Asia, explained.
Getty Images Plus
Why Northeast Asia risks repeating Europe’s 19th-century mistakes
Compelling strategic lessons lie in institutional decay, alliance uncertainty, and deterrence gaps that mirror historical dangers.
Asia, explained.
Getty Images Plus
Compelling strategic lessons lie in institutional decay, alliance uncertainty, and deterrence gaps that mirror historical dangers.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Why Northeast Asia risks repeating Europe’s 19th-century mistakesWhy Northeast Asia risks repeating Europe’s 19th-century mistakes
Whether across the Taiwan Strait, on the Korean Peninsula, or in the East China Sea, the region is drifting toward a historical inflection point. As geopolitical tensions mount in Northeast Asia, strategic planners tend to look to contemporary deterrence theory and alliance politics. But valuable lessons lie in a more distant chapter: the rise and eventual breakdown of the Concert of Europe. This early 19th-century security system, devised after the Napoleonic Wars, preserved peace among rival great powers for decades, until it faltered amid mistrust and miscalculation, culminating in the Crimean War (1853–1856).
Though the Concert would survive on paper until 1914, the Crimean War dealt a lasting blow to its credibility, demonstrating how even sophisticated diplomatic frameworks can collapse if their underlying assumptions erode. As the Indo-Pacific confronts its own crises – from US–China rivalry to North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship – the story of the Crimean breakdown offers sobering parallels and enduring strategic lessons.
The Concert of Europe emerged from the Congress of Vienna 1814–15, following the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars. Its founding members – Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia (later joined by France) – sought to avoid future great power conflicts through collective diplomacy and a shared commitment to the balance of power.
Rather than establish a rigid alliance, the Concert operated through informal, consensus-based consultation. Periodic congresses were held to mediate disputes, defuse revolutionary upheaval, and manage the delicate status quo, particularly in regions like the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. For much of the 19th century, it succeeded. Major wars between the great powers were averted, and most crises, such as the Belgian revolt (1830) and the revolutions of 1848, were managed diplomatically.
Yet the Concert’s stability depended on mutual restraint and a shared sense of strategic priorities. By the early 1850s, these conditions had frayed. Diverging interests, especially over the fate of the Ottoman Empire, exposed fault lines that the Concert was no longer able to reconcile.
Depicting negotiations at the Congress of Vienna: Europas Wiedergeburt durch den großen Herrscherverein zu Wien 1814 (Via Getty Images)
The Crimean War, often remembered as a grim and inconclusive conflict, was in fact a strategic turning point. Ostensibly triggered by a dispute over Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, the war revealed deep structural flaws in the European order.
Russia, under Tsar Nicholas I, claimed the right to protect Orthodox Christians in Ottoman territory – a move seen by Britain and France as a bid to dominate the weakening Ottoman Empire and gain strategic access to the Mediterranean. Russia invaded Ottoman lands in 1853, expecting diplomatic protests but not war. Instead, Britain and France declared military support for the Ottomans, launching a coalition effort that culminated in brutal campaigns across the Crimean Peninsula.
Just as Russia misread Britain and France’s resolve in 1853, there is now a real danger that China underestimates US willingness to defend Taiwan, or that North Korea misjudges South Korea’s response to military provocations.
Austria, though nominally neutral, pressured Russia diplomatically and massed troops near its border. In turn, Russia felt betrayed, ending the Austro-Russian alliance that had been a pillar of the Concert. No congress was called to mediate. The diplomatic norms that had once guided Europe were simply bypassed.
The war ended in 1856 with the Treaty of Paris, but its deeper legacy was the unravelling of trust among the Concert powers. The collaborative instinct that had animated European diplomacy gave way to hard balancing, military competition, and zero-sum thinking – trends that would culminate, half a century later, in the First World War.
The conditions that led to the Crimean War bear a striking resemblance to today’s Indo-Pacific tensions. Northeast Asia lacks a region-wide security mechanism that includes all major players – China, the United States, Japan, both Koreas, and Russia. While institutions such as the Quad, AUKUS, and the US–South Korea–Japan trilateral framework are gaining traction, they function more as alliance clusters than inclusive diplomatic platforms. This fractured multilateralism limits the region’s ability to manage crises cooperatively.
At the same time, the risk of strategic miscalculation is high. Just as Russia misread Britain and France’s resolve in 1853, there is now a real danger that China underestimates US willingness to defend Taiwan, or that North Korea misjudges South Korea’s response to military provocations. In an era defined by cyberattacks, hypersonic weapons, and ambiguous grey-zone tactics, the margin for error is vanishingly small.
Moreover, alliance uncertainty looms large. Austria’s diplomatic hedging during the Crimean War left it isolated for decades, and similar risks confront the Indo-Pacific today. Political volatility – such as the return of US President Donald Trump or leadership shifts in Seoul and Tokyo – could undermine trilateral cohesion. Without consistent strategic alignment and policy clarity, even longstanding alliances may fail to deter adversaries.
Some may argue the 19th-century European context is too different, a time marked by monarchies, colonial rivalries, and the absence of nuclear deterrence. But the core strategic behaviours remain startlingly familiar: deterrence failures, the breakdown of trust, and the inability to adapt institutions to shifting power balances. The lessons of Crimea are not about cannons or congresses, they are about the erosion of strategic restraint, the mismanagement of risk, and the complacency of peace.
The Crimean War is not merely a 19th-century tragedy; it is a revealing case study in how peace systems decay when ambition outpaces diplomacy. For Northeast Asia today, it offers several enduring lessons.
First, crisis management must be institutionalised. The Concert of Europe failed to convene a congress before the outbreak of the Crimean War, leaving no trusted mechanism through which the great powers could mediate their disputes. Northeast Asia must not repeat this mistake. Even modest dialogue structures – such as military hotlines, confidence-building mechanisms, or a standing Northeast Asia security contact group – could help reduce the risk of accidental escalation and provide a foundation for de-escalation during tense moments.
Night attack in the trenches depicting the Battle of Sevastopol 1854 (Via Getty Images)
Second, strategic clarity is essential to avoid miscalculation. While ambiguity may serve short-term tactical interests, it often invites dangerous strategic errors. The United States, Japan, and South Korea must clearly and consistently communicate the consequences of aggression, whether it be a Chinese move against Taiwan or a North Korean nuclear provocation. Deterrence, to be effective, requires credibility and precision.
Finally, values must be matched by strategy. During the Crimean War, Britain and France justified their intervention in moral terms, yet they lacked coherent war aims or a vision for the postwar order. The result was a prolonged conflict and growing disillusionment. Today, democratic powers must uphold their values, including human rights and international norms, but not at the expense of strategic coherence. The ultimate goal must remain the preservation of regional stability, even if that requires sustained engagement with adversaries under imperfect conditions.
The Concert of Europe did not formally end with the Crimean War. It staggered on, occasionally useful in mediating localised disputes such as at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. But the idea never again commanded the trust or strategic alignment that had once made it effective. Its eventual collapse in 1914, amid rigid alliances and spiralling arms races, was not a sudden event but the result of long-term institutional decay.
Northeast Asia may not yet be at its own “Crimea moment”. But the warning signs of mistrust, fragmented diplomacy, and crisis-prone flashpoints are unmistakable. The region’s powers still have time to act: to build forums, align policies, and reinforce deterrence with diplomacy. History does not repeat, but it often rhymes. The last great power system to fall apart sleepwalked into disaster. Northeast Asia must do better.
About the author
Ju Hyung Kim
Dr Ju Hyung Kim currently serves as a President at the Security Management Institute, a defence think tank affiliated with the South Korean National Assembly.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
