From the Treaty of Versailles to the South China Sea: The Enduring Impact of Perceived Historical Humiliations on World Affairs

The Treaty of Versailles, concluded in 1919, marked the end of World War I but sowed the seeds of future conflict. Imposed upon a defeated Germany, the treaty included severe reparations, territorial losses, and stringent military restrictions. It was intended to ensure peace by crippling Germany's ability to wage war again. However, the treaty also inadvertently fostered a sense of victimization and injustice among Germans, contributing to the nation's economic ruin and political instability during the interwar years.

The consequences for Germany post-WWI were profound. Economically, the reparations demanded were astronomical, leading to hyperinflation and economic hardship for the German populace. Territorially, the loss of key regions not only diminished Germany's strategic advantages but also affected national identity and pride. Militarily, restrictions placed on the size and capabilities of Germany's armed forces were seen as emasculating, further inflaming a sense of humiliation.

The psychological and political impact of these perceived humiliations and injustices cannot be overstated. In Germany, the Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of the unjust treatment by foreign powers, fueling nationalist sentiments and a desire for retribution. This collective sense of grievance and the desire to overturn the post-war order contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the outbreak of World War II.

The "Versailles Complex" is a metaphorical concept that captures the psychological and political aftermath experienced by nations that perceive themselves to have been subjected to humiliation and injustice by the international community. It is characterized by a deep-seated need to restore national pride, status, and sovereignty, often through aggressive foreign policy measures that may include a desire for revenge or territorial expansion.

When applying the case of post-WWI Germany as a lens for connecting historical humiliation to aggressive foreign policy, the Versailles Complex posits that when states perceive themselves as having been humiliated, they are more likely to adopt aggressive postures to restore their status and rectify perceived injustices. This response is driven by the need to overcome the shame associated with humiliation, to reaffirm national identity and sovereignty, and to demonstrate to both domestic and international audiences that the state is a formidable power deserving of respect and recognition.

Thus, the Versailles Complex offers a lens through which to understand the motivations behind certain foreign policy decisions, especially for nations with a history of perceived humiliation. It underscores the significance of historical context in international relations and highlights the complex interplay between national identity, collective memory, and foreign policy.

The Case of Russia

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the Russian Federation as its successor state. This transition, however, was far from seamless. The 1990s were characterized by profound economic hardships, political instability, and a significant reduction in Russia's global influence. For many Russians, the rapid decline from superpower status to a nation struggling with its identity and place in the international order was a source of deep humiliation and resentment.

The post-Cold War era saw the extension of NATO towards the East, a move perceived by Moscow as a direct threat to its security and a betrayal of verbal assurances reportedly given to Soviet leaders that the alliance would not extend eastward. Additionally, economic assistance programs from Western institutions were often seen as prescriptive and patronizing, further exacerbating feelings of national humiliation.

In various addresses, Russian President Putin has voiced strong objections to NATO's eastward extension, viewing it as a direct threat to Russia's security and a betrayal of what he perceives were assurances given to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. For instance, Putin remarked, "You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly". This statement reflects a deep sense of betrayal and is used to justify Russia's aggressive postures as defensive measures against what is seen as Western encroachment.

In a speech delivered at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin articulated a critique of the unipolar world order dominated by the United States, highlighting the need for a multipolar world where Russia's interests and status are acknowledged and respected. This speech is often cited as a clear early articulation of Putin's vision for Russia's role in the world and a rebuttal of the perceived attempts to marginalize Russia.

Empirical Examples of Russia's Foreign Policy Reflecting the Versailles Complex:

Georgia and Ukraine: Russia's military actions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (since 2014) further illustrate attempts to reassert its influence over what it considers its near abroad. In 2014, Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine was justified by the Kremlin as a necessary action to protect ethnic Russians and Russia's strategic interests in the Black Sea. However, this move can also be interpreted as an effort to restore Russia's pride and historical territorial claims, directly challenging the post-Cold War international order that Moscow found humiliating; ultimately culminating in the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. These aggressive actions reflect a desire to counteract the encroachment of Western influence in regions Russia deems within its sphere of influence. Both have been justified by Putin as efforts to protect Russian interests and Russian-speaking minorities and have also been framed within a narrative of resisting Western attempts to weaken Russia.

Influence Campaigns in Western Elections: Russia's involvement in influence campaigns and cyber operations targeting Western democracies, signals an attempt to disrupt the political systems of states perceived as architects of Russia's post-Cold War humiliation. These actions aim not only to divide and weaken adversaries but also to demonstrate Russia's capability to shape global affairs, thereby restoring national pride. Russia's military and foreign policy doctrines since 2014 reflect the strategic importance of dominating the information space and influencing discourse to its advantage.

Each of these foreign policy decisions reflects an underlying strategy to overcome the perceived humiliations of the post-Cold War era. By reclaiming Crimea, asserting military power in its neighborhood, and challenging Western democracies, Russia seeks to convey its resurgence as a global power that cannot be ignored or humiliated without consequence. These actions are as much about sending a message to the international community as they are about addressing domestic audiences, reinforcing the narrative of Russia's return to great power status. Through these measures, the Kremlin aims to restore national pride, solidify its sovereignty, and counteract feelings of encirclement by NATO and Western powers, effectively embodying the Versailles Complex in its contemporary foreign policy.

The Case of China

The "Century of Humiliation" refers to the period between the mid-19th century and the mid-20th century when China was subjected to imperialist aggression, unequal treaties, territorial losses, and foreign occupation. This era began with the Opium Wars and ended with the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. The collective memory of this period plays a significant role in China's national identity and its foreign policy objectives, driving efforts to assert sovereignty, regain lost territories, and prevent any future humiliations.

China's historical narrative emphasizes the injustices inflicted by Western powers and Japan during the Century of Humiliation. These include forced trade concessions, extraterritorial rights for foreign nationals, and the cession of territory, such as Hong Kong to Britain and Taiwan to Japan. The collective memory of these events fuels a determination to rectify past wrongs and restore China's status as a major world power.

In 2013, CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping invoked the "China Dream" as the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese people," positioning it as a central goal of his leadership. He articulated this vision as a means to move China "from humiliation to resurgence," emphasizing a return to China's historical greatness and overcoming the humiliations of the past.

Xi Jinping frequently references the Century of Humiliation in his speeches, using it as a rallying call for national unity and the motivation behind China's foreign policy actions. For instance, Xi has highlighted the time after the Opium War when China was "gradually reduced by foreign powers to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society," describing this era as bringing "intense humiliation for the country" and "great pain for its people".

Xi has outlined China's ambition to assert a more prominent role on the global stage, consistent with its view of overcoming past humiliations. During the 19th National Party Congress of the Communist Party of China in October 2017, Xi stated, "the Chinese nation … has stood up, grown rich, and become strong – and it now embraces the brilliant prospects of rejuvenation". Statements like this encapsulate the narrative of overcoming past weakness and asserting a new era of strength and prosperity.

In addressing territorial disputes, Xi has emphasized the importance of protecting China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as a matter of national pride and correcting historical wrongs. This stance is evident in his firm positions on issues such as the South China Sea and Taiwan, where he has invoked historical narratives to justify China's claims and actions.

Empirical Examples of China's Foreign Policy Reflecting the Versailles Complex

Territorial Claims on the South China Sea: China's assertive claims and militarization of islands in the South China Sea are emblematic of its efforts to assert sovereignty and control over disputed territories. This aggressive posture is often framed as a necessary defense of national interests and a reversal of historical injustices.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): Launched in 2013, the BRI aims to enhance global trade and investment networks linking China to Europe, Asia, Africa, and beyond. The initiative is viewed as a means of expanding China's influence, improving its strategic position, and ensuring economic security, thereby contributing to the restoration of China's great power status.

Military Modernization and Assertiveness in Regional Affairs: China's significant investment in modernizing its military capabilities and its more assertive stance in regional affairs, including disputes with neighboring countries and tensions across the Taiwan Strait, reflect its ambition to secure its interests and prevent any future vulnerabilities.

These actions are motivated by a desire to overcome the Century of Humiliation and to reassert China as a preeminent global power deserving of respect and influence commensurate with its historical status. By actively challenging the status quo in territorial disputes, pursuing economic expansion through the BRI, and enhancing its military capabilities, China aims to secure its sovereignty, safeguard its developmental interests, and assert a leadership role in global affairs.

Do Russia and China suffer from the Versailles Complex?

Both Russia and China have constructed narratives around their periods of historical humiliation, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Century of Humiliation, respectively, shaping their national identities and foreign policy objectives. These narratives serve as foundational elements in their quest to reclaim lost prestige and assert themselves as major global powers.

Russia's and China's foreign policies are characterized by a strong emphasis on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the desire to counteract perceived Western encroachment. While Russia has focused on military interventions and strategic influence operations, China has prioritized economic expansion, territorial claims, and building a narrative of peaceful rise, albeit with increasing military assertiveness.

In both countries, leadership has played a crucial role in harnessing historical narratives to fuel nationalism and legitimize foreign policy actions. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have both invoked their nations' historical humiliations to rally public support for aggressive foreign policies aimed at restoring national greatness.

The emphasis on overcoming historical humiliations has also constrained diplomatic flexibility, with domestic politics often limiting the scope for compromise in international disputes. The strong linkage between national identity and foreign policy objectives makes it challenging for either nation to back down from confrontational stances without facing domestic backlash.

The international community's response to Russia's and China's actions has ranged from economic sanctions and diplomatic condemnations to strategic military alliances aimed at countering their influence. This exacerbates security dilemma dynamics, where defensive measures by one state are perceived as threats by others, leading to an arms race and increased risk of conflict. Such feedback loops heighten geopolitical tensions and contribute to a more fragmented and competitive global order.

Understanding the deep-seated motivations behind Russia's and China's foreign policies, including the influence of historical narratives, offers potential pathways for engagement and conflict resolution. Recognizing the importance of national pride and the desire to overcome past humiliations may facilitate diplomatic initiatives that address security concerns while acknowledging each country's need for respect and status on the global stage.

Both nations, driven by the memories of past indignities and the aspiration to restore their perceived rightful status on the global stage, have adopted foreign policies that seek to challenge the post-Cold War international order and counteract perceived Western dominance. This analysis underscores the critical role that historical narratives and collective memory play in shaping state behavior, extending beyond mere power politics to encompass a deeply emotional and psychological dimension of international relations.

The cases of Russia and China exemplify how the Versailles Complex can manifest in distinct yet parallel ways, with both nations leveraging their historical grievances to justify assertive, and sometimes aggressive, foreign policy actions. As the world grapples with heightened geopolitical tensions and the risks of a new era of great power competition, understanding the motivations behind the foreign policies of these nations becomes paramount.

Lessons from History and the Path Forward

The historical narrative of post-WWI Germany vividly illustrates the dangers of neglecting the Versailles Complex, where punitive measures and lack of empathy for national humiliation led to catastrophic consequences. In stark contrast, the aftermath of WWII saw a radically different approach by the Allies towards Germany and Japan. Germany was not only rebuilt through the Marshall Plan but was also integrated into the European community, which laid the foundation for the European Union. Similarly, Japan was embraced by the international community, fostering a partnership that led to its remarkable post-war economic recovery and political stability. These examples underscore the importance of addressing the Versailles Complex with immediacy and empathy to avoid confrontation and foster long-term peace and cooperation.

In the cases of Russia and China, the situation presents unique challenges. The confrontation has, arguably, progressed to a stage where traditional diplomatic gestures may not suffice to alleviate their historical grievances fully. For Russia, the extension of NATO and the European Union into its perceived sphere of influence, and for China, the lingering effects of the Century of Humiliation, have entrenched a sense of injustice and a desire to assert their status on the global stage. It appears that only acknowledgment of their roles as major powers and a genuine effort to accommodate their security and economic interests might begin to address the deep-seated roots of their Versailles Complex. At least for Russia, this does not appear possible until it suffers a sizable defeat in its war of aggression against Ukraine. China acts below the threshold of war so far, although a war in the Western Pacific is becoming more and more likely on the current trajectory.

The lesson here is clear: ignoring the psychological and historical dimensions of international relations can lead to increased tensions and conflict. By learning from the past and adopting a more empathetic and inclusive approach, the international community has an opportunity to forge a more stable and cooperative global order.

This also implies that Russia must lose its war of aggression. Should Russia score a victory, it would reinforce its strategy and confrontational stance and embolden others to do the same, raising tensions and threat perceptions for decades to come.

Engaging with Russia and China effectively will require a multifaceted strategy that combines acknowledgment of their historical grievances with steadfast commitment to international norms and the promotion of cooperative, rather than confrontational, global relations. The path forward requires patience, understanding, and a willingness to address the complex interplay of history, national identity, and international diplomacy.