Some things never change. Patterns that have existed in animal behaviour since the dawn of time are still messing us up, and keeping us from solving some problems that have been bothering us since soon after that.

The old predator/prey merry-go-round that has been hanging around for eons still occurs in international politics. If we could see these actions for what they are, we might be able to break out of the pattern, and solve some of our international tensions.

The Pattern

Think about the basic situation when a predator, or pack of predators, attacks a herd of prey. Wolves attacking herd of horses, a shark attacking a school of fish: that sort of thing. The important elements of the situation:

1. The predator chooses when and where to attack. The herd has little choice.

2. Sometimes the herd puts up a defence; sometimes the herd flees.

Flight

When the herd flees, as in the case of a school of fish being attacked by the shark, we see the most basic element of prey defense. The fish swarm away in a thrashing mass, hoping to confuse the shark. The individual fish, however, is just hoping that the shark will eat someone else. This basic selfishness of prey behaviour is important to remember.

Taking a Stand

A more sophisticated group of prey, like a herd of horses, has social cohesion. The agile adults protect the less able members of the herd, like the the mares with young. In smaller herds, the single male leader takes the aggressive role. However, for the weaker members, the best chance of survival is the selfish hope that the predators will take someone else.

How Do People Act?

Even in a supremely sophisticated society such as ours, there is little difference. When a bully stalks the playground and chooses a victim, there is always an element of relief in the other children. “Whew! It wasn’t me today.” This is why the others rarely take action to protect the victim. They don’t want to draw attention to themselves. Standard prey behaviour.

So we see many situations where a single predator, or small group of predators, can terrorize a much larger group of prey, because the predators choose the time and place of the engagement. They choose who to attack, and the prey’s best defence is to stay out of the way and hope someone else incurs the damage. After all, the predator is only looking for lunch. If he catches someone, then he will stop chasing the rest of us and leave us alone. Until he gets hungry again.

On a Larger Scale

The irony of this system, when it applies to international relations, is evident. I heard a quote the other day that the US was “exhausted” after its escapade in Afghanistan. What? The most powerful country in the world was “exhausted” by a conflict in a little backwards country? How could this be?

Think of the stallion trying to protect his herd from wolves. He may be far bigger, stronger, and more dangerous than any wolf. He may be backed by a cadre of strong mares and young stallions. But he is trying to protect a large number of herd members from an enemy that can attack from any direction at any time, including several attacks at once. If the attackers are determined enough, they can wear him down. The only thing he can do is make it dangerous enough for them that they decide they will have a better chance of food from another prey.

The American and Canadian soldiers fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were in exactly that sort of situation. Their solution was to protect the people of the country long enough that they could stabilize their population until it was strong enough to protect itself. Which may well work for Afghanistan, but the predators are still circling, and may strike elsewhere at any time.

International Relations of Old

The predator/prey situation that has repeated itself throughout the history of mankind is the nomads from the desert/steppe/forest sweeping in and attacking the farmers. Like animal prey from the eons before, the farming people, spread out and individually vulnerable, have a difficult time defending themselves. Their greatest disadvantage is being tied to their land. Nomadic predators have no home that can be destroyed. They can choose the weakest farm to attack. The farmer’s best defence is the hope that luck will save him, and the predators will attack someone else. The great advantage of the feudal system was that the peasants, like a herd of horses, could gather in the lord’s castle for protection when the vandals appeared.

Enter Vladimir Putin.

Now the Cossacks are again sweeping out of the steppes of Russia. They have decided that the Ukraine is their best prey, and they are nipping at its flanks, tearing a piece off here, a piece off there. The other countries can put up a fuss, and may or may not dissuade Putin from pushing his attack home, but he will simply wait and attack again. Maybe not the Ukraine: maybe somewhere else. The other countries of the world, like children on the playground, stand back and thank their luck that it wasn’t them.

Canada’s actions in this situation are typical. Certainly, we have been at the forefront of those condemning the Russians, but there is a very good reason for that. Attacking Putin for his actions in the Ukraine keeps his attention right where we want it: away from us. Did you know that Canada has the longest undefended boundary in the world? Yes, of course, you say. With the United States: 8900 kilometres. Well, guess what? Our ragged Arctic shoreline is 24,000 km long (not counting the islands). With the global-warming-fueled retreat of the Arctic ice pack, that shoreline is looking more and more vulnerable, and it’s Russia on the other side.

So it is in Canada’s best interest to keep Putin’s attention firmly in other directions. The nations of the European Union have even more interest in keeping aggressive eyes off their business, reliant as they have become on Russian natural resources, especially fuel.

The Present Situation

The problem with the methods that “our side” has been using for the last hundred years is that we have been acting like prey. Once a society has bought into the idea that war is not really a good thing for anyone, there develops a moral barrier to being the one who starts hostilities. There are many people in the rest of the world who have not achieved the same level of social enlightenment, and they are quite happy to take the predator role. This immediately casts us in the role of prey. Those who have not lost their primitive aggressive instincts can attack us whenever and wherever (including within our own borders) they like, and all we can do is react. And recent history shows that, like many groups of animals that are attacked, we tend to scatter and run, each hoping that it will be someone else who takes the fall. The US, like the herd stallion, is left facing the prey, backed by only a few of the herd members.

So What Do We Do?

The solution, of course, is to realize that our relationship with Moscow is not really a predator/prey situation any more. The Russians are no longer nomadic Cossacks or Huns who can attack where they please and then fade back into the vastness of the steppes. The Russians have a stock market, too, and our economic sanctions are having their effect. We know where they live.

But this idea can be taken further. If the Russians cannot act like predators, then must we act like prey? An astute American commentator I heard on CBC recently, when asked what Canada should do to help the Ukraine, suggested that we should strengthen our Arctic presence. Put into the predator/prey criteria, this starts to look like a predator move. And a dangerous one. Like the child watching a bullying incident on the playground, we have been hanging back, hoping not to be noticed. Pushing our Arctic sovereignty would bring us to Putin’s attention in a big way. Look at it from the position of Russia as prey. What country has the second longest undefendable shoreline in the world?

If we were the only ones, this would be trouble for us. However, if everyone else who had an axe to grind with Putin started to move in his direction, I think he would have to pull in his horns. The European bloc started it all, moving in on the Ukraine economically. They just don’t quite have the nerve to keep up the attack. Support for the rebels in Syria, against Russian wishes, might be a great way to focus Putin’s attention on other things than expansion.

The Risk of War

Of course, playing the predator game is risky. Predators tend to see other predators as competition, and like to get rid of them. In the bad old Imperialistic days, a balance of power was the only thing that kept each leading nation from attacking another and clawing with tooth and nail until nothing was left of either. As sometimes they did.

Most bullies act out of fear. They attack to keep from being attacked. Putin is afraid that Russia is losing its international clout, so he is trying to frighten everyone by increasing his influence. It is the bully’s solution: to take a predator role for fear of becoming the victim of what he perceives as another predator. Cool heads with the right attitude could convince Mr. Putin that the reign of the predator is over, and that Russia’s best route to strength would be to concentrate on economic competition. Otherwise, he will keep on acting the predator, and more of our herd will fall prey to his claws.