World leaders between war, oil and a burning planet and How True Dialogue for Civitology is the Cure

Current system forces them to harm their own people – and why we need one Earth Army under Civitology

1. Introduction: the trap world leaders are caught in

In today’s geopolitical order, most heads of state are not free actors. Even when they genuinely understand the ecological crisis and the long-term interests of their population, they operate inside a cage built from:

Global pressure from rival states and alliance systems.
The military–industrial complex, which profits from permanent preparation for war.
The fossil-fuel complex, which profits from continued extraction and combustion.
Fear of near-future conflict – the belief that a major war could be just a few years away.

Because of these interlocking pressures, leaders routinely take decisions that:

Harm the long-term prosperity of their own population – diverting money from health, housing, education, and human development into weapons and fossil-fuel protection.
Destroy or destabilise ecological systems, from forests and rivers to the climate itself.
Undermine education, science and social resilience, because budgets are swallowed by arms races and energy subsidies.

This paper shows how and why this happens, using public data and super-power case studies, and argues that:

As long as there are many competing militaries and unregulated fossil empires, even well-intentioned leaders will be structurally pushed to harm their own populations and the planet.

The only durable way out is centralised global governance rooted in Civitology – the science of civilisational longevity – and the gradual replacement of multiple competing militaries with one coordinated Earth Army, whose mandate is to protect civilisation and life systems, not narrow national dominance.

2. The three primary forces that distort leaders’ choices

2.1 Global pressure and the security dilemma

Every leader knows a basic fact:

If I unilaterally reduce arms or fossil dependence, but my rivals do not, I may lose power – or my country may be attacked, sanctioned, or destabilised.

This is the security dilemma:

Each state arms itself “for defence”.
Others interpret this as “offence” and arm more.
Everyone ends up less secure, but no one can safely stop.

In this environment:

Domestic calls to shift money from weapons to schools, hospitals, and climate adaptation are answered with:
“We can’t do that until others do it too.”
Ecological concerns are overridden by arguments like:
“First we must survive; then we will think about nature.”

So, security logic – not human development – dominates budget decisions.

2.2 The military–industrial complex (MIC)

The MIC is not just a slogan. It is:

A network of defence corporations, arms exporters, private contractors, research labs, and logistics firms.
Millions of jobs, thousands of lobbyists, and billions in campaign donations.
A culture that equates “strength” with the ability to project violence.

For leaders, this means:

Economic blackmail: if big defence contracts are cancelled, factories close, jobs vanish, and political backlash follows.
Lobbyist pressure: legislators are told that cutting or delaying new weapons systems is “soft on security” and “anti-jobs”.
Narrative capture: media and think tanks sponsored by defence interests normalise higher and higher military spending.

Thus, even in times of climate emergency and social crisis, increasing defence budgets often seems like the safer political choice than increasing teacher salaries or funding wetland restoration.

2.3 The fossil-fuel complex

The fossil-fuel complex – oil, gas, coal corporations plus their financiers and aligned ministries – exerts similar pressure:

Governments depend on fossil-fuel royalties and taxes for revenue.
Companies donate heavily to parties and flood public debate with “energy security” narratives.
Workers in fossil industries fear loss of livelihood if extraction declines.

Leaders are told:

“Rapid fossil phase-out will cause blackouts, riots, and unemployment.”
“Your geopolitical leverage depends on controlling oil and gas flows.”

So they:

Approve new drilling, pipelines, LNG terminals, and coal plants.
Subsidise fossil fuels to keep prices low and citizens temporarily calm.
Delay ambitious transition policies – even when they know they are necessary.

2.4 Fear of near-future war

All of this is amplified by fear:

Fear of a large-scale conventional war between major powers.
Fear of nuclear escalation.
Fear of proxy conflicts spilling over into wider theatres.

This fear is not always irrational, but it is often instrumentalised:
defence and fossil interests exaggerate threats to secure more contracts, more drilling licences, and more subsidies.

The effect:

The possibility of war in 5–10 years justifies ecological destruction today.
Leaders are told: “We can’t worry about forests when missiles are pointed at us.”

3. How these pressures translate into harm for citizens

Under these overlapping pressures, leaders make choices that directly hurt their own populations across four key dimensions:

Prosperity and economic resilience
Ecology and life systems
Education and knowledge capacity
Human development and social cohesion

3.1 Prosperity traded for weapons and subsidies

Money is finite. When militaries and fossil-fuel sectors absorb huge slices of national budgets:

Housing, health care, public transport and social protection are underfunded.
Infrastructure for long-term prosperity (resilient grids, clean water systems, digital and green innovation) is delayed.
Economic shocks (pandemics, droughts, floods) hit harder because safety nets are thin.

This is not abstract. In many states:

Annual defence increases outweigh increases in social spending.
Fossil-fuel subsidies are larger than budgets for renewable energy and conservation combined.

3.2 Ecological systems sacrificed as “acceptable collateral”

When the MIC and fossil-fuel complex dominate:

Forests are cleared for extraction, bases, and infrastructure.
Rivers are contaminated by industrial and military activities.
Oceans suffer from naval exercises, shipping, spills, and warming.
The atmosphere is treated as a free dumping ground for CO₂, methane, and other pollutants.

Leaders know that ecosystems are the foundation of agriculture, livelihoods, health, and culture – but in the short term, they are pressured to treat nature as expendable.

3.3 Education and human development starved

Education, research, and public health build the real long-term security of a nation:

Educated citizens,
Robust institutions,
Social trust,
Innovative economies.

But education budgets are easy to cut:

Teachers do not have the same lobbying power as arms manufacturers.
Schools and universities do not threaten to move factories to another country.

So when leaders are looking for “savings” to finance new fighter jets or subsidise fuel prices, education often gets squeezed. This:

Reduces literacy, critical thinking, and democratic resilience.
Weakens the very capacity that societies need to handle climate and technological disruption.

3.4 Human development compromised

All of this adds up to:

Higher inequality and social unrest.
Worse health outcomes.
Forced migration due to climate impacts and economic collapse.
Increased susceptibility to extremism and authoritarianism.

In short, the security paradigm designed to protect populations is quietly eroding their long-term survival and dignity.

4. Super-power case snapshots: how leaders are forced to harm their own people

Below are illustrative snapshots from the major powers. The details differ, but the pattern is the same:

Global pressure + MIC + fossil complex + fear of war = decisions that undermine prosperity, ecology, education, and human development.

To keep this paper readable, each country snapshot focuses on the mechanisms, not an exhaustive list of every policy.

4.1 United States

Context:

Largest military spender.
Largest oil and gas producer.
Strong, entrenched MIC and fossil-fuel lobby.

How pressure works:

Budget capture by defence
- Congress routinely passes large defence authorisations with broad bipartisan support, while social and education programmes face partisan fights and austerity rhetoric.
- Lawmakers rely on defence jobs in their districts; cutting programmes risks re-election.
Fossil-fuel protection despite climate laws
- Even after passing major climate legislation, the US continues to approve new drilling and export infrastructure to maintain global energy influence.
- Politicians are warned that aggressive fossil phase-outs will lead to electoral punishment in key states.
Ecology sacrificed to “energy security”
- Drilling in sensitive ecosystems, expanding LNG terminals, and maintaining a vast global military footprint all contribute heavily to emissions and local environmental damage.
Education and human development sidelined
- College debt burdens millions; public schools face teacher shortages and decaying buildings.
- Yet the political cost of cutting even a small weapons programme is much higher than the cost of underfunding schools.
Near-future war narrative
- Rising tension with China, Russia, and other actors is used to justify a permanent expansion of defence budgets, crowding out investment in social resilience.

Result:
Even leaders who want to prioritise climate, education, and social justice find themselves forced into decisions that privilege defence contractors and fossil interests over the long-term prosperity of the American people and the health of global ecosystems.

4.2 China

Context:

Second-largest military spender.
Largest emitter, but also largest investor in renewables.
One-party system, strong state-owned enterprises (including fossil and heavy industry).

How pressure works:

Perceived encirclement and rivalry
- The US alliance network, disputes in the South and East China Seas, and tensions over Taiwan create a constant sense of strategic siege.
- Leaders feel compelled to sustain rapid military modernisation – new ships, missiles, and high-tech systems.
Coal and heavy industry as stability anchors
- Local governments, state-owned enterprises, and millions of workers rely on coal mines, steel plants, and heavy manufacturing.
- Closing them too fast risks unemployment, protests, and questions about the Party’s competence.
Ecological compromise in the name of development
- Forests, rivers, and farmlands are stressed by pollution, land use change, and infrastructure expansion.
- Climate policies exist, but enforcement competes with provincial growth targets and energy security imperatives.
Education vs. security spending
- China invests heavily in education and research, but large defence outlays and debt concerns constrain social spending in poorer regions.
- Rural schools lag behind urban centres, perpetuating inequality and reducing resilience.
Fear of near-future conflict
- Military planners assume that confrontation in the Western Pacific is plausible in the coming decades.
- This logic justifies high-emissions industrial production and military build-up, even as climate impacts intensify.

Result:
China is racing to decarbonise and dominate green technologies, but under security and fossil pressures it still makes choices that damage ecosystems and maintain coal dependence, limiting the long-term wellbeing of its own citizens and neighbours.

4.3 Russia

Context:

Large nuclear power.
Economy heavily dependent on oil and gas exports.
Engaged in high-intensity war.

How pressure works:

War and sanctions spiral
- Ongoing conflict and confrontation with NATO dominate state priorities.
- Vast resources go into warfighting and rearmament, while domestic services and infrastructure degrade.
Fossil rents as regime backbone
- Oil and gas revenues finance the state and its security apparatus.
- Transition away from fossil fuels is seen as a direct threat to regime survival.
Ecological negligence
- Siberian forests burn; permafrost melts; industrial and military pollution accumulates.
- Environmental concerns are subordinated to war and energy exports.
Education and human capital erosion
- Brain drain, reduced academic freedom, and budget constraints weaken scientific capacity.
- Children grow up under war propaganda, not critical education about climate and peace.
Permanent near-war mindset
- The state portrays itself as under siege by the West; any call for demilitarisation or climate-first policies is painted as treasonous or naïve.

Result:
Russian leadership is locked into a path that sacrifices economic diversification, education, and ecology to keep the war machine and fossil-fuel exports running, to the detriment of its own population’s long-term prosperity.

4.4 India

Context:

Rising power with huge development needs.
Significant military spender due to regional tensions.
Fast-growing economy, still heavily reliant on coal.

How pressure works:

Two-front security fears
- Tense borders with both Pakistan and China drive high defence spending and modernisation.
- Requests to reallocate more funds to health, education, or climate adaptation face the argument: “We cannot compromise national security.”
Coal as quick development lever
- Reliable electricity is politically critical.
- Coal plants are fast, familiar, and tied to powerful state and private actors.
- Renewable build-out is impressive, but coal remains central because leaders fear blackouts and economic slowdown.
Ecological degradation as “necessary cost”
- Forests are cleared for infrastructure and mining; rivers suffer from pollution.
- Heatwaves, floods and crop failures are increasing – yet mitigation and adaptation are underfunded compared to defence and fossil projects.
Education investment squeezed by competing priorities
- India has improved enrolment, but teacher shortages, infrastructure gaps, and rural-urban divides persist.
- Raising defence expenditure and subsidising fossil energy leaves less fiscal room for deep quality improvements in public education.
Fear of future war + historical injustice narrative
- Leaders argue that India must first “catch up” with rich countries that built their wealth on fossil fuels and colonial plunder.
- This is morally understandable – but combined with security fears, it delays transitions that would actually protect India’s youth from climate chaos.

Result:
India’s leaders navigate real security threats and historical injustices, but the combined pressure of militarisation and coal politics forces them into choices that restrict long-term human development, ecological resilience, and educational transformation.

4.5 European powers (UK, France, Germany) and Japan – variations of the same trap

Rather than repeating each country in extreme detail, it is useful to see the shared logic among:

United Kingdom
France
Germany
Japan

All four:

Are US allies and/or NATO members (except Japan, which is a key US ally in Asia).
Have increased defence spending significantly in response to perceived threats (Russia, China, North Korea, terrorism).
Present themselves as climate or development leaders, yet:
- Delay deeper cuts to fossil-fuel use (North Sea oil and gas in the UK, coal fallback in Germany, imported fossil reliance in Japan, etc.).
- Allow education and social services to experience austerity or slow growth while defence budgets surge.

Common mechanisms:

Alliance pressure: They are told that they must “do their share” of military spending to maintain credibility, so defence increases become politically non-negotiable.
Defence industry lobbying: Arms exports and domestic production create jobs, making cuts politically difficult.
Energy security anxiety: After crises (e.g., Russian gas cuts), leaders rush to secure fossil supplies rather than restructuring energy systems as fast as possible.
Fiscal framing: When budgets are tight, deficits are blamed on social programmes, not on military spending or fossil subsidies, and cuts fall on the former.

Shared consequences:

Ecological protections are weaker than they could be.
Education systems in poorer regions or communities remain underfunded.
Humanitarian and development aid commitments are constrained.

In every case, leaders could in principle choose differently – but under current global and domestic pressures, those who try risk being punished by markets, media, or voters for being “soft” on security or “reckless” on energy.

5. Why “better leaders” are not enough

It’s tempting to believe that if we just had more ethical, enlightened leaders, things would change. But the structural pressures described above mean that even a visionary leader faces a brutal choice:

Obey the logic of militarisation and fossil-fuel protection – and quietly betray ecological and social goals.
Or defy that logic – and risk destabilisation, electoral defeat, internal coups, sanctions, or invasion.

In other words:

The real problem is not just the quality of leaders, but the architecture within which they operate.

As long as:

Multiple large militaries are locked in competitive postures,
Fossil-fuel empires remain central to power, and
Global governance is weak and fragmented,

we will systematically produce decisions that harm prosperity, ecology, education, and human development.

6. A different paradigm: centralised global governance rooted in Civitology

Civitology – your framework – starts from a fundamental question:

Does a given decision increase or decrease the lifespan and flourishing of civilisation and the life systems that sustain it?

Viewed through this lens, our current system is clearly suicidal. To correct it, we need not just reforms, but a paradigm shift.

6.1 Core principles of a Civitology-based global order

Civilisational longevity over national short-term dominance
- The ultimate metric of success is how long and how well human civilisation endures, in harmony with the biosphere.
Ecology as non-negotiable infrastructure
- Forests, oceans, rivers, atmosphere, biodiversity and soil are treated as primary infrastructure – not resources to be exhausted.
Human development as true security
- Education, health, equality and social cohesion are identified as the only sustainable source of security.
Military and fossil-fuel complexes subordinated to planetary needs
- These complexes can no longer dictate policy; they are regulated, reduced, and repurposed for planetary protection.

6.2 Centralised global governance – not empire, but coordination

Centralised global governance under Civitology does not mean one nation ruling others. It means:

A binding, democratically structured global authority with clearly defined powers over:
- Military limits,
- Fossil-fuel extraction and emissions,
- Protection of critical ecosystems.
Representation based on population, vulnerability, contribution, and responsibility – not just raw power.
Strong checks to prevent authoritarian capture, including transparency, global civil-society participation, and independent oversight.

This body would have the mandate to:

Set and enforce global caps on total military spending and major weapons systems.
Set and enforce global caps and timelines for fossil-fuel extraction and combustion.
Ensure minimum baselines for education, health, and social protection in every country.
Protect key ecological systems (e.g., Amazon, Congo, major river basins, oceans, polar regions) as global commons.

7. One Earth Army instead of many competing militaries

At the heart of this transformation is the idea of replacing multiple competing militaries with one Earth Army.

7.1 Why one Earth Army?

Multiple national militaries:

Compete, escalate, and prepare for war against each other.
Consume enormous resources and emit massive greenhouse gases.
Reproduce fear, suspicion, and secrecy.

One Earth Army would:

Have a single mandate: protect civilisation, life systems, and human rights – not national glory.
Be directed by the Civitology-rooted global authority, not individual states.
Focus on:
- Disaster response (floods, fires, pandemics, earthquakes),
- Ecosystem protection (preventing large-scale illegal deforestation, overfishing, etc.),
- Peacekeeping and de-escalation,
- Safely dismantling and securing legacy weapons (including nuclear).

7.2 How this reduces the harmful pressures on leaders

If military force is centralised:

Individual national leaders can no longer justify huge arms budgets as necessary for defence.
The MIC loses its captive national markets and must transform into a planetary protection industry – building climate-resilient infrastructure, renewable systems, and restoration technologies.
Fear of near-future war between states is drastically reduced, because the means of large-scale warfare are no longer under unilateral national control.

If fossil-fuel use is globally capped and regulated:

National leaders are no longer pitted against each other in a race to extract.
They can tell domestic fossil interests: “We have no choice; the global rules apply to everyone.”
This levels the playing field and protects those who truly want to transition.

7.3 Freed fiscal space for education and human development

Once arms races and fossil subsidies are wound down:

Massive fiscal space opens up to invest in:
- Universal quality education,
- Primary health care,
- Climate adaptation,
- Green infrastructure,
- Poverty reduction and social security.

Leaders will finally be able to make the choices they already know are right:

Funding schools instead of missiles,
Protecting forests instead of pipelines,
Building resilient communities instead of stockpiles of weapons.

8. Conclusion: from coerced harm to conscious guardianship

Today’s world leaders are trapped. Under relentless global pressure, the influence of the military–industrial and fossil-fuel complexes, and fear of near-future war, they are pushed to:

Harm the long-term prosperity of their own people,
Sacrifice their ecological foundations,
Underfund education and human development,
And normalise a world order built on mutual insecurity.

This is not simply a problem of individual failure; it is a design flaw in the global system.

The alternative is clear:

A deep, honest global dialogue that finally recognises militarisation, fossil dependence, and ecological collapse as one interconnected crisis.
Centralised global governance rooted in Civitology, where the primary goal is civilisational longevity and planetary health.
One Earth Army, replacing competing national militaries, dedicated to protecting life, preventing catastrophe, and dismantling the structures of war and ecological destruction.

Only then can world leaders stop acting as reluctant managers of decline and become what they should have been all along: