War, International Law, and Russia's Inhumane Crimes against the People of Ukraine by Glen Brown

Though Russia began its war with Ukraine in 2014, it was on February 24, 2022 that we began to witness a widespread and unlimited brutality of artillery and aerial bombing of innocent non-combatants.

To try to comprehend this brutality and terror on a sovereign nation, according to Quincy Wright, an American political scientist: “It may be said that wars usually result (1) technologically, because of the need of political power confronted by rivals continually to increase itself in order to survive, (2) legally, because of the tendency of a system of law to assume that the state is completely sovereign, (3) sociologically, because of the utility of external war as a means of integrating societies in time of emergency, and (4) psychologically, because persons cannot satisfy the human disposition to dominate except through identification with a sovereign group.”1 William James, a nineteenth century American philosopher, historian and psychologist, believed war is a permanent obligation, “a biological and sociological necessity, uncontrolled by ordinary psychological checks and motives.”2

In examining the sociological and psychological aspects of war, it appears that aggressive behavior is both a personal and social phenomenon as well as a manifestation of the same drive system: the instinct to unify is as strong as the instinct to destroy. However, it is the organization of political parties and the ideologies of nation-states that give sanction to personal aggression, for war is often a product of in-group thinking, an identification of the self with a nation-state focused upon an out-group, and “once war begins, there are no moral limits, only practical ones, only the limitations of force itself.”3 

It has been stated that rights of non-combatants are protected by international law, “derived from positive compacts or treaties between governments, binding in justice, but ceasing to bind when the other party [or aggressor] has ceased to observe it.”4  Though “international law is a relatively precise body of rules, defined in general and particular treaties, judicial precedents, and centuries of juristic analyses, with established international institutions, capable of making clear its applications in particular cases, [it is] not always successful in preventing violation or in applying remedies.”5

The paradoxical problem with the concept of political and legal sovereignty in international law is that it implies a nation-state is free to resort to war, even though international law also promotes (and is supposed to protect) human rights. It is true that “international law is said to allow no distinction between the foreseen and the intended consequences of an action, and that neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations contemplated enforcement of all the rules of international law. Sanctions were provided only to prevent or to stop illegal hostilities and, in the United Nations, to enforce World Court judgments. These sanctions were intended to preserve peace rather than to maintain law… If international law is to be real law, sovereignty must be subordinate to it and sanctioned by the community of nations.”6 

This, of course, would be an impossible undertaking with today’s rise in authoritarianism. In order to succeed, a peaceful world-community would depend upon moral conformity by leaders of every nation composed of diverse cultural values, political ideologies, mixed economies and nationalistic tendencies. If the truth be told in Russia, for example, it would depend upon exposing and dismantling Vladimir Putin's malicious propaganda, conspiratorial gaslighting, kleptocratic capitalism, and corrupt patronage. Now that he has shut down independent radio and television news stations and the internet, the majority of Russian people will be deceived indefinitely. The war in Ukraine can only be referred to as “a special military operation” in the media. Anyone who dares call it a war is subject to 15 years in prison. 

Furthermore, it is indisputable that Putin’s systematic and vicious annihilation of the Ukrainian people and their cultural heritage and independence is none other than what it is: a crime against humanity. What is the ultimate good which is supposed to compensate for this evil? Putin had no justifiable emergency and reasons to attack Ukraine in order to secure Russia’s survival, no just or legal cause, no right or moral intention, and no promise of a successful victory.

All attempts by western media to understand and explain Putin’s resentment and xenophobia toward the West, his intentions and rationalizations for war, such as his all-consuming ambition to restore the Soviet Union, his claim that Ukraine is not a sovereign country and belongs to Russia, his desire to eradicate the Ukrainian language and culture, his desire to aid the Separatists in their autonomy in the Donbas region, and his belief that the minority-aligned fascist militias in southeastern Ukraine and NATO’s eastern expansion are serious threats to Russia’s sovereignty..., cannot justify Russia's indiscriminate raping, torturing and killing of innocent Ukrainian people and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children.  

Finally, let’s remember Putin’s threat to the world: “Today's Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences never seen in history.” Asked recently, if an open clash could erupt between Russia and NATO, Putin replied: "Everything is possible in today's world. It's clear to everyone that it will put us a step away from full-scale World War III." 

Those of us who lived through the Cold War remember the fear of megaton nuclear bombs.  Nuclear deterrence depends upon a leader's rational perceptions and decisions that the use of nuclear weapons would ensure mutual destruction of our planet, and that both America and Russia have not only first strike capabilities but also second-strike capabilities for massive nuclear retaliation posthumously.

What is more, the admonition that an invasion of “one inch of NATO territory” will ignite a world war is a disturbing declaration. President Biden “evokes a Gestalt [the whole is greater than its parts] in which an absolute boundary is emphasized, given its certain arbitrary delineation.”7 Though some world leaders might contend that warfare can be a necessary and noble endeavor, as in the case of World War II, perhaps the greatest menace to the world today is when leaders create a scenario where World War III can become inevitable.

-Glen Brown 

Notes:

1. Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. p. 114.

2. James, William. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” War and Morality. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1970. p. 8.

3. Walzer, Michael. “Moral Judgment in Time of War.” War and Morality. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1970. p. 54.

4. Ford, John C. “The Morality of Obliteration Bombing.” War and Morality. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1970. p. 17.

5. Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. p. 190.

6. Wright, Quincy. op. cit. pp. 200, 203.

7. Erikson, Eric H. “Wholeness and Totality.” War: Studies from Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. Eds. Leon Bramson and George W. Goethals. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. p. 128.