UKC

Surely war is a crime? If you invade another country and kill people, it's a crime. The fact that we consider it fair game until a certain line is crossed is the most ridiculous idea!

Unfortunately war seems to be in our nature.

We don't consider warmongering to be a good thing, yet we revere invaders (The Roman Empire, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc*)

We glorify war, yet we mourn individual deaths

For some reason there is seen to be a form of honour in war which has never really existed except in some weird romantic view

*this list could be very long and include our own british empire

Was fighting a war against Hitler a crime? I am not sure it is ever truly black and white.

Of course it wasn't. We were fighting a crime, Hitler's war. It was about the last thing we wanted to do, but eventually, after we'd struggled for a year to find peace, we had to go to war with him, simply to stop him. It was, actually, very black and white, and entirely unlike the national-chauvinist Great War, in which we were arguably as much to blame as Germany.

You're mixing up legality and morality. Wether something is a crime or not is decided by those in power. Morality is a societal construct.

Consider ISIS, their stated aim was to conquer the world and kill or convert all those who didn't share their ideology. No personal quandary on my part as to whether we were right to oppose them with military force.

Morality 'is' a societal construct, but I find it interesting how for certain things, like harm coming to children, there seems to be universal disgust/aversion. I was struck by how the local London underworld gave up the name of that guy who shot a little girl after she witnessed him killing her dad, so there'd be no witnesses. It made me reflect on a chink of humanity existing in most people.

No, I don't think she is.

So both are social constructs. The idea of law, as far as I can see, is that it is our attempt to codify the more general, wishy-washy feelings we have which we call morality.

Personally, I quite like a bit of moral realism. We all care about suffering. If you make others suffer you're wrong. If you try to alleviate suffering, you're right. Obviously the details of implementing this get complicated, but the basic idea is in my mind sound. I also think it's something we human might come to a consensus on, and in that sense, it's as objective as you're ever going to get.

If you can't get people to agree to this basic principle (which I tried, and failed, to do with Coel Hellier, so I get that not everyone sees it this way, baffling though that this is to me), then where are we? With dictators invading their neighbours for ideas of "national glory" (or something?), religion excusing the powerful to abuse the disadvantaged, etc etc.

Exactly. The enforcement of their bonkers ideas would cause huge suffering, opposing them would prevent it. Open and shut case.

Back to the OP. 

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is obviously wrong/a crime, on pretty much whatever yardstick you can judge it on. With no legal background I'm pretty confident the invasion contravenes pretty much every international law/agreement one could ever have thought of...so that's a crime to start off with.

Then I guess there's specific agreements written down that say "well, once you've decided it's a war, x,y,z are really beyond the pale" - I'm glad these things are written down so we can have trials and what-not later, but they're not "law" in the sense we experience as individuals of having enforcement consequences that might deter anyone. That was the idea of law in the first place, to codify the consensus on good and bad behaviour so that if you transgress it you get punished.

Once we have to operate of this level of populations and technology, it's just a matter of different groups negotiating their interests. Sadly, some of the negotiators haven't got a good grasp of the practical facts and arguments about what is and isn't going to work in their favour. And they're bringing down the entire f*cking human race with them. And the people who just happened to be there on the ground are those that suffer.

Without wishing to get into a huge philosophical debate about morality (or even a little one!) i'm inclined, like you, to tend towards moral realism. To simply brand all morality as a 'social construct' seems a little bit too easy, because it ignores the force of logic. I.e. most human beings/societies have to bow before the rational force of 'do as you would be done by' ... for example.

There are countries today where thieves are sentenced to amputation, gay people suffer judicial murder and children are sold. Not all that long ago in some parts of the U.K., some portions of society were all on board with knee capping joy riders and murdering police informers.

I’d be more struck if the criminally inclined routinely gave up those who prey on the innocent but unfortunately the opposite is the reality. Which is why this instance is so unusual.

More likely practicality. Child murders cause a media frenzy, police throw huge amounts of resources into the investigation, investigations into your criminal activities are extremely bad for business and could end up uncovering other things, killer gets identified to stop police investigation.

The 'ordinary decent criminal' is a myth. Child molesters get attacked in prison because people who break into pensioners houses and beat them to death for their pension like to feel superior to someone.

Historically that isnt really supported with highly varying attitudes to children ranging from there isnt really such a thing (the kids have to get productive fast) to infanticide.

There doesnt really seem to be many universally shared "things" when you look across multiple cultures over time.

No debate necessary but I am interested: how would you apply that to Zelenskyy's actions? Putin's intent was clear for some time. He would have known that Putin once started on a campaign would not back down and that Ukraine would sooner or later be under Russian control. There was a way out of this before the military action started, but it would have meant losing face, going into exile and a lot of negatives including Russian interference in the running of Ukraine. When considering this keep in mind Putin is not Stalin or Hitler, although he may not be pleasant by western standards. It would not have meant 10s of thousands of deaths (which it will likely end up being now), or all males over 18 forced to stay to fight and die for something they can't win. It would not have meant the widespread destruction of infrastructure and a potentially harshly administered occupation. 

And how would it be applied to western countries who stand on the sidelines cheering on Zelenskyy as a hero, despite having made it very clear they won't get involved, except to send arms to prolong the fight and degrade Russia's ability and moral hoping to dissuade Putin from similar actions in the Baltic area?

The Nuremburg Articles established "crimes against peace" and "waging a war of aggression" as criminal.  Starting a war or invading a peaceful neighbour would easily qualify.  Not defending yourself against in invader or going to the aid of a victim state (eg Kuwait).

You can't just say "war is a crime" without context.

No, war is never black and white, even WW2. The causes are always complicated. Yes Hitler was a monster, the direct cause of the war, but the seeds of WW2 were sown by the allies with their over-punishment of Germany after WW1. This over punishment (reparations which Germany could never had a chance of repaying) directly led to the Weimar Republic having to print money to make the payments, which directly led to the horrific hyper inflation, which created the conditions (economic desperation) which allowed Hitler to rise to power. 

I'm v sorry, but I MUST work on my book today. I'm days behind schedule for various unforeseen reasons, so I'm not going to even begin to get into this very difficult philosophical discussion. But a very brief answer would seem to be that there's a clash of moralities here: the realism of losing face and saving the infrastructure, versus that of trying to stop the immoral invader at all costs. Roughly the different reactions to Hitler of France and Britain/Churchill in WWII.

I think you are spot on. It's what my Dad, a former WW2 bomber pilot, always used to say when I was growing up.. When discussing the Geneva Convention he used to get really heated, and say war isn't a game about which you make "rules". there is only one rule and that is "Do not wage war". 

Well, he started it.

Okay, I understand. If anyone else wants to comment I'd be interested in opinions. 

Not to hijack this thread.  Consider gulf war 2, we invaded a sovereign nation on a false pretext, that Blair sold to parliament and Colin Powell to the UN.  There was little no support for that adventure here in the UK.  The Iraqi people have paid a heavy price for that Blair/Bush adventure, and no one has been held to account or even had the guts to apologise.  This is not to excuse the actions of Putin in Ukraine at all, but one doesn’t have to look far in the history of the “good guys” to find equally poor actions.   I’m sure our military didn’t want to be there, but go where the idiot politicos order them.

Both France and Britain had a mix of people who would happily collaborate and those who would fight to the death.

The difference was the French defensive line turned out to have significant flaw of being bypassable whereas the British defensive line was a more effective obstacle. The British cant really take the credit for that though unless there is some impressive prehistory archeology waiting to be found under the North sea.

my post at 8.49 would apply to Gulf War 2

It actually provided quite a definitive answer to the OP

I don't want to appear combative, but are you not simply advocating appeasement and surrender to anyone who wants their wicked way with your country? The Ukrainian people decided some time ago that they were a nation. They have the right to determine their fate. It seems they decided that political freedom was something worth fighting for. If public opinion of Russian intervention and / or control was favourable, the conflict would never have happened. Their call.

I'm not sure I agree. Putin is increasingly going after dissidents in a similar way to the despots you mention. Political freedom in Russia is essentially non-existent. State controls nearly all media. Should sound familiar to anyone with a little knowledge of history. Neither of the two you mention were engaged in mass killing or imprisonment from the get-go. Furthermore, the examples are recent - within living memory for a few - and the economic and strategic patterns surrounding their actions while not identical, share some similarities. Putin is becoming desperate, and desperation breeds catastrophe.

It's a fraught situation, especially with the threat of nukes. Secular democracies need to tread carefully. 

There's a lot to discuss here, but essentially it boils down to power (clearly). Putin is in a difficult spot - he's determined to hang onto power, and this isn't entirely unreasonable. Reputable scholars and journalists point to how central he is in the Russian state and economy, holding the oligarchs, the mafia, the military and the intelligence services together. It's unlikely a candidate could be found to replace him. Ukraine is a weak point strategically as there's very little high ground between it and Moscow, so having an anti-Russian government there makes Putin look vulnerable. Whether that threat is real or perceived matters little - the perception is the key problem. The only alternative would be for Russia to become progressive, and it seems the political soil for that is not fertile these days, given the widening state control of media and dependence on oil and gas in the economy. Putin would need to be prepared to relinquish power and that just doesn't look likely at all. 

That might seem an objectively reasonable way of looking at the situation, but it does rather remove Putin's own particular agency and imply that his decision to invade was simply an inevitable act of nature that it was entirely up to Ukraine to try to prevent.

Good question. There's an easy emotional response which is that Putin has wronged the Ukrainians so it's right for the Ukrainians to fight back. That's just moral intuition (the instinct we evolved so we successfully form societies), if I understand correctly, you're asking something different, whether Zelensky's actions are justified from a rational (realist) perspective.

I think the answer's yes. The future of the people, and their children is at stake. Those people generally want to have a European, more open, more prosperous society and lifestyle. They don't want to bring their kids up in Russian controlled society, they see that as considerable suffering, for everyone in the society, indefinitely. I don't think Zelensky could have been sure that Europe wouldn't step in sufficiently to keep that European future alive. We don't know the outcome - Ukraine's a big country and with Russia a North Korea style pariah state it's not going to be easy to maintain occupation. It's an enormous gamble and at best a trade-off of a lot of suffering in the short term for better outcomes later, but I think it's rational. 

What do you think the options are? Starting world war 3 doesn't look to me like a great way to reduce suffering... Standing silent, not cheering on Zalensky for fear of appearing hypocritical - OK if you think that the best outcome for Ukrainians is just to be under Russian control and for Putin to continue trying to assemble USSR2? There are no good options, I think the response of the West is so far morally rational. We should obviously be seizing all the houses and yachts etc of Putin's buddies and taking the economic hit to ourselves, but making this as costly as possible for Putin seems to me to be the right course of action. His generals can't be very happy, now he's woken up Germany, I doubt his oligarchs are particularly onside with this course of action, I can't see that the Russian people are keen and will be acutely aware of the consequences for them just doing their shopping. 

Putin's actions aren't in anyone's interests, I don't see where the support will come from and how it can work out in his favour. Do the people who control the military and the money really want to live in the new North Korea?

Indeed, I don't believe the narrative of the 'ordinary decent criminal', it's more that within any subset of people one seems to find a mixture, or a spectrum, and that I think it'd be towards the more extreme end even among underworld types, to find people who'd not feel a pang at an innocent child being killed. I do find it curious, the binary way some criminals can talk about things, like cutting the faces of other criminals before saying 'I'd never harm women and children'. I'm glad that I can't relate. 

You make a good point about not wanting police activity around them, I reckon people can act with a mixture of motives, I find there can be noble and self interested reasons for doing the same things, that probably the reasons given can depend on who people are talking to, without being mutually exclusive. Life is weird, full of shades of grey and different perceptions.

I'm not really sure where I expected this thread to go, but interesting to read your thoughts. I think I mostly posted it out of frustration and sadness.

What a horrible situation and a horrible man. I love Russia, I have spent a lot of time there and have lots of friends there. I had a great trip to Ukraine and would have loved to go back again and see more of it. I find it deeply sad that one man is destroying it all. 

I personally think it is black and white, to use a saying already used. Killing for any reason is simply wrong, nothing can justify taking another life and nor should anyone try to.

Crimes are based on laws, i think the OP was merely stating the wrongness of war.

So we were correct to bomb Dresden? A city without military targets. 

Legally that is not necessarily the case, this was discussed on R4 yesterday. All member states of the UN are bound by its charters which allow war in two circumstances.

1) If a country or its allies are attacked they may go to war to defend themselves (hence Ukraine is in the clear)

2) If a country obtains a UN security council resolution authorising its use of force (hence the Afghanistan war for example was legal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war#Legality_of_declarations_o...

Indeed, I think it was utterly criminal and I am disgusted that it was done in our name! I think Blair should be in prison for it.

None of these things apply to Putin!

It's black and white is it? and nobody should be allowed to try justifying it? You're either a little hard of thinking or have led an incredibly sheltered life.

Here's just one scenario from the recent past, the Dunblane massacre where one social inadequate with a gun fetish shot 32 people, killing 1 adult and 15 children aged between 5 and 6. He then shot himself dead. Personally speaking, I'd have no problem putting a bullet in his head for him, five minutes prior to him doing the job himself. 

No justification needed as it's self evident, but I'll break it down for you as simply as I can:

most people are good, a very few people are very bad. The few bad people will do a lot of very bad things to an awful lot of the good people if nobody stops them. Good people stopping bad people doing very bad things to good people doesn't make the good people bad.

No absolutely not, hence this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/united-nations-russia-ukraine...

Not true.

"Though it has been controversial for over a decade, the invasion was actually popular at the time. In 2003, YouGov conducted 21 polls from March to December asking British people whether they thought the decision by the US and the UK to go to war was right or wrong, and on average 54% said it was right."

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/03/rememberin...

You mean the Dresden with the munitions factories, the armaments factories, military equipment factories, the main German marshalling and staging point for supplying troops and munitions to the eastern front, that Dresden?

Ok, obviously a little too simplified for you as an explanation, but to me it really is that simple, and a natural law, something i see missing in a lot of societies these days. Something, among other things, i try to teach to my children and hopefully they will to theirs, which is killing is wrong, and some will try to explain it away by saying things like, well, they did it first, ha, sorry, but that to me is no justification for a person to do the same, in fact it is re-enforcing the original act, so is killing bad or not, it should not be a debate, it either is or is not, and i choose to go the path of it is bad.

Just reminded of a piece i once read, which contained a list of inhumane bullets that were banned, because as we know, there are humane ways of killing each other 

Dresden did not have any military targets, if it had it would have been bombed earlier in the war. The centre of the city was targeted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51448486

Killing people is bad. Killing to protect innocent lives is entirely justified. You can teach your kids non-violence is the correct path to take. I teach my kids to stand up to bullies, protect each other and if the worse happens and they can't run, to fight back with whatever means necessary.

Of course there are humane ways of killing. They generally involve large doses of stuff like morphine, midazolam and anticholinergics.

Whoosh! Where did that come from? I really can't see how it relates to anything I've said. The whole question of the bombing of Germany is morally very complicated, to put it mildly. The blunt, horrendous fact is that a complete nutter called Adolf Hitler, who was going to stop at nothing, totally destablised the world, caused millions of unnecessary deaths, and a vast amount of suffering. And the problem was: how could he be stopped? That horrendous bombing we entered into was the inevitable outcome of several years of all-out world war. The old biblical quote about 'reaping the whirlwind'. A slight mitigating true fact is that really no-one anticipated the appalling firestorm the bombing caused, I believe absolutely unprecedented, with winds up to 150 miles an hour?? There'd been no horror quite like it in history before.

The most appalling thing about it was that, once militarily he hadn't a hope, Hitler still refused to give in. He was so nutty that he preferred to see his whole country completely destroyed, literally reduced to a wasteland, rather than admit defeat. In fact, that was his crazy 'scorched earth' policy. If he was going to be defeated, which was certain, he wanted to make quite sure that the victors would be left with as little as possible.

I remember my father, who was a paratrooper (in the Red Berets) and a prisoner in East Germany at the time of Dresden (having been seriously wounded and captured at Arnhem), describing the day after the bombing to me. He said the normal German radio didn't come on all day, they just played funeral music non stop from dawn to dusk.

Hamburg, 1943, firestorm with 150 mph winds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II#Battle_of_...

you may well say that but I discussed it with practically everybody I met, even strangers and I didn't meet a single person in favour of it.  Friends, colleagues, anyone I could collar.  I even harangued a market trader in Keswick for flying our national flag of shame shortly after the invasion

I felt at the time that the stats had somehow been loaded

Anecdotal findings vs average of 21 polls by leading pollster. Hmmm.

Did you canvas people all across the SE, SW, Midlands, etc? The point I was countering was "There was little no support for that adventure here in the UK," which is patently nonsense, not whether the war was right or wrong or whether it had considerable support in market towns of the north of England.

I would have been interested in meeting someone who did support it

In which case you might have popped along to the Commons, where the vote on 18 March 2003 was 412 in favour out of 659, i.e. Labour Party (254), Conservative Party (146), Ulster Unionist Party (6), Democratic Unionist Party (5), Independent Conservative (1).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasi... 

I recall that a lot of people on here said they didn't know anyone who voted for Brexit.

A lot of people live in echo chambers, intentionally or not.

that's why I talked with so many people outside my own "echo chamber"

plus, we don't choose our colleagues do we?  I do "know" people and of people who voted for Brexit personally but that is not true of the invasion of Iraq, before or after the fact

I've made a list of the cu*ts!

Sorry Gordon but the idea the allies didn't know about firestorms is plain wrong. The phenomenon had happened several times in history prior to saturation bombing and Dresden followed on from the Hamburg firestorm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm

Our guy wasn't called 'Bomber' Harris for nothing.

As per someone else above, I'm not trying to justify the Iraq war but clearly lots of people did support it at the time even if lots didn't as well.

In a similar vein, I know quite a few lefties who don't think they have any Tory supporting friends or work colleagues. Of course they do really, they are the ones who can't be arsed getting into politcal arguments when opinionated lefties* start spouting off.

*Of course there are opinionated right wingers who spout off as well but I've never come accross one who thought he didn't know any lefties.

Wasn't Dresden a railway hub ?

In war communications centres are always targets, even when they are (sadly and inevitably) surrounded by civilian buildings.

While being obviously nuts, the nuts-ness went to all areas in Hitler, it was his policy that he wanted allied aircraft to be able to make it to flying over Germany, so that the German population could be bolstered by seeing them being shot down by the Luftwaffe. It's something to be thankful for that he was his own undoing.

So Saddam Hussein should not have been hanged ?

Isis members should have been treated nicely ?

Some people DO deserve death. It's just a pity that they can only be killed once.

So you want the death penalty back in the UK?

Weren’t there very well supported anti war marches in the uk.  The biggest since the poll tax protests?

I recall a conversation with a Mosquito pathfinder pilot who described being demonstrated the theory of their assigned target-locator patterns - his CO set out a square of candles, then filled in with more inside the perimeter. He described the inner candles eventually igniting of their own accord after the perimeter was lit. Whether or not the crews dwelt heavily on what was going to happen to the people on the ground in the scaled-up version was their own concern, but the essence of it was understood and expected.

I don't agree but have a lot of respect for the way you choose to live. It's actually very hard to form an argument against this mindset without sounding like I was born and raised in rural Texas ;p.

I'd like to have the same values but I've never had my home invaded/blown up or had to fight for my own or my family's existence so I've no idea how I would behave.

Blimey. One extreme to the other. 

I don’t.

I have respect for the sentiment as a utopian “if only” but not the reality. Essentially, it’s ignoring 5000 years of recorded human history and sneering at those that daily put their lives on the line to protect wider society, including mk one and his family. 

If you want to see how a pacifist society might function look up the Moriori. Unfortunately reading about them is all you’ll be able to do because as soon as the Maori came across them they were swiftly raped, murdered, eaten or enslaved. 

I agree that killing is wrong, but at the same time, I think that self defence (with the possibility of killing others happening) if one is being attacked, isn't wrong too.

I'll never forget footage from the Balkans, of men and boys being lead away, and the discovery of mass graves after the conflict ended, which is where they ended up.

Grandpa peppermill (Still going strong at 97....) served in WW2  as a teenager and hasn't been far off having mk one's views for as long as I can remember, and according to family long before. Hence having some respect for this way of thinking.

I agree (unless I've horribly misinterpreted your post again....;p) that it's often a product of living in a country that has been near enough safe since 1945 and these views have never been tested, easy enough to say or be a pacifist inside your own head.

However for all I know mk one has 3 tours of Afghanistan under his belt and better placed to comment on these things than me hence treading carefully when I decided to join in on the discussion! ;p

p.s hope things are better "South of the Wall"

Much respect to him, but he did his bit and he's earned the right to his views, but there's an enormous gulf between believing killing is bad (as I do) and that there is no such thing as justifiable killing. 

Exactly so. It's the easiest thing in the world to have untested convictions.

Give over! If anyone on here is so fragile that having their anonymous views discredited by some anonymous nonentity (me) on the internet is enough to spin you out, you're probably best off hanging up you're keyboard for good

Yep, rocking along cheers. Finally got my much delayed MTS training done yesterday. Hope you're good too mate.

They love their mum's innit?

Two people have disliked this comment. Who the hell are they?

Doesn't matter who they are, the rest of us know what they are.

My view entirely.

War is unbelievably horrific, it's something that etches the human spirit for ever. People who've seen it never get over it.

Of all of those affected, the professional soldier in a modern army is probably the best-equipped to handle the psychological trauma, nonetheless in developed nations the rate of veteran suicide post-conflict (let alone all-cause mortality) is massively increased compared with the general population. 

Conflict should never be entered into lightly. So I completely sympathise with those who oppose killing in all its forms. But that's not reality - humans often act with greed, spite, vengefulness, or plain murderous intent and sometimes the only way to prevent that is by using lethal force.

British forces have rules of engagement which while not always the same in every operational theatre and at every time, follow fundamental tenets of military necessity, humanity and proportionality.

Military necessity - there is no other means than lethal / potentially lethal force to achieve the objective.

Humanity - prevent and reduce civilian suffering as much as possible: purely civilian targets are out of bounds, as is destruction of assets / resources / equipment not absolutely necessary to hamper the enemy. 

Proportionality - incidental damage must not be disproportionate to the advantage gained.

Humanity and proportionality are about how, in terms of conduct, the necessary objectives are achieved. Ultimately here there is a strong argument for a well-trained and well-equipped military at all times, both in defence and offence. A well-equipped military will be able to use the best available technology in order to achieve the objectives with minimal casualties. A professional, well-trained military can better observe whatever ROE (and ultimately culture) that comes from its leaders.

Accurate fire is effective for more reasons than just hitting the enemy. 

If one is working with the above principles, one has to be certain that lethal force is justified. In other words, is this the only means available to prevent the threat. Following these ROE principles ensures the military acts with a degree of morality - easy to lose in the heat of combat. 

The fundamental point is the first - necessity. In fully-developed nations the decision to enter armed conflict is decided, legally, by elected politicians working on the public's behalf. The kind of wars your government fights is determined by the people in power. A reminder, as if it should be needed, that your vote (and your voting system) counts in the real world. 

So in regard to Russia's actions, it is failing on some basic points.

Military necessity - arguably no. While NATO has crept westward, former Soviet republics are keen to join it and the EU not from a desire to attack Russia, but from the perceived need for collective protection (now sadly proven necessary), and the economic and political growth that membership of these bodies implies. 

Humanity - arguably no. Russian deployment of precision-guided munitions, accurate and targeted artillery, specialist infantry and SF has been limited and ineffective, if media reports are correct. Evidence of massive humanitarian harm is undeniable.

Proportionality - again no. The attack this morning on the nuclear plant in Eastern Ukraine utilised means that were at least likely to cause hugely disproportionate harm. 

It is apparent that war crimes have been committed, and ultimately one hopes these can be pursued through the International Criminal Court. But the ground between there and where the world is now is dangerous, and we've no idea how this conflict will ultimately end. However, looking to Syria (an area where the Russians have been militarily active for many years), and Chechnya in the recent past, a scorched-earth policy looks likely. 

As the military chaos surrounding this misadventure increases, it is more and more likely that indiscriminate means are further employed. How that affects Western response remains to be seen. But the sad reality of nuclear weapons in the hands of desperate leaders means it's hugely more likely that Ukraine will be reduced to rubble, with Putin safe in power until his people fully reject him. 

The only things we can do are lobby our MPs to increase sanctions, waive visas, and bolster NATO in the East. And put our hands in our pockets - humanitarian NGOs working on the ground are desperate for more money to help. 

I’m not sure pacifism as a principle sneers at soldier, per se

Which, one might argue, highlights why the theory of pacifism is a desirable state of affairs

Well, if nothing else, Putin's plan to reconstitute the old USSR is surely down the toilet.

I absolutely agree universal pacifism is a desirable state of affairs. However I can't see it ever being achieveable.

The reply, part of from Gorden Stanford must add weigh to your  post and to turn the other cheek  

I am sitting on the  fence and am happy that so many of the fighting generation of the past 2 large Europe/ world war lived out there days without seeing the past few days 

“”The most appalling thing about it was that, once militarily he hadn't a hope, Hitler still refused to give in. He was so nutty that he preferred to see his whole country completely destroyed, literally reduced to a wasteland, rather than admit defeat. In fact, that was his crazy 'scorched earth' policy. If he was going to be defeated, which was certain, he wanted to make quite sure that the victors would be left with as little as possible.””

Tell that to Tony Blair

Talking of war crimes, we need to keep an eye on Rpblika Srbska in Bosnia. There are far too many nazi silverbacks still ruling the roost there and they are being encouraged by Putin to cause a distraction right now. Plus we need to monitor and expose our own master race nutters to the glare of broad daylight. They are very much seeing this situation as an opportunity.

I didn't know about this situation in Bosnia, but am completely unsurprised to hear Putin is stirring trouble there. For years Putin has been financing and encouraging factions on the far left and right in Europe and North America. Classic Cold War tactics, but his success in propaganda and influence operations is unprecedented thanks to the internet.

The proliferation of data through social media benefits him in two ways: radical ideas can be disseminated and amplified easily; people susceptible to such messages can be identified and targeted algorithmically. The sheer volume of traffic from bots, professional trolls and useful idiots in spreading hate and confusion means that reasonable voices and ideas are being drowned out.

Truth has become just another point of view; Putin has found that in the modern Western world with its crisis of trust in politicians and academics, reputable analysis of and level-headed reaction to almost any issue can be corroded via these means.

This has been incredibly successful. The incitement of anti-Establishment feeling among Western populations has weakened some of our most important strategic structures. For example as little as twenty years ago, the idea of massive vote-rigging in the US to benefit a secret cabal would have been widely dismissed as a lunatic fringe idea. Today this idea is regularly peddled on mainstream right-wing networks there. 

The left shares blame in undermining a cohesive and compassionate response to this crisis too -  George Monbiot sums this problem up perfectly here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/russian-propaganda-an...

We've become polarised, and it can feel like reasonable attempts to find common ground are useless. For me the only answer is education - if we don't demand sensible debate in public life, and teach our kids to think critically about important ideas, our world can only change for the worse.

I think the much maligned 'media studies' should be a compulsory subject, with a focus on the use of propaganda in social media and the techniques used.

I might well be used as a training course by future Farages and his ilk, but hopefully the rest of the population will be able to see and understand the manipulation.

Of course, an educated populous is exactly what the current government doesn't want.

Unfortunately you're spot on. The conditions favoured by dictators happen to be more or less the same as those that benefit people looking to carve a country up for profit.

I am interested in the philosopy of this. When we say killing what do me mean? Is that humans killing humans or any sort of killing? If any sort then that is an impossible goal. For us our very presence spells death for something, be it plant, insect or other animal. Even if we don’t eat animals we eat plants, which are alive, we kill pests that eat those plants or remove their habitat. We also buy cheap clothes produced by low paid workers or electrical devices that use materials mined under horrendous conditions. We cut down forests for roads and fuel, etc. And this applies to all living things to a greater or lesser degree.

If killing humans then I am ambivalent. Killing, especially within the group, is very much to be avoided and killing as whole is to be avoided but not always avoidable. Hate never yet dispelled hate and I subscribe to that but I can also think of scenarios where I would kill to preserve myself, my family or may be even an ideology. In a world where the victors write the history and the rules on what is right or wrong there can be no black and white, all is nuance.

At the time virtually all the people I knew were in support of it and most of the jingoistic papers were in support of it. I felt very much the odd one out.

Funnily enough I asked one of them the otherday and he replied that he thought Blair hadn't gone far enough and that Thatcher would have "Sorted them out proper"

Thanks for your reply and the others. Just to clarify, I was interested in Gordon's, and others, opinion based on the facts I'd laid out in my post as I seem to often have very different opinions to him as well as many other posters here, probably because of our backgrounds. I don't have any deep knowledge of moral philosophy, although I've read a few books years ago on the subject. I do have an opinion based on my own moral compass, so to speak. And I am not a pacifist, by the way. I think that any leader has a duty to do what's best for their citizens based on the reality of the situation they find themselves in. This shouldn't be confused with blindly following what "the people want". The Ukrainians have NATO on one side of the country and the Russians and and an ally of theirs on other sides. Putin, on the Russian side, has made it very clear what he has issues with, and what he will do to remove those issues as threats. NATO has made it clear that it won't get involved. Russia is militarily far superior to Ukraine. Whatever the wrongs of Putin's actions it doesn't absolve the Ukrainian leadership of responsibility for acting in the interests of their people. Making the choice to engage in a war you can't win (and no one is suggesting they can) when you have options that will produce far better outcomes than the most-likely best-case outcome from fighting is not in the interests of your people. In this current situation it's madness. 

No objection to how you've framed your argument, it's clear. But I think you're wrong. If our country was invaded by an aggressive and expansionist neighbour, I'd take up arms to fight. Our politicians are often not my favourite but I'm glad of the freedom I enjoy to criticise them, to vote with a degree of effectiveness (FPTP notwithstanding) and the numerous other benefits of living in a free and prosperous society. 

Russia has none of those things. Its economy is tiny, institutionally corrupt and tied utterly to the vested interest of international oil and gas supply. As such their economy is profoundly fragile, which along with an injured sense of nationalist pride, provides ample understanding of the aggressive expansionist policies directed at less-friendly immediate neighbours. 

Consider how the people of Ukraine have time and again overwhelmingly protested and voted for politicians and policies that look to the Western model. They don't want Russian governance: far more than anyone they're aware of what that means. Economic stagnation. Restrictions on political freedom. Imprisonment or murder for dissent, or resisting corruption, or plain old doing your job (see murders of Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya; attempted murders of Sergei Skripal and Alexei Navalny for just a few high-profile examples). Not to mention recent Russian military operations in places such as Chechnya, Georgia and Syria, where reputable institutions such as Amnesty International and the European Court of Human Rights have found widespread evidence of horrific war crimes. 

The idea that the Ukrainians are wrong for fighting back against their territorial aggressor is naive apologism at best.

You've not replied in good faith to my very reasonable argument. Instead you've used rhetoric (poorly) then insulted me. Anyway, this is UKC so I do expect that from some people.  So, if we're into rhetoric, then what do you tell a mother in a Ukrainian city looking on at the dismembered remains of her children in the rubble after a shell strike? All you can honestly tell her is it that it was a complete waste because the conditions the country will have to endure at the end of this are considerably more harsh than if something had been negotiated. Or, the 18 year kid dragged from his studies to fight with substandard equipment against professional soldiers because his leaders tell him it's his "duty" whilst he lays in agony slowly dying with suppurating burns over half his body, knowing he will never see his parents again or do any of the things he'd always dreamed of? You'd have to tell him his leaders had lied to him, that they never had any chance of preventing the Russians achieving their objectives, and that he dies for nothing. You see, this is what you are supporting. If there was a reasonable chance of them keeping Ukraine a democracy and joining NATO at the end then all these sacrifices might be worth it. But that won't happen. No one is saying it can. So why carry on with this? It's absolute madness. It's sick. 

So what precisely are you suggesting the Ukrainian leaders should do?

They are now in a position where the only way out is to accept whatever demands the Russians dictate. 

Respectfully, I disagree. The reply counters your argument: I, like many (and seemingly most) Ukrainians, would not want to be ruled by Russia, which has consistently shown brutality in other nations. 

No, I haven't, and it's important to draw distinction between a personal attack and an attack on the point someone is making. That said, I used an emotive way to describe my assessment of your argument, and could have probably said it better. Maybe by leaving off 'at best'. Apologies for that. 

Just to add, I'm not the disliker

But the point I am making is that all reasonably-likely outcomes from the start of this see Russia having some influence. Ukraine could have negotiated something like neutrality and not seeking NATO membership at the start of this -- that was the likely best-case outcome. Their actions now are leading to the almost-worst possible outcome with complete Russian control,  10s of thousands dead and infrastructure destroyed. Not wanting to be ruled by Russia is reasonable. But we can't always get what we want. Living in Russia, or under its control, might have limitations by our standards but most people can go for a walk in the park, study, watch their children grow up etc. You can't do that if you're dead.  And remember Putin won't be there forever. 

I get where you're coming from - you feel military opposition to Russia is useless, so why not try to limit casualties as far as possible. Well, I would choose to fight, because I don't have sufficient faith that I or my family would be treated fairly or safely by Russian troops and authorities, were they to be allowed to rule my country.

While Ukraine has demonstrated an incredible resilience in the face of almost overwhelming military superiority, it is likely that Russia will continue its operations and increase use of indiscriminate means (news reports today indicate this is occurring now after increasing daily since the initial invasion).

It's hard to see a way out of this for Putin without a humiliating withdrawal - and he does not seem to be someone able to capitulate; indeed his power as President is held together by his appearance of 'strength'. It's not how I'd describe strength but that's irrelevant - he depends on an image of toughness and ruthlessness that cannot square with defeat or retreat, his stirring of nationalist sentiment at home means he's now in a corner strategically.  

He will find (as in many other recent and more historic military operations) that conquest does not equal victory. It is immeasurably harder to hold ground than to gain it. Fighting an oppressor may seem hopeless, but continued resistance works, especially when the populace has endured atrocities - political will always eventually dries out in the face of continuing casualties and economic cost at home. If you intend to occupy, you have to 'sweeten the deal' in some way, and that means improved economic conditions. Very few empires persist when they don't offer people peace and prosperity. 

I'm not sure the Ukrainian President is lying to his country when rallying his people to fight, but yes casualties in conflict are inevitable. Whether that's a cost worth paying is a choice that has to be made by individuals, and currently it seems most Ukrainian individuals have decided that it is.

I feel that opposition within the context I described is useless. As for your family argument, like I said Russian control is inevitable, so the higher their losses the more likely they'll not be too sympathetic of the civilian population. 

Anyway, it's clear that your response is emotional, not rational. Understandable and not an insult, as it is a shocking situation. We'd all like to think we'd fight, if necessary. But I think you need to sit and carefully think through what you are supporting, including your suggestions of long-term resistance and what that would mean for ordinary people.

I do take your point. However (sorry for going all Godwin) should we have surrendered to Nazi Germany when we were massively defeated in Europe in 1939 and the bombs started falling in the Blitz? 

Again respectfully, I don't think I'd fight, I know. It's important to be sceptical of convictions held by others (especially in an online discussion) but I regard UKC as being a place where mostly 'real' people come and express their genuinely-held opinions. Scepticism has its place, but to dismiss a conviction such as that as bluster isn't completely fair. I'm 'real' if you like, and if you ever get to know me in person you'll understand exactly why I can say what I'm saying.

Yes, of course my argument is emotional, just as much as your counterargument. I respect your wish to limit casualties, and see your 'bigger picture' view of the Ukrainian President doing what seems 'best' for his people (i.e. not having them die en masse), but remember there are valid reasons to fight - and an important one is the kind of world you wish your kids to live in. 

Well, we have the advantage of being an island, and there was the hope of the US joining, which it did when Hitler declared war on them. Perhaps Zelenskyy is still hoping NATO will help him on the ground in a similar way, but that is very unlikely. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA, if he hadn't invaded the Soviet Union who knows? Anyway, I have no moral objections to my understanding of what happened in the WW2 context on our side, and I have read a lot about it, and forgot a lot too. I have no moral objection to what we did to retake the Falklands, either. Unfortunately for the Ukrainians everything is stacked against them.

I am not dismissing anything as bluster. I am simply saying your opinion is more emotional than rational. That's just how things are, some people have a more emotional thought process than others. You mentioned the kind of world you want your kids to live in -- that is a wish. It's not necessarily realisable. Thinking and acting as if something is realisable in the face of all the contrary evidence is not rational. It's the sort of thinking that leads to extremism, war, suffering and death. People who think like that often have the best of motives, but if only they'd think through where it leads.

I don't know if your point of view is as rational as you think.

By your logic, the sanctity of life trumps all other values. But that ignores the fact that that view is never held by oppressive regimes - life is cheap to them.

I wish you'd acknowledge the evidence of history, which overwhelmingly indicates the vulnerability to genocide of a population living under oppression. That is to say, peaceable civilians, being killed en-masse - not in conflict, but in an organised system designed to ensure the continuation of power. The list is extensive: in the last 80 years (which is within living memory), mass killings and imprisonment of dissenters or undesirables have occurred in Europe, the Soviet Union, and South East Asia for just a few examples. 

And even if the risk of genocide were low, or non-existent, is it 'right' for large numbers of people to live under regimes they cannot personally tolerate? 

It's important to remember that we owe something to those in history who've fought oppression - not just with words but tooth and nail - to give us the lives we get to enjoy in this country. I don't want to recycle the idea that we have to be grateful to everyone who's participated in military operations on our behalf, as it veers to a potentially-dangerous veneration of conflict, but there's a kernel of truth there. In history, some people have always stood firm in order that other people's children could grow up in safety. 

As is yours - which is inevitable as human beings tend to make emotional decisions unless they are in some way mentally ill. Nobody makes entirely rational decisions.

If I were to attempt to do so, I'd make the obvious point that whether you live for 100 years or 10, your life is ultimately insignificant so you may as well spend it fighting for something you believe in.

But some make more rational decisions than others.

I find this the hardest thing. I am a pacifist, I would absolutely run away from a fight and want nothing to do with any sort of violence. I could not hurt someone, particularly a poor Russian kid who has been conscripted and doesn't even know they are being sent to war. They are victims just as much as the Ukrainians. (Of course, some of them do want to fight, but many don't and they likely face being shot, or at the very least a severe beating, if they don't comply. And they really are kids). However, Putin absolutely has to be stopped. And that is a circle which I don't know how to square. I don't think the Ukrainians should allow Putin to take over, but I also don't want anyone to have to fight!!

I have spent time living and travelling in Russian, and traveled in Ukraine a little too. Both are beautiful countries with kind and generous people. The whole situation is immensely sad and makes me so angry that people from both countries are being put in this situation.

I do think a lot more could be done with sanctions, and they need to be severe which will hurt us too. So I think we should share the burden with other EU countries of stopping all Russian oil and gas imports, for example. We don't use a lot from Russia, but Germany does. So in order for the sanctions to be effective, we should be willing, along with other Western countries, to share out our supplies of oil and gas so that we all take an equal hit on it. It will hurt, but hopefully it will hurt Russia enough to stop this evil. It might even push us to decarbonise much quicker, which will be pricey in the short term, but worth it longterm. Covid showed us that if we need to throw money at a situation, then we do. Rather than puting a lot of extra money now into the defence budget, we could put in into wind/tidal/ solar etc and produce our own power. I absolutely understand it's not simple or cheap, but if we can strangle the flow of money to Putin, and make war unafforable for him, maybe we could get somewhere with a lot less bloodshed.

Well of course just as everyone likes to think that they would join the resistance rather than just keeping their head down, everyone likes to think that they are the rational ones.

However I find your utilitarian calculus that values quantity over quality of life naïve. John Stuart Mill rejected a similar argument, and said: 

"It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone."

It is easy for those who would not be affected by them to accept the prejudices of tyrants. Easy for able bodied white males to accept living under Hitler when they would not be the ones being sent to the gas chambers. Easy for straight people to accept living under Putin when they would not be the ones having their lifestyles criminalized.

Rory Stewart made a similar argument, in that after the end of the Cold War, Western countries took a "peace dividend" and cut defence spending in order to invest massively in social infrastructure. He argues that we should have faith in that decision, and in the resultant resilience of our economies, and take the hit of cutting energy trade with Russia as the impact on our economies will be tiny compared to the impact on theirs.

But I clearly have not done that! The quality of life at the end of this for the average Ukrainian as things are going will be of Aleppo standards. 

Eloquently put, and your honesty around the raw reality of conflict cuts right to the heart of how 'conventional' warfare works, often with conscript armies fighting each other. But there are other factors in play, and actually it's really hopeful that at least some of Putin's troops are shocked and demoralised at the 'welcome' they've received in Ukraine. It points to the massive scale of Putin's domestic disinformation, and will be a potential channel for positive political change in Russia. These kids are someone's son, or daughter. Their stories will accompany them home. The little beacons of hope, with Ukrainians showing kindness to Russian captives, must continue. So I worry a bit about the heat of combat, and aggression by Ukrainians unrestrained by rules in the face of indiscriminate bombing, or deliberate targeting of civilians. 

It's hugely saddening that while in the West we decry Russia's actions in Ukraine, we still conduct business with them. Prolonging the agony of Ukraine and empowering political bullies and dictators in Russia and other countries. I agree that huge investment in renewable / carbon-neutral energy is needed, not only to reduce conflict of this type of course, but to help ourselves and our children to a viable future. Long-term the only way we can prevent this kind of thing happening is to foster the kind of cooperation seen in Europe and Japan in the aftermath of WW2. I hope it doesn't take another world war for that seed of hope to bloom. 

There are no guarantees of 'quality of life' under the sort of regime that has now reestablished itself in Russia. What guarantees can you offer the Ukainians that there won't be a rerun of the forced famine of the 30s; or 1945; or even post-Stalin austerity and repression. To me those look pretty bl**dy likely if the Ukaine state  capitulated.

Two other points; Ukraine is different from Syria. Once peace is restored recovery can take place surprisingly quickly (even Hiroshima had essential services restored within 3 days of the bomb dropping.)

Finally you constantly assume that Ukraine can't win. (Joseph Kennedy assumed that Britain couldn't against Germany.) Well at the moment they are; and time does not favour the Russians. The Russians, with the advantage of surprise, gave it their best shot; and failed in key objectives such as killing key government officials or taking Kyiv. Now, apparently because of losses they are having to mobilise reservists. That's sure to go well.

Mud is their friend too, many armies have found that in Eastern Europe.  A large force of tanks in mud = a large force stuck

Solution, stick to the roads and see what happens after the head of the troop and the tail have been picked off by ambushers, IEDs or hit and run raids

For me this sums up the debate perfectly. 

There's another factor to consider which is vitally important for us in the UK, as it relates to a central aspect of our economy. I mentioned it in another thread, but thought it would be worth posting about here.

It's the deep connectedness of the City with what can only be described as ill-gotten gains. Britain and its overseas dependencies such as IOM, Jersey, the Caymans and so on, represents an incredible place to do business - in order to legally avoid tax. Our Governments since Thatcher have been very keen to allow foreign money to flow through our financial system, and are the primary reason our economy remains 'strong', despite the massive reduction in domestic industry and manufacturing since her tenure. The dark side of this is the ease of tax avoidance and money laundering. With the deregulation and lack of checks on origins of wealth that has been a constant theme of City practices even after 2008, this is not unintentional - instead it underpins the very fabric of our economy. It is utterly entrenched. 

As such the City is the perfect bedfellow for a kleptocracy such as Russia. We, uniquely in the world, have provided an avenue for dubious money to be cleaned and made more profitable yet. Even as our leaders decry Russia, they continue to ensure channels of business remain open.

This explains why Boris, despite being the first Western leader to announce new sanctions against Russia, announced some of the weakest measures seen. It explains why, despite the state-sanctioned murders of Russian-born UK citizens on our soil, and Russia's heinous actions in places such as Georgia, Syria and Ukraine, our Governments have continued to prevaricate on legislation clamping down on suspect financial practices. 

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/12/uks-kleptocracy-problem/02-supply-and-... 

The benefits of such practices to the UK as a whole are debatable - with some reasonable viewpoints on both sides of the argument. But the massive cuts to public services since 2008 and our widening inequality gap even as our economy continues to grow, sit badly with me.

If one wishes to starve Putin's friends of money, the UK perhaps more than any other European nation faces some hard choices. If you personally care to see fairness and morality take a higher position in our dealings with the world, make your feelings known to those who might be able to do something. I have.

https://www.writetothem.com

A friend who was living and working there is back in the uk, but in touch with people in the thick of it fighting, he says moral is high and between not losing much ground (relatively), taking lots of Russians and their hardware compared to Ukrainian losses add in bad pr for Russia, plus sanctions confidence is high they'll beat putin, they emphasise beat Putin not Russia. He's toying with going back to fight, but there are complications as he's ex full time uk military and still reserve. 

Thanks for your opinion. I would say that winning would mean democracy, no significant loss of territory and NATO membership. That won't happen, and there is no evidence that it can unless NATO gets involved which is highly unlikely. I expect the Russians would prefer a functional leadership, or at least the figurehead, to remain in Ukraine to facilitate surrender -- that is what they are hoping for. If they get to the point where they need to eliminate the leadership then that is bad for them and even worse for Ukraine.  But I'm just speculating. Clearly, the Russian's could have hoped for better, but Putin cannot lose face over this, he will push as far as he can to achieve his aims and militarily he has the force to do that. Slowing the Russians and fighting a guerrilla war is in no way any kind of victory for Ukraine. The longer this goes on the worse the outcome for everyone and makes the other negatives you mention more likely including famine.

It seems impossible for you to reconcile the idea that, when faced with an oppressor, loss is inevitable. At least when fighting back, you have the benefit of agency, which is an important part of being human.

We don't live our lives by following bleak statistical formulae for optimum life expectancy, nor should we. As a climber I think you probably understand that - facing and engaging with risk is worthwhile for many people.

In the sheltered and incredibly safe existence we enjoy in the developed world, such activity is relegated to recreation. Others, like most Ukrainians right now, don't have that luxury, and are required to engage with risk not just of death but of oppression and continuing misery should the Russian effort succeed in occupying and subjugating their country.

Many posters have tried to make this point, unsuccessfully. It's interesting that you accused me of failing to engage in good faith with the points you made, while you continue to avoid many relevant responses. I wonder why. 

Even more ridiculous is that it's ok to kill people by shooting them, but not with dum-dum bullets, nor by gassing them. War is surely when rules break down, it just seems ridiculous that it's played by rules.

Worth reading Primo Levi "If not now, when?"

The Ukrainians seem to face an overwhelming enemy. Yet still they fight.

It is more than a little absurd, I agree. But the alternative is permitting completely unrestricted savagery and barbarism. I don't want to be part of a society that allows its armed forces to behave in that manner. Most people feel the same, as evidenced by the laws our culture has agreed.

Since the very beginnings of recorded history, there are examples of restrictions to be abided by in warfare. Clearly as a species we lean far more heavily to barbarism as a rule, however since the Enlightenment most nation-states have come to accept the need for a basic code of conduct in warfare. Examples of breach rather than observance obviously spring to mind more readily, but at least we're trying...

I think that while the law of armed conflict is essentially noble in purpose, but it's important to remember it is also fundamentally pragmatic. The stain of an atrocity can linger for a long time, so if your purpose is increased political and strategic strength it's worthwhile ensuring your forces behave with a degree of restraint.

You have not read and understood what I've written. I've kept it clear and simple, so go back and re-read. Your conclusion above cannot be arrived at from the total of what I've written. Unfortunately the bleak statistical formula you mention further on are how the world works, it's how Putin would have arrived at his military decisions and how NATO will consider their response, although unfortunately that will be hampered by the ill-informed populism that western leaders must also consider. With regard choosing not to fight, I will try and demonstrate with an example, not a great one, but it sort of serves the purpose. When the Argentinians invaded the Falklands all those years ago, the governor of the island ordered the British forces to surrender. The marines would have fought on, but he judged that the result was inevitable and that further death was pointless. He knew they would be occupied by a brutal dictatorship, but he also knew there was the long term game to consider -- as you know the islands were retaken at a later date by the British when victory was reasonably possible, although far from certain. Similarly with Ukraine, no credible authority is suggesting that victory -- maintaining democracy, joining NATO, not losing significant territory is possible. So, why let all those people die? In negotiating something and buying time you would have increased the chance that Putin was no longer leader in Russia -- sometimes things change for the better. It's too late now, but fighting on is madness when you can't win.

I still think what you're saying is broadly logical, but more than a little ingenuous. I don't need to re-read your points, as I've said I understand them perfectly.

Your argument still doesn't respond to the points made by me and other posters. You just continue to state the seeming doom of continuing to fight. Ultimately your argument is dispirited and hopeless, advocating surrender to anyone who happens to have a bigger army than you. Whereas on the ground the Ukrainian forces have responded incredibly well against an ill-prepared and seemingly unmotivated invasion force, and seriously hampered their progress. It's not the Ukrainians' fault that Russia is increasingly deploying indiscriminate attacks - that responsibility is Putin's alone. 

Resistance works: Putin (who was an active intelligence officer in Russia at the time of their withdrawal from Afghanistan) should know this; the Russians left suddenly, thoroughly beaten by determined resistance (and MANPADs). Painfully, the West experienced a similar fate there more recently too. Russian resistance against German invaders in WW2 was costly but ultimately effective, and French resistance helped turn the tide in Western Europe, playing no small part in Allied victory there. 

It doesn't acknowledge the threat posed by being ruled by a ruthless dictator: by his actions, Putin's shown himself to be of the same cloth as any of the 20th century's fanatic leaders. The cessation of the Sudetenland to Germany (which has numerous parallels with the situation in Eastern Ukraine by the way) had a logical basis.

Finally, the argument still doesn't acknowledge the Ukrainians' right to self-determination. Ukraine has been an independent nation since the collapse of the USSR. 

A friend of mine says there was an interesting piece on Wake up to Money on Radio 5 early this morning (which I haven't listened to yet on Sounds – it's about 50mins long) in which a commentator was saying that Russia had made NO further progress in two days and was basically stymied. Not nearly enough troops, supplies, etc. He literally had no idea how it would now pan out, given this stalemate.

there was not much point in a few marines fighting to the death.  Their ability to make the Argentine invasion so costly as to deter such invasion was minimal.  That is not comparable to the doctrine that the NATO flexible response in Germany would have matched like for like so as to deter the Warsaw Pact from attacking simply because it would have made such an action too costly to contemplate (nuclear weapons other than tactical being disregarded, though that was the ultimate step.)

BAOR had no illusions about finally beating the Russians and assorted Shock Armies sweeping into Germany.  Speaking to soldiers in the early 70s you'd be told that they weren't expected to hold beyond a few days after which they'd be dead and in a week or so the Russians would be at the N Sea coast.  However, they quite expected, using pre planned and prepared defensive positions and predetermined arcs of fire, artillery data, forcing the Soviet armour into killing grounds etc etc to be able to inflict appalling losses on the attackers such as to deter the prospect of such an invasion.

I'm sure that residual skills from this time will have been given to the Ukraine forces in using the least men to kill the most Russians and destroy the most equipment.  When a whole population is against you and as  a barbaric invader you face someone who has more justification in reducing you and your friends to pieces of flesh beside a burnt out vehicle with dogs fighting over your remains than a few marines.

Surely you can see the difference

They don't have to move though, they can simply carry on flinging ballistic missiles, bombs and shells into the cities until the Ukranian population have had enough. The Ukrainians don't seem to be able to push the Russians back out or stop them bombarding their cities, so it's a case of 'who blinks first' - the Russians because of sanctions, or the Ukrainians because their homeland is destroyed and not worth living in?

Well, they have pushed them back to some extent, haven't they, in that they've retaken the airport that the Russians had captured, etc. Yours is a gloomier picture than that apparently painted by the commentator on Radio 5 this morning, that I haven't listened to yet. There's no sense that the Ukrainians are going to give in, even if Putin tries to flatten them with a Hitlerian 'scorched earth' policy.

BTW, I must get back to work now, so apologies in advance if I don't reply.

"I don’t."

Indeed. Anyone who was invited to take part in the von Stauffenberg plot and replied 'I'm sorry, I'd love to, but killing for any reason is simply wrong.' is an idiot, and worse.

jcm

I agree with you that media studies are vital, but unfortunately what we describe as media studies in the UK (at undergrad level at least) doesn't serve the purpose you refer to, and grads of such don't necessarily end up any more media literate than the rest of us. This is because the bulk of modules will not cover critical media studies at all; as it's largely a vocational degree. Students can get through the whole without having to think about propaganda: they learn techniques in order to implement them in their future career in some realm of media production, not in order to think about them critically.

The sort of critical analytical thinking you're describing does exist, but it's usually only one or two optional modules, whereas it's much more central in other disciplines such as lit crit, history, philosophy and so on.

Critical analysis is dangerous to some courses as those students who see their degree as a transaction might resent having to work and think hard; opinions suddenly need a properly argued and formally evidenced basis. Three cheers for those courses who keep such modules running.

The decline in information quality in the west is part of what makes life easier for warmongers to start wars and to hide their crimes. 

That decline in information quality might be said to be a direct consequence of the degree seen as a transaction, as those who go into study with that view then emerge to become producers of information - journalists, editors, subs, TV crew and so on - with their narrow transactional perspective confirmed and carried over into their working lives.

That said, it's certainly not the whole of the west. Teaching undergrads in Germany, as I did for many years, I was struck by the way they arrived at Uni with their critical habits already in good condition, as if school for them had not been a process-driven ordeal. I've taught many great students in UK unis, but their strength was derived from deep frustration at having limits placed on their desire to enquire. That type embraces uni as a kind of liberation from previous constraints, whereas in Germany I never felt that any student arrived at uni desperate to taste academic freedom - they already had it, and took it for granted.

This feels right to me - British education (the only system with which I've had any experience) can have the feel of a factory. I don't know how accurate that is, just opinion gleaned from my experience and that of my kids. It does seem that key life skills and attributes such as teamwork under pressure, critical thinking, acceptance and recovery from mistakes and so on are in the main ignored.

I don't see the wider problem so much as a decline in information quality broadly, more a reduction in the average via dramatically increased traffic of very low-quality information. It's not a completely pedantic point - while there is good information out there, it's becoming harder for the consumer to parse effectively, for both subjective and objective reasons.

In fact that might be a big part of it - the notion of 'consumer'. I think forty or fifty years ago and more we seemed to hold a collective recognition of ourselves as citizens with a valid role to play in the life of the country; the shift in the developed world to a service-dominated economy seems to have gone hand in hand with a mute acceptance of our role in society as being mere consumers of products and services, up to and including things like politics and education.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Shocking news yesterday evening with the attack on the women's hospital in Mariupol. And I find it deeply concerning that intelligence reports indicate possible Russian preparation for use of chemical weapons. What the response would be to that, I don't know. But it will have far-reaching ramifications - Putin will undoubtedly become a wanted war criminal, and this changes the game in a profound way. If he feels there is no way out for him personally or his regime, it's far more likely that he will escalate the fight further in what ultimately will then be an existential battle. 

Bayonets shouldn't be rusty to avoid infection is another classic.

I think that is the crux of the wider problem... we are on average becoming more a nation of consumers and less citizens.

And a myth…

I've seen comment that we shouldn't fixate on a stalled convoy/situation in the north when the Russians are making progress in the south & east to make Ukraine a land locked country (and maybe invade Moldova).

US/UK intelligence agencies warning about potential Russian use of chemical weapons with false flags and fake news about US bio-labs in Ukraine as justification. Post WMD in Iraq I'd think bullsh#t, but intelligence agencies were bang on the money saying Russia would invade Ukraine.

As mad a putin appears to be, and the massive butchers bill both sides are amassing, I’m not convinced we’ll see chemical weapons being deployed.  NATO would find it virtually impossible not to get involved, with drastic consequences that would entail.  No doubt fingers are hovering above cruise misslie launch buttons just waiting for the order to go.  

More likely a rusty bayonet would end up with a rather noisy ear-bashing courtesy of the RSM.

“Just war theory” seems like a good way to look at these issues. It's put in the context of other views on war mentioned up thread – realism & pacifism – in the first paragraph of this long & detailed encyclopaedia entry, which I found more of a challenge than Cécile Fabre’s review essay (below):

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/war/: Seth Lazar (2020) "War"

Thanks for a thought-provoking thread!

https//www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1993673: Cécile Fabre (2021) The Law vs. The Sword: Arthur Ripstein’s Account of the Morality and Law of War, Criminal Justice Ethics, 40:3, 256-268 (full paper available online & as a PDF download): “Suppose that state A wages war against state D. We want to know at least three things. First, does state A have a moral and legal justification for going to war? Second, what may and must those states’ armed forces do, morally and legally, in the course of fighting their war? Third, if those states’ leaders and ordinary soldiers act wrongly and/or illegally, ought they be punished and if so, by whom? In the parlance of just war theory, we want to know what moral and legal norms regulate the resort to war (jus ad bellum), belligerents’ and soldiers’ conduct in war (jus in bello), and their conduct after war (jus post bellum).” (p256)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law... (abstract only): [...] According to [revisionist just-war theorists], unjust or unlawful participants in armed conflict perpetrate serious wrongs. This article argues that their conduct is not only morally wrongful, but also that it should be criminalized under certain circumstances. [...]

https://philosophybites.com/2009/11/jeff-mcmahan-on-killing-in-war.html (19 mins) If someone [a defender] is shooting at me [an aggressor] in a war, surely it is morally acceptable for me to shoot back and kill him or her. Jeff McMahan [...] challenges the view that such killing is always acceptable.

https://philosophersforukraine.com.ua/22/: Jeff McMahan (2022) “Russian soldiers in Ukraine are guilty of both fighting in an unjust war and violating the rules of war”