So this means when people (or maybe it’s just me 🙂) hear ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’ they misunderstand it, he’s not saying it about policy but about social forces. It’s much deeper than government decisions or aims ?
Policy is one element, war is another way or means of pursuing policy. But this is because war is a political phenomena, which allows us to explain how war can be so extremely different throughout history, yet still lets us recognize them all as war.
I really think by your explanation in the piece, which seemed well argued and spot on to me, that Clausewitz wasn’t talking about politics in the way I’d spent my life assuming in that quote, sort of ‘war is continuation of policy/the governments agenda/foreign policy by other means’
No, from what you say in this piece, he means politics in the much deeper social forces sense
I’m not wording this well but hope I’m not that incoherent that you don’t get what I’m trying to say
Interesting perspective. Very instructive looking at both Iran and Ukraine, and the ways in which domestic and international politics have hemmed in the participants. Napoleon would certainly not have spared the under 25s from the levee in the way Zelenskyy has - which has certainly had a profound impact on how Ukraine has fought.
Clausewitz watched Napoleon’s successes and failures from the vantage points of Prussia and Russia thus have the benefit of being able to compare and contrast their fall and rise to Bonaparte’s opposing arc.
So this means when people (or maybe it’s just me 🙂) hear ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’ they misunderstand it, he’s not saying it about policy but about social forces. It’s much deeper than government decisions or aims ?
Policy is one element, war is another way or means of pursuing policy. But this is because war is a political phenomena, which allows us to explain how war can be so extremely different throughout history, yet still lets us recognize them all as war.
I really think by your explanation in the piece, which seemed well argued and spot on to me, that Clausewitz wasn’t talking about politics in the way I’d spent my life assuming in that quote, sort of ‘war is continuation of policy/the governments agenda/foreign policy by other means’
No, from what you say in this piece, he means politics in the much deeper social forces sense
I’m not wording this well but hope I’m not that incoherent that you don’t get what I’m trying to say
Well said
Hi All,
Just launched NatoNations.
Explaining NATO from the ground level - through the eyes of someone operating across the alliance, not the usual academic lens
Open to connecting with others building in geopolitics, media or international business.
Interesting perspective. Very instructive looking at both Iran and Ukraine, and the ways in which domestic and international politics have hemmed in the participants. Napoleon would certainly not have spared the under 25s from the levee in the way Zelenskyy has - which has certainly had a profound impact on how Ukraine has fought.
Yes… I love some Ded Carl!!
Clausewitz watched Napoleon’s successes and failures from the vantage points of Prussia and Russia thus have the benefit of being able to compare and contrast their fall and rise to Bonaparte’s opposing arc.
Dr, Pfitzner, my sincere thanks for this excellent article.
Well organized and cogent. I wonder how the (exponentially accelerating) implementation of attritable drones+AI changes the grammar and logic.
On War (Von Clausewitz) & zeitgeist … mix well & serve … but remember, the zeitgeist isn’t always necessarily right or good.
By Clausewitz’s definition, if the zeitgeist isn’t right, it’s not the real zeitgeist
Too bad the reality is the “spirit of the age” in many places around the world is indeed not right or good.
5/14/2026 🗽Summit Approaches 🇨🇳 ⚖️ 🇺🇲⚓🛢️⚔️
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/15a6833c-acd0-42ed-b826-fb4475f0a620
^Grace and peace to you Amigo, you are referenced in this Executive Summary Artifact