists and citizens help prevent another world war? Well, just work on it. Kyoto University Symposium 2026: "Geopolitics in the Time of Monsters" Roundtable (Session 15): Plenary Discussion In the closing Kyoto Symposium, we bring together seventeen participants to discuss practical paths toward peace. They explore public education, nuclear disarmament, economic inequality, political organization and dialogue across ideological divides. The discussion moves from individual proposals to candid disagreements about democracy, capitalism, nationalism and the psychology of conflict. Despite differing perspectives, participants consider how cooperation, honest debate and stronger networks can turn anxiety into collective action. Participants: Pascal Lottaz (moderator), Sheng Zhang, Dennis Riches, Warwick Powell, Alexander Mercouris, Nel Bonilla, Radhika Desai, Ulrike Guérot, Evarist Bartolo, Arta Moeini, David Gibbs, Mattias Desmet, Christopher Mott, Ivana N. Hughes, Hillary Briffa, Eric Golson and Aghogho Akpome. 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 From analysis to action: Pascal’s opening 02:17 The panel’s proposals for peace 17:05 Sincere dialogue and ethical principles 19:04 Disarmament, public engagement and cooperation 26:36 Open discussion: fear, power and dialogue 33:39 Domestic inequality and the roots of conflict 44:02 Nuclear risks, identity and political narratives 56:11 Building coalitions across ideological divides #Pascal Welcome back to our roundtable discussion. Doctors, I think the patient has been diagnosed, maybe not sufficiently, but for three days. The question now is, what do we do against this? And I'm being a little bit dramatic, but I mean it. A lot of people that I talk to—a lot—have that feeling that we are going toward something very, very dangerous if we do not do something against it. And the analysis we've done here points toward a lot of the issues that we think need to be addressed, right? But how do we address those? People look up to us because we write books. We have podcasts. We do appearances. They think we have the answers, right? We academics. I mean, seriously, but those are the expectations. And I would just like us in this last round to focus a little bit on the ideas that you have of what we can do. Please interpret “we” the way you like: personal or collective, and share your thoughts. And I would say, the more concrete the ideas and what can be done, the better. I, for my part, found out through my podcast and -- 1 of 19 -- through the things we do that networking is very efficient. This is an attempt at networking. And networking, it actually works at creating connections, creating exchanges of ideas, and to do these kinds of exercises and also share them with others. That's why I think social media is actually important. But I would like to hear your voices. You have 90 seconds each, and I will time them, because otherwise we're not going to get through. So that will take us around 30 minutes, and then we have 20 more minutes to pass the microphone around a little bit. And I will start with one of our youngest participants. And just one more time, I would like to point out that both Sheng and Nell are still just working on their PhDs. So really, congratulations for your contributions. #Sheng Zhang Thank you. Okay, so for myself, I mean, I'm from China, and we understand that the Chinese are, I would say, this lonely group of people who built the Great Wall. You know, like when we saw all of this chaos on the other side of the world, the first reaction we have is, how about we build a wall and stay inside and don't go? Because unlike the Americans, we don't have two oceans embracing us, right? But the problem is that the Great Wall never protected China from the nomads. And the same thing, this type of idea is not going to protect us from this changing world. And I think the reason why I specialize in the Middle East is because China needs people who understand that region. That's the region that is super complicated, and the Chinese really don't want to do anything with it. We call that the cemetery of empires. We don't want to enter the cemetery of empires. But we have to understand it because eventually what is happening on the other side of the world will drag us into it. And that's, for my own career, what I want to do, is to, as I was doing this symposium, present to you what the Chinese are thinking about the world. And at the same time, every time I go back to China, I'm trying to tell my colleagues in China what the world is thinking about, especially this world, I mean, the complicated non-Western world that we used to have very limited exposure to. Thank you. #Dennis Riches Okay. Well, I think I always seem to think in terms of history, and I guess I should have been a historian, but I missed that calling. But for my research project last year, I went to Vietnam and took on the study of Vietnam's history since the end of the war, and their economic plans and their economic model, and how it really is still socialism, despite what people say. And I think through all that, I learned, I think, that Ho Chi Minh is my GOAT, greatest of all time. I encourage people to read his biographies, read his writings, his articles, his journals. He was just this, this nobody from Vietnam who got on a ship and worked on a merchant marine ship and landed in Paris, went there and told the communist workers there, "You got to think about -- 2 of 19 -- the colonized people of the world." And then he went to Moscow and he told them the same thing. During the 1920s, he got the Bolsheviks to start paying attention to the colonized world. And then he went back to his own country and eventually led the war there against the French. And the Americans died shortly before the fall of Saigon, a few years before. So just read Ho Chi Minh. That's my message. #Warwick Powell I'll put some cards on the table that I was remiss in not putting them on the table earlier. Obviously, I've worked a long time to perfect this Australian accent. In fact, I've worked on it for 50 years now, but it's not my first accent. And being half Chinese, straddling these worlds, sometimes I think I understand it, and most of the time, though, I think I understand it even less today than I ever did. But I think the work that we have before us is actually to demonstrate that there are ways in which the aspirant great powers, those that have been great powers, can nonetheless remain normal great powers, even as the world changes around them. And if we can curate a soft landing around this, then I think we've accomplished something quite significant. I'm relatively pessimistic that we can, because I suspect that we are going to have at least one more major conflagration, and it's likely to involve China. But if people think that China isn't ready for this, then they've got something very seriously mistaken. But it will be very disastrous for everybody. And it's disastrous because I looked at those pictures of nuclear explosions, and it's— when five billion people can die, you might as well say that it's over. So there's work ahead. #Alexander Mercouris Well, I'm going to refer to a famous British slogan of the Second World War: “Keep calm and carry on.” Carry on doing what we are doing. We retain a level head, and we do our research, and we publish, and we make our commentaries. And in fact, people do listen. I went to Chattanooga in the United States. I was invited to a conference there. I was astonished to find all sorts of people from the Pentagon and other parts of the American government. I'm talking about the permanent bureaucracy. And they were all there, and they all came up and they said, “We know who you are. We listen to what you say. Sometimes we listen, and we find out what the actual facts are.” Other times we discover that you're informing people of things that are actually classified. So we read it, we read it, and then you're coming out and saying it, and we wonder how you deduce it in that way. So the point I'm making is all of us—and this is, I'm sure, true of all of us—we are actually being listened to, not just by the tens of thousands of people who follow our programs or the people who read our books. Even people within the elites at all kinds of levels understand that they're coming to a dead end, and they're looking for a way out. And by engaging the analysis we are, we are helping them find it. #Pascal -- 3 of 19 -- 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. #Nel Bonilla I would suggest something based on a similar observation, but in this case, instead of the, let's say, the imperial elites reading us, watching us, and so on, which is true, also the elites of the global majority do the same, which is why our research has to be precise. And I would recommend studying, let's say, the U.S. and transatlantic strategy from its history until today and what they plan for the future. Because, for example, actually the U.S. doesn't want to have conventional forces, and they want to engage in proxy warfare and low hybrid warfare as their deliberate and new policy. And lastly, I want to also recommend we do maybe need to create a shared new political horizon and language. Because I would say you cannot undo a violent empire's house with the empire's tools. You need your own tools. #Radhika Desai Thank you. I'd like to endorse what everyone said so far. In addition, I would simply add that I think we need to appreciate just how weak the imperialist powers are today, and that many dangers flow from that as much as from their strength. So the disorganization, the chaos, the crisis within the first world countries are themselves dangerous things for the rest of the world. They could give rise to all sorts of military aggressions. And I believe that we are also probably set for a big financial crash coming up soon, which means that there will also be huge ructions in the so-called dollar system. So I think we need to take that into account as well. #Ulrike Guerot Well, I would underscore that Pascal is right in saying networking, networking, networking. And I offer to all of you, for instance, to come to my podcast. Then you can feed your ideas into German society. And I also invite you straight now to the Istanbul East-West Conference, which is another conference format we created. It will take place always the third weekend in September. So next year it will be 17th to 19th of September 2020. So put this date down and you will receive an invitation. On the more intellectual thing, I honestly do think we all should reread Kant's Zum ewigen Frieden, Eternal Peace Project of Immanuel Kant. Why? Because the first sentence of the book is: only a republican constitution is a good constitution. And I'm totally confused that even the modern left, or the allegedly left people, now try to seek whatever hope in the nation state and sovereignty and liberal democracy, which I think are really flawed words. And I do think that in political theory, etymology is important. So the republic is really different from liberal democracy and from the nation state and from sovereignty. To give you -- 4 of 19 -- Hannah Arendt: if man wants to be free, it's precisely sovereignty that he will need to let go. And it's interesting that the left 200 years ago was basically an internationalist project, and now it tries to take refuge in the nation state. So I think we need to be very clear on the vocabulary.